John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, July 27, 2000, at 9:30 a.m. on antitrust issues in the airline industry.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 27, 2000. The purpose of this hearing will be to review proposals to establish an International School Lunch Program.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet, July 27, 2000 from 9:39 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Business Rights and Competition be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, July 27, 2000, at 9:30 a.m. The markup will take place in Dirksen Room 226.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Thursday, July 27, 2000, at 2 p.m., in Dirksen 226.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise once again to address the issue of pork-barrel spending in an appropriations bill, in this case the defense appropriations conference report. This bill will pass by an overwhelming margin and with minimal debate. It will occasion the release of innumerable press statements attesting to our individual successes in bringing home the bacon. As we worship at the altar of pork-barrel spending, let's reflect a bit on the merits of our activities with respect to the practice of adding unrequested programs to the defense budget for parochial reasons. When the defense appropriations bill first emerged from committee, some of us found interesting the inclusion of language urging the Secretary of Defense to ``take steps to increase the Department's use of cranberry products. . . .'' What I referred to at the time as ``the cranberry incident,'' Mr. President, in retrospect represented the high point of the process by which this conference report was assembled. There are over $7 billion in unrequested member-adds in this bill-- over $7 billion. That does not just represent a continuation of business as usual pork-barrel spending; it represents an egregious expansion of a practice that drains vital resources from a military that has witnessed a multitude of readiness problems while deploying at record-high levels. As we struggle with answers to such problems as how to modernize tactical aviation, maintain a fleet of sufficient size and capability to execute its mission, and fund ongoing and unforeseen contingencies, it is less than reassuring to read through the defense spending bill and see $1.8 million earmarked for development of a handheld holographic radar gun, although Trekkies across the nation will no doubt be pleased by this project. It is tiresome to scan these bills every year and see the annual member-adds of millions of dollars for spectral hole burning applications and for free electron lasers. And it is particularly tiresome, right after passing an emergency supplemental appropriations bill that included an executive jet for the commandant of the Coast Guard, to see in this bill a $60 million earmark for a new 737 for CINCPAC--an important command but $60 million for an aircraft that was neither requested nor required constitutes just one of many questionable additions to this bill. We have finally reversed 15 years in declines in defense spending, but for what purpose. To transfer $10 million to the Department of Transportation to realign railroad tracks in Alaska? To transfer $5 million to the National Park Service for repair improvements at Fort Baker in northern California? To transfer another $5 million to the Chicago Public Schools to convert a former National Guard Armory? Was our objective in increasing defense spending to allow us to more freely earmark funding for such endeavors as the $500,000 for Florida Memorial College for funding minority aviation training; $21 million for the Civil Air Patrol; to continue to fund a weather reconnaissance squadron in Mississippi that the Air Force has been trying to get rid off for more years than I can remember? There is over $4 million in this bill for the Angel Gate Academy. There is the now annual allocation to preserve Civil War-era vessels at the bottom of Lake Champlain, this year in the amount of $15 million. There is $2 million for the Bosque Redondo Memorial in New Mexico and the usual $3 million for hyperspectral research. If a project is so worthy of Defense Department support, why doesn't it ever show up in a budget request? Why do we need to add money every single year for the National Automotive Center and its prize off-shoot, the Smart Truck Initiative. With another $3.5 million in the fiscal year 2001 defense bill for Smart Truck, I'm beginning to wonder if the intellect of this truck will be such that it will not only be capable of heating up a burrito, but will also perform advanced calculus while quoting Kierkegaard. When I look through this bill, I begin to lose sight of its fundamental purpose. The distinction between the defense bill and the Health and Human Services bill gets lost when you see $8.5 million for the Gallo Center for Alcoholism Research, $4 million for the Gallo Cancer Center--see a pattern emerging?--another $1.5 million for nutrition research, $1.5 million for chronic fatigue syndrome research, and, of course, $1 million for the Cancer Center of Excellence--this latter add a reminder that if you call something a ``center of excellence'' you are assured of being a beneficiary of Congress's largess. Mr. President, I do not take issue with research into important health problems affecting millions of Americans. But the abuse of the defense budget grows every year. It has long been used as a cash-cow for pet projects, but did that have to extend to the allocation of millions of dollars for programs of such exceedingly low priority that they don't even show up on already politicized unfunded priority lists? Astronomical Active Optics, Mr. President, were deemed worthy of over $3 million in defense funds, as was coal based advanced thermally stable jet fuel. Fifteen million dollars for the Maui Space Surveillance System, another annual add, $5 million for the Hawaii Federal Health Care Network, $8 million for the Pacific Island Health Care Referral Program, $1 million for the Alaska Federal Health Care Network, $1.5 million for AlaskAlert, $7 million for MILES 2000 equipment at Fort Wainwright, Alaska, $7.5 million for a C-130 simulator for the Alaska National Guard, the annual $10 million for utilidor repairs at Eielson Air Force Base and Fort Wainwright, Alaska, and $21 million for an unmanned threat emitter system for Eielson, and $7 million to sustain operations at Adak Naval Air Station, an installation of apparently marginal utility or the Navy would include it in its funding request. Re-use of Fort Greely, Alaska, receives $7 million for airfield improvement. One of my favorites, $300,000 for the Circum-Pacific Council for the Crowding the Rim Summit Initiative, represents a new addition to this list. The inclusion