John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I, rise to introduce the Emission Reductions Incentive Act of 2001. I thank Senator Brownback for his co- sponsorship and his cooperation in drafting this bill, along with his commitment to addressing this growing problem. Earlier this year, I announced intentions to consider the establishment of a ``cap and trade'' system for carbon dioxide emissions. I am continuing to work with Senator Lieberman on this effort. However, the bill which I am introducing today is not in lieu of that commitment, but rather in support of it. The bill proposes the establishment of a national voluntary registry for entities to register carbon emissions reductions. The registry would support current voluntary trading practices in private industry and other non-governmental organizations. Over the past years, the Commerce Committee has heard testimony from several organizations on their efforts conduct trading programs internally or across a small segment of industry. This registry bill will aid those efforts greatly by establishing a national system whereby these companies may be able to participate and be assured that a ton of carbon purchased is indeed a ton of carbon. Establishment of the registry would also require the development of certain standards for measuring, verifying and reporting emission reductions to the registry. I believe that with these procedures in place, the registry would be able to withstand any future requirements imposed by a mandatory ``cap and trade'' system. The bill would also provide for consideration of credits realized under this program against any future mandatory system. The bill also proposed changes to the US Global Climate Change Program, USGCRP. It requires a new strategic plan for the next 10 years. The bill would provide for dedicated management to support the interagency USGCRP and have this office report to the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. We feel this will provide a needed channel to the White House for the Federal scientific community to be heard. We have also asked the office to work with the agencies' development activities. The bill proposed additional changes to the Partnership for New Generation Vehicles, PHGV, program and provides additional incentives for the licensing of technologies. I hope that we can increase the deployment of technologies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by providing further incentives to Federal employees, those who are ultimately responsible for the transfer of the research results. The National Research Council recently made recommendations on the PNGV program, a cooperative research and development program between the Federal Government and the US Council for Automotive Research. The bill requires the Department of Commerce to implement many of those recommendations. As we all know, more than 160 countries recently reached an agreement on the Kyoto Protocol, which would require industrialized nations to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. There are many US companies that operate facilities in other countries. These facilities will have to meet local emissions requirements. The bill requires the Secretary of Commerce to study the effects that a ratified treaty will have on the US industry and its ability to compete globally. Again, I thank Senator Brownback for help on this piece of legislation. I understand that other members of the Commerce Committee have recently introduced legislation in this area and look forward to working with them on a comprehensive package.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) expired yesterday. Signed into law in 1991 by the former President Bush, this Act established a unique approach to combating the War on Drugs in Latin America. Rather than assisting Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru solely through military assistance or direct financial aid, the supporters of ATPA sought to reduce drug trafficking through economic expansion. It was believed that increased trade would promote healthy economies, diversify export bases, and create jobs outside of the drug trade. Unlike other forms of aid, the expansion of free trade benefits everyone. American consumers benefit from a wider variety of lower-priced goods, while the citizens of Andean nations benefit from the creation of legitimate jobs outside of the drug trade. Since the enactment of ATPA, positive changes have occurred within the region. Two-way trade between the United States and the Andean nations has doubled. Bolivia succeeded in eradicating 95% of its coca plantations. Recently, Peru experienced a peaceful democratic transition from autocratic rule. In Colombia alone, ATPA helped to create over 140,000 new jobs. Today, farmers in the region are choosing to plant coffee beans, asparagus, and flowers instead of coca. With the expiration of ATPA, these successes are now in jeopardy. While our nation remains engaged in a battle against terrorism, we must not lose sight of the critical security risks that remain not far beyond our borders. The Andean region is not only the world's primary source of coca, it is also a haven for terrorism and terrorist groups that thrive on funding derived from the drug trade. I am a staunch supporter of our war efforts, but I am also fearful of the consequences of neglecting this troubled region within our own hemisphere. We are now at a critical juncture. Failing to extend ATPA sends a message to terrorist groups, drug traffickers, and counter- revolutionaries, that the United States is no longer committed to the region, and this inaction could impact our national security. Terrorism lurks in abandoned and hopeless regions, where good people resort to such measures out of desperation. As our nation's attention focuses on the war effort, we must not allow ourselves to neglect regions that still need our support and attention. In March, Senator Graham introduced S. 525, the Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act, of which I am a proud co-sponsor. That bill would expand and extend the current act, with the hope of furthering economic development and stability in the region. Unfortunately, that bill has yet to be debated on the Senate floor. While the Senate remains mired in partisan squabbling, the House of Representatives successfully passed a good bill on November 16 to extend and to expand ATPA. The expiration of ATPA should be a concern of all of us. I hope that the Majority leader will expeditiously move to schedule floor time for the consideration of an expansion of this important legislation before the fragile economies of the Andean region are left to falter.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues, how much longer are we going to let the appropriators subordinate the jurisdiction and responsibilities of the authorizers? Didn't most of us think the multi- year highway funding legislation, known as TEA-21, would essentially be the law of the land through fiscal year 2003 with respect to highway funding formulas and state apportionments? I guess we were wrong, given the appropriations reprogramming maneuvers. Let me again quote from the Wall Street Journal: ``The negotiators made wholesale changes in the priorities set in the highway act, substituting projects they favor for the ones preferred by the House and Senate transportation committees that wrote the highway law.'' This is precisely why no projects should be earmarked by either the authorizers or the appropriators and we should instead allow the states to fund the projects that meet the legitimate transportation needs of their states. Mr. President, the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority--RABA--funds mentioned in the article are to be distributed proportionately to the states through formula apportionments and to allocated programs. This conference report represents a fundamental departure from that approach. To pay for some of the report's many earmarks, $423 million will be redirected from state apportionments, meaning the states lose 10.7 percent of RABA funds from the regular formula program. Further, another $423 million will be redistributed from allocated programs in a manner in which the appropriators have selected programmatic winners and losers. In fact, 24 of 38 highway funding programs will receive none of the funding under RABA they were to receive before the appropriators' stroke of pen. But again, if you have the good fortune to reside in a state with a member in a leadership position on the DOT Appropriations Subcommittee, you are among the winners in this appropriations bill lottery. I ask unanimous consent that two charts prepared by the Federal Highway Administration to show the impact on each state and the allocated programs through the RABA redistributing work of the appropriators be printed in the Record at this point.