John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN.--and I will object--first of all, I believe it is the procedure in the Congress for all revenue bills to be passed by the other body first. Isn't that correct? We would wait for the other body to proceed with their completion of the appropriations bill, which they have not done. Madam President, just last night my office received these two documents: one at 50-some pages and the other 50-some pages, which is an explanatory statement of the recommendations of the Senate committee. We have not had a chance, obviously, to go through that long appropriations bill. I noticed, among other supplemental appropriations, there is $5 million for individual quota fishing loans. I knew we were in an emergency here in the country--these fishing loans for halibut, I guess there is a halibut problem up in Alaska of which, unfortunately, the Nation has not been made aware. But buried in this bill are other ``emergencies,'' such as the halibut emergency for $5 million. There are fundamental changes made in the aviation loan program which was passed overwhelmingly by this body for the airlines, which really has nothing to do with supplemental appropriations. There are many other policy changes, as is the practice of the Appropriations Committee--as is the practice. I am not going to agree to any unanimous consent request. This bill has been over since April. We just got it last night. And you expect us to agree to 10 hours of debate and passing this bill? No. No. It is disgraceful. We are going to change the way we do business around here. The appropriators are going to understand that there are other Senators who need to be involved when in an emergency supplemental appropriations bill there are policy changes which have nothing to do with any national emergency--whether they be a change to the aviation loan program or whether they be an emergency for halibut. I object.

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object----

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment jeopardizes foreign investment and seeks to place unnecessary and harmful restrictions on the protections afforded to U.S. investors abroad. The amendment would substitute the carefully crafted language of the managers' amendment for language that would bind the Administration to a set of negotiating mandates. The stated purpose of the Kerry amendment is to ``ensure that any artificial trade distorting barrier relating to foreign investment is eliminated in any trade agreement entered into under'' trade promotion authority. Unfortunately, the amendment language would do just the opposite. Foreign investment is critical to international trade and vital to the development of economies around the world. Foreign direct investment provides for the expansion of industries and infrastructure while promoting economic development and the rule of law. As the world's largest foreign investor, the United States invests an average of $150 billion a year in private capital in foreign nations. This involvement not only benefits the countries receiving such investments, it also results in the creation of more American jobs and new markets for U.S. products abroad. American companies investing in foreign nations are generally more successful and typically pay employees higher salaries than those that do not. Not surprisingly, these companies are also among America's top exporters, comprising over 75 percent of U.S. exports over the past 25 years. American companies invest abroad to expand market share, establish local relationships, promote visibility, and establish a more efficient means of distribution to foreign consumers--enabling these companies to become more competitive globally. Because many nations lack legal systems that afford protections similar to those afforded in the United States, the U.S. has entered into investment agreements for over 70 years in order to provide U.S. companies that invest abroad with the same level of protection they enjoy under U.S. laws. Without these investment agreements, the risk of investing in developing nations would simply be too great for most U.S. companies. This amendment would restrict investment agreements from providing the full investor protections granted to them under U.S. law. In turn, the amendment would weaken the protections granted by the 45 bilateral investment treaties negotiated by the U.S., in addition to the protections under NAFTA and the U.S. Vietnam Trade Agreement. Should the Kerry amendment pass, foreign investing in the U.S. will retain access to the protections granted to investors by U.S. laws, regardless of the terms of an investment agreement, but U.S. investors abroad will not be afforded these same protections. Under the amendment, in order for environmental, health, or safety laws to be considered in violation of an investment agreement, an investor must demonstrate that a foreign country enacted such laws solely to discriminate against foreign investors. This high burden of proof that a foreign country intended to discriminate will enable foreign nations to arbitrarily use or establish environmental, health, or safety laws as a veiled means of protectionism. This is precisely the type of action that U.S. investment protections have historically attempted to prevent. Legitimate concerns have been raised regarding the investor-state dispute settlement procedures contained within NAFTA's chapter 11. Last summer, Ambassador Zoellick met with the NAFTA ministers to discuss these concerns. Progress was made and the ministers agreed to work to improve the tribunals, particularly in the area of transparency. The managers of this legislation have dedicated themselves to addressing concerns regarding the protections given to investors, and, in particular, investor-state dispute settlement procedures. They should be complimented for establishing a valuable set of investment negotiating objectives which will improve future investment agreements while not tying the hands of our trade negotiators in the process. Through both the Trade Act of 2002 and the Baucus-Grassley-Wyden amendment which passed the Senate last week, Senators Baucus and Grassley made considerable efforts to address concerns regarding investment agreements while strengthening the negotiating position of the U.S. The Trade Act instructs U.S. negotiators to adhere to a list of well-founded objectives while crafting investment provisions. Among those objectives are instructions to ``establish protections consistent with U.S. legal principles and practice'' and not to afford foreign investors greater rights than those currently enjoyed by U.S. citizens and companies domestically. To address concerns regarding the lack of oversight of tribunal decisions, the managers appropriately recommend the establishment of an appellate body to review tribunal decisions. In order to prevent