John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of the Border Improvement and Immigration Act of 1999. I co-sponsored identical legislation that passed the Senate during the 105th Congress but did not become law. It is my hope that the Senate will once again move quickly on this legislation so that we may properly address the concerns of the many Americans who would be adversely affected by the ill-timed implementation of the automated entry-exit border control system mandated by immigration legislation passed by the 104th Congress. Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, codified as Public Law 104-208, required that the Attorney General develop within two years an automated entry- exit control system to allow for a better estimate of the number of visa overstayers in the United States. This system would be designed to collect records of arrival and departure for all aliens in the United States, thereby theoretically enabling the Attorney General to identify lawfully admitted non-immigrants who remain in this country beyond an authorized period. I have long been sympathetic to the concern of border communities and businesses that implementation of Section 110 by the statutory deadline of September 30, 1998, would severely disrupt trade and travel across America's borders. The governors of Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico, the Border Trade Alliance, and numerous businesses operating in the border region have contacted me to express their reservations about the consequences of implementing such a system. Even Section 110's most adamant advocates concede that the Administration has neither budgeted for nor begun to put in place the physical and technological infrastructure required to activate a system capable of monitoring the arrival and departure of every alien entering and departing the United States. It has been estimated that the amount of information to be recorded in the database of such an automated entry-exit system would be larger than that held by the Library of Congress, the largest physical repository of information in the world. Clearly, it would be disastrous to implement Section 110 before we are capable of making it work. Given these reservations, I wrote Attorney General Janet Reno on January 14, 1998, to highlight the potentially harmful impact of the statutory deadline for implementation of Section 110 on Arizona's border communities. I also sponsored S. 1360, the Border Improvement and Immigration Act of 1998, to require a feasibility study of Section 110 before it is implemented. Ultimately, the 105th Congress addressed this issue in the Fiscal Year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations bill. After learning that conferees to the bill were considering delaying implementation of the automated entry-exit system on the southwest border for only one year, while indefinitely delaying or even removing its applicability to the northern border, I initiated a letter with Senator Kyl to the House and Senate conferees urging them to delay implementation of the program by 30 months for both borders. Ultimately, the conferees agreed to this 30-month delay. I was gratified that the final version of the FY 1999 Omnibus bill reflected our request not to discriminate against the southwest border by imposing a deadline for installation of an entry-exit system that could not realistically be met. Like other provisions of the FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations bill, however, this compromise on Section 110 was a quick fix, not a lasting solution. The language in the bill setting a new deadline for implementation of an automated entry-exit system was designed to prevent the Immigration and Naturalization Service from being in technical violation of the law by failing to carry out the mandate of Section 110 by the 1998 deadline. The extension of that deadline by 30 months provides Congress with the opportunity to more thoughtfully assess the long-term feasibility of an automated entry-exit system for all ports of entry into the United States. The Border Improvement and Immigration Act of 1999 would indefinitely extend the deadline for implementation of Section 110 and require a detailed feasibility study to determine how and whether the requirement can ultimately be met. The legislation would also authorize substantial new resources for INS and Customs Service border enforcement activities. Specifically, it would authorize the expenditure of $588 million over the next two years to enhance border enforcement against illegal immigration and drug trafficking, as well as investigate corruption and money-laundering along the border; add 1,200 new INS inspectors, canine enforcement officers, intelligence analysts, and investigators to bolster enforcement against illegal aliens and narcotics trafficking; and add 1,700 new Customs inspectors, special agents, intelligence analysts, and canine enforcement officers to man ports of entry and investigate criminal activity along the border. The legislation would also provide the high-technology tools, including x-ray, ultrasonic, motion-detecting, remote-watch, and particle-detector sensors, that will enable INS and Customs officials to more effectively interdict narcotics and illegal immigrants. Finally, it would enhance investigative resources for border enforcement and anti-corruption efforts, intensify efforts against drug smuggling and money-laundering organizations, allow for more rapid cargo processing, and reduce commercial and passenger traffic waiting times at ports of entry. As a founding member and Co-Chairman of the Senate Border Caucus, whose priorities include improving border enforcement and facilitating U.S. trade with Mexico, I believe this bill advances our national interest in better controlling our nation's borders without unduly hindering flows of cross-border trade and travel. The Border Improvement and Immigration Act of 1999 deserves this Congress' support.