of so-called ``Buy American'' provisions continue to waste billions of dollars every year. These out-dated protectionist policies serve neither U.S. nor allied interests. It goes against the basic logical policy of getting the best product for the best price for the men and women who wear our nation's uniform. Additionally, these provisions, for example, the requirement to purchase only propellers manufactured in the United States, were added in conference--a practice with which I take strong exception and will discuss further in a minute. I have repeatedly addressed the growing perversion of the process by which budget requests and service Unfunded Priority Lists are put together. It has been clear for several years now that the services are under considerable political pressure from Capitol Hill to include in their budget requests or, at a minimum, on the Unfunded Priority Lists, unnecessary and unwanted items. Funding for the ubiquitous LHD amphibious assault ship for Mississippi is the classic example of this phenomenon. Indeed, the Defense Department and the Navy's rejection in the past of proposals to incrementally fund ships has given way to unrelenting pressure from members of Congress to so fund the LHD. Similarly, C-130s and passenger jets are routinely added to the UFR lists solely as a result of political pressure. In effect, then, my efforts at highlighting pork-barrel spending have resulted to some degree in the problem being pushed underground. That's called progress in Congress. It's called deception everywhere else. The fiscal year 2001 defense appropriations conference report takes the problem a major step further. The integrity of the budget process is under a new and devastating assault by the Appropriations Committee. There is in this conference report language specifying the very weapon systems the committee expects to see included in future budget submissions. It is a long list prefaced with the warning that ``the conferees expect the component commanders to give priority consideration to the following items . . . ,'' which it then goes on to detail. Finally, I would like to address the equally fascinating tendency of the Appropriations Committees to arrive at final budget numbers that exceed what was in either House or Senate bill. It is my understanding that conference is a process whereby differences between respective bills are the subject of negotiations resulting in agreements that either match one of the two numbers in question or find a compromise in between. I find it interesting, therefore, that this conference report has 166 instances of final numbers exceeding those that were in either bill. In many instances, funding was added in conference for which none was included in either chamber's bill. For example, $17 million was added in conference for a capital purchase plan for Pearl Harbor, and $10 million materialized for modifications to M113 armored personnel carriers. There is $10 million in the conference report which was in neither bill to continue the artificial issue of test firing Starstreak missiles, and $1 million for natural gas microturbines. In this bill vital for our national defense is $1.7 million for the South Florida Ocean Management Center and $1 million for Community Hospital Telehealth Competition. And, of course, the $60 million for CINCPAC's new 737 was added in conference. For none of these programs, totaling over $200 million, was funding included in either the House or the Senate bill. The total dollar amount for the entire category of conference items for which no funding was included in either chamber's bill or for which the final number exceeds what was in either bill is over $2 billion. Two billion dollars, Mr. President, in unrequested, unnecessary items that emerged miraculously in conference. I've heard of the fog of war resulting in horrendous casualties, but I'm perplexed by this fog of negotiating that results in horrendous budgets. Sadly, Mr. President, I could go on for another hour. I think, however, that I have made my point. The $7 million in the defense bill for the Magdalena Ridge Observatory in New Mexico, combined with the aforementioned adds for Astronomical Active Optics and the Maui Space Surveillance System leads me to ponder the universe of pork-barrel spending at a higher philosophical plane than in the past. We are adding millions of dollars every year to the defense bill so that we may better scan the heavens, perhaps as part of an ultimately futile effort to better understand our place in the cosmos. Only by applying such logic to the process of reviewing spending bills upon which we vote, however, can I hope to understand the phenomenon by which we regularly send billions of dollars down a black hole. At the end of the day, I guess Einstein's theory of relativity, as well as Newtonian laws of gravity, are at the center of the budget process. The practice of pork-barrel spending has been out of control for years; only now can we take it to a cosmic level never before contemplated. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Yes.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues from Massachusetts, Michigan, and California to introduce the Consumer Internet Privacy Enhancement Act. The purpose of this legislation is simple. We want to ensure that commercial websites inform consumers about how their personal information is treated, and give consumers meaningful choices about the use of that information. While the purpose of this legislation is simple, the task my colleagues and I are seeking to accomplish is complex and difficult. The Internet is a tremendous medium spurring the world's economy and allowing people to communicate in ways that were unimaginable a few short years ago. The Internet revolution is transforming our lives and our economy at an incredible pace. Like any other technological revolution it promises great opportunities and, it presents new concerns and fears. Chief among those concerns is the ability of the Internet to further erode individual privacy. Since the beginning of commerce, business has sought to learn more about consumers. The ability of the internet to aid business in the collection, storage, transfer, and analysis of information about a consumer's habits is unprecedented. While this technology can allow business to better target goods and services, it also has increased consumer fears about the collection and use of personally identifiable information. Since 1998, the Federal Trade Commission has examined this issue in a series of reports to Congress. The FTC and privacy organizations formed by industry identified ``four fair information practices'' which should be utilized by websites that collect personally identifiable information. In simple terms, these practices are notice of what information is collected