potential abuse of process, the Trade Act encourages the creation of a mechanism to eliminate frivolous claims. Further, it addresses concerns regarding transparency, by encouraging that tribunal hearings be open to the public, with a mechanism for accepting amicus curiae briefs. The thorough principles established by the managers of this bill are unprecedented in breadth and scope. No such principles have ever been written into previous trade promotion authority bills, and I believe this language will result in an improvement of the protections that are afforded to U.S. companies in future agreements and the process by which investor-state disputes are mediated. The Kerry amendment represents a continuation of the trade- distorting, protective measures we have dealt with recently. Not only is this amendment potentially damaging to U.S. companies, it once again calls into question our nation's dedication to our trade-related commitments. Existing U.S. investment agreements and the negotiating objectives included in the compromise Trade Act provide more than adequately for the legitimate concerns regarding investor-state dispute settlement procedures. This amendment could seriously damage U.S. interests and I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, when I first came to Congress, Slovakia and Slovenia didn't exist at all, Bulgaria and Romania were hostile states in the darkest depths of the Soviet empire, and the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania lived only in the hearts and souls of their people, their sovereign nationhood snuffed out by Soviet annexation. This evening, we debate a clear and noncontroversial Sense of the Senate resolution expressing our support for these same nations' aspirations to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the alliance we formed to counter the aggression that once placed each of these nations on the far side of the Iron Curtain, in one of the greatest organized assaults on our values since we claimed them as our own. Our consideration of these nations' candidacy to join NATO at the Prague Summit in November is a victory for democracy, for freedom, for what we fought from 1941 until 1989 to bring about: a Europe whole and free. Our Alliance reflects Europe's continuing and historic transition from hostile division to a continental zone of enlightened rule within secure borders. But that transition remains incomplete. NATO's fate, and that of Europe, rests upon completing the job we started at the 1999 Washington summit, and which we will continue in Prague this November. As President Bush stated last summer in Warsaw: all of Europe's new democracies, from the Baltics to the Black Sea, should have a chance to join the North Atlantic Alliance. The last round of NATO enlargement demonstrated the importance of the alliance as a living, vibrant institution, committed to meeting the security challenges of the Euro-Atlantic region. Cold war-minded critics contended then that we were creating a new dividing line in Europe. But the result of enlargement was to extend stability and security eastwards, into lands where the absence of these qualities has frequently led to armed conflict in the past. Critics of the last round of enlargement said NATO's consensual decisionmaking process would become bogged down by the addition of new members. But to the extent that consensus over NATO's response to Slobodan Milosevic's crimes in Kosovo was difficult to achieve, the newest members of the alliance often provided the strongest support within our councils for joint military action. NATO's newest members also made important human, material, and geographic contributions to the alliance's mission. Now, critics argue that the new threats of terrorism and mass destruction bring NATO's mission and future into question. It is hard to understand why. Yes, America and some of our European allies have disagreed about how best to pursue the war on terrorism. But our shared conviction about the common values that require our defense is not in doubt. NATO is not less important after September 11; it is more important. For the first time in its history, the alliance invoked Article V, the mutual self-defense clause binding upon all members, after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. Until very recently, allied aircraft patrolled America's skies. Today, 16 of the existing 19 members of the alliance have boots on the ground alongside American forces in and around Afghanistan. Remarkably, a number of the nations that aspire to NATO membership have also deployed forces to support allied military operations. They don't yet have a treaty commitment, but they are acting like they do, in a gesture of goodwill that transcends mere rhetoric about our common values by putting men in harm's way to defend them. Our fundamental goal at Prague must be to transform what has become a somewhat divisive trans-Atlantic debate about the role and relevance of our NATO partners in the war on terrorism into a concrete plan of action to align the alliance's purpose of collective defense with the threats of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction--dangers that threaten the people of Europe no less than the American people, as we saw most recently in the tragic bombing in Karachi, Pakistan that took the lives of 11 French nationals. I believe the hand-wringing in Washington academic circles and the corridors of Brussels about the alliance's existential crisis is misplaced. Rather than engaging in a stifling, bureaucratic debate about NATO's core purpose, we should devote our attention to sustaining the success our Alliance has enjoyed in deterring Soviet aggression, bringing a stable peace to the Balkans, and uniting our community of values. The Bush administration's far-sighted agenda for Prague reflects an effort to build on NATO's successes in concert with our allies, in order that its future in the defense of freedom may be as storied as its past. The Freedom Consolidation Act addresses the enlargement pillar of this agenda. We do not require the mere ceremonies of enlargement, and the new faces it brings to our councils, for fear of institutional failure, or for lack of some higher purpose. We must enlarge this alliance to complete the task we started in 1949: to create an impregnable zone of stability, security, and peace in Europe that is upheld by our joint military power, rooted in our resolve to defend this territory against aggression, and inspired by our commitment to the principles of liberty, to which we pledge our sacred honor. In doing so, we replace the containment strategy of the cold war era with the enlargement of our community of values. We relegate Yalta's division of Europe to the history books. We forge a new Euro-Atlantic community, transformed by the values we fought the cold war to defend. And we celebrate the freedom that almost all