John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am not ready to give my statement yet. I am still having my people come over with information. As a matter of fact, we haven't even gotten through the entire bill yet. I will be ready shortly.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise, once again, to address the issue of wasteful spending in appropriations measures; in this case, the bill funding the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2002. In provisions too numerous to mention in detail, this bill, time and again, chooses to fund porkbarrel projects with little, if any, relationship to national defense at a time of scarce resources, budget deficits, and underfunded urgent defense priorities. The Web site of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, in its opening sentence, states the following: Authorization laws have two basic purposes. They establish, continue, or modify Federal programs, and they are a prerequisite under House and Senate rules . . . for the Congress to appropriate budget authority for programs. I will not go through all of the unauthorized programs that are in this legislation. I only mention those that relate to the committee of which I am proud to serve and be the ranking member, formally the chairman, the Commerce Committee. I and Senator Hollings and members of my committee take our responsibilities very seriously. Now we have seen, despite what apparently is the mission or the obligation of the Appropriations Committee--and that is to not appropriate funds for programs that are not authorized--just in the Commerce Committee alone, we have for the 2002 Winter Olympics, $93.3 million; port security grants, $90 million; airport and airways trust fund, payment to air carriers, $50 million; DOT Office of the Inspector General, $1.3 million; FAA operations, taken from the aviation trust fund, without authorization, $200 million. Just as the appropriators are now taking away highway money appropriated under a formula passed by the full Senate and House and violating TEA-21, we are now taking away from the aviation trust fund for pet projects $200 million worth, to pet projects of the appropriators. We have FAA facilities and equipment, $108.5 million; Federal Highway Administration, proposed operations, $10 million was requested by the administration, $100 million; capital grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, $100 million; Federal Transit Administration capital investment gains, $100 million; restoration of broadcasting facilities, $8.25 million; National Institutes of Standards and Technology, $30 million; Federal Trade Commission, $20 million; FAA grants and aid for airports, $175 million; Woodrow Wilson Bridge project, $29 million. Why did they have to do that? Because they took the money out of the highway funds in the Transportation appropriations bill, thereby shorting the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, so they had to add another $30 million to make up for the shortfall. Unfortunately, that was about $500 million that they took, and every other State in America--by the way, not represented by a member of the Appropriations Committee--had highway funds taken away from them. Provision relating to Alaska in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century--it will be interesting to see the impact that has on the rest of America. We have the U.S. 61 Woodville widening project in Mississippi, $300,000; Interstate Maintenance Program for the city of Trenton, $4 million; international sports competition, $15.8, million, emergency planning assistance for 2002 Winter Olympics. I have to talk for a minute before I get into the major issue, and that is the Boeing lease, and discuss the Olympics issue. It is now up to well over $1.5 billion that the taxpayers have paid. I refer my colleagues to an article that was in Sports Illustrated magazine, December 10, 2001. The title of it is, ``Snow Job.'' I will not read the whole article. It is very instructive to my colleagues in particular and to our citizens about what has happened in the Utah Olympics. The headline is ``Snow Job.'' Thanks to Utah politicians and the 2002 Olympics, a blizzard of federal money--a stunning $1.5 billion--has fallen on the state, enriching some already wealthy businessessmen. Is this a great country or what? A millionaire developer wants a road built, the federal government supplies the cash to construct it. A billionaire ski-resort owner covets a choice piece of public land. No problem. The federal government arranges for him to have it. Some millionaire businessmen stand to profit nicely if the local highway network is vastly improved. Of course. The federal government provides the money. How can you get yours, you ask? Easy. Just help your hometown land the Olympics. Then, when no one's looking persuade the federal government to pay for a good chunk of the Games, including virtually any project to which the magic word Olympics can be attached. Total federal handouts. The $1.5 billion in taxpayer dollars that Congress is pouring into Utah is 1\1/2\ times the amount spent by lawmakers to support all seven Olympic Games held in the U.S. since 1904--combined. In inflation- adjusted dollars. Enrichment of private interests. For the first time, private enterprises--primarily ski resorts and real estate developments--stand to derive significant long-term benefits from Games-driven congressional giveaways. Most government entities tapped for cash. With all that skill, grace and precision of a hockey team on a power play, Utah's five-member congressional delegation has used the Olympics to drain money from an unprecedented number of federal departments, agencies and offices--some three dozen in all, from the Office of National Drug Control to the Agriculture Department. Most U.S. tax dollars per athlete. Federal spending for the Salt Lake City City Games will average $625,000 for each of the 2,400 athletes who will compete. (Not a penny of it will go to the athletes.) That's a 996% increase from the $57,000 average for the 1996 Olympics. It's a staggering 5,582% jump from the $11,000 average for the 1984 Summer Games in Los Angeles. Parking lots are costing you $30 million. Some $12 million of that is paying for two 80-acre fields to be graded and paved for use as two temporary lots, then returned to meadows after the flame is extinguished. Housing for the media and new sewers are each costing you $2 million. Repaved highways, new roads and bridges, enlarged interchanges and an electronic highway-information system are costing you $500 million. Buses, many brought in from others states, to carry spectators to venues are costing you $25 million. Fencing and other security measures at the Veterans Administration Medical Center in northeast Salt Lake City--to