John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I was prepared and I think Senator Levin was prepared to offer a motion to table very shortly. Is that out of the question at this time?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. McCAIN. I intend to speak at greater length later on on this issue. It is very clear, the opinion of Members of this body, including those just articulated by the Senator from Maine who, among other things, said there has been no savings, when we have ample documentation that they have achieved net savings of $15 billion by the end of this fiscal year from the previous base closure rounds, with another $6 billion in savings each and every year thereafter. What we are really talking about is an opinion held in the Senate, which I respect, for which I have admiration, and I have great respect for the individuals who are opposing the base closing round. The fact is, at a time when we rally around the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense and the men and women in the armed services, we are going in direct contravention to the views of the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, and our military and civilian leadership. It is that clear. That is really what this debate is all about. As the Secretary of Defense wrote on September 21, to Senator Carl Levin and Senator John Warner: We owe it to all Americans--particularly those service members on whom much of our response will depend--to seek every efficiency in the application of those funds on behalf of our warfighters. Our installations are the platforms from which we will deploy the forces needed for the sustained campaign the President outlined last night. While our future needs as to base structure are uncertain and are strategy dependent, we simply must have the freedom to maximize the efficient use of our resources. Why is that? Earlier this year there was testimony before the Armed Services Committee by the people who are responsible for our installations. Do you know what they are saying? ``We are in a slow death spiral,'' said Air Force MG Earnest Robbins II, the civil engineer for his service, who predicted the 2002 defense budget will include enough money only to handle the most pressing priorities. The services have argued that the poor conditions of many facilities and the shortage of money to fix them are proof they must close unneeded bases. What is going on here is, because we have so many bases, we don't have the funds to maintain not only their capabilities but the quality of life. The quality of life deteriorates when we do not maintain these facilities. Therefore, there is a requirement to close the unnecessary ones. By the way, we will get into this argument about how you do it and whether it is politicized. I will submit for the Record and discuss, over time, clearly the fact that there is no other way to close bases. We went for many years until we came up with the Base Closing Commission. But if you go out to any military facility, you will see that people have aging, not only installations at which they work but aging installations in which they live. It is because we simply have not enough money to go around to maintain all of these facilities. So what does that translate into? Difficulties in recruiting, difficulties in retention. According to a study last year, the U.S. Army has had the greatest exodus of captains they have had in their history. What do they say? They say they do not put us in conditions in which we can live. We have men and women in the military living in barracks that were constructed in World War II and Korea. An example of the problems, Robbins said, is at Travis Air Force Base, where routine operations on one runway had to be suspended because a 90-foot-long, 4- to 6-inch-wide crack has appeared. The Navy has a $2.6 billion backlog in critically needed repairs, about the same as a year ago, because the budget did not include enough money to make up any ground, officials said. Navy people ``are so used to operating and living in inadequate facilities that many accept this as the norm.'' Should we be asking men and women in the military to be living in inadequate facilities and accepting it as the norm? The carrier berth at Norfolk Naval Air Station is a prime example. Structural deterioration of the berth has forced access restrictions that allow only emergency vehicles to park near the ships. Marine COL Michael Lehnert, assistant deputy commandant for installations and logistics, says his service does not even have enough money to assess problems at its bases. Assess problems at its bases? We are doing the right thing; we just aren't doing it fast enough. At Camp Pendleton, the base sewer system, which spilled 3 million gallons of sewage into the Santa Margarita River last year, needs to be replaced. But that would cost $179 million--more than the entire $173 million construction budget proposed by the Marine Corps for 2002. ``The effects of underfunding only get worse as our facilities age,'' Army MG Robert Van Antwerp, Jr. said. He noted that the backlog has grown to $18.4 billion, a $600 million increase in 1 year. We are asking these men and women to live and work in facilities that are, at best, substandard, in some cases absolutely abysmal, because we have too many of them. We have too many of them. I will challenge the proponents of this amendment to find one military expert, active-duty or retired, who would not say we need to close unnecessary bases. I would like for the Senator from Maine to talk to GEN Schwarzkopf. He is a fairly well respected individual. I would like for her to hear all the former Chairmen of the Joints Chiefs of Staff. I would like for her to hear from all the experts on military readiness. All these people unanimously, without exception, will say we have too many bases and we need to reduce those numbers of bases so we can be more efficient, but also we can take the limited assets that we have and put them into the bases that remain so the people there would have a lifestyle, both operationally and recreationally, and living-wise, that would give them the standard of living of most Americans outside the military. That is all we are asking. The President of the United States needs the flexibility to be able to do that. I know the President feels strongly about this. I know the Secretary of Defense feels strongly about it. I know how the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff feels about it. But do you know who feels most strongly about it? The squadron commanders and base commanders at these installations where they see their men and women subjected to a lifestyle that is not satisfactory. It is not satisfactory. They know it, I know it, and everybody else knows it. I believe if we take this base closing amendment out of this bill, we will send a signal, my friends, and the signal is: It is business as usual in the U.S. Congress. It is business as usual. We are not prepared to make the necessary sacrifices--even if it affects our State; a base closing