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand under the UC I have 15 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. McCAIN. Additionally, I note the conference report does include additional funding to address the many safety related enforcement requirements concerning Mexican carriers and drivers. While much of my statement today will express disagreement to the actions of the appropriators, in this case I want to note for the record that they have worked to provide sufficient funding to allow DOT to carry out the requirements with respect to the Mexican trucking issue and enable the border to be opened in a time-frame deemed appropriate by the administration. Mr. President, enactment of this legislation will not be the end of our due-diligence to ensure we are allowed to open the border to Mexican carriers and in turn, allow American carriers to do business in Mexico. I intend to stay vigilant on this very important issue and will monitor the administration's actions with respect to the border opening in my capacity as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. I remain committed to doing all I can to ensure the border is open consistent with our obligations under NAFTA while protecting the safety of the American traveling public. Mr. President, this is a bittersweet victory for highway safety and free trade. On the one hand the United States will be allowed to keep its promise to abide by its solemn treaty. Yet on the other hand, the egregious process of pork barrel earmarking continues. Unless you are from a state with a member on the Appropriations Committee, your State's transportation dollars most likely will be reduced by enactment of this bill which in many cases redirects authorized funding programs for the sake of the home-state projects of the appropriators. I recognize that there are very important provisions in the legislation, sections that appropriate funds for programs vital to the safety and security of the traveling public and our national transportation system over all. Yet despite that necessary funding, and the fact that the legislation is not in violation of NAFTA, it once again goes overboard on pork barrel spending. It is so bad, in fact, yesterday's Wall Street Journal included an article highlighting the very egregious actions of the appropriators to reduce state transportation dollars and direct those funds to earmarked projects. The article is entitled ``Bill Gains To Cut State-Controlled Highway Funds.'' I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Six minutes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be granted 4 additional minutes.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to express my strong opposition to the conference agreement on H.R. 2299, the fiscal year 2002 Transportation appropriations bill approved by the House and Senate conferees last week. I once again find myself in a position in which I must express strong concerns with yet another appropriations bill. This measure, like the eight appropriations bills approved by the Congress this year and like so often has been the case during recent years, continues what I believe is an inappropriate overreach by the appropriators in an effort to fulfill their own agendas at the expense of both current law and the work of the authorizers. They again are redirecting programmatic funding, funding that in many cases is authorized to be distributed by formula or at the discretion of the Secretary and based on competitive merit. Instead of allowing the normal funding distribution process to go forward, the appropriators have earmarked that funding for pet projects for the members of the Appropriations Committee. Before citing a host of examples of the pork barrel spending associated with this conference report, I want to first address the very important trade issue that the appropriators have tied to the pending measure, that is, the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA. As my colleagues well know, provisions in both the House and the Senate versions of the Transportation appropriations bill proposed to restrict the administration's ability to abide by our obligations under NAFTA. As a result of this fact, the Statement of Administrative Policy included a very clear and direct veto threat stating that ``the Senate Committee has adopted provisions that could cause the United States to violate our commitments under NAFTA. Unless changes are made to the Senate bill, the President's senior advisors will recommend that the President veto the bill.'' Several of us also strongly objected to the appropriators' actions. As a result, we spent considerable floor time--nearly two full weeks in July--discussing the importance of NAFTA and our obligation to abide by our commitments to our trading partners. At no time has the senior Senator from Texas or I argued that safety concerns were not of considerable importance in this debate. In fact, it was our proposal offered as an alternative to the Senate version that first called for an inspection of every Mexican truck similar to the model used in the State of California at the border. Indeed, the proponents of NAFTA have had one goal since this issue surfaced in the DOT appropriations legislation this summer. From the beginning, our goal has been to ensure the appropriators did not succeed in their attempts through the DOT appropriations bill to effectively alter our solemn agreement with our neighbors to the South. If our trading partners are subject to the whimsical mood of the appropriators, how can we ever expect any nation that we have executed a trade agreement with, or one we are seeking to enter into trade agreements with, to have any faith that our word is true and we will abide by our agreements? If the appropriators' agenda had prevailed, I shudder to consider the consequences and the impact as we attempted to seek to negotiate new trade agreements or renewed ones. After receiving assurances from the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee that he would work with the administration to ensure the conference agreement would not include any provisions that would prevent use from abiding by our NAFTA commitments, the senior Senator from Texas and I agreed to forgo some of our procedural rights and allowed the bill to go to conference without several additional votes and the expenditure of additional floor time. While early into the conference the Senate managers of the bill issued a release indicating a determination to provoke a Presidential veto, the appropriators finally agreed last week to incorporate provisions agreeable to the administration. Upon hearing of the agreement with respect to Mexican trucks last week, I raised reservations over some of the provisions that I felt could be troublesome. However, in response to these concerns, the administration has assured us the agreement is not in violation of NAFTA. Last Friday, November 30, the White House issued the following statement of the President: The compromise reached by the House and Senate appropriators on Mexican trucking is an important victory for safety and free trade. We must promote the highest level of safety and security on American highways while meeting our commitments to our friends to the South. The compromise reached by the conferees will achieve these twin objectives by permitting our border to be opened in a timely manner and ensuring that all United States safety standards will be applied to every truck and bus operating on our highways. Moreover, I have received a letter from U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick, which states: The Administration supports the agreement reached by the House and Senate