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 1999. The bill that I have sponsored, along with Senator Snowe, the Chair of the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries, represents strong and balanced environmental policy. I wish to thank Senator Snowe for her leadership in this area. This bill is a positive step forward to improve the conditions of our coral reefs and the many types of life that live in and among these reefs. The bill is designed to build partnerships with local and State entities to facilitate coral reef conservation. It creates a competitive matching-grant program which would provide funding for local and State governments and qualified non-profit organizations which have experience in coral reef monitoring, research, conservation, and public education projects. The bill requires that federal funds provide no more than 50 percent of the cost of the project. However, it also helps local communities that do not have the ability to raise sufficient matching funds. Therefore, the matching requirement may be waived for qualified proposals under $25,000. Under the bill that Senator Snowe and I have introduced today, the matching-grant program will maximize funding for important coral reef conservation projects. Our coral reefs are certainly in need of this type of funding. Indeed, coral reefs are the foundation of one of the Earth's most productive and diverse ecosystems, providing food and shelter for at least one million different types of animals, plants and other sea life. Coastal communities realize the benefit of coral reefs through enhanced fisheries, coastal protection, tourism, and the development of medicines used to fight cancer and produce antibiotics and pain relievers. Unfortunately, in 1998, coral reefs suffered some of the most extensive damage ever recorded. What caused so much damage? There are no certain answers. Record-breaking ocean temperatures and a severe El Nino event are the most likely culprits. What we do know is that these global events triggered massive die-offs of coral reefs through a process known as coral ``bleaching''. In essence, bleaching occurs when coral reefs are exposed to environmental stress, including elevated sea temperatures. This results in the loss of an essential food source, so the coral--a living creature--may starve to death. This coral reef bleaching makes the identification of the most injured reefs fairly obvious. The difficult task then becomes what can be done to prevent such a loss in the future and what, if anything, can be done to revive already damaged reefs? I think this bill is a very good starting point. With this legislation, Senator Snowe and I will put in place a way to provide responsible and effective funding for coral reef conservation, monitoring, research, and public education. One half of our country's population lives and works in a coastal community. This bill is good for the environment and good for the many Americans who depend on the ocean for their livelihoods. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 1999. The bill that I have sponsored, along with Senator Snowe, the Chair of the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries, represents strong and balanced environmental policy. I wish to thank Senator Snowe for her leadership in this area. This bill is a positive step forward to improve the conditions of our coral reefs and the many types of life that live in and among these reefs. The bill is designed to build partnerships with local and State entities to facilitate coral reef conservation. It creates a competitive matching-grant program which would provide funding for local and State governments and qualified non-profit organizations which have experience in coral reef monitoring, research, conservation, and public education projects. The bill requires that federal funds provide no more than 50 percent of the cost of the project. However, it also helps local communities that do not have the ability to raise sufficient matching funds. Therefore, the matching requirement may be waived for qualified proposals under $25,000. Under the bill that Senator Snowe and I have introduced today, the matching-grant program will maximize funding for important coral reef conservation projects. Our coral reefs are certainly in need of this type of funding. Indeed, coral reefs are the foundation of one of the Earth's most productive and diverse ecosystems, providing food and shelter for at least one million different types of animals, plants and other sea life. Coastal communities realize the benefit of coral reefs through enhanced fisheries, coastal protection, tourism, and the development of medicines used to fight cancer and produce antibiotics and pain relievers. Unfortunately, in 1998, coral reefs suffered some of the most extensive damage ever recorded. What caused so much damage? There are no certain answers. Record-breaking ocean temperatures and a severe El Nino event are the most likely culprits. What we do know is that these global events triggered massive die-offs of coral reefs through a process known as coral ``bleaching''. In essence, bleaching occurs when coral reefs are exposed to environmental stress, including elevated sea temperatures. This results in the loss of an essential food source, so the coral--a living creature--may starve to death. This coral reef bleaching makes the identification of the most injured reefs fairly obvious. The difficult task then becomes what can be done to prevent such a loss in the future and what, if anything, can be done to revive already damaged reefs? I think this bill is a very good starting point. With this legislation, Senator Snowe and I will put in place a way to provide responsible and effective funding for coral reef conservation, monitoring, research, and public education. One half of our country's population lives and works in a coastal community. This bill is good for the environment and good for the many Americans who depend on the ocean for their livelihoods. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am offering an amendment to the Budget Resolution which would help our nation's senior citizens by requiring the repeal of the Social Security earnings test. As many of my colleagues know, the Social Security earnings test penalizes Americans between the ages of 65 and 70 for working and remaining productive after retirement. Under this unfair law, a senior citizen loses $1 of Social Security benefits for every $3 earned over the established limit, which is $15,500 in 1999. Due to this cap on earnings, our senior citizens are burdened with a 33.3 percent tax on their earned income. Combined with Federal, State, local and other Social Security taxes, this amounts to an outrageous 55 to 65 percent tax bite, and sometimes it can be even higher. What is most disturbing about the earnings test is the tremendous burden it places upon our low-income senior citizens. Most of the older Americans penalized by the earnings test need to work in order to cover basic expenses: food, housing and health care. Our nation's low-income seniors are hit hardest by the earnings test, while most wealthy seniors escape unscathed. This is because supplemental ``unearned'' income from stocks, investments and savings is not affected by the earnings test. This is simply wrong and must be stopped. In 1996, Congress took a step in the right direction when we passed the ``Senior Citizens Right to Work Act'' increasing the earnings threshold for senior citizens from $11,520 to $30,000 by the year 2002. I was proud to be the sponsor of this legislation which helped alleviate the unfair economic penalties placed on hard working senior citizens. While raising the limit was important it is time that we finally eliminate the Social Security earnings test and permit our nation's elderly to work and improve their standard of living while increasing our national prosperity. Amendment No. 180 At the end of title III, insert the following:

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the Budget Resolution that expresses the sense of Congress that the President should propose a budget for embassy security consistent with the recommendations set forth by the Accountability Review Boards, otherwise known as the Crowe Commission, and include measures recommended by the 1985 Advisory Panel on Overseas Security, also known as the Inman Commission. It further directs the Secretary of State to provide to Congress within 60 days of passage of the resolution a comprehensive report on its plans for implementing the recommendations of these two commissions. Our embassies and consulates abroad are sovereign United States territory, representing our country's presence around the world, advancing our foreign policy interests, and protecting American citizens traveling overseas on business and pleasure. The people who work in and visit our embassies deserve a level of physical security commensurate with the threat they face from terrorist organizations and individuals seeking to express their hostility to the United States through destruction of the most visible symbol of U.S. global presence. Their destruction, as occurred in Beirut and Kuwait City in 1983 and in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998, as well as the targeting of other U.S. military and diplomatic facilities overseas, is a direct attack on the United States. It is for this reason that the Administration's five-year budget proposal for embassy security is so disappointing and irresponsible. Representing less than one-half the amount recommended by the Crowe Commission, it sends a worrisome signal to our representatives around the world about how we view their physical well-being, and invites further attacks on soft targets. The threat of terrorist attack on our embassies is very real. Such attacks not only result in the death of U.S. and host country citizens, but also carry with them the potential for destabilization of countries in which the attack occurs. My amendment seeks to address the large disparity between what is required and what is provided. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 98, which would reauthorize the aviation war risk insurance program for five years. As U.S. troops embark on strikes against Yugoslavia, it is important that we make sure to provide the Administration all of the tools necessary to carry out our foreign policy interests. The Aviation Insurance Program insures U.S. air carriers against losses resulting from war, terrorism or other hostile acts. Program insurance is available when a carrier's commercial insurance is canceled, or is unavailable at reasonable rates. First, however, the President or his designee must determine that a flight is essential to the foreign policy interests of the United States. We must act on this legislation now. Otherwise, the Aviation Insurance Program will expire at the end of March. I cannot overemphasize its importance. During Operation Desert Storm, for instance, the program insured more than 5,000 flights provided by commercial airlines in support of the Department of Defense, as part of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet. U.S. carriers simply would not be able to participate in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet if they could not insure against high risks of loss or damage. I want to emphasize another important point. The Senate recently approved legislation that, among other things, would reauthorize the Aviation Insurance Program for two months. H.R. 98 would reauthorize the program for five years. In the event that the legislation containing the two-month extension is enacted into law after H.R. 98 is enacted into law, the two-month provision should not trump the five- year provision. In other words, it is our intent that the Aviation Insurance Program is reauthorized for five years. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to reauthorize the aviation war risk insurance program for five years.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the United States is about to begin what very well might prove to be our most challenging and perilous military action since President Clinton took office. Many of our colleagues have come to the floor to express their grave and well-founded concern that we are embarking on a very dangerous mission without a clear sense of what will be required of us to achieve our objectives of autonomy for Kosovo and peace and stability in the Balkans. Further, many of us cannot escape the nagging feeling that the United States and NATO credibility has been badly squandered by the Administration's many previous failures to impress upon Milosevic and the war criminals that make up his army that we are prepared to back up our rhetoric with action. Our threats of force have apparently lost their power to restrain the remorseless and blood-thirsty Serbian Government and military from giving full expression to their limitless brutality. Consequently, the level of force required to coerce Serbia into accepting a peace agreement has become all the greater, so great, in fact, that no one is entirely confident that Serbia can be coerced by the use of air power alone. As the violence of an air campaign increases, so too does the risk to our pilots and to innocent people in Kosovo and Serbia. This will not, in all probability, be a casualty-free operation for the United States and our allies. And we must prepare ourselves and the American people for the likelihood that we will witness some heartbreaking moments at Dover Air Force Base. I hope I am wrong, but it would be irresponsible to pretend that the danger to our pilots in this operation is no greater than the danger we have encountered during our periodic cruise missile attacks on Iraq. The President himself must deliver this message to the American people. He has not done so, and that, I agree, is a terrible derogation of his responsibilities as Commander in Chief. However, Members of Congress cannot evade our own responsibilities to speak plainly to our constituents about the great risks involved in this operation, We, too, must shoulder a share of the responsibility for the loss of American lives in a conflict that most Americans do not believe is relevant to our own security. That is why so many Senators are so reluctant to support this action and have spoken so passionately against it. However, we also have a responsibility to speak plainly about the risks to America's security interests we incur by continuing to ignore Serbia's challenge to the will of NATO and the values of the civilized world. It is those risks that have brought me reluctantly to the floor to oppose those of my colleagues