European peoples enjoy today as a consequence of our mutual sacrifice. Our task is to invigorate our alliance with this premise: that the Atlantic community is not a group of cold war-era military allies looking for new missions to stay relevant, but a political community of like-minded nations, challenging the cruel dictates of history and geography, that is dedicated to the principles of democracy, and to fostering a continent where war is unimaginable and security, guaranteed--even as it faces new and grave threats to these core principles. The threats have changed since 1949; our commitment to the defense of freedom has not. NATO's purpose remains sound, and its role, indispensable. Seven nations are serious contenders to receive invitations to join our alliance in November. Three more are engaged in a longer-term process of preparing themselves to meet NATO's membership criteria. I cannot think of a better example of the triumph of our values, and the success of the institutions we have built to serve and protect them, than the urgency with which the aspirant nations now pursue membership in our alliance. We should welcome them, when they are ready. I believe the seven serious candidates for this round of enlargement will be. They hold their destiny in their hands, and we wish them well in working aggressively to meet the criteria for NATO membership. I hope we can soon call these nations our allies, in the truest sense of the word. While I support a ``Big Bang'' enlargement of the alliance into northern, central, and southern Europe, I believe the southern dimension of NATO enlargement is perhaps the most compelling on strategic grounds. NATO's southeastern expansion into Bulgaria and Romania would secure Europe's southern flank, enhance stability in the western Balkans, and end Turkey's strategic isolation from the alliance. It would help diminish continuing frictions in Turkey's relationship with the EU, minimizing Turkish grievances over the question of an independent European security identity and opening the door to the development of effective coordination between the EU and NATO. A visionary enlargement of the NATO alliance to the south combined with the EU's historic expansion to the east would bring about a new and welcome cohesion of Turkey to Europe. This is in the interests of Turkey, the European Union, the United States, and NATO. The most compelling defense of war is the moral claim that it allows the victors to define a stronger and more enduring basis for peace. Just as September 11 revolutionized our resolve to defeat our enemies, so has it brought into focus the opportunities we now have to secure and expand freedom. Senate passage of the Freedom Consolidation Act sends an important signal to our allies, present and future, about America's commitment to sustaining the success our alliance has enjoyed for 50 years. It provides the administration an enthusiastic vote of confidence in its visionary campaign to enlarge and transform NATO to meet the new threats. It reminds us all that freedom's power is multiplied, not diminished, as more people share in it. Former Estonian Prime Minister Mart Laar wrote a wonderful book about the Estonian resistance to Soviet occupation. He recalls the fervor with which Estonian patriots resisted Soviet aggression, and their dreadful realization that no outside power would intervene to save their nation from Soviet tyranny. He writes: Nobody believed that Estonia would, for decades and decades, be left in the hands of the Soviets. That wasn't even a possibility. It's only a question of time, everybody thought. But after decades went by, the idea about the West coming to their aid disappeared. The fight in the forest became a personal thing. These people fought because they simply wanted to die as free men. Today, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Slovenians, Slovakians, Bulgarians, and Romanians live as free men, and women, in testament to the same values for which patriots before them lived, and died. The values we in the U.S. Senate invoke today as we express our support for the right of these nations to choose their destiny in the collective defense of freedom.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Will the majority leader yield?

Mr. McCAIN. I believe the majority leader is correct as to the May 16 date, that the administration does have the ability to change that day, because it was set, as far as an agreement, with the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in the other body. The fact remains, there is great uncertainty in these countries. They don't know how the Congress of the United States works. They don't know that May 16 isn't a drop dead date. It does not remove the compelling aspect of us reauthorizing ATPA as quickly as possible. I hope the majority leader will consider, if there are further problems--and I hope not--that we would split that bill out and pass it, which would be overwhelming, 98 or 99 votes. The President of Peru has been up here. There is enormous uncertainty in already unstable economic situations in those countries. I still don't think it is right for us to unnecessarily tie ATPA to the other legislation. I appreciate the majority leader's appreciation for that as well. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. The legislation I am introducing today is intended to serve as a placeholder bill for further development of a boundary expansion proposal. Several key issues remain that require resolution, including the exact definition of the expanded boundary acreage, and the disposition, and possible acquisition, of private, Federal, and State lands within the proposed expansion area. It's encouraging to note that the four major landowners within the proposed boundary expansion area have expressed interest in the Park expansion. Other public landowners, primarily the State of Arizona and the Bureau of Land Management, have recognized the significance of the paleontological resources on its lands adjacent to the Park. The Arizona State Trust Land Department closed nearby State trust lands to both surface and subsurface applications. Additionally, the Bureau of Land Management has identified its land-holdings within the proposed expansion area for disposal and possible transfer to the Park. Other issues involving additional private landholders and State trust lands must still be resolved. In particular, the State of Arizona has specific concerns which must be addressed as the legislation moves through the process, particularly with regard to compensation to the State for any acquisitions of State trust lands by the Secretary of Interior, in keeping with the requirements of State law. I fully intend to address these issues in consultation with affected entities and resolve any additional questions within a reasonable time- frame. A historic opportunity exists to alleviate major threats to these nationally significant resources and preserve them for our posterity. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure swift consideration and enactment of this proposal. Time is of the essence to ensure the long-term protection of these rare and important resources for the enjoyment and educational value for future generations. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to authorize expansion of the Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona. The Petrified Forest National Park is a national treasure among the Nation's parks, renowned for its large concentration of highly colored petrified wood, fossilized remains, and spectacular landscapes. However, it is much more than a colorful, scenic vista, for the Petrified Forest has been referred to as ``one of the world's greatest storehouses of knowledge about life on earth when the Age of the Dinosaurs was just beginning.'' For anyone who has ever visited this Park, one is quick to recognize the wealth of scenic, scientific, and historical values of this Park. Preserved deposits of petrified wood and related fossils are among the most valuable representations of Triassic-period terrestrial ecosystems in the world. These natural formations were deposited more than 220 million years ago. Scenic vistas, designated wilderness areas, and other historically significant sites of pictographs and Native American ruins are added dimensions to the Park. The Petrified Forest was originally designated as a National Monument by former President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906 to protect the important natural and cultural resources of the Park, and later re-designated as a National Park in 1962. While several boundary adjustments were made to the Park, a significant portion of unprotected resources remain in outlying areas adjacent to the Park. A proposal to expand the Park's boundaries was recommended in the Park's General Management Plan in 1992, in response to concerns about the long-term protection needs of globally significant resources and the Park's viewshed in nearby areas. For example, one of the most concentrated deposits of petrified wood is found within the Chinle encarpment, of which only thirty percent is included within the current Park boundaries. Increasing reports of theft and vandalism around the Park have activated the Park, local communities, and other interested entities to seek additional protections through a proposed boundary expansion. It has been estimated that visitors to the Park steal about 12 tons of petrified wood every year. Other reports of destruction to archaeological sites and gravesites have also been documented. Based on these continuing threats to resources intrinsic to the Park, the National Parks Conservation Association listed the Petrified Forest National Park on its list of Top Ten Most Endangered Parks in 2000. Support for this proposed boundary expansion is extraordinary, from the local community of Holbrook, scientific and research institutions, state tourism agencies, and environmental groups, such as the National Park Conservation Association, NPCA. I ask unanimous consent that a resolution from the City of Holbrook and a letter of support from NPCA be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, editorials from Arizona State newspapers also encourage a boundary expansion for the Park. I ask unanimous consent that articles from the Arizona Republic and the Holbrook Tribune News regarding the park expansion proposal be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I don't wish to speak as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. It would have no impact.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I intend to propose a unanimous consent request that we take up the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act. It is vital that we address this issue. ATPA expired on December 4 because Congress had not taken action on the legislation. The House of Representatives passed an extension on November 16, and the Senate has failed to do its work on this issue. These countries need our help. It is in the United States' national interest not to see these countries degenerate into economic, political and, in the case of Colombia, armed chaos. We need to act on this issue. Why it has been tied to TPA and TAA is something I do not understand. Perhaps the Trade Promotion Act and the Trade Adjustment Assistant Act are important. I think they are of the highest priority, but the Andean Trade Preferences Act--referred to as ATPA--is of time criticality. It expired. There are tariffs that these countries will have to pay. These are poor countries. They have unemployment rates of 30, 40, 50 percent. Colombia is degenerating into chaos. Peru is in a situation--if I might quote from the Christian Science Monitor: Rebel groups' presence growing near Peru's capital. The Shining Path wants to show that democracy is weak, it can't handle problems with crime and corruption, and the government's inability to improve the country's economy. Andres Pastrana wrote in the Washington Post on April 15: Finally, continued U.S. support for planned Colombia and final Congressional passage of the Andean Trade Preferences Act will strengthen Colombia's economic security. The trade act will have a minuscule impact in the United States but will create tens of thousands of jobs in Colombia and across the Andean region. Enhanced ATPA now being considered in Congress will foster new business investment in Colombia. These countries are in trouble. If these countries are not allowed to engage in economic development, are not given our assistance, with which we have provided them since 1991--this Trade Preference Act--then we are going to pay a very heavy penalty. We have already had to allocate a billion dollars to Colombia to help them militarily. Situations now are arguably worse than 2 years ago when we first began this matter. Every objective observer will tell you Colombia is in terrible shape. In Peru, people are losing confidence in democracy. In Ecuador--I have read stories about Hezbollah and other terrorist entities locating in these countries. We don't have the time to waste fooling around with aid to steelworkers, or adjustments to health care, which are directly related to the Trade Promotion Act, not to the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act. I hope we can have some debate and discussion about that. I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3529; further, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to its consideration, all after the enacting clause be stricken, and the text of S. 2485, the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act, be inserted in lieu thereof. I further ask consent that the bill be read the third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, with no other intervening action or debate.