appropriators on Mexican trucking as fully promoting highway safety and U.S. trade commitments. In addition, it will permit the United States to meet the commitments made to Mexico as part of the North American Free Trade Agreement. I ask unanimous consent a copy of that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Hollings, Breaux, and Smith in introducing the Hazmat Endorsements Requirement Act. The legislation we are introducing today is in large part a technical correction proposal to address Section 1012 of the USA PATRIOT Act, enacted October 26, 2001. Today's bill is designed to fill in a few of the gaps of the new law with respect to commercial drivers licenses and hazardous materials endorsements and to provide guidance to the Department of Transportation and the States on how to implement the new requirements. The safe transport of hazardous materials is of critical importance to both our nation's economy and public safety. The events of September 11 have led to an even greater awareness of the necessity of ensuring hazardous cargo is transported in a manner that provides the highest level of safety and security possible. This bill would help improve the safety and security of hazardous materials transported on our roads and highways by ensuring the driver of such loads is not a risk to national security. Annually, more than four billion tons of hazardous materials, an estimated 800,000 hazardous materials shipments daily, are transported by land, sea, and air in the United States. While hazardous materials transportation involves all transportation modes, truck transport typically accounts for the majority of all hazardous materials shipments, although the tonnage transported is more equally divided between truck and rail. The types of vehicles carrying hazardous materials on the nation's highways range from cargo tank trucks to conventional tractor-trailers and flatbeds that carry large portable tank containers. The shipped materials are used in thousands of commercial manufactured products and they include: chlorine for water treatment; ammonia for fertilizers; plastics; home siding materials; battery casings; leather finishes; fireproofing agents for textiles; and, motor vehicle gasoline. The hazardous materials industry has a notable safety record, in large part due to the safety efforts of the individuals and companies involved in transporting hazardous materials. On average, only 10 to 15 fatalities are attributed annually to releases of hazardous materials in transportation. The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 was enacted in an effort to ensure that drivers of large trucks and buses are qualified to operate such vehicles and to remove unsafe and unqualified drivers from the highways. The 1986 Act, which created the Commercial Driver's License Program, retained the state's right to issue a driver's license, but established minimum national standards which states must meet when licensing commercial motor vehicle, CMV, drivers. The CDL program places requirements on the CMV driver, the employing motor carrier and the States. Drivers who operate special types of vehicles or who transport passengers or hazardous materials need to pass additional tests to obtain specific endorsements to permit such transport on their CDL. Since 1986, over 10.5 million drivers have obtained a CDL, and almost 2.5 million of those drivers have received hazardous materials endorsements. The law has not required criminal background checks for applicants seeking CDLs. However, section 1012 of the USA PATRIOT Act now requires any driver of a commercial motor vehicle who transports hazardous materials to have a criminal background check prior to being issued a commercial drivers license, CDL. That requirement became effective upon the enactment of that law in October. Both Senator Hollings and I strongly support the intent of the background check requirement. Unfortunately, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, with jurisdiction over the CDL program and hazardous materials transportation, did not have an opportunity to offer our recommendations to the provision in the USA PATRIOT Act due to procedural agreements at the time that legislation was approved by the Senate. Therefore, the measure we are introducing today provides technical modifications to section 1012 and would ensure the Department of Transportation, the States, and the drivers of commercial motor vehicles have a very clear direction with respect to the requirements associated with a hazardous materials endorsement. Through Senator Hollings leadership, we have sought input on this issue from all interested parties, including the administration, the states, public safety officials, commercial motor vehicle drivers, and motor carriers. We believe the provisions contained in this legislation will aid the administration and all interested parties by providing a clear understanding of the requirements associated with granting a license permitting a driver to transport hazardous cargo. I urge my colleagues' timely consideration of this important legislation. We should take expeditious action to ensure the hazardous materials transported over our nation's roads is provided by qualified drivers. This must be accomplished in a manner that provides clear and consistent requirements for licensing with minimum bureaucratic red tape and delay in the issuance of licenses to eligible drivers.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Hollings, Breaux, and Smith in introducing the Hazmat Endorsements Requirement Act. The legislation we are introducing today is in large part a technical correction proposal to address Section 1012 of the USA PATRIOT Act, enacted October 26, 2001. Today's bill is designed to fill in a few of the gaps of the new law with respect to commercial drivers licenses and hazardous materials endorsements and to provide guidance to the Department of Transportation and the States on how to implement the new requirements. The safe transport of hazardous materials is of critical importance to both our nation's economy and public safety. The events of September 11 have led to an even greater awareness of the necessity of ensuring hazardous cargo is transported in a manner that provides the highest level of safety and security possible. This bill would help improve the safety and security of hazardous materials transported on our roads and highways by ensuring the driver of such loads is not a risk to national security. Annually, more than four billion tons of hazardous materials, an estimated 800,000 hazardous materials shipments daily, are transported by land, sea, and air in the United States. While hazardous materials transportation involves all transportation modes, truck transport typically accounts for the majority of all hazardous materials shipments, although the tonnage transported is more equally divided between truck and rail. The types of vehicles carrying hazardous materials on the nation's highways range from cargo tank trucks to conventional tractor-trailers and flatbeds that carry large portable tank containers. The shipped materials are used in thousands of commercial manufactured products and they include: chlorine for water treatment; ammonia for fertilizers; plastics; home siding materials; battery casings; leather finishes; fireproofing agents for textiles; and, motor vehicle gasoline. The hazardous materials industry has a notable safety record, in large part due to the safety efforts of the individuals and companies involved in transporting hazardous materials. On average, only 10 to 15 fatalities are attributed annually to releases of hazardous materials in transportation. The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 was enacted in an effort to ensure that drivers of large trucks and buses are qualified to operate such vehicles and to remove unsafe and unqualified drivers from the highways. The 1986 Act, which created the Commercial Driver's License Program, retained the state's right to issue a driver's license, but established minimum national standards which states must meet when licensing commercial motor vehicle, CMV, drivers. The CDL program places requirements on the CMV driver, the employing motor carrier and the States. Drivers who operate special