and how it is used; choice as to how that information is used; access by the user to information collected about them; and appropriate measures to ensure the security of the information. Over the last three years industry has worked diligently to develop and implement privacy policies utilizing the four fair information practices. While industry has made progress in providing consumers with some form of notice of their information practices, there is much work to be done to improve the depth and clarity of privacy policies. The legislation we introduce today should not be viewed as a failure on the part of industry to address privacy. Instead industry's efforts over the past few years have driven the development of standards which serve as the model for this legislation. Our objective is to provide for enforceable standards to ensure that all websites provide consumers with clear and conspicuous notice and meaningful choices about how their information is used. Currently, some websites have privacy policies that are confusing and make it difficult for consumers to restrict the use of information. During a recent hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee, the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission--a former dean of Georgetown Law School--expressed his own difficulties in understanding some privacy policies. Privacy is harmed not enhanced when consumers are lost in a fog of legalese. Some current privacy policies confuse and contradict rather than provide clear and conspicuous notice of a consumer's rights. The bill my colleagues and I introduce today attempts to end some of this confusion by providing for enforceable standards that will both protect consumers and allow for the continued growth of e-commerce. Specifically, the bill would require websites to provide clear and conspicuous notice of their information practices. It also requires websites to provide consumers with an easy method to limit the use and disclosure of information. The provisions of the bill are enforceable by the FTC. States Attorneys General could also bring suits in federal court under the Act using a mechanism similar to the Telemarketing Sales Rule. We also propose a civil penalty of $22,000 per violation with a maximum fine of $500,000. Currently, the FTC can only seek civil penalties if an individual or business is under an order for past behavior. The legislation also preempts state law to ensure that the law governing the collection of personally identifiable information is uniform. Finally, the bill would direct the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of privacy to examine the collection of personal information in the offline-world as well as methods to provide consumers with access to information collected by them. Despite our best efforts I recognize this bill does not address all of the issues affecting online privacy. As I said earlier, this is a complex and difficult issue. Other related concerns that should be addressed will continue to arise as we consider this measure. For example, the sale of data during bankruptcy, the use of software also known as spyware that can transfer personal information while online without the user's consent or knowledge, and the government's use and dissemination of personally identifiable information online. Additionally, other new ways to help resolve the issue of online privacy will also arise as we consider this measure. These include the deployment of technology that will enable consumers to protect their privacy is one issue we should expect to address. Another issue is the use of verifiable assessment procedures to ensure that websites are following their posted privacy policies. The discovery of new issues and new solutions as we move through this process will serve to highlight the difficulty and complexity of dealing with this issue. It is not my intention to rush to judgment on these matters. Instead, I firmly believe the best way to protect consumers and provide for the continued growth of e-commerce is to give privacy careful and thoughtful deliberation before we act. Mr. President, it is clear that businesses should inform consumers in a clear and conspicuous manner about how they treat personal information and give consumers meaningful choices as to how that information is used. While some of us may disagree on the manner in which we meet this goal, we all agree that it must be done. I look forward to working with my colleagues and addressing their concerns as we move through the legislative process. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the full text of the bill in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to highlight one point Professor Kahn makes. He asserts that United's main justification for the merger is the need for a hub in the northeast. He goes on to question, however, why United doesn't create a hub in the northeast, rather than follow the path of ``least competitive resistance'' by trying to acquire on its competitors' hubs. Mr. President, I ask the same question, and urge my colleagues to join Senator Gorton and me in supporting this Senate resolution expressing our strong concerns about a United-US Airways merger. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee who joined me in this resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by the Commerce Committee Aviation Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Gorton, to introduce a Senate resolution expressing our strong reservations about the proposed merger of United Airlines and US Airways. Through Commerce Committee deliberations, Senator Gorton and I have carefully analyzed the proposed merger, as well as its long-term consumer effects. We conclude that whatever air travelers stand to gain from the merger is outweighed by what they stand to lose. The public interest would likely be harmed by a United Airlines-US Airways merger. First, almost all analysts agree that the merger would trigger additional consolidation in the airline industry. The six largest hub-and- spoke carriers in the country would likely become the ``big three.'' Everything else being equal, basic economic principles suggest that consumers are better served by having six competitors in a market rather than three. Even at this preliminary date, our experience bears out the prediction of additional industry consolidation. American Airlines has already made an offer for Northwest Airlines. Delta Air Lines and Continental have reportedly engaged in merger negotiations. Consolidation among these network carriers poses additional problems for the flying public. The likely result of fewer carriers is more single-carrier concentration at hub airports across the country. Studies by the Department of Transportation, the General Accounting Office, and others consistently conclude that air fares