commission can clearly affect my State--that are necessary to fight this war on terrorism. The opening signal is business as usual, my friends. We will not even approve giving the Secretary of Defense the authority, through a base closing commission which, with one exception, has been an apolitical process. I admit there were some politics around the base closing. We have fixed this. Senator Levin and I have fixed this with this amendment so that is not possible again. If anybody believes there can be any other process to eliminate these bases, then obviously the history of how we tried to do this in the past shows it doesn't work. So I say this is a very important vote. It is even more important than whether we are going to have a base closing commission. This vote is really all about whether we are going to do business as usual and preserve our bases in our States, whether they are necessary or not, or whether we are going to have another commission so we can have the most efficient military machine to fight this long, protracted struggle, the opening salvo of which was fired on Tuesday, September 11. This is a very important vote. I am glad to see the Secretary of Defense has made such a very strong statement, a very strong statement in support of this base closing commission. I hope the Members of this body will pay close attention to the views of the uniformed and civilian leadership of the U.S. military, including the President of the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the bill that we are voting on today not only provides financial assistance to airlines, it addresses the issue of legal liability for the tragic events of last week by creating a federally-funded victims' compensation fund and by limiting airlines' potential legal liability to ensure their continued operation. The effect on the airlines of the September 11 terrorist attack put Congress in the unenviable position of having to take immediate action to prevent the collapse of the aviation industry as a result of the federally ordered grounding of all aircraft and the anticipated reduction of air travel. One of the most difficult issues we had to grapple with was the enormous potential liability that airlines faced if courts determine that they were negligent and in some way responsible for the damage wrought by the terrorist attacks last week. Aviation financiers informed Congress that this potential liability was a barrier to the airlines' obtaining credit in the private market, which we anticipate they will soon have to seek despite the direct financial assistance we are providing to them today. The vast uncertainty of our litigation system posed significant challenges to crafting reasonable limitations on airline liability while providing compensation for the victims of the terrorist attacks and their families. Disturbingly, while courts could order the liquidation of our biggest airlines if they are deemed liable for the catastrophic damage of September 11, victims could also receive no compensation from the courts if they determine that corporate entities, including airlines, were not responsible for the devastating damage arising from the terrorist attacks. We faced two unsatisfactory outcomes: 1. that the airlines, whose liability insurance coverage is insufficient to cover all damage, would be dissolved as their assets were sold to pay off their liability and/ or; 2. some or all of the victims who were injured or killed in this tragedy would receive no compensation. The liability provisions in this bill are by no means perfect, but they are intended to prevent these two unacceptable results. To ensure that the victims and families of victims who were physically injured or killed on September 11th are compensated even if courts determine that the airlines and any other potential corporate defendants are not liable for the harm; if insurance monies are exhausted; or are consumed by massive punitive damage awards or attorneys' fees, the bill also creates a victims' compensation fund. These victims and their families may, but are not required to, seek compensation from the Federal fund instead of through the litigation system. At the same time, to provide for the continued operation of our airlines, the bill limits airlines' civil liability to the amount for which they were insured at the time of these unforeseen events. No amount of money can begin to compensate the victims for their suffering. Nothing will make them and their families ``whole.'' It is not the intent of the federal fund to do this. Nor is it the intent of the fund to duplicate the arbitrary, wildly divergent awards that sometimes come from our deeply flawed tort system--awards from which up to one third or more of the victims' award is often taken by attorneys. The intent of the fund is to ensure that the victims of this unprecedented, unforeseeable, and horrific event, and their families do not suffer financial hardship in addition to the terrible hardships they already have been forced to endure. In addition to removing the specter of devastating potential liability from the airlines, and guaranteeing that victims and their families will receive compensation regardless of the outcomes of the tangle of lawsuits that will ensue, the bill attempts to provide some sense to the litigation by consolidating all civil litigation arising from the terrorist attacks of September 11 in one court. It is regrettable, but perhaps inevitable, that the unity that this terrorist attack has wrought will devolve in the courts to massive legal wrangling and assignment of blame among our corporate citizens. It is my hope that the liability provisions we are adopting today will serve, to some extent, to reduce this, and produce as fair a result as possible in light of the gross injustice of these events.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the managers of this bill for their hard work in putting forth this legislation which provides Federal funding for numerous vital programs in the Treasury Department and the General Government. However, once again, I find myself in the unpleasant position of speaking before my colleagues about parochial projects in another appropriations bill. This bill spends at a level 5.9 percent higher than the level enacted in fiscal year 2001, which is greater than the 4 percent increase in discretionary spending than the President wanted to adhere to. In real dollars, this is $328 million in additional spending above the amount requested by the President, and a $1.8 billion increase in spending from last year. So far this year, with just seven appropriations bills already passed including this bill, spending levels have already exceeded the President's budget request by more than $7.6 billion. 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. In this bill, I have identified just over $200 million in earmarks, which is less than the cost of the earmarks, totaling $356 million, in the bill passed last year. Therefore, I applaud the efforts of the appropriators in keeping parochial spending to a minimum in this bill but more must be done. 