types of vehicles or who transport passengers or hazardous materials need to pass additional tests to obtain specific endorsements to permit such transport on their CDL. Since 1986, over 10.5 million drivers have obtained a CDL, and almost 2.5 million of those drivers have received hazardous materials endorsements. The law has not required criminal background checks for applicants seeking CDLs. However, section 1012 of the USA PATRIOT Act now requires any driver of a commercial motor vehicle who transports hazardous materials to have a criminal background check prior to being issued a commercial drivers license, CDL. That requirement became effective upon the enactment of that law in October. Both Senator Hollings and I strongly support the intent of the background check requirement. Unfortunately, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, with jurisdiction over the CDL program and hazardous materials transportation, did not have an opportunity to offer our recommendations to the provision in the USA PATRIOT Act due to procedural agreements at the time that legislation was approved by the Senate. Therefore, the measure we are introducing today provides technical modifications to section 1012 and would ensure the Department of Transportation, the States, and the drivers of commercial motor vehicles have a very clear direction with respect to the requirements associated with a hazardous materials endorsement. Through Senator Hollings leadership, we have sought input on this issue from all interested parties, including the administration, the states, public safety officials, commercial motor vehicle drivers, and motor carriers. We believe the provisions contained in this legislation will aid the administration and all interested parties by providing a clear understanding of the requirements associated with granting a license permitting a driver to transport hazardous cargo. I urge my colleagues' timely consideration of this important legislation. We should take expeditious action to ensure the hazardous materials transported over our nation's roads is provided by qualified drivers. This must be accomplished in a manner that provides clear and consistent requirements for licensing with minimum bureaucratic red tape and delay in the issuance of licenses to eligible drivers.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, while there are few people in the Senate more skeptical than I of providing Federal assistance to corporations or involving the Federal Government in private industry, the proposed wholesale cancellation of terrorism insurance coverage following the devastating events of September 11, dictates that Congress act before the end of this session to ensure that this coverage continues to be available and affordable. Since 1945 when Congress delegated the responsibility of regulating insurance to the States, the Federal Government has honored this delegation and, with the encouragement of state regulators, kept out of the business of insurance. In a recent letter to Treasury Secretary O'Neill, however, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, NAIC, implored the Federal Government for help. ``What has not been widely reported is that insurers are now issuing notices of non-renewal and filing across- the-board property and casualty exclusions for terrorist risk with state insurance regulators,'' the NAIC wrote. ``[W]e need the Federal Government to act soon to give certainty to this situation * * * further delay inadvertently could cause greater market disruption, thus making the need for quick action imperative.'' I agree. The bill I am introducing today draws from the many good ideas proposed by members of Congress and by the Administration to deal with the imminent cancellation of terrorism insurance coverage, and attempts also to address concerns raised with each of these proposals. It is by no means a perfect bill and I look forward to working with the Administration, my colleagues, state insurance commissioners, and other interested parties to improve it. While rough, the bill does reflect, however, what I believe to be the core principles that should be included in any legislation designed to keep terrorism insurance affordable and available. These principles include making Federal intervention short-term; deferring to states on questions of rate regulation; requiring insurance companies and the insurance industry to bear enough risk to promote responsible claims handling and to ensure that incentives to protect against acts of terrorism are in place; fairly allocating the costs of a terrorist event among insurance companies, and between policy holders and taxpayers; and generally prohibiting the award of punitive damages in claims arising from acts of terrorism. There has been much debate about whether the taxpayers should bear the cost in the short-term of another terrorist event, or whether this cost should be borne by policy holders. The answer, perhaps, is that the cost should be shared. I propose in this bill that federal assistance up to $50 billion be paid back by commercial property and casualty policy holders through a capped surcharge on their premiums. For Federal assistance between $50 billion and $100 billion, which would be required only in the case of a truly catastrophic, perhaps cataclysmic event, however, the bill does not require repayment. The following is a summary of the major provision of this bill. I look forward to working to improve it and to passage of needed legislation on terrorism insurance before the end of this session. The bill provides a Federal backstop for certain insured losses due to acts of terrorism up to $100 billion per year in 2002 and 2003. The Federal Government would get involved, however, only if there is an act of terrorism during these years that exceeded individual company retentions. If a commercial insurer reaches these retention levels, the federal government would provide assistance for 80 percent of the companies' losses above the retention. To provide uniformity, the bill preempts state definitions of ``terrorism'' and delegates to the Secretary of Commerce the responsibility of determining whether or not an act of terrorism has occurred. Federal assistance is available only to companies whose annual terrorism-related losses in certain lines of commercial property and casualty insurance exceed the greater of $10 million or 5 percent of gross direct written premium in the previous year. Only companies that meet the company retention trigger can obtain assistance from the Federal Government. Outlays for losses up to $50 billion are repaid by insurance policy holders through a surcharge imposed by the Secretary of Commerce on covered lines and collected by commercial insurers. These surcharges cannot exceed 6 percent of annual premiums, and the Secretary has the discretion to adjust the surcharge to reflect different risks in urban and rural areas. Federal outlays up to $50 billion are paid back over time by commercial property and casualty policy holders. Federal outlays for losses over $50 billion are not recoverable. Rate regulation is left to the states. Except with respect to claims against terrorists and their conspirators, punitive damages cannot be recovered in claims arising out of acts of terrorism.