who would strip the President of his authority to take military action to defend our interests in Europe. Two American Presidents have warned Serbia that the United States and NATO would not tolerate the violent repression of the movement by Kosovars to reclaim their autonomy. We have, time and again, threatened the direst consequences should Milosevic and his henchmen undertake the wanton slaughter of innocent life in Kosovo as they did in Bosnia. President Clinton set two deadlines for Serbia to agree to the fair terms of a settlement in Kosovo or else face the direst consequences. I have been involved, one way or another, with U.S. national security policies for over 40 years. I cannot remember a single instance when an American President allowed two ultimatums to be ignored by an inferior power without responding as we threatened we would respond. The emptiness of our threats is evident in the administration's more recent threshold for military action. In his press conference last week, President Clinton, acknowledging Serbia's scorched earth campaign in Kosovo, stated that the threshold for NATO military action had been crossed. Subsequent statements by administration officials, as quoted in the Washington Post, conceded that military action was unlikely ``unless Yugoslav troops committed an atrocity.'' Atrocities are the signature of the Serbian Army. There has been an uninterrupted pattern of atrocities since 1992, alternating with U.S. threats of force that were either not carried out or carried out so ineffectually that they encouraged greater bloodshed. The one occasion when force was applied convincingly, the result was the Dayton Accord. We have dug ourselves a deep hole in which the world's only superpower can no longer manage a credible threat of force in a situation where our interests and our values are clearly threatened. As has been pointed out by many Senators, there is a realistic danger of this conflict destabilizing southern Europe, and threatening the future of NATO. And no one disputes the threat Serbia poses to the most fundamental Western motions of human rights. Our interests and values converge clearly here. We must not permit the genocide that Milosevic has in mind for Kosovo to continue. We must take action. But I understand, all too well, the reluctance and outright opposition shared by many of my colleagues not only to air strikes but to the deployment of American troops in Kosovo as part of a peace agreement should we ever coerce Serbia into accepting the terms of that agreement. Typically, the administration has not convincingly explained to us or to the public what is at stake in Kosovo; what we intend to do about it; and what we will do if the level of force anticipated fails to persuade the Serbs. Should the Serbs acquiesce, and United States troops are deployed in Kosovo, the administration has not, to the best of my knowledge, answered the most fundamental questions about that deployment. What is the mission?; how will we know when it is accomplished?; what are the rules of engagement for our forces should Serbs or any force challenge their authority? Thus, Congress and the American people have good reason to fear that we are heading toward another permanent garrison of Americans in a Balkan country where our mission is confused, and our exit strategy a complete mystery. It is right and responsible for Congress to demand that the administration answer fully these elemental questions. It is right and responsible for Congress to debate this matter even at this time when we are trying to convince a skeptical adversary that this time we are serious about enforcing our will. I believe the administration should come to Congress and ask for an authorization of force. I believe that they would receive one. Surely we are entitled to complete answers to the many questions about our eventual deployment of American peacekeepers to Kosovo in advance of that deployment. But if the President determines that he must use force in the next hour, or the next day or within the week, I think it would be extraordinarily dangerous for Congress to deny him that authority or to constitutionally challenge his prerogatives as Commander in Chief. It seems clear to me that Milosevic knows no limits to his inhumanity and will keep slaughtering until even the most determined opponent of American involvement in this conflict is convinced to drop that opposition. but if we once again allow Milosevic to escape unharmed yet another American ultimatum, our mission will be made all the more difficult and dangerous. Moreover, our adversaries around the globe will take heart from our inability to act in concert to defend our interests and values, and threats to our interests, from North Korea to Iraq, will increase accordingly. Even the War Powers Resolution, legislation that I have always opposed, would allow the President to undertake military action for some time before he would be forced to secure Congress' agreement. I have long called on leaders from both parties to authorize Members to work together to repeal or rewrite this constitutionally suspect infringement of both the President's and Congress' authority. But that, Mr. President, is a debate for another time. We are at the critical hour. American troops will soon be ordered into harm's way to defend against what I believe is a clear and present danger to our interests. That the President has so frequently and so utterly failed to preserve one of our most important strategic assets--our credibility, is not a reason to deny him his authority to lead NATO in this action. On the contrary, it is a reason for Congress to do what it can to restore our credibility. It is a reason for us to help convince Mr. Milosevic that the United States, the greatest force for good in history, will no longer stand by while he makes a mockery of the values for which so many Americans have willingly given their lives. No, Mr. President, we must not compound the administration's mistakes by committing our own. We must do what we can to repair the damage already done to our interests. We must do what we can to restore our allies' confidence in American leadership and our enemies' dread of our opposition. We must do what we can to ensure that force is used appropriately and successfully. And we must do what we can to define an achievable mission for our forces, and to bring them home the moment it is achieved. That should be our purpose today, Mr. President. Therefore, with an appreciation for the good intentions that support this resolution, I must without hesitation oppose it, and ask my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I also wish to state my objections to a provision that creates a $1 billion loan guarantee program to support the domestic steel industry. Specifically, this provision provides a loan guarantee of up to $250 million for any domestic