protect patients and staff from the Olympia hordes--are costing you $3 million. A light-rail transit system that will ferry Olympic visitors around Salt Lake City is costing you $326 million. Improvement at Salt Lake City-area airports are costing you $16 million. The list goes on and on: Recycling and composting are costing you $1 million, and public education programs for air, water and waste management are costing you another $1 million. A weather-forecasting system being set up for SLOC is costing you $1 million. The money is going to the University of Utah to enable its Meterorology Department to provide data that will supplement forecasts provided to SLOC by the National Weather Service. New trees planted in Salt Lake City and other communities ``impacted'', as the funding legislation put it, by the Olympics are costing you $500,000. Said Utah Senator Robert Bennett, who arranged for the money. ``We do the Olympics because it gets us together doing thinks like planting trees.'' ``We do the Olympics because it gets us together, doing things like planting trees.'' Wow. I want to repeat, I am all for whatever expenditure for security for the Salt Lake City Olympics. A good part of this $1.5 billion--and there is more in this appropriations bill--has nothing to do with security. It has to do with roadbuilding. It has to do with land swaps, worthless land for valuable land. It has to do with wealthy developers; it has to do with the enrichment of billionaires; and it really is quite a story. I hope every American will read that story that is in Sports Illustrated dated December 10 entitled ``Snow Job''--aptly entitled ``Snow Job.'' As I pointed out before, our nation is at war, a war that has united Americans behind a common goal--to find the enemies who terrorized the United States on September 11 and bring them to justice. In pursuit of this goal, our service men and women are serving long hours, under extremely difficult conditions, far away from their families. Many other Americans also have been affected by this war and its economic impact, whether they have lost their jobs, their homes, or have had to drastically cut expenses this holiday season. The weapons we have given them, for all their impressive effects, are, in many cases, neither in quantity nor quality, the best that our government can provide. For instance, stockpiles of the precision guided munitions that we have relied on so heavily to bring air power to bear so effectively on difficult, often moving targets, with the least collateral damage possible, are dangerously depleted after only 10 weeks of war in Afghanistan. This is just one area of critical importance to our success in this war that underscores just how carefully we should be allocating scarce resources to our national defense. Yet, despite the realities of war, and the responsibilities they impose on Congress as much the President, the Senate Appropriations Committee has not seen fit to change in any degree its usual blatant use of defense dollars for projects that may or may not serve some worthy purpose, but that certainly impair our national defense by depriving legitimate defense needs of adequate funding. Even in the middle of a war, a war of monumental consequences and with no end in sight, the Appropriations Committee, Mr. President, still is intent on using the Department of Defense as an agency for dispensing corporate welfare. It is a terrible shame that in a time of maximum emergency, the U.S. Senate would persist in spending money requested and authorized only for our Armed Forces to satisfy the needs or the desires of interests that are unrelated to defense needs. The Investor's Business Daily, on December 18, 2001, had this to say in an article titled At the Trough: Welfare Checks to Big Business Make No Sense: Among the least justified outlays is corporate welfare. Budget analyst Stephen Slivinski estimates that business subsidies will run $87 billion this year, up a third since 1997, Although President Bush proposed $12 billion in cuts to corporate welfare this year, Congress has proved resistant. Indeed, many post-September 11 bailouts have gone to big business. Boeing is one of the biggest beneficiaries. Representative Norm Dicks, Democrat from Washington, is pushing a substantial increase in research and development support for Boeing and other defense contractors, the purchase of several retrofitted Boeing 767s and the leasing of as many as 100 767s for purposes ranging from surveillance to refueling. Boeing has been hurt by the storm that hit airlines, since many companies have slashed orders. Yet China recently agreed to buy 30 of the company's planes, and Boeing's problems predate the September 11 attack. It is one thing to compensate the airlines for forcibly shutting them down; it is quite another to toss money at big companies caught in a down demand cycle. Boeing, along with many other major exporters, enjoys its own federal lending facility, the Export-Import Bank. ExIm uses cheap loans, loan guarantees and loan insurance to subsidize purchases of U.S. products. The bulk of the money goes to big business that sell airplanes, machinery, nuclear power plants and the like. Last year alone, Boeing benefitted form $3.3 billion in credit subsidies. While corporate America gets the profits, taxpayers get the losses. . . . As I mentioned last week when the Senate version of the Defense Appropriations bill was being debated--and now carried through the Conference Committee--is a sweet deal for the Boeing Company that I'm sure is the envy of corporate lobbyists from one end of K Street to the other. Attached is a legislative provision to the Fiscal Year 2002 Department of Defense Appropriations bill that would require the Air force to lease one hundred 767 aircraft for use as tankers for $26 million apiece each year for the next 10 years. Moreover, in Conference Committee the appropriators added four 737 aircraft for executive travel--mostly benefitting Members of Congress. We have been told that these aircraft will be assigned to the 89th Airlift Wing at Andrews Air Force Base. Since the 10-year leases have yet to be signed, the cost of the planes cannot be calculated, but it costs roughly $85 million to buy one 737, and a lease costs significantly more over the long term. The cost to taxpayers? $2.6 billion per year for the aircraft plus $1.2 billion in military construction funds to modify KC-135 hangars to accommodate their larger replacements, with a total price tag of more than $30 billion over 10 years when the costs of the 737 leases are also included. This leasing plan is five times more expensive I repeat, five times more expensive to the taxpayer than an outright purchase, and it represents 30 percent of the Air Force's annual cost of its top 60 priorities. But the most