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, while there are few people in the Senate more skeptical than I of providing Federal assistance to corporations or involving the Federal Government in private industry, the proposed wholesale cancellation of terrorism insurance coverage following the devastating events of September 11, dictates that Congress act before the end of this session to ensure that this coverage continues to be available and affordable. Since 1945 when Congress delegated the responsibility of regulating insurance to the States, the Federal Government has honored this delegation and, with the encouragement of state regulators, kept out of the business of insurance. In a recent letter to Treasury Secretary O'Neill, however, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, NAIC, implored the Federal Government for help. ``What has not been widely reported is that insurers are now issuing notices of non-renewal and filing across- the-board property and casualty exclusions for terrorist risk with state insurance regulators,'' the NAIC wrote. ``[W]e need the Federal Government to act soon to give certainty to this situation * * * further delay inadvertently could cause greater market disruption, thus making the need for quick action imperative.'' I agree. The bill I am introducing today draws from the many good ideas proposed by members of Congress and by the Administration to deal with the imminent cancellation of terrorism insurance coverage, and attempts also to address concerns raised with each of these proposals. It is by no means a perfect bill and I look forward to working with the Administration, my colleagues, state insurance commissioners, and other interested parties to improve it. While rough, the bill does reflect, however, what I believe to be the core principles that should be included in any legislation designed to keep terrorism insurance affordable and available. These principles include making Federal intervention short-term; deferring to states on questions of rate regulation; requiring insurance companies and the insurance industry to bear enough risk to promote responsible claims handling and to ensure that incentives to protect against acts of terrorism are in place; fairly allocating the costs of a terrorist event among insurance companies, and between policy holders and taxpayers; and generally prohibiting the award of punitive damages in claims arising from acts of terrorism. There has been much debate about whether the taxpayers should bear the cost in the short-term of another terrorist event, or whether this cost should be borne by policy holders. The answer, perhaps, is that the cost should be shared. I propose in this bill that federal assistance up to $50 billion be paid back by commercial property and casualty policy holders through a capped surcharge on their premiums. For Federal assistance between $50 billion and $100 billion, which would be required only in the case of a truly catastrophic, perhaps cataclysmic event, however, the bill does not require repayment. The following is a summary of the major provision of this bill. I look forward to working to improve it and to passage of needed legislation on terrorism insurance before the end of this session. The bill provides a Federal backstop for certain insured losses due to acts of terrorism up to $100 billion per year in 2002 and 2003. The Federal Government would get involved, however, only if there is an act of terrorism during these years that exceeded individual company retentions. If a commercial insurer reaches these retention levels, the federal government would provide assistance for 80 percent of the companies' losses above the retention. To provide uniformity, the bill preempts state definitions of ``terrorism'' and delegates to the Secretary of Commerce the responsibility of determining whether or not an act of terrorism has occurred. Federal assistance is available only to companies whose annual terrorism-related losses in certain lines of commercial property and casualty insurance exceed the greater of $10 million or 5 percent of gross direct written premium in the previous year. Only companies that meet the company retention trigger can obtain assistance from the Federal Government. Outlays for losses up to $50 billion are repaid by insurance policy holders through a surcharge imposed by the Secretary of Commerce on covered lines and collected by commercial insurers. These surcharges cannot exceed 6 percent of annual premiums, and the Secretary has the discretion to adjust the surcharge to reflect different risks in urban and rural areas. Federal outlays up to $50 billion are paid back over time by commercial property and casualty policy holders. Federal outlays for losses over $50 billion are not recoverable. Rate regulation is left to the states. Except with respect to claims against terrorists and their conspirators, punitive damages cannot be recovered in claims arising out of acts of terrorism.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, as is understood, we had a computer crash early this morning, the result of which was that a significant amount of agreed to text in this bill was lost. In order to meet filing requirements, the staff was forced to work quickly to reconstruct portions of the bill that had been carefully negotiated. Unfortunately, some mistakes were made in this process. In particular, I am referring to Section 145 of the bill, entitled ``Air Carriers Required to Honor Tickets for Suspended Service.'' It had been agreed to by all parties that the conditions under which air carriers would be required, to the extent practicable, to honor the tickets of passengers who had purchased tickets on other airlines would be: ``Acts of war, terrorism, insolvency, or bankruptcy.'' Unfortunately, in a drafting error, the language neglected to include the conditions for acts of war or terrorism. I want to make clear, now, that I will ensure that these conditions will be included as part of a technical corrections bill before the end of the first session of this Congress. I ask my colleague from South Carolina, will he join me in making this commitment?

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee with whom I have worked many years on a broad variety of important issues. I have to say, and I think the chairman would agree, this is one of the more important issues that we have had the privilege of working on together. It has been a very long and difficult process-- a very difficult process. My distinguished chairman often quotes Latin. I would like to quote one back that would describe what we just went through: ``Illegitimus non carborundum,'' which I will not translate for the Record. But the fact is, this was a tough process and we did come out with the paramount aspect of this challenge of safety being addressed. The Senate bill, the major provisions, were adopted. I thank our colleagues on the House side who were faced with some very difficult pressures, too, who finally came to this agreement. Madam President, this legislation will install air marshals where needed on airplanes. It will call for reinforced cockpit doors. It will authorize pilots to carry guns with the approval of the new Under Secretary and the area carriers. It will provide for a new independent security agency for all modes of transportation, with significant authority to expedite new technology. New technology is going to solve a lot of the problems that we have today with delays and problems with people being able to get on and off airplanes. There will be uniform and rigorous standards. There will be a full federalization over 1 year of every airport in America, unless five choose to opt out, in five categories in America. Law enforcement is a proper function of the Federal Government. Law enforcement will be carried out by Federal employees. That is the case in these airports. What will the signature of the President of the United States do? It will do two things: No. 1, on the substantive side we will begin a process, which will take at least a year, of increasing airport security, of putting in place procedures and individuals who will allow Americans much greater, dramatically enhanced safety and security in airports and on airliners. But what else does it do? We all know the reality today is many Americans will not get on an airliner because they do not feel any confidence that they are safe and secure in doing so. When the President of the United States signs this bill and looks the American people in the eye and says we are now embarked on an all-out effort to do everything your Government can to make you safe and secure, I think that will have a major impact on the American people and will move forward in restoring the confidence of the American people. So I think this legislation is both substantively and from perception a very critical piece of legislation. We all know that unless airline traffic and passengers are restored to previously levels, our economy is going to continue to suffer, not to mention the very vital security and safety aspects involved. Not everything that everybody wanted was in it, although I would certainly say we got about 95 percent. As usually happens, sometimes we add things we should not. I want to take a minute