are relatively higher at hub airports ``dominated'' by a single carrier. Important new entry in the airline industry would be hurt by consolidation among the major airlines. The mega-carriers would have additional resources to engage in fierce and prolonged behavior designed to drive new competitors out of the market, and to single potential entrants that they dare not compete with the incumbent. Today, many new entrants simply choose not to enter the major airlines' hub markets because they fear they cannot survive a sustained head-to-head battle. A United-US Airways merger, and the consolidation that would ensue, would further entrench the incumbent air carriers' positions. I admit that there are benefits associated with the proposed United- US Airways merger. The carriers, for instance, tout ``seamless'' connections to international destinations, an expanded frequent flyer program, and similar benefits that should appeal to travelers on the United-US Airways system. United and US Airways also applaud new service to a multitude of destinations as a consequence of the merger. It is important to note, however, that what is new to United is not exactly new to the flying public, since United's ``new'' service is made up of flights that are now offered by US Airways. Again, the point is that the anti-competitive harm posed by the proposed United-US Airways merger outweighs its benefits. And that conclusion does not even take into account the customer service problems associated with integrating the work forces of two or more major airlines. I want to underscore that this resolution is designed to express our concerns about the proposed United-US Airways merger. It does not seek to force any federal agency or department to take any specific action with respect to the proposed merger. However, our concerns for the consumer are of such a significant nature that we are compelled to introduce this resolution. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the father of airline deregulation, Prof. Alfred Kahn. His letter outlines his preliminary concerns with the proposed United-U.S. Airways merger.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues from Massachusetts, Michigan, and California to introduce the Consumer Internet Privacy Enhancement Act. The purpose of this legislation is simple. We want to ensure that commercial websites inform consumers about how their personal information is treated, and give consumers meaningful choices about the use of that information. While the purpose of this legislation is simple, the task my colleagues and I are seeking to accomplish is complex and difficult. The Internet is a tremendous medium spurring the world's economy and allowing people to communicate in ways that were unimaginable a few short years ago. The Internet revolution is transforming our lives and our economy at an incredible pace. Like any other technological revolution it promises great opportunities and, it presents new concerns and fears. Chief among those concerns is the ability of the Internet to further erode individual privacy. Since the beginning of commerce, business has sought to learn more about consumers. The ability of the internet to aid business in the collection, storage, transfer, and analysis of information about a consumer's habits is unprecedented. While this technology can allow business to better target goods and services, it also has increased consumer fears about the collection and use of personally identifiable information. Since 1998, the Federal Trade Commission has examined this issue in a series of reports to Congress. The FTC and privacy organizations formed by industry identified ``four fair information practices'' which should be utilized by websites that collect personally identifiable information. In simple terms, these practices are notice of what information is collected and how it is used; choice as to how that information is used; access by the user to information collected about them; and appropriate measures to ensure the security of the information. Over the last three years industry has worked diligently to develop and implement privacy policies utilizing the four fair information practices. While industry has made progress in providing consumers with some form of notice of their information practices, there is much work to be done to improve the depth and clarity of privacy policies. The legislation we introduce today should not be viewed as a failure on the part of industry to address privacy. Instead industry's efforts over the past few years have driven the development of standards which serve as the model for this legislation. Our objective is to provide for enforceable standards to ensure that all websites provide consumers with clear and conspicuous notice and meaningful choices about how their information is used. Currently, some websites have privacy policies that are confusing and make it difficult for consumers to restrict the use of information. During a recent hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee, the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission--a former dean of Georgetown Law School--expressed his own difficulties in understanding some privacy policies. Privacy is harmed not enhanced when consumers are lost in a fog of legalese. Some current privacy policies confuse and contradict rather than provide clear and conspicuous notice of a consumer's rights. The bill my colleagues and I introduce today attempts to end some of this confusion by providing for enforceable standards that will both protect consumers and allow for the continued growth of e-commerce. Specifically, the bill would require websites to provide clear and conspicuous notice of their information practices. It also requires websites to provide consumers with an easy method to limit the use and disclosure of information. The provisions of the bill are enforceable by the FTC. States Attorneys General could also bring suits in federal court under the Act using a mechanism similar to the Telemarketing Sales Rule. We also propose a civil penalty of $22,000 per violation with a maximum fine of $500,000. Currently, the FTC can only seek civil penalties if an individual or business is under an order for past behavior. The legislation also preempts state law to ensure that the law governing the collection of personally identifiable information is uniform. Finally, the bill would direct the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of privacy to examine the collection of personal information in the offline-world as well as methods to provide consumers with access to information collected by them. Despite our best efforts I recognize this bill does not address all of the issues affecting online privacy. As I said earlier, this is a complex and difficult issue. Other related concerns