John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I agree. The conferees did not intend that the ``reasonable demonstration'' requirement would burden either consumers or the person providing the electronic record. In fact, the conferees expect that a ``reasonable demonstration'' could be satisfied in many ways. Does the Senator agree with me that the conferees intend that the reasonable demonstration requirement is satisfied if the consumer confirmed in an e-mail response to the provider of the electronic records that he or she can access information in the specified formats?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oregon, followed by 2 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts, and then those of us on the beleaguered majority will have our say.

Mr. McCAIN. How long does the Senator from Oregon need?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. McCAIN. I yield the Senator 30 more seconds.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I appreciate both my friend from Oregon and my friend from Massachusetts for their work on this bill. I appreciate their comments. It is a great pleasure to work with both of them on the Commerce Committee. I think sometimes it is worthy of note, in these days of tension, that on the Commerce Committee we have a great habit of working in a bipartisan fashion. I would argue that no bill that I know of has been reported out of our committee that was not a bipartisan effort. No bill has been reported out, that I know of in the years that I have been the chairman, that was strictly along party lines. Mr. President, tonight the Senate considers the conference report for S. 761, the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act. Before I summarize the bill, I want to note for the Record the importance of this measure. The bipartisan legislation would be a significant achievement for this Congress and the American people. Today in America we are in the midst of a phenomenal transformation from the industrial age to the information age. Even as we speak, Americans are on the Internet, browsing, researching, and experiencing in ever-greater numbers. They are also buying. In fact, electronic commerce is one of the principle engines driving our Nation's unprecedented economic growth. For example, Forrester Research has estimated that consumer spending online will total $185 billion by 2003. During this past holiday season alone, online merchants transacted an estimated $5-7 billion dollars worth of commerce--a 300% increase in business from 1998. But one great barrier to the continued growth of Internet commerce is the lack of consistent, national rules governing the use of electronic signatures. A majority of States have enacted electronic authentication laws, but no two of these laws are the same. This inconsistency deters businesses and consumers from using electronic signature technologies to authorize contracts or transactions. This bipartisan legislation can eliminate this unnecessary barrier to the growth of electronic commerce by providing consistent, fair rules governing electronic signatures and records. This bill will do the following: It would ensure that consistent rules for validating electronic signatures and transactions apply throughout the country. Thus providing industry with the legal certainty needed to grow electronic commerce. It empowers businesses to replace expensive warehouses full of awkward and irreplaceable paper records with electronic records that are easily searched or duplicated. Moreover, State and Federal agencies are prohibited from requiring a business to keep paper records except under extreme circumstances--where they can show a compelling government interest. To prevent abuses of electronic recordkeeping, however, the bill also authorizes regulatory agencies to define document integrity standards that are necessary to insure against fraud. It would also ensure that private commercial actors get to choose the type of electronic signatures that they want to use. This will ensure that the free market--not government bureaucrats--will determine which technologies succeed. To that end, the legislation also prohibits States or Federal agencies from according ``greater legal status or effect'' to one specific technology. And this bill recognizes that without consumer confidence, the Internet can never reach its full potential. Thus, this bill empowers consumers to conduct transactions or receive records electronically without foregoing the benefits of State consumer disclosure requirements. Specifically, the bill would provide that when consumers choose to conduct transactions or receive records electronically, electronic records can satisfy laws requiring a written consumer disclosure if: consumers have been given a statement explaining what records they are agreeing to receive electronically, the procedures for withdrawing consent, and any relevant fees, and consumers consent, or confirm consent electronically, in a manner that reasonably demonstrates that they can actually access the information. The goal of these consumer protection provisions is basic fairness. To that end, if a business changes hardware or software requirements in a way that precludes the consumer from accessing or retaining the records, the consumer can withdraw consent--without a fee. But the bill also ensures that these consumer protections do not become unduly burdensome as technology advances. Thus, for example, the bill provides that a Federal regulatory agency can exempt categories of records from the consumer consent provisions if this would eliminate a substantial burden on e-commerce without jeopardizing consumers. I also note that the bill directs the Secretary of Commerce and the Federal Trade Commission to report to Congress on the benefits and burdens of the bill's consumer protection provisions. It also directs the Secretary of Commerce to report to Congress within 12 months on the effectiveness of delivering consumer notices via email. This is important legislation, and my colleague from