Mr. McCAIN. That is correct.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. The legislation I am introducing today is intended to serve as a placeholder bill for further development of a boundary expansion proposal. Several key issues remain that require resolution, including the exact definition of the expanded boundary acreage, and the disposition, and possible acquisition, of private, Federal, and State lands within the proposed expansion area. It's encouraging to note that the four major landowners within the proposed boundary expansion area have expressed interest in the Park expansion. Other public landowners, primarily the State of Arizona and the Bureau of Land Management, have recognized the significance of the paleontological resources on its lands adjacent to the Park. The Arizona State Trust Land Department closed nearby State trust lands to both surface and subsurface applications. Additionally, the Bureau of Land Management has identified its land-holdings within the proposed expansion area for disposal and possible transfer to the Park. Other issues involving additional private landholders and State trust lands must still be resolved. In particular, the State of Arizona has specific concerns which must be addressed as the legislation moves through the process, particularly with regard to compensation to the State for any acquisitions of State trust lands by the Secretary of Interior, in keeping with the requirements of State law. I fully intend to address these issues in consultation with affected entities and resolve any additional questions within a reasonable time- frame. A historic opportunity exists to alleviate major threats to these nationally significant resources and preserve them for our posterity. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure swift consideration and enactment of this proposal. Time is of the essence to ensure the long-term protection of these rare and important resources for the enjoyment and educational value for future generations. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, editorials from Arizona State newspapers also encourage a boundary expansion for the Park. I ask unanimous consent that articles from the Arizona Republic and the Holbrook Tribune News regarding the park expansion proposal be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to authorize expansion of the Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona. The Petrified Forest National Park is a national treasure among the Nation's parks, renowned for its large concentration of highly colored petrified wood, fossilized remains, and spectacular landscapes. However, it is much more than a colorful, scenic vista, for the Petrified Forest has been referred to as ``one of the world's greatest storehouses of knowledge about life on earth when the Age of the Dinosaurs was just beginning.'' For anyone who has ever visited this Park, one is quick to recognize the wealth of scenic, scientific, and historical values of this Park. Preserved deposits of petrified wood and related fossils are among the most valuable representations of Triassic-period terrestrial ecosystems in the world. These natural formations were deposited more than 220 million years ago. Scenic vistas, designated wilderness areas, and other historically significant sites of pictographs and Native American ruins are added dimensions to the Park. The Petrified Forest was originally designated as a National Monument by former President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906 to protect the important natural and cultural resources of the Park, and later re-designated as a National Park in 1962. While several boundary adjustments were made to the Park, a significant portion of unprotected resources remain in outlying areas adjacent to the Park. A proposal to expand the Park's boundaries was recommended in the Park's General Management Plan in 1992, in response to concerns about the long-term protection needs of globally significant resources and the Park's viewshed in nearby areas. For example, one of the most concentrated deposits of petrified wood is found within the Chinle encarpment, of which only thirty percent is included within the current Park boundaries. Increasing reports of theft and vandalism around the Park have activated the Park, local communities, and other interested entities to seek additional protections through a proposed boundary expansion. It has been estimated that visitors to the Park steal about 12 tons of petrified wood every year. Other reports of destruction to archaeological sites and gravesites have also been documented. Based on these continuing threats to resources intrinsic to the Park, the National Parks Conservation Association listed the Petrified Forest National Park on its list of Top Ten Most Endangered Parks in 2000. Support for this proposed boundary expansion is extraordinary, from the local community of Holbrook, scientific and research institutions, state tourism agencies, and environmental groups, such as the National Park Conservation Association, NPCA. I ask unanimous consent that a resolution from the City of Holbrook and a letter of support from NPCA be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, I will not object.