that should be addressed will continue to arise as we consider this measure. For example, the sale of data during bankruptcy, the use of software also known as spyware that can transfer personal information while online without the user's consent or knowledge, and the government's use and dissemination of personally identifiable information online. Additionally, other new ways to help resolve the issue of online privacy will also arise as we consider this measure. These include the deployment of technology that will enable consumers to protect their privacy is one issue we should expect to address. Another issue is the use of verifiable assessment procedures to ensure that websites are following their posted privacy policies. The discovery of new issues and new solutions as we move through this process will serve to highlight the difficulty and complexity of dealing with this issue. It is not my intention to rush to judgment on these matters. Instead, I firmly believe the best way to protect consumers and provide for the continued growth of e-commerce is to give privacy careful and thoughtful deliberation before we act. Mr. President, it is clear that businesses should inform consumers in a clear and conspicuous manner about how they treat personal information and give consumers meaningful choices as to how that information is used. While some of us may disagree on the manner in which we meet this goal, we all agree that it must be done. I look forward to working with my colleagues and addressing their concerns as we move through the legislative process. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the full text of the bill in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank Senator Bryan. I will come to the floor sometime in September to chronicle his many accomplishments and the admiration and heartfelt affection I have for Senator Bryan. But at the moment I say we will respectfully disagree. I think we will have both an interesting and, I hope, illuminating discussion of what has become, in the eyes of many, an important issue. I thank Senator Bryan for his kind remarks. I will miss him, although I want to make it clear that he is not departing this Earth. In fact, he may be going to a much more rewarding and comfortable lifestyle.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before my friend from Nevada leaves the floor, I intend to make a couple of comments on his statement. One of the most valued members of the committee is Senator Bryan from Nevada. Senator Reid and I came to the House of Representatives together many years ago. I consider us to have a very warm and excellent relationship over many years. I will miss Senator Bryan very much as he leaves--not only the Senate but as a much valued member of our committee. Coincidentally, on the issue of sports, Senator Bryan and I were able to work together on a couple of boxing issues that a lot of our Members did not care much about. But hopefully we were able to assist some people who come from the lowest economic rung of our society and prevent, at least to some degree, the exploitation to which many of them are subjected. I preface my comments with a brief response to both Senators from Nevada. Again, I say that with respect and affection. I did not invent this legislation, nor did it come from any Member of this body. It came as a result of the National Gaming Impact Study Commission, a commission that met for a long time and came up with this strong recommendation. Then the issue was picked up by the NCAA coaches. Some of the most respected men and women in America, obviously, are our college coaches, people of the level of Dean Smith, Joe Paterno, Jim Calhoun, and so many others who have made this a high visibility and important issue, at least to them, including the presidents of the colleges and universities across the country. I will not rebut their comments or try to respond to all the comments made by Senator Bryan, except to say I respect his view. But I do believe there is a compelling case that has been made, not by this Member but by the college coaches and the university presidents who say this is placing these young--as Coach Calhoun called them--kids in the path of temptation that is something that could be very unhealthy for them. So I respect the views of my friends from Nevada. I hope we will have a vigorous debate on this issue, and hopefully we will be able to address it one way or another. But I do believe it is an issue of some importance, at least if you believe those who are closest to these young men and women, our college athletes.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will amend the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental and Native America Public Policy Act of 1992 to expand opportunities for the Morris K. Udall Foundation to assist tribal governments with leadership and management training. I am pleased that Senator Inouye is an original cosponsor of this legislation. This legislation is mostly technical in nature. It extends the authority of the Udall Foundation, located at the University of Arizona in Tucson, to implement a leadership and management training program, to be called the ``Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management and Policy.'' The 1992 Act which created the Udall Foundation is already authorized to implement programs to assist tribal governments with training for Native American and Alaska Native professionals in public policy. This legislation simply authorizes the Udall Foundation to carry out another step in its mission. The Native Nations Institute will provide practical leadership and management training as well as policy analysis, in a variety of fields, for native people and communities to further the goals of tribal self- governance. The Native Nations Institute will facilitate this training through a unique partnership between the University of Arizona, the Udall Foundation and the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development. Mr. President, the Native Nations Institute will enable tribal leaders and decision-makers to access professional leadership and management training to prepare current and future tribal leaders to tackle the socioeconomic, educational and other fundamental challenges facing tribal communities. Companion legislation has been introduced in the House with bipartisan support. In the short time remaining in this Congressional session, I hope that we can proceed with prompt passage of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent to include the text of the legislation in the Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will amend the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental and Native America Public Policy Act of 1992 to expand opportunities for the Morris K. Udall Foundation to assist tribal