to talk about it. There are some liability provisions which are put into this bill, some of them perhaps warranted, some perhaps not warranted, covering aircraft manufacturers, the World Trade Center, some limit on liability in New York City, et cetera. As I say, there could be some beneficial aspects of these provisions, but we should be addressing liability in its entirety. We should not be addressing liability on this issue. We need the appropriate committee-- which I guess is the Judiciary Committee and also to some degree the Commerce Committee--to hold a set of hearings so we can address the entire liability problem associated with the attacks on September 11, rather than a rifleshot approach. Do you know why we are using a rifleshot approach? Because people are hiring the lobbyists, and campaign money. People are coming into Washington; lobbyists are coming in. They bought their access and they are exercising their influence. That is not a fair way to address the issue of liability, and there are legitimate issues. I am sorry those provisions were included in this legislation. I don't believe in raising anyone's taxes. I have voted literally against every tax increase in the number of years I have been a Member of this body and the other body. There is an increase in costs associated with this airport security. We need to pay for this. The $2.50 may not do it. It may not be enough. It may require more. We put a cap of $5 so that someone who gets on an airplane that has four stops doesn't have to pay each time. Yes, there are remote areas of America. There are remote areas of my State as well. There are poor Navajos who want to fly from Window Rock at Flagstaff to Phoenix, AZ, and then on to some other place. We tried to make this fair. The fact is that everybody has to pay for it. It has to be paid for by all Americans. It is a cost for the increased security requirements as a result of this new war we are fighting. I say to the American people and to the passengers that I think this is not a high price to pay when you look at the benefits that will accrue from the increased security and safety which are absolutely vital, as we all know. I think we came up with a good piece of legislation. We on the Commerce Committee will review this legislation and its impact. It may have to be fine tuned in a variety of ways. I am very pleased we came together on this issue. We have now done something which, unfortunately, took too long. But certainly it is now going to be signed into law and will be a very major step forward in providing security and safety to Americans, hundreds of millions of whom use the airlines every year. I again thank Senator Hollings and our staff for the bipartisan way in which the Senate acted. I also thank Senator Hutchison, the ranking member, as well as Senator Rockefeller, chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, who played key and vital roles in the formulation of this legislation. This is a new day. We had our differences. It isn't a perfect piece of legislation, but it is a landmark piece of legislation. I think, since the Congress acted, we should now move forward and try to do the best we can to make sure through congressional oversight that the intentions and the provisions of this legislation are implemented in as efficient and expeditious a manner as possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to explain for the benefit of my colleagues some recent actions that involve Amtrak. I will begin, however, by briefly describing Amtrak's history. Amtrak was created in 1971 by the Rail Passenger Service Act which was enacted in 1970. The law established Amtrak in order to relieve the freight railroad industry from the burden of providing ongoing passenger service. With capital acquired from participating railroads and the Federal Government providing $40 million in direct grants and another $100 million in loan guarantees, the corporation was to become self-sustaining within 2 years. Since 1971, however, Amtrak has received nearly $24 billion in taxpayer assistance to help cover its operating and capital costs. Today, much like when Amtrak started, Amtrak serves approximately 500 locations. It carried 22.5 million passengers in fiscal year 2000. By contrast, the intercity bus industry carries 744 million passengers annually and serves over 4,000 locations. The aviation industry carries more than 600 million passengers annually. I mention this comparison because I believe we must consider Amtrak in the context of other passenger carrying transportation services. Amtrak was most recently authorized during the 105th Congress, after several years without an authorization. The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act, Public Law 105-134, was bipartisan compromise legislation and enacted, in part, due to the very critical reports of Amtrak's financial situation at that time. During the act's development, the General Accounting Office, Amtrak, and others estimated that the rail system was on the brink of bankruptcy. Taking into account the very serious financial situation facing Amtrak, the reform law provided the statutory operational, procurement, labor and liability reforms that Amtrak requested so it could operate more like a private business. It reauthorized Amtrak for 5 years, through fiscal year 2002, releasing the approximately $2.2 billion to Amtrak that was provided in the form of a tax ``refund'' in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, TRA, even though Amtrak has never earned a profit, let alone paid income tax. It also required Amtrak to operate free of taxpayer assistance 5 years after the date of enactment of the law, which is December 2, 2002. The law established an 11-member Amtrak Reform Council, ARC, appointed by the President and leadership in both the House and the Senate, to oversee Amtrak and make recommendations for improvements. The law provided that if at any time following 2 years after the date of enactment the ARC finds that Amtrak is not meeting its financial goals, the Council is directed to develop and submit within 90 days to Congress an action plan for a restructured and rationalized intercity rail passenger system. Within that same time period, the law directs Amtrak to prepare a plan for its complete liquidation. The law provides for an expedited procedure during which Congress would vote, simple majority, on a resolution to disapprove an Amtrak liquidation. What has Amtrak accomplished since the reform bill's enactment? Amtrak's press releases often boast about increased ridership and revenues. Unfortunately, those press releases never quite tell the full story. According to the General Accounting Office, any increase in ridership and revenues has resulted in an even greater increase in expenses. Moreover, Amtrak's debt load has tripled since the reform bill's enactment to over $3.3 billion and it has spent more than $4.4 billion in taxpayers dollars during that same period. And, despite repeated testimony by Amtrak officials this year about being on a ``glidepath to operational self-sufficiency,'' Amtrak entered into a creative agreement in June to mortgage a portion of Penn Station to obtain cash to allow Amtrak to continue operating past the summer. Clearly, our expectation for a new and improved Amtrak when we passed the reform bill in 1997 has not been realized. The Department of Transportation Inspector General and the General Accounting Office have testified repeatedly before Congress that Amtrak is in a very precarious financial situation. Moreover, last Friday, November 9, 2001, the ARC officially issued a finding that Amtrak will not be operationally self-sufficient by December 2, 2002, as required by law. The ARC has found there are major inherent flaws and weaknesses in Amtrak's institutional design and it must be restructured. As a result of this finding, the ARC will submit a restructuring plan and Amtrak will submit a liquidation plan to the Congress in early February. In addition, the administration, according to testimony from the Federal Railroad Administrator, is also preparing to submit a proposal to restructure our Nation's passenger rail system as part of its fiscal year 2003 budget request. I understand Amtrak and others have made some very critical comments