amazing fact is that this program is not actually among the Air Force's top 60 priorities--it was not among their top 60 priorities--nor do new tankers appear in the 6-year defense procurement plan for the Service! That's right, when the Air Force told Congress in clear terms what its top priorities were tankers and medical lift capability aircraft weren't included as critical programs. In fact, within its top 30 programs, the Air Force has asked for several essential items that would directly support our current war effort: wartime munitions, jet fighter engine replacement parts, combat support vehicles, bomber and fighter upgrades and self protection equipment, and combat search and rescue helicopters for downed pilots. Let me say that again, within its top 30 programs, the Air Force has asked for several essential items that would directly support our current war effort: wartime munitions, jet fighter engine replacement parts, combat support vehicles, bomber and fighter upgrades and self protection equipment, and combat search and rescue helicopters for downed pilots. This leasing program also will require $1.2 billion in military construction funding to build new hangars, since existing hangars are too small for the new 767 aircraft. The taxpayers also will be on the hook for another $30 million per aircraft on the front end to convert these aircraft from commercial configurations to military; and at the end of the lease, the taxpayers will have to foot the bill for $30 million more, to convert the aircraft back--pushing the total cost of the Boeing sweetheart deal to $30 billion over the ten-year lease. Mr. President, that is waste that borders on gross negligence. I wrote a letter to the Director of OMB. Here is the answer I received: Dear Senator McCain: Thank you for your inquiry regarding the costs associated with the conversion of 767 aircraft tankers. According to the Air Force, the total cost for a program to lease 100 tankers is approximately $26 billion. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Mr. Mitchell Daniels, Director of OMB, be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, once again I thank Chairman Hollings for his efforts to address identified safety and security problems at our Nation's seaports. The legislation before us today is designed to address port security lapses that have been under review by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for the past two years. After hearings earlier this year and last year, the Commerce Committee reported out S. 1214 in August. The bill is intended to provide both the guidance and funding needed to improve seaport security. I commend Chairman Hollings' leadership on this very important issue to transportation safety and security. It is widely reported that transportation systems are the target of 40 percent of terrorist attacks worldwide. Since September 11, we have been working on a bipartisan basis to address the nation's most pressing needs in the wake of the terrorist attacks. The Senate Commerce Committee has been conducting a series of hearings to gain the information we need to help us evaluate potential transportation security risks and determine how best to respond to those potential risks. While it is impossible to precisely quantify, there is no question that an attack on any one of our nation's 361 seaports would have far- reaching effects. With 95 percent of our Nation's foreign trade moving through our seaports, the impact of such an attack would ripple through our Nation. Businesses nationwide would face problems getting supplies and exporting finished goods. Our entire economy would be impacted. Both the Hart-Rudman Report on Homeland Security and the Interagency Commission on Crime and Seaport Security found our seaports to be vulnerable to crime and terrorism. While there is no way to make our Nation's seaports completely crime free and impenetrable to terrorist attacks, the bill before us today is a very strong first step in closing the gaps in national security that now exist at our seaports. I want to point out to my colleagues that the Commerce Committee had acted on S. 1214 prior to the September 11 attacks. As a result of the attacks, members of the committee and others have worked together to further modify the legislation to provide direction and funding to the agencies involved to focus their efforts not only on decreasing crime in our seaports, but to also increase protection against terrorist attacks. In our efforts to increase our nation's seaport security, we have worked to take into account not only the wide range of threats and crimes surrounding our seaports, but also the unique nature of our ports. As I have said before, a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach will not work. Our ports are complex and diverse in both geography and infrastructure. This is why we have worked to ensure this provides for direct local input into the development of security plans for their ports, as well as for response plans for local responders should an attack occur. S. 1214 would help address a wide range of security shortcomings at our Nation's seaport that were identified in the Interagency Commission on Crime and Security in U.S. Seaports that was issued September 2000. According to the Commission's report, seaport crime encompasses a broad range of crimes, including the importation of illicit drugs, contraband, and prohibited or restricted merchandise; stowaways and alien smuggling; trade fraud and commercial smuggling; environmental crimes; cargo theft; and the unlawful exportation of controlled commodities and munitions, stolen property, and drug proceeds. These crimes are violations of federal law, and therefore, the primary responsibility for enforcement falls to Federal agencies. This bill would give those agencies the authority and funding needed to make up for these shortcomings. Additionally, the bill would provide much needed improvements in preventing terrorist attacks at our Nation's seaports. While seaports represent an important component of the nation's transportation infrastructure, seaports' level of vulnerability to attack is high, and such an attack, as I just mentioned, has the potential to cause significant damage. The commission found little control over the access of vehicles and personnel to vessels, cargo receipt and delivery operations, and passenger processing operations. The main problem they were able to identify was the lack of a generally accepted standard for physical, procedural, and personnel security at seaports that left seaports wide open for attack. This bill will allow the Department of Transportation, along with Federal, state and local law enforcement to take actions to close the security holes at ports nationwide. The bill would authorize $1.18 billion for seaport safety