steel company that ``has experienced layoffs, production losses, or financial losses since the beginning of 1998.'' The purported reason for this program is to help steel companies suffering because of a flood of foreign steel. The measure, however, does not require that the losses relate to the so-called ``steel crisis.'' The measure also fails to set terms, conditions or interest rates for the guarantees. Instead, it leaves these critical decisions to the discretion of the board making the loans. The only guidance given to the board is that the terms should be reasonable. These provisions are problematic and will eventually result in the taxpayer guaranteeing bad loans. In the mid-sixties, the Economic Development Administration operated a similar program. The result of that program was disastrous for the taxpayer. Steel companies defaulted on 77% of the dollar value of their guarantees. An analysis of the loan program by the Congressional Research Service concluded that steel loans represent a high level of risk. Nevertheless, we are poised today to provide an additional $1 billion in guarantees. I also have to question the need for such legislation. In a recent editorial, the Wall Street Journal declared ``there really is no U.S. steel `crisis'.'' They went on to note that several U.S. companies are posting significant profits. For example, last year, Nucor earned $263 million, USX earned $364 million and Bethlehem Steel earned $120 million. Finally, Mr. President I have problems with how this provision came before the Senate. The creation of a program like this on an appropriations bill is just wrong. The provision places at risk hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars. The Senate should have the opportunity to fully consider and debate this provision. Mr. President, again, the amount of wasteful spending in this bill is less onerous than many other bills I have seen. However, I still must object strenuously to the inclusion of $85.5 million in pork-barrel spending. We cannot afford pork-barrel spending, even in the amount contained in this bill, because the cumulative effect of each million wasted is a million dollars robbed from the surplus or an additional million dollars in debt on which we must pay interest. In the upcoming FY 2000 appropriations season, I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to ensure that we do not waste taxpayers dollars on projects that are low- priority, wasteful, or unnecessary, and that have not been evaluated in the appropriate merit-based review process. oil royalty rider on the emergency supplemental

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the managers of this bill for their hard work in putting forth this legislation. This measure provides much-needed federal funding for foreign assistance, and recovery from the recent plague of natural disasters that have hammered many parts of the United States and its neighboring countries in recent months. Mr. President, I am glad that the Appropriations Committee decided to reject the President's designation of this entire disaster supplemental appropriations bill as ``emergency'' spending. While the need for relief is clear, I believe it is important to provide offsets for any additional spending so that we avoid dipping into the surplus that is desperately needed to shore up the Social Security system and provide meaningful tax relief to American families. Unfortunately, although well-intentioned, the Committee did not succeed in fully offsetting the costs of this bill. In future years, hundreds of millions of dollars in spending resulting from this bill will eat into future surpluses, whether we want to account for it or not. The better course would have been to fully offset all of the new spending in this bill, rather than continue the dangerous practice of profligate ``emergency'' spending. Speaking of profligate spending, I regret that I must again come forward this year to object to the millions of unrequested, low- priority, wasteful spending in this bill and its accompanying report. This year's bill originally contained $72.25 million in pork-barrel spending. But, as usual, we added pork on top of pork through a litany of amendments. To make matters worse, many of these amendments were adopted without ever being seen by most Senators. This time around, we added an additional $13 million of pork-barrel spending to this already pork-laden spending bill. Projections of surpluses into the foreseeable future should not lead to an abandonment of fiscal discipline. CBO now projects a non-social security budget surplus of over $800 billion over the next 10 years, but projections do not equate to ``real'' dollars until they actually materialize. While each individual earmark in this bill may not seem extravagant, taken together, they represent a serious diversion of taxpayers' hard- earned dollars to low-priority programs. I have compiled a list of the numerous add-ons, earmarks, and special exemptions provided to individual projects in this bill, such as: Earmark of $50,000 for a feasibility study and initial planning and design of an effective CD ROM product to the Center for Educational Technologies in Wheeling West Virginia. The CD ROM product would complement the book We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution. $1,136,000 earmarked for suppression of western spruce budworm on the Yakama Indian Reservation, and $1,000,000 for construction of the Pike's Peak Summit House in Colorado. I ask unanimous consent that a list of objectionable provisions be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to support legislation introduced by my esteemed colleague, Senator Lugar. The African Growth and Opportunity Act will create an historic new U.S. trade and investment policy for Africa. It is regrettable that the public perception of Sub-Saharan Africa remains a region which is underdeveloped, poor, ravaged by famine and wars, and ruled by authoritarian leaders. This is not an accurate picture of today's Africa. The Africa of the late 1990s is a continent struggling on the road to economic and political reform. Some 30 Sub-Saharan African countries are implementing economic reforms, including liberalizing trade and investment regimes, rationalizing tariff and exchange rates, and reducing barriers to investment and stock market development. In addition, more than 30 Sub-Saharan African countries are also in various stages of democratic transformation that will allow their citizens to have the same type of participation in their governments that, as Americans, we hold dear. Nigeria's recent election, despite its flaws, is a concrete example of the movement toward democracy in Africa. The African Growth and Opportunity Act is an important piece of legislation designed to promote continued reform in Africa. The main strength of the bill is its reliance on trade incentives, not