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. It is my view that the people who run these programs should be the ones who decide how best to spend the appropriated funds. After all, they know what their most pressing needs are. For example, under funding for the Department of Treasury, some examples of earmarks include: $1,000,000 for work on joint technology projects with New Mexico State University's Physical Sciences Laboratory; and $750,000 for the Center for Agriculture Policy and Trade Studies located at North Dakota State University. Under funding for the General Government, some of the earmarks include: $2,500,000 for the Native American Digital Telehealth Project and the Upper Great Plains Native American Telehealth Program at the University of North Dakota; and $5,000,000 to help purchase land and facilitate the moving of the Odd Fellows Hall to provide for construction of a new courthouse in Salt Lake City, UT. There are more projects on the list that I have compiled, which will be available on my Senate Web site. 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. Mr. President, I want to thank the managers of this bill for their hard work in putting forth this legislation which provides federal funding for numerous vital programs. This bill 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 various other agencies. Regrettably, this bill spends at a level 4.4 percent higher than the level enacted in fiscal year 2001 which is greater than the 4 percent increase in discretionary spending than the President wanted to adhere to. In real dollars, this is $720 million in additional spending above the amount requested by the President, and a $1.7 billion increase in spending from last year. So far this year, with just five appropriations bills already passed, spending levels have already exceeded the President's budget request by more than $6.6 billion. A good amount of this increase is in the form of parochial spending for unrequested projects. In this bill, I have identified approximately 600 earmarks totaling $2 billion, which is greater than the 470 earmarks, totaling $1.5 billion, in the bill passed last year. There are hundreds of millions of dollars in pork-barrel spending and legislative riders that are riddled throughout this bill. The multitude 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. For example, under funding for the Department of Justice, some examples of earmarks include: $3 million to the University of Connecticut to fund the Prison Health Research Project; $3 million for a grant to the Clearwater, Idaho EDA for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Bi-State Public Safety Project; $1 million for a grant to the Alaska Native Justice Center Restorative Justice programs; $1.6 million for the Montana Highway Patrol for computer upgrades; and $725,000 for the City of Jackson, Mississippi, for their public safety automated technologies system. Under funding for the Department of Commerce, some of the earmarks include: $500,000 for the Central California Ozone Study; $500,000 for the International Pacific Research Center at the University of Hawaii; $1.25 million for the Alaska Near Shore Fisheries; $350,000 for the South Carolina Taxonomic Center; $1.75 million for the Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation; $500,000 for weather radio transmitters in Wyoming; $4 million for the Institute for Politics at Harvard University; and $6 million for the Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth University for the nanocrystalline 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. Mr. President, I must once again draw attention to the more questionable ways in which Americans' tax dollars serve the otherwise noble cause of U.S. diplomacy around the world as part of the State Department appropriations portion of this bill. As usual, several organizations and universities have received earmarked funds for international exchanges. Five particularly parochial earmarks deserve mention: the Joiner 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 each receive a $100,000 earmark, to the surprise of, among others, officials of the State Department, who not only did not request funding for these programs, but in several cases were unaware they even existed. Among other beneficiaries this year of unrequested spending that seems to serve primarily the interests of its patrons, Pacific salmon stand out: this bill appropriates $45,419,000, or nearly twice the $25 million requested by the Department of State, to implement the 1999 Pacific Salmon Treaty. Included in this figure is $20 million above the Administration's request to capitalize the Northern and Southern Boundary Funds and $419,000 above the Administration's request dedicated to the State of Washington for its salmon preservation efforts. The Committee report also takes it upon itself to absolve the State of Alaska of further harvest reductions under the 1999 Pacific Salmon Treaty. Traveling dance and music troupes and Internet entrepreneurs are also being shown the money as a result of the Committee report's generous provision of $750,000 to their cause, on the grounds that, in the Committee's words, ``Performances by touring U.S. dance and music troupes have afforded our diplomats unusual access to oft-times elusive senior policy-makers in Africa. At the same time, the lure of technological innovation, especially the explosion of the Internet, afford American educators and entrepreneurs a rare opportunity to develop lasting links with African elites.'' Our relations with African nations are important, and many countries torn by crippling poverty, famine, disease, civil unrest, and open warfare could use our help. I like a good dance performance as much as anyone, but I'm not positive this funding is the best way to help our friends or advance American interests in Africa. For many years now I have opposed the Advanced Technology Program at the Department of Commerce on grounds that it is ``corporate pork.'' For many years, any of the Nation's leading companies have reaped the benefits of this grant program for research ideas that they could and should have pursued under their corporate budgets. Proponents of the program have cited that the program funds high-risk projects. Several years ago, on the Senate Commerce Committee, we reviewed many of the funded projects under the program and found that many of the projects were not high-risk at all, but rather evolutionary or incremental development of existing technologies. The President has stated that the future of the program would be subject to a Commerce Department's review. The fiscal year 2002 budget request has essentially eliminated funding for ATP. The Appropriations Committee has provided funding of $204 million for fiscal year 2002, $191 million above the President's request. Furthermore, to ensure that this funding is awarded in a timely manner, the Appropriations Committee, in report language, has prohibited obligations of any funds under the Department's Departmental Management account, which funds salaries and other expenses, until a plan on how timely awards are to be made. That is equivalent to saying make ATP awards or we will shut down the Department. In closing, I urge my colleagues to curb our habit of directing hard- earned taxpayer dollars to locality-specific special interests and our inclusion of legislative riders which thwart the very process that is needed to ensure our laws address the concerns and interests of all Americans, not just a few who seek special protection or advantage. amendment no. 1538 to h.r. 2500 Mr. SMITH of New Hamphsire. Mr. President, I rise to raise an issue regarding the meaning and effect of amendment No. 1538 to H.R. 2500. I am proud to have joined in sponsoring this amendment with Senators Harkin, Warner, Inhofe, Cochran, Allard, Campbell, and Johnson.