Mr. McCAIN. The majority leader understands the point I was trying to make. Next week at this time, the Andean Trade Preference Act expires and back tariffs will be levied on four impoverished countries, one which is experiencing a revolution. The majority leader does understand the reason for the cloture motion, but I understand there will be an objection if we wanted to move to ATPA, and that is why the Republican leader filed the cloture motion. I hope the majority leader understands this is an issue that is pressing in time. We need to move forward with it. That may require a cloture motion either by the majority leader or the Republican leader. I do not object.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Fifteen minutes.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I speak against this farm bill conference agreement that will serve as the basis of farm policy for the next 6 years. I oppose this legislation because it is an appalling breach of our Federal spending responsibility and could be damaging to our national integrity. Included in this agreement, as we all know, is $83 billion in new spending for farm programs above the baseline, which brings the grand total to $183 billion for the life of the bill. In yearly spending, the projections for this new farm bill will rank among the most expensive farm bills in recent history. Before I launch into my remarks, I wish to say that some of this new spending is laudable, including funding for conservation programs, increased funding for food stamps and nutrition programs, but unfortunately the bad policies outweigh any positive developments. Farm spending will reach record levels, and modest reforms were eliminated. We had a few modest reforms enacted on the floor of the Senate. All of those were eliminated. It is no surprise that the adherence to the status quo is particularly disappointing since information was widely available demonstrating the overwhelming disparity of farm payment distributions. The GAO study highlighted the egregious disparity in farm benefits, demonstrating that over 80 percent of farm payments primarily benefited large and medium-sized farms. Other studies by the Environmental Working Group found that in evaluating U.S. Department of Agriculture data, the top 10 percent of big farmers and agribusiness consumed about 80 percent of farm benefits, leaving small farmers out in the cold. When Members talk about small farmers, how in the world do you justify that--when they took out, I say to the distinguished managers of the bill and conferees--they took out the requirement, the ceiling we put on the maximum amount that a farmer could desire. Tyler Farms in Helena, AR, received $23 million in cotton payments in 2001. Cenex Harvest States Co-op in St. Paul, MN, received $9 million in wheat subsidies and also received $7 million in corn payments as well. A farmers rice co-op in Sacramento, CA, received $40 million in rice subsidies, while Riceland Foods, Inc., in Stutgart, AR, received $38 million. Mr. President, how does one justify this? What is going to happen? We all know what is going to happen. The same thing that happened in the past: 80 percent of the large corporations and large farms get the money; they buy out the small farmer, and the farms get big and the small farmers, whom ostensibly we are trying to assist in this legislation, are the ones who have to sell. A very large percentage have an average of about $1,000, while the major agribusinesses receive hundreds of millions of dollars. I don't have the figures for ConAgra and Archer Daniels Midland. A modest effort was made to limit farm payments to $250,000 per farmer. Despite overwhelming justification for this modest limitation, looming farm and election year politics pressured conferees to reject any reasonable limitations. Nothing in this bill will serve as checks and balances to prevent the bulk of payments to selected commodities such as cotton, wheat, and corn growers and large farming conglomerates. This is not to say other targeted commodity groups are completely left out. A new mix of old and new subsidies flows in abundance in the final conference agreement, with $94 million in mandatory funding for market loss assistance for apple producers, $10 million in mandatory funding for onion producers, $1.3 billion guaranteed for dairy producers as a compromise for ending the Northeast Compact. Wool, mohair, and honey subsidies have been resurrected, which were phased out or eliminated in the 1996 farm bill. I remember in 1996 we were so proud of the fact we finally eliminated mohair subsidies. We were so proud because mohair subsidies were put in during World War I because mohair was deemed essential to the production of uniforms for the Army--uniforms for the doughboys of World War I. We finally got rid of it in 1996. And guess what. Like Freddie, it is back. Honey subsidies have been resurrected; a new payment and loan program for producers of dry peas and lentils; $500 million is secured for sugar growers, in addition to a continuing lucrative loan subsidy program. I will talk about sugar for a minute. We are talking about wanting to help the poor countries in our own hemisphere. We are committed to helping Africa with massive economic aid. Bono, the great musician of U2, made a crusade of assistance, particularly for Africa, and we are going to pour American tax dollars into these countries to help their economies. Meanwhile, we are going to cut off every possibility they have of making a go of their economies because we will not allow their products into the United States of America, whether they be textiles or whether they be sugar. Sugar is amazing. We have a couple guys down in Florida who control this huge amount of sugar production, and they are able, through their political clout and massive campaign contributions, to have an enormous impact on our protectionism. Meanwhile, we will borrow these products-- whether they be textiles from poor Central American countries or sugar from Caribbean countries--and then we will turn around and give them economic aid, when really the best economic aid we could probably provide to these nations would be to allow them to export their goods and products to the United States of America. The American consumer is the one who would pay less for a pound of sugar, would pay less for sugar, would pay less for a pair of trousers or a shoe or a banana. What have we done? We are costing the American average citizen, one who is not a farmer, big or small, enormous amounts of money because we will prop up a price, and because the agribusiness is by the small farms, they will cultivate them and they will grow more products, there will be more of a surplus, and we will, again, lift the subsidy, costing the average citizen a lot more money. This is a vicious cycle we are in. It is one that obviously is going to be very damaging for a long time. While proponents of this bill claim otherwise, the potential for overproduction may result in lower market prices, forcing Congress to once again respond with emergency payments, forcing the United States beyond the $19.1 billion annual limit agreed to in recent World Trade Organization negotiations. We have another problem with the bill. The