governments with leadership and management training. I am pleased that Senator Inouye is an original cosponsor of this legislation. This legislation is mostly technical in nature. It extends the authority of the Udall Foundation, located at the University of Arizona in Tucson, to implement a leadership and management training program, to be called the ``Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management and Policy.'' The 1992 Act which created the Udall Foundation is already authorized to implement programs to assist tribal governments with training for Native American and Alaska Native professionals in public policy. This legislation simply authorizes the Udall Foundation to carry out another step in its mission. The Native Nations Institute will provide practical leadership and management training as well as policy analysis, in a variety of fields, for native people and communities to further the goals of tribal self- governance. The Native Nations Institute will facilitate this training through a unique partnership between the University of Arizona, the Udall Foundation and the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development. Mr. President, the Native Nations Institute will enable tribal leaders and decision-makers to access professional leadership and management training to prepare current and future tribal leaders to tackle the socioeconomic, educational and other fundamental challenges facing tribal communities. Companion legislation has been introduced in the House with bipartisan support. In the short time remaining in this Congressional session, I hope that we can proceed with prompt passage of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent to include the text of the legislation in the Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I hope the Department will withdraw its proposals to regulate in each of these eight areas. The negotiated rulemaking process works best when it is based upon consensus, and in these eight instances the Department has failed to make its case for regulations.

Mr. McCAIN. I want to inquire of the chairman on one of these eight impasse issues. Is it your understanding that the Department would have the regulatory authority, in one of the objectionable regulatory provisions, to delete unilaterally certain provisions in the various Compacts of Self-Governance that the Department has signed with various tribal governments and that have existed as long as nine years? I thought we expressly indicated in 1994 when we gave permanent authority to the Tribal Self-Governance Demonstration program that these Compacts and Annual Funding Agreements are to be bilateral agreements reached on a government-to-government basis that cannot be unilaterally amended by the Department?

Mr. McCAIN. I share the concerns raised by the Indian tribes, and would note that in 1994 when we enacted the Tribal Self-Governance Act, the Congress expressly authorized the tribal self-governance effort to go forward without regulations. At the same time, we required the Department to engage in a negotiated rulemaking with tribal government representatives to develop mutually acceptable rules. Now it appears that this effort has been largely successful. There are hundreds of provisions that have been developed and mutually accepted by the tribal and federal representatives. These should be permitted to go forward. But as to the eight or so provisions upon which there is a negotiation impasse, I believe it would be contrary to the intent of the 1994 Act and to the negotiated rulemaking process to impose objectionable provisions upon the Indian tribes.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to engage several of my colleagues in a colloquy about some regulations which the Department of the Interior is preparing to issue in final form. These regulations would govern the federal and tribal administration of the Tribal Self- Governance program. I understand there is strong opposition from American Indian and Alaska Native groups to a handful of the proposed provisions.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let us imagine for a moment that a ragtag group of armed rebels in Australia was able to infiltrate the parliament in Canberra and put a gun to the head of the Australian Prime Minister. Let us imagine that these rebels, led by a failed indigenous businessman who claimed to speak for the native people and against those of European descent who had ``colonized'' the island, held the Prime Minister and members of his government hostage for several months in the Parliament building. Let us also imagine that, during this period, central government authority across Australia withered as armed gangs set up roadblocks, occupied police stations and military barracks, torched homes and businesses owned by those with different ancestry, seized tourist resorts, and generally terrorized innocents across the country. What would America's response be to such a violent takeover of a democratic government and the abduction of its prime minister by race- baiters who proclaimed that under their ``new order,'' there would be no place in government or, indeed, in society for those with different ethnic roots, and who reveled in the armed chaos they had inspired? At a minimum, I would expect the United States to impose tough sanctions on the illegitimate regime; mobilize our allies in Asia and at the U.N. Security Council to speak forcefully and with one voice against the coup; and join like-minded nations in resolutely affirming that the country in question would suffer lasting isolation and international condemnation until constitutional governance and the rule of law were restored. Unfortunately, this scenario is playing out as we speak in Australia's neighbor Fiji, an island nation in the South Pacific that is home to some of the warmest, most gentle people I have had the pleasure of meeting. George Speight, an ethnic Fijian and failed businessman, led a coup on May 19 that toppled Fiji's democratically elected government and its first Indo-Fijian prime minister, Mahendra Chaudhry. Speight, whom the Economist calls a ``classic demagogue,'' is utterly disdainful of democracy, law, and Fijians of Indian descent, who constitute 44 percent of their nation's population. If Speight has his way, democratic rule, racial harmony, and basic justice in Fiji have no future, and nearly half of Fiji's people, disenfranchised by the coup, will have been relegated to the status of second-class citizens and unwitting hostages of a government that abhors them for the color of their skin. As Speight bluntly puts it: There will never be a government led by an Indian, ever, in Fiji. Constitutional democracy, the common-law version--that will never return. The hostages, including the deposed Prime Minister, have been released, and