and security. The bill would require, for the first time ever, the Department of Transportation to assess the security status of U.S. seaports and require each port and related facility to submit security plans for review and approval. The bill would also improve advance reporting requirements for entry into the United States, provide more funding for screening equipment, facilitate law enforcement coordination at U.S. seaports, and authorize grants and loan guarantees to seaports and marine terminal operators to help finance the purchase of security equipment and defray the costs of security infrastructure. I want to mention that while the Congress has already worked to approve aviation security legislation, and we are now moving forward on port security, both Chairman Hollings and I remain committed to continuing our agenda during the next session to address transportation security issues in all modes of transportation, including railroads and buses. I urge my colleagues swift approval of this critical legislation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Would it be agreeable to start the debate? I will be glad to agree to any time limit that is agreeable to the other side on this amendment--5 minutes, half an hour, whatever is agreeable to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I think we ought to do something right away about dungeness crab and blue crabs. This is a remarkable argument we have been having. This is about several issues. This is why it is important. One, it is about process. In this place there are three kinds of Senators: Republican Senators, Democrat Senators, and appropriators. This was done on an appropriations bill. This is a major policy change that affects the lives of thousands and thousands of people. It was done on an appropriations bill. Two, it was inserted in a managers' amendment, in a managers' amendment which none of us saw because I asked this body if anybody knew what was in the managers' amendment. Not one person said they knew, including the managers of the bill themselves. Three, this is all about protectionism and free trade. If we do it here, we will do it on something else, and we will do it on something else, and we will do it on something else, whether it be crabs or whether it be scallops or whether it be cattle or whatever it be in the name of protectionism and jobs. I am a little bit offended when we talk about poor people. I will take you where the poorest people in America live. That is on our Indian reservations in the State of Arizona. Let's not talk about poor people. Those poor people who live on these Indian reservations would like to eat catfish. They don't want it priced out of the market because we put some phony name on it. There is a lot to do with this amendment besides the name of a catfish. I hope my colleagues will restore a normal process where we have an open and honest debate on major policies such as this rather than being stuck in a managers' amendment. I hope we will recognize that protectionism is not good for America. This is another manifestation of it. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. That is correct, without losing your right to the floor. I will be glad to enter into a reasonable time agreement, including a half hour equally divided.

Mr. McCAIN. May I ask the Senator to yield for a question?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call for the regular order with respect to the McCain amendment. Amendment No. 2603

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this is kind of an interesting situation that we are facing. It is instructive of a lot of things that are happening around here in the Senate and in the country. Even though it is only about catfish--the lowly catfish--it has a lot of implications. There are implications for trade and our relations with Vietnam. It has implications as to how we do business in the Senate. It has a lot of interesting implications, including the rise of protectionism in the United States of America, how a certain special interest with enough lobbying money and enough special interest money and campaign contributions can get most anything done. During consideration of the Senate version of the Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002, it was late at night and I voiced concern about the managers' decision to clear a package of 35 amendments just before the final passage of the bill. I said: Has anyone seen these amendments? It was late in the evening. There was dead silence in the Senate. It was late in the evening so, unfortunately, I agreed for this so-called managers' amendment to be passed by voice vote, remembering that managers' amendments are technical in nature; they are to clean up paperwork or clerical errors. Well, in this package of 35 amendments, 15 were earmarked to members of the Appropriations Committee--several million dollars. I have forgotten exactly how much. And this is a so-called catfish amendment. My good friend from Mississippi will say the issue was discussed before. If it was, why didn't we have a vote on it? Why didn't we have the amendment up and have a vote on it as we do regular amendments? The reason is because the Senator from Massachusetts, the Senator from Texas, I, and many others--and I believe we are going to find that a majority of the Senate--would have rejected such a thing. As it turns out, I had good reason to be concerned. Included was an amendment banning the FDA from using any funds to process imports of fish or fish products labeled as catfish, unless the fish have a certain Latin family name. In fact, of the 2,500 species of catfish on Earth, this amendment allows the FDA to process only a certain type raised in North America--specifically, those that grow in six Southern States. The program's effect is to restrict all catfish imports into our country by requiring they be labeled as something other than catfish, an underhanded way for catfish producers to shut out the competition. With a clever trick of Latin phraseology and without even a ceremonial nod to the vast body of trade laws and practices we rigorously observe, this damaging amendment, slipped into the managers' package and ultimately signed into law as part of an appropriations bill--an appropriations bill--literally bans Federal officials from processing any and all catfish imports labeled as they are--catfish. It is going to be ludicrous around here and entertaining because we are going to talk about what is and what is not a catfish. Over there, we may see one with an American flag on it, which would be an interesting species. When is a catfish other than a catfish. On this chart is a giant catfish with a name I can't pronounce. Here is a yellowtail catfish. I didn't do well in Latin. Here is another one, a basa catfish--yes, the