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in 1936, Winston Churchill addressed the British House of Commons to highlight the extraordinary growth of German military power and the threat it posed to the security of Europe. In his historic address, ``The Locust Years,'' Churchill warned of complacency in the face of a Nazi threat that would doom Europe's peace and blacken European civilization. In Churchill's words: The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences. . . . We cannot avoid this period; we are in it now . . . [What has] staggered me . . . has been the dangers that have so swiftly come upon us in a few years, and have been transforming our position and the whole outlook of the world. We in America today have entered a period of consequences. We do not face the imminent prospect of war against a great power. We face instead a threat more insidious, one that will require the best of America to defeat: the reality of catastrophic terrorism in our midst. No longer do we perceive the only great threat to our security in the hostile maneuvers of foreign armies; no longer do vast oceans protect us from the plots and violence of the Old World; no longer do we sit in splendid isolation, flush with prosperity and naive with peace. A new day has come, a new test of the values upon which our Nation was founded. It calls us to a national mission unlike any we have known. Our Founding Fathers would well understand the nature of this challenge, for they prevailed against even greater odds in defending the American experiment. Let us seek strength from their example, and courage in their wisdom, as we protect the legacy they built. We must destroy this international network of terror in all its guises, and deprive its architects, executioners, and sponsors of safe harbor anywhere in this world. We will find the enemy, and they will suffer the full, awesome measure of our justice. These were not just crimes of mass murder against the United States; they are acts of war. The American people now know that we are at war. They will make the sacrifices and show the resolve necessary to prevail. To see this mission through, Congress should encourage the President to use all necessary means to overcome and destroy this enemy, in what will be a long and trying campaign for freedom. Under the Constitution, the President already possesses this authority, but it is enhanced, and our cause strengthened, by the support of the Congress. History will judge us for our support of this resolution, just as the 102nd Congress is judged for its resolution authorizing military action against Iraq. When faintness of heart carries the day, history's judgment is cruel. The stakes today are higher than before the Persian Gulf War: this mission is harder, will take longer, and ends not with the capture or death of Osama bin Laden, but with the destruction of the terrorist networks that threaten our way of life, and the defeat of nations supporting and collaborating with this evil. These nations, too, are our enemies. Those who have seen war do not seek it lightly. But war has been thrust upon us, and the stakes couldn't be higher. The era of procrastination and half-measures has ended. The ``post- Cold War era,'' the prosperity and peace that attended it, is over. We now have a higher purpose. Like other turning points in American history, when our founding principles were put at grave risk, we today rise proudly to the challenge. American resolve is not in doubt. Let us give our Commander in Chief all necessary authority to put power behind our purpose, in the name of our sacred heritage of freedom, and the glory of all whose sacrifice has preserved it. Two years before Britain's appeasement of the German war machine at Munich, Winston Churchill called not for a policy of half-measures to tame the foreign threat, but a posture of peace through strength to prepare for victory over it. Britain's freedom required no less. In Churchill's words: The inheritance in our possession represents the prolonged achievement of the centuries . . . There is not one of our simple uncounted rights today for which better men than we are have not died on the scaffolds or the battlefield. We have not only a great treasure; we have a great cause. America's freedom, and the values that protect us in the face of evil, are our great and glorious cause. We rededicate ourselves to it today, to our prolonged achievement of the centuries, with humble pride and righteous fury, as we seek to make of this world a better, safer place for all.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I had intended to offer an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and State appropriation bill regarding the Title XI Loan Guarantee Program. However, in light of the events of the last several days, I believe the Senate needs to quickly move onto the consideration of legislation that will aid our Government in addressing issues resulting from the devastating attacks on our Nation earlier this week. Therefore, I am going to reserve the amendment for another time. I am very concerned that the Title XI Loan Guarantee Program is in fiscal peril due to recent loan defaults and ongoing construction problems with other guaranteed projects that could soon lead to further defaults that will cost the American taxpayers billions of dollars. I encourage all my colleagues to review the merits and cost of this and all programs which provide taxpayer-funded support to special interests. We should carefully weigh the needs of those interests against the needs of our Nation as a whole. We are going to have to make some very difficult budget choices in the weeks ahead and I hope that we can come together to ensure those choices are in the best interest of all Americans. noaa laboratory in lafayette, louisiana