Speight's forces have apparently cut a deal with Fiji's military and traditional leaders for the composition of a new government--a government led by an ailing figurehead controlled by the coup leader. The new cabinet will be comprised exclusively of ethnic Fijians, with the sole official of Indian descent relegated to a non- cabinet post as one of two assistant ministers for multi-ethnic affairs. The country's multi-racial constitution has been officially scrapped in favor of a document being prepared by the new government that ``is almost certain to reduce Indo-Fijians to political footnotes,'' in the words of one observer. The economy, and the tourist industry that sustains it, are in shambles. Democracy is dead in Fiji. Rule by law has succumbed to the law of the jungle and one man, in league with armed criminals, has personally destroyed a successful experiment in representative, multi-ethnic rule. The United States must stand firm in our absolute refusal to ratify the results of a coup that ended democratic governance in Fiji. We cannot and shall not condone the violent establishment of a government and a constitution predicated on racial exclusion. We should be prepared to suspend what little amount of assistance we provide to Fiji if the government remains intransigent. More importantly, we and our allies in Asia and Europe should make clear that Fiji will remain isolated until the interim government in Suva establishes a clear blueprint for a return to democratic rule by an administration that does not include George Speight and his criminal allies. We cannot compromise on the principle that the Indo-Fijians who constitute nearly half of their nation's population must once again have a voice in its affairs. The haunting words of an ethnic Fijian social worker vividly capture the agony of a nation that many people believe to be as close to paradise as can be found on this Earth. He laments: ``Fiji was such a nice place. We promoted it as `the way the world should be.' Now it is the devil's country.'' Let us use the resources at our disposal as a great and moral nation to oust this devil and return Fiji's government to all of its people. I ask unanimous consent that the text of an editorial from the July 19th edition of the Wall Street Journal entitled ``Goodbye to Fiji'' be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have two additional comments. There is a lot of unrest in Asia today. Indonesia is ridden with ethnic strife, a very important country that is the largest Moslem country in the world and one whose fortunes, economically and ethnically, have declined severely. The Solomon Islands, an area where American blood was shed many years ago, has been mistreated by ethnic strife and armed gangs taking over and lawlessness and banditry being the order of the day there. In Fiji, we see, again, ethnic unrest that is harmful not only to the country, but the people who are most affected first will be the poorest people in Fiji, many of them the ethnic Fijians whose livelihood is gained from the now disappearing tourist industry. Finally, the United States has a special obligation as the world's leader. I think we as Americans are most proud that, following World War II, we began to redress some of the wrongs we had inflicted on some of our own fellow citizens. After a titanic civil rights struggle, we are at least on the path to assuring equality for all in this great Nation of ours. For us to sit by and watch an ethnic group be subjected to a constitution and rulers that place them in a permanent inferior status, flies in the face of everything the United States has stood for and, clearly, in our assertion that all men and women are created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. I hope the administration, the American people, and those of our allies, in Asia and all over the world, including at the United Nations, will do whatever they can to restore equality and equal opportunity in this very lovely island. It is important for me to note that I visited this beautiful country on several occasions, which is one reason why I have a very special feeling for it and a special sense of sadness because it is a beautiful country filled with very gentle people. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Goodbye to Fiji Say goodbye to Fiji, and say it soon. The country is going rapidly down the tubes. Two months ago, Fiji wasn't such a bad place. It ambled along at a South Pacific pace. The locals were laid back and well fed, and prone to a languor induced by regular cups of kava, the narcotic beverage of preference in those parts. Tourists flocked in from Australia and New Zealand, attracted to resorts with names like Buca Bay, Rukuruku and Turtle Island, where ``The Blue Lagoon''--an execrable film that launched the cinema career of Brooke Shields--was shot 20 years ago. In a nutshell, Fiji was so serene that even honeymooners from the American Midwest were not ruffled by the grueling journey it took to get there. All that changed on May 19, when a man called George Speight barged into parliament with a throng of thugs and took Mahendra Chaudhry. the Prime Minister, hostage--along with most of the country's cabinet. They were released only last week, and have all been stripped of office. Mr. Speight is an ethnic Fijian, of Melanesian stock, and Mr. Chaudhry is of Indian descent, as is 44 percent of the country's population. The former maintains that he was acting in the interests of the Melanesian majority, who constitute just over half of all Fijians. The Indians, he declares, are ``the exploiters'' and ``the enemy.'' Unabashedly racial in his vision of Fiji, he insists on the permanent exclusion of Indians from government office. He calls also for curbs on the commercial mobility of Indians, who control a lion's share of the Fijian economy. The Indians, cast as ``outsiders'' by Mr. Speight, are descended from indentured plantation workers who were brought to the archipelago by the colonial British administration a century ago. Most Indians are fourth-generation Fijians. From where we stand, that makes them no less entitled to all the rights of citizenship--whether political or commercial--than an ethnic Fijian might be. Mr. Speight doesn't see things that way. Neither, alas, does Fiji's Great Council of Chiefs, a body of tribal elders that enjoys ill-defined, but very real, powers under the country's racially skewed customary law. To their discredit, the chiefs have given their imprimatur to Mr. Speight's objectives, as have sections of the armed forces. The country's interim prime minister, appointed by the army chief while Mr. Chaudhry was hostage, last week unveiled a ``Blueprint'' for the ``protection'' of indigenous Fijians. The document comprises an ill-judged plan for commercial affirmative action, designed