culprit. Here is the channel catfish. They are all catfish. There are 2,500 of them. I don't have pictures of all of them. Now there is only going to be one recognized as a catfish in America, which are those which are raised in America--born and raised in America. These are interesting pictures. We will have a lot of pictures back and forth. I think we will see more pictures of catfish than any time in the history of the Senate of the United States of America. As you can see, these are common catfish characteristics: Single dorsal fin and adipose fin, strong spines in the dorsal and pectoral fins, whisker-like sensory barbels on the upper and lower jaws, all part of the order of Siluriformes. We are going to only call catfish the kind that are raised in the southeastern part of the United States. Proponents of this ban used the insidious technique of granting ownership of the term ``catfish'' to only North American catfish growers--as if Southern agribusinesses have exclusive rights to the name of a fish that is farmed around the world, from Brazil to Thailand. According to the FDA and the American Fisheries Society, the Pangasius species of catfish imported from Vietnam and other countries are ``freshwater catfishes of Africa and southern Asia.'' In addition, current FDA regulations prohibit these products from being labeled simply as ``catfish''. Under existing regulations, a qualifier such as ``basa,'' or ``striped'' must accompany the term ``catfish'' so that consumers are able to make an informed choice about what they are eating. These fish were indeed catfish, until Congress, with little review and no debate, determined them not to be. No other animal or plant name has been defined in statute this way. All other acceptable market names for fish are determined by the FDA in cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service after review of scientific literature and market practices. What are the effects of this import restriction? As with any protectionist measure, blocking trade and relying only on domestic production will increase the price of catfish for the many Americans who enjoy eating it. One in three seafood restaurants in America serves catfish, attesting to its popularity. This trade ban will raise the prices wholesalers and retail customers pay for catfish, and Americans who eat catfish will feel that price increase--a price increase imposed purely to line the pockets of Southern agribusinesses and their lobbyists who have conducted a scurrilous campaign against foreign catfish for the most parochial reasons. The ban on catfish imports has other grave implications. It patently violates our solemn trade agreement with Vietnam, the very same trade agreement the Senate ratified by a vote of 88 to 12 only 2 months ago. The ink was not dry on that agreement when the catfish lobby and its congressional allies slipped the catfish amendment into a must-pass appropriations bill. A lot of things come over the Internet these days. This is one called the Nelson Report. The title of it is the ``Catfish War.'' It talks about an obscure amendment to the agricultural bill that puts the U.S. in violation of the Vietnam BTA barely days after it goes into effect, and it is not just a bilateral problem. The labeling requirement goes to the heart of the U.S. fight with European use of GMO protectionism. It has already forced the USTR to back off from supporting Peruvian sardines. No. 1, don't get us wrong: We here at Nelson Report World Headquarters flat out love fresh Arkansas catfish. Serve it all the time at our house, with Paul Prudhomme's spicy seasoning. Tasty and nutritious. So nothing in the Report which follows should be interpreted as bad mouthing, you should pardon the expression, catfish from the good old U.S. of A. --and we will confess going along with the crowd, every time Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas launched into one of her lectures on the inequities of lower priced Vietnamese catfish coming into the U.S. All of us at the press table, and back in the high priced lobby gallery, were too smart for our britches. So we missed the FY '02 Agriculture Appropriations amendment, now signed into law, requiring that only U.S.-grown catfish of a certain biological genus can actually be called catfish. That's right: U.S. law now says you can be ugly, you can have whiskers, you can feed on unspeakable things off the bottom of whatever bit of god's creation you happen to be swimming around in, but if you ain't in the same genus as your Arkansas cousins, you ain't a catfish. Or, rather, you can't be called a catfish. That's now the law of the U.S., to be enforced by the Federal Food and Drug Administration. --so what, you may ask? Ask your spousal unit, or friends, who does the grocery shopping. Except maybe in Little Rock, catfish isn't marketed by brand name. You look for a package that says ``catfish.'' That's it. So now, if a catfish from Vietnam, or Thailand, or some of the places in Africa that export catfish happens to be in your supermarket, you may never find out, since they've got to be called something else. The amendment Senator Gramm and I offered will repeal this import restriction on catfish. The amendment would define catfish according to existing FDA procedures that follow scientific standards and market practices. Not only is restrictive catfish language offensive in principle to our free trade policies, our recent overwhelming ratification of the bilateral trade agreement and our relationship with Vietnam, it also flagrantly disregards the facts about the catfish trade. I would like to rebut this campaign of misinformation by setting straight these facts as reported by agricultural officials at our Embassy in Vietnam who have investigated the Vietnamese catfish industry in depth. The U.S. Embassy in Vietnam summarizes the situation in this way. This is the exact language from our Embassy in Vietnam: Based on embassy discussions with Vietnamese government and industry officials and a review of recent reports by U.S.- based experts, the embassy does not believe there is evidence to support claims that Vietnamese catfish exports to the United States are subsidized, unhealthy, undermining, or having an ``injurious'' impact on the catfish market in the

Mr. McCAIN. I ask the Senator from Arkansas, is he prepared to have a time agreement?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Arkansas. I know he would probably not want to filibuster this bill. I think he agrees we would want to have an up-or-down vote as he described. We are prepared to only use another 20 minutes on this side. I hope the Senators from Arkansas can find out who wants to speak and for how long so we can establish a time agreement. We need to move on with the important Cochran and Roberts amendment to the farm bill.