financial aid. These trade incentives are intended to result in the political and economic well-being of African citizens. American companies are given incentives to invest in these countries, and help them learn how to become members of the world marketplace. For many years, we have poured our financial resources into foreign aid programs that have met with limited success. This bill is based on the commonsense principle that if you give a nation a handout, you feed it for a day, but if you teach it to grow and trade, you assist it to reach permanent independence and self-reliance. There is also a benefit for the United States in this legislation. Currently, United States' exports to Sub-Saharan Africa are $6 billion, which support 100,000 American jobs. However, the U.S. has only a 7% share in the African market, while Europe has a 40% share. More U.S. trade and investment in Sub-Saharan Africa will increase U.S. market share, and create more jobs here in the U.S. More important, it should be pointed out that this legislation will foster interdependence and economic growth between countries that have been torn apart by war, disease, and harmful economic policies. By trading with the United States and each other, these nations will see the benefits of peace and stability to economic growth. An interdependent and democratic Africa will be less likely to suffer from civil strife. I hope that my colleagues will join us in supporting this legislation that will open up a new chapter in U.S.-African relations.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of this amendment offered to earmark a portion of the tobacco settlement proceeds for health and anti-smoking programs. The use of the money for these purposes goes to the very heart of my support for the global settlement a year ago and my reason for sponsoring a bill to implement the settlement. It was never my intention or understanding that this money would be used for building roads, prisons, or to simply inflate the government's coffers. It was my understanding and intent that the money would be used primarily to fight the evils of the tobacco industry and to keep 3,000 kids a day from starting to smoke. I am also a strong proponent of states' rights. In considering this amendment, it is my understanding that no federal approvals are required, but only that reports be filed demonstrating that the funds are being used in programs designed to achieve the public health goals of the litigation. This information is important for Congress and the Administration to have so that we can continue to evaluate the need for federal legislation addressing any issues not covered by the settlement agreement. If the states are successful in achieving what the litigation and settlement set out to achieve, then there will be no need for additional action. If not, we can revisit the issues. I do not perceive this amendment as requiring federal approval of all state spending or programs, but as an informational requirement. I am certainly open to further discussion on how to best ensure that the money is being spent as intended, to keep kids from smoking. I hope that we will continue the dialogue on this very important issue and that we can reach consensus on how to ensure that the settlement funds are used to protect kids, if not today, then as the bill progresses to the House and conference.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Drug Free Borders Act of 1999, of which I am an original cosponsor. This legislation, identical to S. 1787 from the 105th Congress, authorizes funding for advanced sensing equipment for detecting illegal drugs before they can cross our border and emerge on the streets of America's cities. I would like to commend my good friend, Senator Phil Gramm, for once again taking the lead in introducing the Drug Free Borders Act during the 106th Congress. Those of us who represent States bordering Mexico are particularly sensitive to the dangers implicit in failing to properly monitor traffic crossing that border. Yet, we also recognize that Mexico is one of our largest trading partners, and a country with which it is in our best interest to maintain as open a border as possible. It is a careful balancing act, but one that merits our greatest efforts. While the effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement are being closely monitored by supporters and critics of that pact alike, it has become clear that NAFTA represents an important component of our international economic policy, contributing to the creation of 300,000 new American jobs since its passage. The agreement only went into effect in 1994, and it will likely be several more years before its full impact can be determined. The results from the first five years, however, unambiguously demonstrate that the agreement has a net positive impact on the U.S. economy. But this bill is not about trade, it is about drugs, and about the measures that must be taken to ensure that we are doing everything we can to stem the flow of illegal drugs into our cities without impeding the flow of legitimate commerce. The key to finding that balance is the procurement of the equipment needed to expeditiously scan incoming cargo, not just on the U.S.-Mexican border, but at our other ports of entry as well--and I should point out the emphasis in this bill on your maritime ports of entry. The Drug Free Borders Act of 1999 represents an important and substantive step in that direction. Authorizing over $1 billion to beef-up Customs Department operations along our borders with Mexico and Canada, as well as at the maritime ports of entry, this legislation is a sound, responsible approach to enhancing this country's capabilities to interdict the flow of drugs before they reach our children. Mr. President, I urge the support of all of my colleagues for the Drug Free Borders Act of 1999. This bill passed both Chambers of Congress last year, but fell victim to the vagaries of time, as the 105th Congress adjourned while the bill was still in conference. Its passage by both the Senate and the House of Representatives, however, clearly illustrates its broad bipartisan support, and I look forward to its passage into law during the current session of Congress.