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have no words to describe or condemn adequately the enormity of yesterday's attacks on the United States or the depravity of those who are responsible for them. All we can really offer now are our prayers and support for the victims and their families, and the assurance to our fellow citizens that America will recover from these atrocities, resume the life of a great nation, strong, resolute and free, and destroy those who seek to destroy us. We are greater than our enemies. We are greater because the very virtues our enemies revile and seek to destroy make us so. Our enemies, those who unleashed these attacks, and those who support them, are not our enemies alone. They are the enemies of freedom and independence and justice and peace, and they wage war on the United States because we are and will remain the principal guarantors of freedom for ourselves and for all nations who claim their right to that condition. All people who possess or aspire to freedom were attacked yesterday, and when we answer we do so in their name as well as ours. And answer we will. These were not just crimes, they were acts of war, and have aroused in this great nation a controlled fury and unity of purpose not just to punish but vanquish--vanquish our enemies. Americans know now that we are at war, and will make the sacrifices and show the resolve necessary to prevail. I say to our enemies, we are coming. God may show you mercy. We will not. We must break the back of this international network of terror in all its guises, and deprive its architects, executioners and sponsors of a safe harbor anywhere in this world. We will commit all necessary resources to its accomplishment. Our responses must be diplomatic, economic and military. Let us go to our allies, all of our allies, to ensure them of our resolve and to enlist them in this war against our shared values and security. The Atlantic Charter claims an attack on one member of NATO is an attack on all NATO members. We will expect our allies in NATO, Asia and elsewhere to respond to this attack on us as we would respond to an attack on their territory. We should make an immediate statement of our resolve that we no longer intend to tolerate sanction given to our enemies by any nation. We should demand that Afghanistan immediately extradite to the United States Osama bin Laden. We will know in due course if he is the architect of yesterday's attacks, but we already possess sufficient evidence to have indicted him for orchestrating the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He has claimed responsibility for the 1992 attempted bombing of 100 U.S. servicemen in Yemen who were there to assist U.N. famine relief operations in Somalia. He proudly announced his material and personnel support for the Somali forces that fought and killed American servicemen in Mogadishu. The mastermind of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was a known associate of bin Laden. He is a declared enemy of the United States and our allies. And it is long past time that we and our allies brought an end to the war he began. Should the Taliban refuse our demand, then they must know that they will be treated as allies of our enemy, and thus, are themselves our enemies, and will suffer much for their allegiance. This campaign will be long and difficult, and will not end with the capture or destruction of Osama bin Laden alone. The American people must, and I am sure, will understand that we will wage this war to its complete resolution however long and difficult the road ahead. But they should not be expected to wait one day longer than necessary for our enemies to be vanquished, for the full measure of justice to be done, for freedom and righteousness to prevail. We will prevail. We will prevail because the foundations of our greatness cannot be vanquished. Our respect for Man's God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness assures us of victory even as it has made us a target for the unjust enemies of freedom who have mistaken hate and depravity for power. The losses we have suffered are grave, and will never be forgotten. But we should take pride and unyielding resolve from the knowledge that we were attacked because we are good. May God bless us in this trial, comfort us, strengthen our resolve, and make our justice as terrible and certain as His.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, as we debate our system of export controls in this new era, we hear an array of arguments that reflect America's preeminent role in the world, our military and economic power, and the absence of the threat of major war that has prevailed since the demise of the Soviet Union a decade ago. We hear proud claims that trade is the new currency of international politics; that the strength of our economy, now more than ever, underpins our national power and global influence; and that in the brave new world of the Information Age, most technological flows are uncontrollable, or controls are meaningless due to the availability of the same technology from foreign competitors. The business of America is business, we are told, and those of us who believe national security controls exist to protect national security, rather than simply expedite American exports, are accused of old thinking, of living in a dangerous past rather than a prosperous and peaceful present. For many, the new definition of national security--in a haunting echo of the thinking that inaugurated the last century-- predicates the safety and well-being of the American people upon the free flows of trade and finance that make our economy the envy of the world, and our business leaders a dominant force in our time. I am an ardent free trader, and I believe economic dynamism is indeed a central pillar of national strength. But I do not believe our prosperity requires us to forego very limited and appropriate controls on goods and technologies that, in the wrong hands, could be used to attack our civilian population here at home, or against American troops serving overseas. Experts agree that both rogue regimes and hostile terrorist organizations are actively seeking components for weapons of mass destruction, many of which are included in the list of goods we control under our current export licensing system. Unlike in the Cold War era, when we created our export control regime to keep sensitive technologies out of the hands of the Soviet Union, this era is characterized by an array of diverse threats emanating from both hostile nations and non-state actors. Hostile nations like Iran and North Korea are disturbingly close to developing multiple-stage ballistic missiles with the capability to target the United States. These and other nations, including Syria and Iraq, receive significant and continuing technical assistance and material support for their weapons development efforts from China and Russia, with whom much of our trade in dual-use items is conducted. The intelligence community has made startlingly clear the proliferation record of China and Russia, as well as North Korea, and the adverse consequences of their weapons development and technology transfers to American security interests. I do not believe that S. 149 adequately addresses these threats. Unfortunately, the Senate yesterday rejected a reasonable amendment offered by Senator Thompson allowing the relevant national