Mr. McCAIN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Arkansas for her courtesy. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield? Shouldn't we change the name of one of those?

Mr. McCAIN. They don't look as much alike as the catfish shown in the pictures, yet we will make sure that the term ``catfish'' is removed. I don't see why either the dungeness or the blue, one of those, should clearly not be called ``crab.''

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, is the Senator aware that the suit was brought against France for exactly that--mislabeling scallops? The United States is one of them. WTO ultimately ruled against the French and changed the regulation, as they will rule against this. But it would take years to do it.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to draw my colleagues' attention to an action Congress recently took, but which they most likely know nothing about, a severe restriction on all catfish imports into the United States. Much more is at stake here than trade in strange-looking fish with whiskers. In fact, this import barrier has grave implications for the U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement, for our trade relations with a host of nations, and for American consumers and fishermen. America's commitment to free trade, and the prosperity we enjoy as a result of open trade policies, have been put at risk by a small group of Members of Congress on behalf of the catfish industry in their States, without debate or a vote in the Congress. Consequently, Senators Gramm, Kerry, and I are offering an amendment to the farm bill to elevate the national interest over these parochial interests by stripping this narrow-minded import restriction from the books and ensuring that we define ``catfish'' for trade purposes in a way that reflects sound science, not the politics of protectionism. During consideration of the Senate version of the Agriculture Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002, I voiced deep concern about the managers' decision to ``clear'' a package of 35 amendments just before final passage of the bill. The vast majority of Senators had received no information about the content of these amendments and had had no chance to review them. As it turns out, I had good reason to be concerned. Included in the managers' package was an innocuous-sounding amendment banning the Food and Drug Administration from using any funds to process imports of fish or fish products labeled as ``catfish'' unless the fish have a certain Latin family name. In fact, of the 2,500 species of catfish on Earth, this amendment allows the FDA to process only a certain type raised in North America, and specifically those that grow in six southern States. The practical effect is to restrict all catfish imports into our country by requiring that they be labeled as something other than catfish, an underhanded way for U.S. catfish producers to shut out the competition. With a clever trick of Latin phraseology and without even a ceremonial nod to the vast body of trade laws and practices we rigorously observe, this damaging amendment, slipped into the managers' package and ultimately signed into law as part of the Agriculture Appropriations bill, literally bans Federal officials from processing any and all catfish imports labeled as what they are, catfish. Proponents of this ban used the insidious technique of granting ownership of the term ``catfish'' to only North American catfish growers, as if southern agribusinesses have exclusive rights to the name of a fish that is farmed around the world, from Brazil to Thailand. According to the Food and Drug Administration and the American Fisheries Society, the Pangasius species of catfish imported from Vietnam and other countries are ``freshwater catfishes of Africa and southern Asia.'' In addition, current FDA regulations prohibit these products from being labeled simply as ``catfish.'' Under existing regulations, a qualifier such as ``basa'' or ``striped'' must accompany the term ``catfish'' so that consumers are able to make an informed choice about what they're eating. These fish were indeed catfish until Congress, with little review and no debate, determined them not to be. No other animal or plant name has been defined in statute this way. All other acceptable market names for fish are determined by the FDA, in cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service, after a review of scientific literature and market practices. What are the effects of this import restriction? As with any protectionist measure, blocking trade and relying on only domestic production will increase the price of catfish for the many Americans who enjoy eating it. One in three seafood restaurants in America serves catfish, attesting to its popularity. This trade ban will raise the prices wholesalers and their retail customers pay for catfish, and Americans who eat catfish will feel that price increase, a price increase imposed purely to line the pockets of Southern agribusinesses and their lobbyists, who have conducted a scurrilous campaign against foreign catfish for the most parochial reasons. The ban on catfish imports has other grave implications. It patently violates our solemn trade agreement with Vietnam, the very same trade agreement the Senate ratified by a vote of 88-12 only two months ago. The ink was not yet dry on that agreement when the catfish lobby and their Congressional allies slipped their midnight amendment into a must-pass appropriations bill. Over the last 10 years, our Nation has engaged in a gradual process of normalizing diplomatic and trade relations with Vietnam. Our engagement has yielded results: the prosperity and daily freedoms of the Vietnamese people have increased as Vietnam has opened to the world. The engine of this change has been the rapid economic growth brought about by an end to the closed economy under which the Vietnamese people stagnated during the 1980s. Many Americans, including many veterans, who have visited Vietnam have been struck by these changes, and the potential for capitalism in Vietnam to advance our interest in freedom and democracy there. We have a long way to go, but we are planting the seeds of progress through our engagement with the Vietnamese, as reflected most recently in ratification of the bilateral trade agreement by both the United States Senate and the Vietnamese National Assembly. Indeed, the trade agreement only took effect this week. This trade agreement is the pinnacle of the normalization process between our countries. It completes the efforts of four American presidents to establish normal relations between the United States and Vietnam. It is the institutional anchor of our relationship with Vietnam, the 14th-largest nation on Earth, and one with which we share a number of important interests. Yet in the wake of such historic progress, and after preaching for years to the Vietnamese about the need to get government out of the business of micromanaging the economy, we have sadly implicated ourselves in the very sin our trade policy claims to reject. The amendment slipped into the