about the ARC's decision. Clearly, it was a decision not taken lightly by the ARC members. I, for one, commend the ARC members for abiding by the law and making the tough decision that they felt needed to be made. I only question what took them so long. I look forward to a robust debate on the future of intercity rail passenger service in this country. I believe that passenger rail can and should be a part of our Nation's transportation system, but I continue to question how it should be structured and managed, knowing that Amtrak has failed to meet even the lowest of expectations for 30 years. I find it indefensible that despite the findings of the ARC, the IG and the GAO, this week we were considering legislation that would have given another $9 billion to Amtrak by authorizing Amtrak to issue bonds. I imagine proponents of that provision will continue to seek enactment of their proposal prior to adjournment. I vow to do everything in my power to prevent such efforts from succeeding, as I strongly question the logic of throwing billions of additional dollars at Amtrak when nearly every expert that knows anything about Amtrak and finances knows, and has told Congress, that Amtrak cannot live up to the promises it makes. Before moving forward with any additional funding for Amtrak we need to address a number of tough questions: What is the future for intercity rail passenger transportation? Where does it attract passengers and where doesn't it? Does rail passenger service have to equate to ``Amtrak'' or should we finally accept the fact that after 30 years, it is time to find a new approach? Where might high-speed rail service actually attract enough passengers to be economically viable? How does it fit into our national transportation system? What is the financial obligation we will be imposing on the American taxpayers and what can they realistically expect as a result of their expenditures? It is simply time to have an open and honest debate on this issue. We need to hear from the administration and the American public. I hope my colleagues will agree that we need to allow the debate on Amtrak's future to move forward and stop the hemorrhaging of taxpayers' dollars by this entity. I certainly intend to do all I can to ensure the Senate Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over Amtrak, steps up to the plate and does its part on this subject.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have been involved in a number of issues in my time here. I know of no two people who have worked harder on an issue than the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from North Dakota. That renews my commitment to try as hard as I can to come to an agreement because they deserve an all-out effort on an issue on which we are fundamentally in agreement. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I conclude by saying I think we should begin meetings as soon as possible so we can resolve this issue so there is a reasonable resolution. I know the proponents of this amendment which was just defeated spent great labor and effort on it. I congratulate them for their arguments. I look forward to working with them. This is an issue that needs to be resolved. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the debate. I appreciate the efforts made on both sides of this very difficult issue. The closeness of it really dictates that we do sit down and work something out on this issue with Senator Dorgan, Senator Kerry, Senator Allen--all of those with whom we have met in numerous, countless hours on this issue. It is very clear we need to come to some kind of agreement rather than go through moratorium after moratorium.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I think we are in agreement the major aspects of this legislation have been decided. So I do not think, unless someone desires it, that we need another recorded vote.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Wyden, I move to table the Dorgan-Enzi amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. If the majority leader will yield to me for a second, I can inform the Senator from Montana that I understand his concerns. A copy of the bill is available at this time in room SD-512.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the conferees of this bill for their hard work. This legislation provides funding for fighting crime, enhancing drug enforcement, and responding to threats of terrorism. It further addresses the shortcomings of the immigration process funds the operation of the judicial process, facilitates commerce throughout the United States, and supports the needs of the State Department and other agencies. This conference report spends at a level 4.9 percent higher than the level enacted in fiscal year 2001. In real dollars, this is $828 million in additional spending above the amount requested by the President, and a $1.9 billion increase in spending from last year. Once again, however, I find myself in the unpleasant position of speaking before my colleagues about parochial projects in yet another conference report. I have identified $1.8 billion in earmarks, which is greater than the cost of the earmarks in the conference report passed last year, which totaled $1.5 billion. so far this year, total porkbarrel spending has already hit a staggering $9.6 billion. There are hundreds of millions of dollars in porkbarrel spending throughout this bill. The avalanche of unrequested earmarks buried in this measure will undoubtedly further burden the American taxpayers. While the amounts associated with each individual earmark may not seem extravagant, taken together, they represent a serious diversion of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars at the expense of numerous programs that have undergone the appropriate merit-based selection process. Let me read a quote from Allen Schick, a congressional expert at the Brookings Institution: Pork thrives in good times and bad. The problem is not the individual project, but the cumulative effect. . . . When you add up the total, it just blows your mind. Now I want to turn to some examples of earmarks in this bill: There is $250,000 for the Central California Ozone Study; $500,000 for the International Pacific Research Center at the University of Hawaii; $1 million for the National Coral Reef Institute in Hawaii; $3.7 million for the Conservation Institute of the Bronx Zoo; $750,000 for the Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation; $3.35 million for the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College; and $6 million for the Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth University for the nanocystalline materials and biomass research initiative. There are many more projects on the list that I have compiled, which will be available on my Senate Web site. Once, again, I must remind my colleagues that the administration has urged us to maintain our fiscal discipline to ensure that we will continue to have adequate funds to prosecute our war against terrorism, to aid those in need, and to cover other related costs. We should let the people who run the programs we fund decide how best to spend the appropriated funds. After all, they know what their most pressing needs are. I am also greatly concerned by the Appropriations Committee's decision to fund the controversial Advanced Technology Program at $184.5 million. In his budget request, the President recommended that Congress suspend new funding for ATP, pending a reevaluation of the program. The Secretary of Commerce has not released the results of that review nor any recommended changes to the program to the Commerce Committee. I urge my colleagues to await the results of the Secretary's review, before we consider funding this program. As we all know, the country is currently involved in both war and economic downturn, and this $184.5 million should be spent on higher priorities than a welfare program for special corporate interests. Furthermore, I am equally concerned that of the $62.4 million in the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Construction account, $41.5 million is for non-construction related ``pork'' projects. Earlier this year, I wrote to the Secretary of Commerce expressing my concerns about the physical conditions