security agencies to receive a 60-day time extension to review particularly complex license applications. This reform, proposed by the Cox Commission, and a number of amendments adopted by the House International Relations Committee in its markup of the Export Administration Act, properly addressed some of the deficiencies in the current version of S. 149. S. 149 has the strong support of the business community and the Bush Administration. In the short term, proponents of this legislation are correct: loosening our export controls will assist American businesses in selling advanced products overseas. In another age, proponents of free trade in sensitive goods with potentially hostile nations were also correct in asserting the commercial value of such enterprise: Britain's pre-World War I steel trade with Germany earned British plants substantial profits even as it allowed Germany to construct a world-class navy. Western sales of oil to Imperial Japan in the years preceding World War II similarly earned peaceful nations commercial revenues. In both cases, friendly powers caught on to the destructive potential of such sales and embargoed them, but it was too late. Such trade inflicted an immeasurable cost on friendly nations blinded by pure faith in the market, and in the power of commerce to overcome the ambitions of hostile powers that did not share their values. I resolutely support free trade. But I cannot with a clear conscience support passage of legislation that weakens our national security controls on sensitive exports to a point that we may one day be challenged, or face attack, from weapons derived from the very technologies we have willingly contributed to the world. Our peaceable intentions, our love of prosperity and stability, are not shared by those who would do America harm, and whose hostile ambitions today may well be matched tomorrow by the ability to deliver on that threat. We should make it harder, not easier, for them to do so. Our export control regime should undergo significant reform to address the challenges and opportunities of our time. Proponents of S. 149 focus on the opportunities this legislation affords American business. I have worked with Senators Thompson, Kyl, Shelby, Helms, and Warner to highlight the reality that this bill does not adequately address the national security challenges we face today. National security controls cover only a tiny fraction of total American exports; the overwhelming majority of export applications for dual-use items are approved by our government; limited controls properly exist to help prevent highly sensitive technologies from falling into the wrong hands; and such safeguards are more relevant than ever in the face of the multifaceted and unconventional threats to our country unleashed by the information revolution. A number of proponents of S. 149 argue that American companies should not be straitjacketed by U.S. national security controls even as their foreign competitors remain free to peddle similar technologies to proliferators and rogue regimes. This argument overlooks the fact that America continues to lead the world in technological innovation; our products are often unique when compared with those produced by businesses in France, Germany, or Japan. More fundamentally, such an approach only emboldens potential enemies who seek access to our markets in sensitive goods. In concert with friends and allies, we should endeavor to shame foreign companies who sell dangerous items to rogue buyers by making their identities public--not scramble for market access in dangerous technologies at their expense, as if nothing more than corporate profits were at stake. We should also make it a diplomatic priority to construct a new multilateral export control regime, in concert with like-minded nations, to fill the vacuum created by the collapse of COCOM, which regulated Allied exports during the Cold War to keep critical technologies out of Soviet hands. As a proud free-trader, I maintain that we should continue to carefully review our most sensitive exports; we can, in fact, exercise some control over their end use. I fear we shall one day reap the bitter harvest we sow in our neglect of the consequences to America's security of an overly complacent export licensing regime. As a nation, we may have to learn the hard way that winking at the proliferation threats we face today, in light of clear evidence that nations to which we export sensitive technologies continue to apply and share them with our enemies, diminishes our national security to a point for which no amount of corporate profits will compensate. I thank Senator Thompson for his efforts on this legislation. I do not believe that his amendment yesterday should have been defeated. I thought it was a reasonable amendment. I think it is also another example of a compelling requirement for campaign finance reform. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to recognize Kids Voting USA and its efforts to educate our children about civic democracy and the importance of being an informed voter. The program began in 1988 with three Arizona businessmen on a fishing trip to Costa Rica. They learned that voter turnout in that country was routinely about 80 percent. This high turnout was attributed to a tradition of children accompanying their parents to the polls. The men observed first-hand the success Costa Rica had achieved by instilling in children at an early age the importance of active participation and voting. The three Arizona businessmen took this idea back to the United States and founded Kids Voting USA. Today, this nonprofit, nonpartisan organization reaches 5 million students in 39 States, and includes 200,000 teachers, and 20,000 voter precincts. With voter turnout declining each year, Kids Voting USA recognizes the need to educate our youth and instill in them the responsibility to be active, informed citizens and voters. By teaching the skills for democratic living year-round, students receive a civics education and participate in local and national elections in communities across the country. Kids Voting USA enables students to visit official polls on election day, accompanied by a parent or guardian, to cast a ballot that replicates the official ballot. Although not a part of the official results, the students' votes are registered at schools and by the media. This year, National Kids Voting Week is September 24-28. It is a week when Kids Voting communities across the country celebrate this vibrant and important program. I would like to recognize Kids Voting USA and all its has done to promote the future of democracy by engaging young people, schools and communities in the election process.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise with my friend and colleague from Connecticut to express our concerns on a subject that is at the forefront of the many issues of global concern, climate change. The science surrounding this issue has come increasingly into focus, and Senator Lieberman and I believe that it is time to take action.