Agriculture Appropriations bill openly violates the national treatment provisions of our trade agreement with Vietnam, in a troubling example of the very parochialism we have urged the Vietnamese government to abandon by ratifying the agreement. The amendment Senator Gramm and I are offering today would repeal this import restriction on catfish. Our amendment would define ``catfish'' according to existing FDA procedures that follow scientific standards and market practices. Not only is the restrictive catfish language offensive in principle to our free trade policies, our recent overwhelming ratification of the Bilateral Trade Agreement, and our relationship with Vietnam; it also flagrantly disregards the facts about the catfish trade. I'd like to rebut this campaign of misinformation by setting straight these facts, as reported by agricultural officials at our embassy in Hanoi who have investigated the Vietnamese catfish industry in depth. The U.S. Embassy in Vietnam summarizes the situation in this way: ``Based on embassy discussions with Vietnamese government and industry officials and a review of recent reports by U.S.-based experts, the embassy does not believe there is evidence to support claims that Vietnamese catfish exports to the United States are subsidized, unhealthy, undermining, or having an `injurious' impact on the catfish market in the U.S.'' Our embassy goes on to state: ``In the case of catfish, the embassy has found little or no evidence that the U.S. industry or health of the consuming public is facing a threat from Vietnam's emerging catfish export industry. . . .Nor does there appear to be substance to claims that catfish raised in Vietnam are less healthy than [those raised in] other countries.'' The U.S. embassy reports the following: Subsidies: American officials indicate that the Vietnamese government provides no direct subsidies to its catfish industry; Health and Safety Standards: The embassy is unable to identify any evidence to support claims that Vietnamese catfish are of questionable quality and may pose health risks. FDA officials have visited Vietnam and have confirmed quality standards there. U.S. importers of Vietnamese catfish are required to certify that their imports comply with FDA requirements, and FDA inspections certify that these imports meet American standards; A normal increase in imports: The embassy finds no evidence to suggest that Vietnam is purposely directing catfish exports to the United States to establish market share; and Labeling: The Vietnamese reached an agreement with the FDA on a labeling scheme to differentiate Vietnamese catfish from American catfish in U.S. retail markets. As our embassy reports, the primary objective should be to provide American consumers with informed choices, not diminish the choice by restricting imports. The facts are clear, the midnight amendment passed without a vote is based not on any concern for the health and well-being of the American consumer. The restriction on catfish imports slipped into the Agriculture Appropriations bill serves only the interests of the catfish producers in six southern States who profit by restricting the choice of the American consumer by banning the competition. The catfish lobby's advertising campaign on behalf of its protectionist agenda has few facts to rely on to support its case, so it stands on scurrilous fear-mongering to make its claim that catfish raised in good old Mississippi mud are the only fish with whiskers safe to eat. One of these negative advertisements, which ran in the national trade weekly Supermarket News, tells us in shrill tones, ``Never trust a catfish with a foreign accent!'' This ad characterizes Vietnamese catfish as dirty and goes on to say, ``They've grown up flapping around in Third World rivers and dining on whatever they can get their fins on. . . .Those other guys probably couldn't spell U.S. even if they tried.'' How enlightened. I believe a far more accurate assessment is provided in the Far Eastern Economic Review, in its feature article on this issue: ``For a bunch of profit-starved fisherfolk, the U.S. catfish lobby had deep enough pockets to wage a highly xenophobic advertising campaign against their Vietnamese competitors.'' Unfortunately, this protectionist campaign against catfish imports has global repercussions. Peru has brought a case against the European Union in the World Trade Organization because the Europeans have claimed exclusive rights to the use of the word ``sardine'' for trade purposes. The Europeans would define sardines to be sardines only if they are caught off European waters, thereby threatening the sardine fisheries in the Western Hemisphere. Prior to passage of the catfish- labeling language in the Agriculture Appropriations bill, the United States Trade Representative had committed to file a brief supporting Peru's position before the WTO that such a restrictive definition unfairly protected European fishermen at the expense of sardine fishermen in the Western Hemisphere. Like the Peruvians, a large number of American fishermen would suffer the effects of an implicit European import ban on the sardines that are their livelihood. Yet as a direct consequence of the passage of the restrictive catfish-labeling language in the Agriculture Appropriations bill, USTR has withdrawn its brief supporting the Peruvian position in the sardine case against the European Union because the catfish amendment written into law makes the United States guilty of the same type of protectionist labeling scheme for which we have brought suit against the Europeans in the WTO. The WTO has previously ruled against such manipulation of trade definitions which, if allowed to stand in this case, could be used as a precedent to close off foreign markets to a number of U.S. products. I doubt the sponsors of the restrictive catfish language in the Agriculture Appropriations bill happily contemplate the potential of the Pandora's Box they have opened. This blanket restriction on catfish imports, passed without debate and without a vote on its merits, has no place in our laws. I urge my colleagues to join us in striking it from the books and allowing science, not politics, to define what a catfish is by supporting our amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield for another question, if it appears to be a filibuster, there is nothing I can do about that. We are going to move forward with the bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, one of the most important issues facing our Nation continues to be the education of our children. Providing a solid, quality education for each and every child is critical not only to the prosperity of our Nation in the years ahead, but also to ensuring that all our children reach their full potential. Whether we work in the private sector or in government, we all have an obligation to develop and implement initiatives that strengthen the quality of education we offer our children. It is essential that we provide our children with the essential academic tools they need to succeed professionally, economically and personally. Unfortunately, we can no longer