WTO and other trading partners will not sit still for it. We will see some serious confrontation between ourselves and our friends overseas and in this hemisphere, particularly in the WTO. There will be great legitimacy to their argument. What will happen is exactly what is happening now after we bailed out the steel industry. We are going to see them slap tariffs on our product, and we will see the average consumer, the average citizen--not Archer Daniels Midland, not ConAgra, not Tyler Farms in Helena, AR, that got $23 million in cotton payments, not Seneca Harvest State Crop that got $9 million in wheat subsidy and $7 million in corn payments; it will be the average citizen. We have a new payment and loan program for producers of dry peas and lentils, as I mentioned; $500 million for sugar growers; $204 million in mandatory funding for payments to bioenergy producers who buy agricultural commodities to expand production of biodiesel fuel, an additive made from soybeans and ethanol; $650 million for the Market Access Program, which taxpayers subsidize, a marketing program for for- profit corporations on overseas advertising and promotion--I recall one: Over $1 million which we are now spending to help convince people overseas to eat popcorn--establishment of a new peanut direct payment program at a cost of $3 billion; an additional $1 billion buyout program of the traditional peanut price support system. All this new spending adds up to increased burdens for taxpayers, and it may threaten U.S. commitments through various trade agreements. How can we say we are in favor of free trade when we are considering this kind of massive farm subsidy? I have argued a long time on the floor about catfish. A catfish is a catfish. Ask any scientific expert, any college professor. But we will call it by a different name so that we can ``nail'' the Vietnamese and make sure our domestic catfish industry is protected. And guess what. The price of catfish will be higher for the average citizen. In a letter to Senator Lugar, the Canadian Ambassador stated his concerns about the direction of this bill: The direction of the 2002 Farm bill is counterproductive to the efforts of both Canada and the United States to achieve shared objectives for global agricultural trade reform. . . . Both the House and Senate versions of the Farm bill call for significant increases in spending on trade-distorting forms of support. It is also a concern that U.S. legislators are considering reinstating abandoned production distorting subsidies (e.g., honey), and extending them to new commodities, such as peas and lentils. This policy of subsidizing wealthy farming interests will have ripple effects throughout the developing world by stimulating overproduction and further driving crop prices down on world markets. This farm bill already approaches $200 billion over 10 years, but when it is said and done, the final cost will be much higher not only for the American taxpayer who must foot the bill but for the poor nations across the globe. I have not seen in recent memory the unanimity as expressed by various newspapers across this country--the Washington Post: ``This Terrible Farm Bill'' and the Washington Post: ``House Farm Vote on Farm Bill Carries Global Consequences.'' The Wall Street Journal, in their own reserved, understated way call it ``The Farm State Pig-out'' and the Atlanta Journal: ``Farm Legislation Illustrates Worst In Corporate Welfare Reform.'' With President Bush and Senator Tom Daschle pushing the new farm bill, voters must understandably be lured into believing this is a welcome sign of bipartisanship in our Nation's Capital. It is bipartisan already but hardly welcome. This is nothing more nor less than pure porkbarrel spending, enough to keep partisans on both sides of the aisle happy. Despite public outcry and outrage at such profligacy, the largest corporate welfare reform program in our country is now all but a done deal--it is a done deal. ``How to Keep 'Em Down on the Farm: Subsidies; Congress: In Tribute to Agriculture lobbys' Clout, bill bumps funding 70%.'' Says the St. Paul Pioneer Press: ``A Three-Way Deal: Taxpayers Foot Farm Bill.'' Says the Washington Post: ``Show down on subsidies.'' Washington Post, May 2, 2002: The farm bill that goes to the House floor for a final vote today is coming under attack from U.S. trading partners, with some experts warning that it could severely damage the economies of poor countries and set back the Bush administration's efforts to strike free-trade agreements. ``This is an appalling signal to the world and the farm bill is very, very bad for the international agriculture.'' Warren Truss, Australia's Agriculture Minister, was quoted saying on his country's national radio network. The United States, he said, ``is telling other people to lower subsidy levels but not doing the same thing itself.'' Before I conclude I would like to express my gratitude to my distinguished colleague, Senator Lugar, a man of virtue and reason with respect to our Nation's agricultural policies, for the strong stance opposing this farm bill agreement. He alone acted in principled fashion for this Senate body, first by offering a true reform proposal for farm policy during Senate debate which would have substantially reduced Federal farm payments and directed assistance on a needs-based approach. He boldly proposed to phase out cherished sugar, peanuts, and dairy subsidies. He also suggested that Federal assistance is more appropriately focused to those farmers who genuinely need assistance. As a farmer himself, he wisely recognized the fallacy of unlimited and unchecked farm subsidies and as demonstrated by withholding his approval on this final conference agreement. I applaud him for his brave battle against entrenched farming interests. It is easy for me to vote and speak against this bill. It is not so easy for Senator Lugar. I think he has displayed courage and wisdom and people will grow to regret, over time, that we did not heed his words and respect and vote for his proposals. That is because we have a train wreck coming and that train wreck is going to cost the American taxpayers a great deal in both quality of products as well as price. I, obviously, will vote against the farm bill, and I do not think this is one of the Senate's finest hours. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. If I could.