of the NIST laboratories, home of two recent Nobel Prize winners. I am amazed to see that we are more concerned about ``pork'' than supporting world-class research facilities. Several items provided under funding for the State Department stand out for their questionable role in advancing American foreign policy interests. The report language directs the Department to make available $500,000 to the Northern Forum, which works to ``improve international communication, cooperation, and opportunities for economic growth in northern regions of countries'' around the world. I am from the Southwest, so perhaps I am geographically biased, but I have trouble understanding how this earmark serves the national interest. There is also a $200,000 earmark for a conference in human trafficking at the University of Hawaii in this bill. I am pleased the conference report does not include language earmarking $9 million for the East-West Center, as proposed in the Senate bill, although it does contain a plus-up for the center of $500,000, and it does not include Senate language earmarking $5 million to the State of Hawaii for hosting an Asian Development Bank meeting. Five new educational exchange earmarks found their way into this conference report, although the report language refers only to ``$500,000 for one-time seed funding for five new exchange activities listed in the Senate chart.'' Since the conference report neglects to list them, I will: they are the Jointer Fellowships in War, the Padnos International Center, the UNI-Cedar Falls Russo-American Exchange, the UNLV Global Business Exchange, and the UNR International Business Exchange. In addition, the conferees have generously provided $400,000 for ``exchanges to build linkages between American and foreign musicians and musical institutions.'' In closing, I urge my colleagues to curb our habit of directing hard- earned taxpayer dollars to locality-specific special interests.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, the Agriculture appropriations bill is fundamental to the Nation's agricultural economy and supports foreign and domestic food programs. Unfortunately, porkbarrel interests also received remarkable support in this final conference report. While this final conference report includes less porkbarrel spending than the Senate bill passed just a couple weeks ago, it still includes $335 million in wasteful, unnecessary, and unreviewed spending which is $30 million more than the amount included in the final report passed last year. Every single appropriations bill we have passed so far has an increase in porkbarrel spending over last year. We are now up to $9.6 billion of wasted, unnecessary programs. While the Senator from Wisconsin is on the floor, I saw one of the more egregious things happen the other night when there was a managers' package which had 35 provisions in it. When we were about to vote on it, I asked: Does anybody here know what is in this package? No one did. We found out what was in it. What was in it was a violation of a trade agreement we just concluded with Vietnam. We found 15 porkbarrel projects identified by State for members of the appropriations subcommittee. I tell the Senator from Wisconsin, I will not allow a vote again until the managers' package is examined. That was an egregious act that was done by the Senate. My constituents deserve a lot better than what happened the other night with a managers' package which was brought up late in the evening. No one had seen it. When we found out, it was certainly something that I never would have allowed to pass. When the Senate considered and passed the Agriculture spending bill a couple weeks ago, the typical porkbarrel trickery reached unprecedented levels. Midnight legislative riders were covertly slipped in unseen by a majority of the Senate. Erroneous earmarks for special interest projects were tacked on--again, unseen and circumventing the normal committee process--and funding priorities in stark discord with that of the administration. Many of my colleagues have spoken before the Senate about the economic struggle of America's farmers. Common sense would dictate that this bill be directed towards supporting those Federal programs that most benefit farmers in need. Instead, special interests reign and millions of taxpayers' dollars are diverted to funding research facilities, universities, and farming conglomerates. Even emergency dollars provided by Congress for farmers do not reach intended beneficiaries. This porkbarrel bonanza includes millions for projects that administrations have proposed for elimination year after year. Yet generous benefactors on the Appropriations Committee keep the spigot open and continue to drain dollars from hard-working taxpayers. This method of budget monopolization is ricocheting out of control. Let's take a look at the top 10 porkbarrel earmarks in this final Agriculture appropriations bill. No. 10, $2.2 million for the Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture in Leetown, WV. I come from a pretty hot State. It is starting to cool off now. Maybe we could get some of that money out in Arizona for cool and cold water aquaculture rather than have it all be devoted to Leetown, WV. No. 9, $600,000 for a tristate joint peanut research project in Alabama. Naturally it is in Alabama, but it is tristate. No. 8, $600,000 for agricultural waste utilization in West Virginia. Nowhere else in America--$600,000 for agricultural waste utilization in West Virginia. I guess agricultural waste needs to be utilized more importantly in West Virginia than any other part of America. No. 7, Increase of $750,000 for the Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium. We now have a consortium in Wisconsin to identify livestock. No. 6, $2 million to pay for efficient irrigation in New Mexico and Texas--efficient irrigation in New Mexico and Texas. No. 5, $100,000 for the Trees Forever Program in Illinois. Trees Forever. I have mentioned on the floor, I would like to see a cactus forever program. Perhaps the appropriators might devote that to my State of Arizona. No. 4, $200,000 for the Iowa Soybean Association. Last I checked, the Iowa Soybean Association was a private organization composed of individuals who decided to join in this association in support of soybeans. Now we are going to give them $200,000. No. 3, $4.5 million for the U.S. Vegetable Laboratory in Charleston, SC. No. 2, $230,000 for animal waste management in Oklahoma. No. 1, $100,000 for the Weed It Now initiative in Massachusetts, New York, and Connecticut. Weed It Now. Mr. President, we need a Weed It Now program on these appropriations bills. We need to weed out this outrageous dispensation of American tax dollars. I want to speak briefly about one of the concealed provisions slipped into the managers' amendment just before the Senate passed this bill. This provision effectively bans all imports of Vietnamese catfish into the United States. The sly wording of this measure doesn't mention Vietnam at all. But it does patently violate our solemn trade agreement with Vietnam, before the Vietnamese National Assembly has even ratified that agreement. The ink isn't even dry yet, and we are violating that. Why? No doubt it was inserted on behalf of several large, wealthy U.S. agribusinesses that will handsomely profit by killing competition from Vietnamese catfish imports. Whether you are a free trader or an opponent of harmful special interest riders hidden in big spending bills, you can't help but find this sort of behavior to be a scandalous abrogation of our duty to the national interest. After preaching for years to the Vietnamese about the need to get government out of the business of micromanaging their economy, we have sadly implicated ourselves in the very sin our trade policy claims to reject. I will work with Senators Kerry, Phil Gramm, and others to see that this offensive trade barrier doesn't stand. We have a great responsibility to American citizens. I urge my colleagues to exercise greater prudence and principle in this responsibility. Mr. President, I have an article from the Wall Street Journal of yesterday, and I also have an article from the Washington Post of today. I ask unanimous consent that both of those articles be printed in the Record.