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to support legislation introduced by my esteemed colleague, Senator Lugar. The African Growth and Opportunity Act will create an historic new U.S. trade and investment policy for Africa. It is regrettable that the public perception of Sub-Saharan Africa remains a region which is underdeveloped, poor, ravaged by famine and wars, and ruled by authoritarian leaders. This is not an accurate picture of today's Africa. The Africa of the late 1990s is a continent struggling on the road to economic and political reform. Some 30 Sub-Saharan African countries are implementing economic reforms, including liberalizing trade and investment regimes, rationalizing tariff and exchange rates, and reducing barriers to investment and stock market development. In addition, more than 30 Sub-Saharan African countries are also in various stages of democratic transformation that will allow their citizens to have the same type of participation in their governments that, as Americans, we hold dear. Nigeria's recent election, despite its flaws, is a concrete example of the movement toward democracy in Africa. The African Growth and Opportunity Act is an important piece of legislation designed to promote continued reform in Africa. The main strength of the bill is its reliance on trade incentives, not financial aid. These trade incentives are intended to result in the political and economic well-being of African citizens. American companies are given incentives to invest in these countries, and help them learn how to become members of the world marketplace. For many years, we have poured our financial resources into foreign aid programs that have met with limited success. This bill is based on the commonsense principle that if you give a nation a handout, you feed it for a day, but if you teach it to grow and trade, you assist it to reach permanent independence and self-reliance. There is also a benefit for the United States in this legislation. Currently, United States' exports to Sub-Saharan Africa are $6 billion, which support 100,000 American jobs. However, the U.S. has only a 7% share in the African market, while Europe has a 40% share. More U.S. trade and investment in Sub-Saharan Africa will increase U.S. market share, and create more jobs here in the U.S. More important, it should be pointed out that this legislation will foster interdependence and economic growth between countries that have been torn apart by war, disease, and harmful economic policies. By trading with the United States and each other, these nations will see the benefits of peace and stability to economic growth. An interdependent and democratic Africa will be less likely to suffer from civil strife. I hope that my colleagues will join us in supporting this legislation that will open up a new chapter in U.S.-African relations.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I yield the remainder of my time; on behalf of the other side, I yield the remainder of their time. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, rather than take up the time of the Senate on this amendment, I have described it, both Senators from Virginia have described it, so I note there is no further debate on the amendment.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I made my remarks already about the necessity for this bill, so I would like to now send to the desk the amendment offered by Senator Warner, for himself, and Mr. Robb.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that it now be in order to proceed to the consideration of S. 643, which is at the desk. I further ask that it be considered under the following limitations: 30 minutes for debate on the bill equally divided in the usual form; the only first-degree amendment in order to the bill be an amendment by Senator Warner regarding airport funding, and the debate on that amendment be limited to 30 minutes equally divided in the usual form; no other amendments or motions be in order to the bill. I further ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the above-listed amendment, the bill be read a third time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to say to my friend, Senator Robb, that it shows I am just an easy mark and pushover; whatever the Senator from Virginia and the good folks out at the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority want, I always try to do. I am sure the Senator is aware of that. Seriously, I do look forward to this debate with Senator Robb. We may never agree on it, because I know how strongly held his views are, and I believe he is reflecting the views of many of his constituents. But I do want to emphasize that the respectful level of debate, the friendship that exists between us, I think, has been important to me because this has been very emotional. My motives have been probably impugned more than in some years about why I support this legislation. My friend from Virginia has never alleged anything but that we just have different views, and I am very appreciative of that. And I know that the other aspect of the approach of the Senator from Virginia is that he is willing, and has shown in the past an eagerness to debate the issue openly and fairly, taking whatever time is necessary, and then we put it to a vote of the Senate. That is the way we should work around here, and that is the way, to my knowledge, the Senator from Virginia has always operated. So I thank the Senator from Virginia. I yield for the Senator from Virginia. Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Virginia. Mr. President, I want to support this proposal to reauthorize the aviation improvement fund for 2 additional months. The Aviation Improvement Program is the Federal program that provides much-needed grants to airports throughout the country. This program will expire on March 31, unless Congress takes some type of action to keep the program going. I remind my colleagues that the majority leader has scheduled to take up the budget all of next week, and it is my understanding that there is a recess after that. So I think we would be well to get this 2-month extension passed today, if we could, since the other body will have to pass it as well. The only change that would be made would be, as we just discussed with the Senator from Virginia, that some of the money that is not being used at this time would proceed with projects at the Reagan National and Dulles Airports. This two-month extension will give the Congress enough time to complete work on comprehensive aviation proposals that are working their way through each chamber. As my colleagues are aware, the Commerce Committee recently reported out S. 82, the Air Transportation Improvement Act. That bill includes numerous provisions that would help the federal government to maintain and improve the safety, security, and capacity of our nation's airports and airways. Furthermore, S. 82 would make great strides in enhancing competition in the airline industry--something that is much needed. Mr. President, I want to point out again that one of the reasons why we should not have a lengthy extension reauthorization is that there are several provisions in the bill that directly affect airline safety. It is not in our interest not to have those provisions enacted into law, not to mention the compelling need that we have to modernize our air traffic control system. I would prefer to have the Senate take up consideration of S. 82 rather than this short-term extension. But I understand that there is other important