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend. Mr. President, I had hoped we could encourage any Senators who want to speak to come to the floor, but I am not sure there is any really compelling reason to continue to hold up the business of the Senate, particularly since we have other pending issues to address. So I hope we can do that fairly soon. Maybe around 4, in the next 15 or 20 minutes, if possible. Mr. President, I want to talk, just for a minute, about this imbroglio in which we find ourselves over the Trade Preference Act, the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act, the trade promotion authority and trade adjustment assistance, and the Generalized System of Preferences. I do not intend to take a lot of time, except to note that this is a very serious issue. It is unfortunate that we seem to be diverging rather than converging in our efforts to reach some kind of agreement. I would like to say a few words about the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act. All of these issues we are trying to address are very important. But I point out, there is an extreme time sensitivity associated with what I will refer to from now on as ATPA, the Andean Trade Preference Act. I remind my colleagues that as of the 16th of this month--in 2 weeks--if we do not act, then this legislation will expire, customs that are retroactive will be levied on goods that have been brought into the country. And I want to emphasize the serious impact this would have on these four struggling democracies in our hemisphere: Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. I remind my colleagues that this ATPA grew out of a commitment that the former President Bush made at the February 1990 Cartegena Drug Summit to provide economic benefits to these four Andean countries. The reason for it was, it was an effort to reduce illegal drug production and trafficking in these countries by promoting legitimate economic activity in these countries. Well, that was in 1990. The legislation was passed in 1991. We have now had 11 years of ATPA. What happened in these four countries? First, the good news is that Bolivia's coca production has been reduced to practically zero. The bad news is that Colombia is in a very serious situation. As we know, the FARC leaders--who have just been indicted by the United States of America and controlled a large tract of the country--have continued to engage in narcotrafficking, and the overall supply of cocaine into the United States has not been reduced. That is actually in spite of the valiant efforts of the Government and the people of Colombia, with the assistance and help of the United States of America, and other countries, to try to bring about a peaceful resolution to this very serious insurgency situation in Colombia. Have no doubt, the funding for the FARC, to a large degree, has been made possible because of the trafficking in drugs. Peru has gone through a very difficult time, as we know. The former President was overthrown. There was a scandal the likes of which only bad novels are made from, where the former chief of intelligence was videotaped while providing bribes to Members of their Congress and judges. And a former President is now residing in Japan. There is a new President of Peru, whom I had the opportunity to meet. I think he is doing his very best. Let me say, finally, that in Ecuador they have been dramatically affected by the whole situation in Colombia. In summary, because I see the majority leader on the floor, I will just say that the situation, as far as ATPA is concerned, is serious. We should consider carving that out from the other trade provisions and perhaps moving that piece of legislation on its own. It is time sensitive and critical. We made a commitment a long time ago to these countries. I see no reason to renege on that commitment now to four struggling nations in our own hemisphere. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, and the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Smith. There has been discussion whether it is appropriate at this time, and whether this would be viewed by some as undercutting the position or weakening the position of the President and the Secretary of State in their efforts to obtain peace in the Middle East. Those concerns are legitimate. The Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Oregon considered seriously those concerns. We are not entirely totally comfortable moving forward with this amendment. We ought to return to our constitutional responsibilities as a coequal branch of government. No one denies that there is a crisis in the Middle East today, that there is the possibility of a wider conflict. There is no doubt that you can draw many scenarios in which the national security interests of the United States are threatened. If we accept those premises I articulated, then there does come a time when the Congress of the United States, as a coequal branch of government, exercising particularly in the Senate our responsibilities of advise and consent, should speak out. I know there are very strong feelings about what has happened to the State of Israel in the last several months. I hold those strong views. If you look at the strong views we hold compared to the language in this amendment, one would interpret that as rather mild language. As I read the amendment--and the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Connecticut can correct me if I am wrong--there is no criticism of the Palestinians in this amendment, there is no criticism of the Saudis, who continue to fund the madrasahs which teach not only the destruction of Israel but the destruction of the West and everything in which we believe. There is no criticism of the Saudis who are still paying money to the families of those who are ``martyrs.'' There is no criticism of the Saudi Ambassador who wrote an ode to the martyrs. There is no criticism of other ``moderate states in the region'' that have failed--utterly, miserably failed--to renounce these suicide bombers not as martyrs but as an offense to Islam and an impediment to any possibility of peace. The language of this amendment is measured. It is thoughtful. I know each word was carefully examined before it was put into this amendment. I say to our Arab friends--and there are many Arab friends in the region--if there is not a condemnation of the kinds of attacks that are being orchestrated, encouraged, applauded, and in some cases even compensated for, we may see a stronger amendment from the Senate. I don't believe the overwhelming membership of this body is ``pro- israel,'' but I do believe there is a deep and profound recognition that the State of Israel is the only democratically elected government in the region. The 22 members of the Arab League are all dictators. There is a basic and fundamental principle of a nation's right to exist which is at play. Israel recognizes the right of other nations to exist in the region. The Israeli Government and people right now are fighting for the simple fundamental right to exist, and not only the right to exist but the ability to exist. I thank the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Oregon. We support the President of the United States and his efforts to bring about peace in the region. We support Colin Powell, our distinguished and respected Secretary of State. We support Condoleezza Rice and all other efforts to bring about peace and all the members of the administration who are working so hard. We applaud their efforts. We also believe we, as a body, the Senate, should go on record as to our position and our desire to see this little country survive and our commitment to seeing what we can do to ensure its survival. I thank my colleague from Connecticut, and I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I note the presence of the two main sponsors of the amendment in the Chamber. We have had a number of speakers. I wonder if it would be Senator Lieberman's intention to have a vote on this amendment fairly soon. I ask unanimous consent to yield to Senator Lieberman for purposes of a colloquy.