take for granted that our children are learning to master even the most basic skill of reading. A recent survey reported that less than one-third of fourth- graders in America are ``proficient readers.'' In fact, 40 million Americans cannot fill out a job application or read a menu in a restaurant much less a computer menu. In this high-tech information age, these Americans will be lost and that is unacceptable. In addition, American children lack basic knowledge of their Nation's cultural and historical traditions. For example, a recent report indicated that half of American high school seniors did not know when Lincoln was President; did not know the significance of ``Brown v. Board of Education''; and had no understanding of the aims of American foreign policy, either before or after World War II. Since the tragic events of September 11, the American people, especially our young citizens, have demonstrated through their courage and generosity that they are prepared to meet the challenges that face our Nation. But we must help them in their quest for knowledge and instruction. We must work to ensure that our students do not continue down the path of cultural illiteracy and educational under-performance. But how? Well, one major step in the right direction is to take away power from education bureaucrats and return it to those on the front lines of education--the local schools, the local teachers and the local parents. Fortunately, the education authorization bill before the Senate today is a step in that direction. This bill provides support and guidance to our State and local communities to strengthen our schools, while also giving much needed flexibility for every State related to the use of Federal education dollars. This education bill contains many initiatives that will help ensure that more Federal education dollars reach our classrooms rather than being lost in bureaucratic black hole. This bill also strives to improve the quality of our Nation's teaching force by allocating $3 billion for recruiting and training good teachers. We must ensure that our teachers are continually improving their skills and retain their desire to teach. We also need to ensure that we recruit the brightest and enthusiastic students into the teaching profession. This measure helps make schools more accommodating and friendly for parents. In addition, it works to ensure that parents are better informed about the public education system by providing pertinent information regarding their child's school. Annual report cards pertaining to each school's specific performance, along with statewide performance results, will be available for public view. One of the most important factors in our children's success in school is parental involvement. Parents are our first teachers. Our first classroom is the home, where we learn the value of hard work, respect, and the difference between right and wrong. As I have said before, the home is the most important Department of Education. Parental involvement is the best guarantee that a child will succeed in school. I am genuinely excited when I think of the many reforms taking place across the country--namely school vouchers and charter schools--that are wisely built on this premise: Let parents decide where their children's educational needs will best be met. In the broadest sense, this is what school choice is all about. School choice stimulates improvement and creates expanded opportunities for our children to get a quality education. Our public school system has many good schools, but there are many schools that are broken. Instead of serving as a gateway to advancement, these schools have become dead-end places of despair and low achievement. In urban settings, the subject performance of 17-year-old African-American and Hispanic students is at the same level as 13-year-old-white students. This is an unacceptable and embarrassing failure on the part of our public schools. Exciting things are happening in Milwaukee and Cleveland, where school voucher programs have been put in place. There, minority school children are being given a chance to succeed. The early signs are good: test scores and performance are up. We need more such experiments, and I am gravely disappointed that this authorization bill failed to contain such a provision. Repeatedly, I have proposed legislation for a 3-year Nationwide test of the voucher program. It would be funded not by draining money away from the public schools but by eliminating Federal pork barrel spending and corporate tax loopholes. This is an important component that sadly was left out of this measure. I will continue working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to provide parents and our students with choices to ensure that our children, no matter what their family's income, have access to the best possible education for their unique academic needs. Finally, I am very disappointed that the conferees eliminated an important provision adopted during the Senate debate that would have ensured that the federal government finally fulfill its obligation to fund 40 percent of the cost for meeting the special educational needs of our nation's children through the Individuals with Disabilities Act. My dear friend and colleague, Senator Hagel, fought valiantly for this provision but unfortunately it was watered down. This is unacceptable. Congress needs to follow the laws it makes and provide full funding for the Federal portion of IDEA. We ask our schools to educate children with disabilities, but we don't give them enough money for the expensive evaluations, equipment and services needed to do that. There are 6 million children that receive special education funding, so let's fully support their academic needs. James Madison once wrote that without an educated electorate, the American experiment would become ``a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both.'' Let us stop the slide in the performance of our students. Let us return the control of education to our local communities. Let us renew our trust in our parents and teachers and do what is best for our children. This is why I am supporting this measure today. While it could be strengthened, the bill does make needed strides to improve our Nation's schools.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary procedure at this time?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Then I object to the unanimous consent request. I think I should be allowed to propose and have debate on an amendment to the bill.

Mr. McCAIN. I reserve the right to object. Because of intentional and unintentional parliamentary procedures, I have not been allowed to propose my amendment before the vote on cloture. If cloture is invoked, then I may not be able to have this amendment be germane. So I ask unanimous consent that that unanimous consent agreement be amended that my amendment be made in order to the Daschle substitute, as several other amendments have been made in order, in the event of the invocation of cloture.

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent I be recognized following the Senator from North Dakota.