business pending before the Senate that prevents us from debating it at this time. Given these existing time constraints and the looming expiration of the AIP, there simply may not be enough time for both chambers to pass comprehensive aviation legislation. Therefore, this extension has become necessary. Nevertheless, I look forward to bringing the complete reauthorization bill to the Senate floor for a full debate as soon as possible. Because S. 82 is very similar to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization bill that passed the Senate last year by a vote of 92 to 1, I am confident that we will be able to move it swiftly soon after the Easter-Passover recess. Despite the immediate need for this extension, the Senate and House are close to meeting our mutually shared goals of enacting significant legislation to improve the state of aviation in this country. A few weeks should give everyone more than enough time to complete this effort. I would now like to outline what is contained in this short-term extension of the AIP. Most important, it would allow the FAA to continue supporting important safety and capacity projects at hundreds of airports around the nation. It also includes several technical amendments requested by the FAA to ensure that the program can be properly managed until we have the opportunity to reauthorize it on a multi-year basis. Authorizations would also be provided for the FAA's Operations account and its Facilities and Equipment programs through the end of this fiscal year. In addition, this proposal would extend the Aviation Insurance Program, which is commonly known as war risk insurance. This program provides insurance for commercial aircraft that are operating in high risk areas, such as countries at war or on the verge of war. Commercial insurers usually will not provide coverage for such operation, which are often required to further U.S. foreign policy or national security policy. This short-term extension would also correct a technical oversight related to the Military Airport Program, which provides grants for the conversion of military aviation facilities to civilian use. When the AIP was extended for six months in last year's omnibus appropriations bill, the MAP was not specifically reauthorized. Consequently, the program is not currently eligible to receive funds. This extension would remedy the situation. I also want to express my appreciation to Majority Leader Lott and the leadership of the Appropriations Committee for allowing this AIP extension to move through the Senate so quickly. I know the Senate schedule is quite full. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this 2-month extension of the AIP. It will give us sufficient time to fulfill our larger responsibility to enact substantive aviation legislation. I think we owe it to the American people to keep aviation policy high on our list of national priorities. Mr. President, I would like to address the amendment that I will offer on behalf of Senator Warner, if we get agreement to move forward on this legislation. I support his amendment, which is $30 million for the passenger, use of the passenger facility charge for the Airport Improvement program funding that is applied to complete projects at Reagan National and Dulles Airports. Full Federal funding for these projects will be delayed until we are able to put in place our corresponding agreement on new flights at Reagan National. To his credit, my colleague from Virginia has demonstrated that certain capacity-related, perhaps safety-related projects at National and Dulles should not remain unfunded. I agree we should not allow our negotiations to get in the way of these improvements. Mr. President, my new colleague from Illinois, Senator Fitzgerald, has been involved in this issue for some time. Senator Fitzgerald has previously represented a district in the Illinois State Legislature, the residents of which had a significant involvement in this issue. There are some complicated issues out in the State of Illinois concerning the need for or not the need for an additional airport in Illinois. That has somewhat complicated this issue as regards to Chicago O'Hare Airport. I have had several meetings with Senator Fitzgerald. Senator Fitzgerald is doing his utmost to see if we can't arrive at a reasonable resolution of this issue. I appreciate his immediate attention to this issue, and I am impressed with his in-depth knowledge of this important situation. I look forward to working with him during the period, if we are able to pass it, of this 2-month extension. I note that my friend from Virginia, Senator Robb, is here. He and I have had a great deal of friendly combat on this issue, and I hope that Senator Robb would agree to this 2-month extension so that we can continue this friendly but very spirited discussion that he and I have been having for several years. Since Senator Robb has arrived in the Chamber, I will reserve the remainder of my remarks and yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe that we should be able to pass this FAA reauthorization in its entirety very quickly through the floor of the Senate. We spent 2 weeks on it last year. This bill is fundamentally the same as it was last year. I am hopeful that the majority leader will seize the time after the recess to spend a day or so on it. I would like to remind my colleague from Virginia that we reached an agreement on flights from Reagan National, Chicago O'Hare, Kennedy, and LaGuardia, the slot-controlled airports last year. And also we had agreement on the perimeter rule. It is not that we can't reach agreement, because we already did. It appears to me that, with the agreement of the majority leader, sometime well within the next 30 days we should get this passed, because we would have to go to conference with the House. As you know, the House bill may contain some rather controversial provisions, including taking the entire aviation trust fund off budget, which is an issue which will be addressed, frankly, by the majority leader, and the chairman of the Budget Committee and others, because it is one that transcends aviation itself. I thank the Senator.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as the Senator from Virginia leaves the floor, I will support his amendment, which allows the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority to collection $30 million of the PFC charge and Airport Improvement Funding Program to complete projects at the Reagan National and Dulles Airports. Full funding for those projects has been delayed until we are able to put in place our corresponding agreement on the reauthorization of the FAA. Mr. President, I have no desire to hold up progress at either airport. I will be proposing, if we get agreement from the other side, the amendment on behalf of Senator Warner. We have reached an agreement. I thank the Senator.