to ``advance the interests of'' the country's ethnic majority. Indians are to be excluded in areas where they are ``over-represented,'' and ethnic Fijians are to get preferential royalties, subsidies, tax breaks, rents and licenses. The problem with this ethnic gravy train, of course, is that Fiji will soon run out of gravy. The sugar industry, manned by Indians, is in disarray. Tourism, which contributes $235 million per annum to the economy--and which is second only to sugar in Fiji's economic schema--has ground to a jarring halt. After the recent invasions of luxury resorts by knife wielding ``traditional landowners,'' it's hard to see those Aussies, Kiwis and Midwestern honeymooners coming back. A flight of disenfranchised Indo-Fijians to Australia and New Zealand is under way. This will drain Fiji of its best technical and entrepreneurial stock. Mr. Speight and his cohorts will learn swiftly that running an economy is a lot harder than storming a parliament. Theirs is no more than a blueprint for economic suicide.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I could spend more time. I ask unanimous consent an article from the Savannah Morning News entitled ``Two Sides of the American Dream'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. There was an Associated Press article of May 12 entitled ``Sugar Growers Get Bailout: Purchase of Surplus Will Cost Taxpayers About $60 Million.'' I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I quote: The Agriculture Department put off the decision about what to do with the sugar, which will cost taxpayers about $60 million. The department has considered donating it overseas or else selling it at a steep discount for refining into ethanol, a fuel additive normally made from corn. ``The sugar program does not need Band-Aids, it needs major surgery,'' groups opposed to the program said in a letter last month to Glickman. Glickman urged sugar growers to cut back on plantings by idling land in the government's Conservation Reserve Program, which pays farmers to take acreage out of production. Obviously, that has not happened. I want to quote from an interesting one on June 16. Brian Williams of NBC Nightly News: Now time for ``The Fleecing of America.'' We have told you here before about price supports for sugar producers in this country, consumers paying what amounts to a hidden tax. Now, according to a new report from the General Accounting Office, what some already consider an outrageous fleecing of America is about to get even worse. Here's NBC's Lisa Myers. Lisa Myers, reporter. For sugar beet farmers like Craig Halfmann, what critics claim already is a sweet deal is getting even sweeter. The government is using seventy million of your tax dollars to buy a hundred fifty thousand tons of sugar from farmers like Halfmann, enough sugar to lay five- pound bags end-to-end from New York to Los Angeles three times. Why? To prop up sugar prices by reducing supply. Craig Halfmann, sugar beet farmer. We're in a crisis situation and we're just asking the USA to help us out as farmers. Myers. But critics say it's ridiculous and a windfall, especially for big sugar producers, people who make millions. But we'll get to them in a moment. You see, those seventy million taxpayer dollars are in addition to the inflated prices you already pay for sugar and don't even know it. Senator Richard Lugar. This is one of the most serious outrages in the agriculture side consumers have never understood, that they are paying a tax every time they get a pound of sugar. Myers. And a candy bar, and cereal, even canned ham. It's all because of the sugar program, and here's how it works. The government uses import restrictions and price supports to keep the sugar supply down and drive prices up. Today the world price of sugar is about eight cents a pound. But US growers get more than twice that much, about twenty cents. And it all shows up right here, in what you pay. Experts estimate the average family of four spends an extra twenty- six dollars a year for sugar because of the program. This government report says that that works out to almost two billion dollars straight from your pockets to sugar producers. Supporters of the program insist it doesn't cost that much, and say struggling farmers need even more help this year, since bumper sugar crops drove down prices. Unidentified Man. All the government has done is to come in and buy some of the surplus sugar. The government is holding that sugar. They will sell it eventually, possibly even at a profit. Myers. The Agriculture Department claims that buying excess sugar now may save taxpayer money. Keith Collins, USDA Chief Economist. Well, who benefits from the purchase, I think, is the taxpayer. We think that actually saves us some money and at the same time supports prices a little bit now. Myers. Not so, say consumer advocates. Art Jaeger, Consumer Federation of America. The program gives too little money to the farmers who need the help, too much money to farmers who don't need the help. Myers. In fact, the biggest winners of all, critics say, are the biggest sugar growers, like Pepe and Alfonso Fonhoul (sp?) of Palm Beach, Florida. They've earned as much as sixty-five million dollars a year from the program. Jaeger. Anytime you ask consumers to pay one-point-five to two billion dollars a year more for food and the beneficiaries are largely wealthy sugar cane growers in south Florida, I think that's a fleecing of America. Mr. President, I am sure I will hear from the opponents of eliminating this subsidy that this is simply a program for small farmers, for small growers. The facts do not bear that out. I want to repeat, the majority of this sugar subsidy money goes to the large sugar farmers who also, coincidentally, happen to be major political donors in the American political process. I do not quite understand how my free-enterprise, free-market, less- government-intervention, less-government-regulation colleagues will come here to the floor and argue that somehow this program is good for American citizens. It is not. Clearly, the facts state that it is a subsidy paid to a privileged few and it costs American taxpayers and American families a great deal of additional money. I know there are a lot of abuses. I know there are a lot of programs that favor a privileged few in American government. But this one is perhaps one of the most egregious, and we should stop it. I say to my friends who will oppose this amendment: No. 1, I will be glad to means-test this amendment; No. 2, I will be glad to have a phaseout of the sugar subsidies as well. If you agree to neither, you are basically saying let's let the Fanjul brothers continue to get $65 million a year in subsidies and let's let the American family pay it. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.