Mr. McCAIN. Over the past year, the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee has held several hearings on the various scientific reports from the National Academy of Science and the International Panel on Climate Change, IPCC. These reports conclude that air temperatures are, in fact, rising. The IPCC report states that there is new and stronger evidence that most of the observed warming over the past 50 years is attributable to human activities. We continue to see throughout the world the melting of glaciers, the dying of coral reefs, and rising ocean temerpatures. The agreement reached last week in Bonn, Germany on the Kyoto Protocol means that the rest of the world is moving forward to address this important problem. Given the fact that the United States produces approximately 25 percent of the total greenhouse gases emissions, the United States has a responsibility to cut its emissions of greenhouse gases. The United States must realize that when it comes to the climate, there are no boundaries. Therefore, climate change is an global problem and must be resolved globally. The current situation demands leadership from the United States. In accordance with the agreement reached last week, there is going to be a world marketplace for carbon reductions, a marketplace that rewards improvements in energy efficiency, advances in energy technologies, and improvements in land-use practices--and we are running the risk that America is not going to be part of it. The risks that climate change poses for businesses have now increased. In addition to the risk of unpredictable impacts of global warming, and of unpredictable regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, American companies now face the risk of being left out of the global marketplace to buy and sell emission reductions. While U.S. businesses are gaining experience with voluntary programs and are recognized as the world's experts in this area, they are increasingly recognizing that purely voluntary approaches will not be enough to meet the goal of preventing dangerous effects on the climate system. Increasingly, businesses confronting these risks see sensible regulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as necessary and inevitable. Clearly, they prefer the cap-and-trade approach. In a July 23 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, a cap and trade program was discussed as one of the incentive-based market strategies that has been developed as an alternative to traditional fiat-based, ``nanny-sez-so'' regulation. The editorial further states that `` a cap and trade program will result in more abatement from those firms who can do it at relatively lower costs and less abatement from those firms who can only do it at relatively higher costs. The net will be the same amount of overall pollution reduction, but achieved at lower cost than would obtain under traditional regulation.'' As usual, industry is ahead of government in this area. Many companies have already started trading programs either within their company or as members of partnerships to meet pre-determined levels. Not only are these companies meeting their environmental goals, they are also realizing it on a profitable basis. We all know that improved efficiencies mean improved profitability. The 1990 Clean Air Act's acid rain emissions trading program for limiting sulfur dioxide has shown that there can be top-down limits on pollutants and not endanger the economy. The key is unleashing the power of markets to find the most innovative, cost-effective ways of meeting those top-down limits. That's what a cap-and-trade system does best. Deploying the power of a marketplace to pursue the least expensive answers is a unique and powerful American approach to the threat of climate change. In 1994, the Arizona Public Service (APS), an Arizona public utility, entered into an agreement with the Niagara Mohawk, a New York utility, and the US Department of Energy to swap carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide credits. APS had reduced its sulfur dioxide emissions below levels mandated under the 1990 Clean Air Act. Niagara Mohawk had reduced its carbon dioxide emissions below the level of its voluntary commitment. APS exchanged its sulfur dioxide allowances issued under the Clean Air Act's acid rain program for Niagara Mohawk carbon dioxide emissions reductions that APS could then use to help meet its commitment to DOE to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. After receiving the sulfur dioxide allowances, Niagara Mohawk donated them to an environmental organization to be retired. The cost savings achieved through this plan were used to fund new domestic and overseas projects designed to create additional carbon dioxide reductions. However, we should not be deceiving ourselves. Designing a cap and trade system is not an easy task. Critical decisions will have to be made as to the design and implementation of such a system. These decisions will ultimately affect some industries more than others. I would hope that the government can work hand-in-hand with industry to make this happen should a decision be made to pursue a cap and trade program. A comprehensive cap on America's greenhouse gas emissions, paired with an allowance trading system, can encourage innovation across the full range of opportunities for reducing emissions. That would provide businesses with the regulatory certainty and flexibility they need to confront the climate challenge successfully. Industry has repeatedly said that if Government sets the rules, they will take them from there and make it work. Trading helps to establish a market value per unit of greenhouse gas. This can be especially helpful as corporate decisions are made on major investments in new technologies. The market value will allow them to make a real comparison by which to consider purchasing new credits for the markets or investing in technologies and capital improvements. We also have to recognize that the international system for addressing climate change is evolving. Only a few years ago, many of America's trading partners were reluctant to accept market-based solutions. But now they have embraced them, and the global marketplace for greenhouse gas cap-and-trade is beginning. A national cap-and-trade system could give America the business valuable experience they will need to remain competitive with other companies in countries where greenhouse emissions trading is moving forward. We can expand trade opportunities through a new marketplace for the environment. Given this developing international market, it also makes sense to ensure that what we do domestically can be integrated and recognized on the international level. Ultimately, we need to make sure that the emissions reductions our companies, our farmers, and our foresters produce are fully recognized and fully tradable in the emerging global greenhouse gas marketplace. I think it is clear that a cap and trade program is a good idea worthy of further consideration by the U.S. Senate. I look forward to working with Senator Lieberman and others who have expressed a willingness to consider this type of approach to address this problem of global climate change.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let met first commend the efforts of my colleagues who are working very hard to deliver some form of Federal relief to prevent the demise of more of America's family farms. While this bill provides much needed emergency assistance to certain sectors of the agricultural community, I am concerned about this bill for several reasons. It guarantees very generous Federal subsidies at higher levels than in previous years even though these same subsidies were eliminated or intended to be phased out by the 1996 farm bill. It disproportionately favors large farming operations over smaller ones. It adds $5 billion to the already $27 billion delivered in supplemental and emergency spending for farmers since 1999. This is funding in addition to Federal payments or loans authorized through the 1996 farm bill. While the 1996 farm bill was intended to reduce reliance on the Federal Government, payments to farmers have increased by 400 percent, from $7 billion in 1996 to $32 billion in 2001. Again, I recognize that many Americans in the agriculture industry are facing economic ruin. However, already this year, the Senate has included $4.7 billion in wasteful, unnecessary, or unreviewed spending in five appropriations bills. Surely, among these billions of dollars, there are at least a few programs that we could all agree are lower priority than desperately needed aid for America's farmers. I appreciate the agreement of my colleagues to put before the Senate the House bill that conforms with the agreed-upon budget resolution. Through this bill, billions of dollars are provided in supplemental payments to oilseed producers, peanut producers, wool and mohair producers, tobacco producers and cottonseed producers. Fortunately, this bill does not include additional egregious provisions proposed in the Senate version of the bill, such as continuing subsidies for honey producers, extension of the dairy price support program, perks for the sugar industry, and various other new or pilot programs. Recent indications are that these continuing supplemental payments that Congress obligates from taxpayer dollars are now paying at least forty percent, if not more of total farm income. How are we helping the farming sector to become more self-sufficient? Our actions are only serving as a crutch to small farmers while fattening the incomes of large farming conglomerates and agribusinesses. We should learn from past failures and take responsible action to focus Federal assistance on a fair, needs-based approach. This bill passed by unanimous consent today, despite the disagreement of some of my colleagues who advocated for a much higher level of supplemental spending. I hope that my colleagues will exercise greater prudence and fiscal responsibility when we return from the August recess to consider the agricultural appropriations bill and reauthorization of the 1996 Farm bill to ensure that such ad-hoc spending is brought under control.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I seek recognition.

Mr. McCAIN. At this time I understand it is the wish of the managers that I lay aside this amendment and that we debate it following the votes that will take place beginning at 1:55.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kyl, Senator Graham of Florida, and Senator Smith of New Hampshire be added as cosponsors.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 1226 be modified.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, at this time I rise to offer an amendment. I have a modification to my amendment. I believe it is at the desk.

Mr. McCAIN. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. McCAIN. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Maryland and 2 minutes to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I want to make one additional comment to the Senator from Florida for whom I have the highest respect, admiration, and appreciation of his advocacy for the space program. I say in all candor to the Senator from Florida, he knows these cost overruns go on and on. There is no one more qualified than the Senator from Florida to start exercising some fiscal discipline because we do not have an unlimited amount of taxpayers' dollars. Unfortunately, before the authorizing committee, the Director of NASA keeps coming back and back saying: We have it under control; we keep imposing caps, and every year they tend to increase. Madam President, I say to the Senator from Florida, whom I admire enormously, he is beginning to lose support when the costs just continue without any end in sight, and that should be of concern most of all to the Senator from Florida who is the advocate and spokesperson for this very important part of our Nation. I yield the floor.