Michigan, Senator Abraham, is to be commended for his foresight in introducing this legislation. He is responsible for the formulation of it. He has shepherded it through for many months. I commend him for his work on this legislation. It is safe to say this legislation and conference report would not be here today if not for the efforts of Senator Abraham. I also commend Senators Stevens, Burns, Wyden, Leahy, Hollings and Sarbanes for their commitment to bipartisan agreement on the critical issues raised by this legislation. And, I thank Chairman Bliley and ranking member Dingell in the House, for their dedication and leadership on this issue. Reaching a bipartisan agreement on the issues raised by this legislation has not been easy. In fact, the conferees to this bill have spent months considered the often-conflicting views of various industries, consumer protection groups, State governments and federal agencies. Needless to say, the bill that emerged from this broad and contentious process had to try to strike a fair balance between the often-conflicting interests of these groups. As a result, some factions may have had doubts about the bill because they thought that a narrower or partisan legislative process might have produced a bill more slanted towards their narrow interests. But that sort of thinking is short-sighted and fatally flawed: Where this legislation is concerned, a narrow or partisan approach would have jeopardized the growth of electronic commerce. This would have harmed businesses, consumers and the national economy--including the same special interests that a narrower approach might have sought to favor. We must recognize that this bill represents one step in the continuing--and unfinished--process of integrating electronic transactions and the Internet into the mainstream of American commerce. This process of integration must continue if we are to continue to enjoy the unprecedented economic growth that e-commerce and technology have helped bring to this country. But electronic commerce cannot continue to grow and develop without broad support from consumers, businesses and governments. Consumers will not support electronic commerce if they discover that electronic transactions strip them of traditional protections. Nor will businesses support electronic commerce if they cannot realize the cost savings it offers. Finally, governments may not enact laws supporting electronic commerce should such transactions strip their citizens of rights that they have previously enjoyed. Electronic signatures legislation must, therefore, balance the interests of these various groups without unduly favoring any of them: it must give electronic commerce the certainty it needs to grow while preserving the consumer protections that States have chosen to apply in paper-based commercial transactions. The broad and bipartisan support enjoyed by this legislation is the surest sign that it has achieved its most important objective: It has struck a fair balance between competing interests that will ensure continued broad support for the growth of electronic commerce. Mr. President, the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act is a positive, confidence-creating tool that will allow the Internet to continue to develop towards its full potential as a conduit for information, communication and commerce. It will enable businesses and consumers alike to rely on digital signatures regardless of their physical location. Uniform standards for digital signatures will decrease costs while increasing certainty and consumer confidence. The value of these public benefits should not be underestimated. In closing, I want again to thank Chairman Bliley, and Ranking Member Dingell in the House for all of their work. In the Senate, I note the hard work of the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Hollings, Senator Wyden, and others. Without their efforts this bill would not be before us today. I especially, again, recognize the incredible job done by Senator Abraham, the original sponsor of the legislation, the original shepherd, the person who played a key and vital role in the formulation of these final agreements. Given the importance of these issues to consumers, businesses and our global economy, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a listing of the groups that support S. 761 be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, my amendment is very simple and straight forward. It prevents Department of Transportation officials from authorizing project approvals or advance construction authority for the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project in Boston, Massachusetts, until the Secretary and the State have entered into a written agreement capping the federal contribution to the project. Mr. President, last month I chaired a four-hour hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee on the Boston Central Artery/Tunnel project--the biggest, most costly public works project in U.S. history--and commonly referred to as ``the Big Dig.'' This project has suffered from gross mismanagement and what appears to have been a complete lack of critical federal oversight. It has experienced billions of dollars in cost overruns. The Central/Artery Tunnel project was originally estimated to cost $2.5 billion in 1985. Today it is estimated to cost U.S. taxpayers a staggering $13.6 billion. During the Committee's hearing, there was a lengthy exchange between myself, Senator Kerry, Secretary Slater, and DOT-Inspector General Ken Mead concerning the federal obligation to this project. I argued then, as I do now, that there is no cap on the federal obligation. Senator Kerry argued there is. And Secretary Slater said we were both right! Let me read a few lines from the May 3rd hearing transcript: The Chairman: Mr. Secretary, is there a cap on the Federal share of the project costs? Secretary Slater: Mr. Chairman, there is a cap. It is true though, as you noted, and as Senator Kerry noted, that it is not in the statute or necessarily in writing. I ask my colleagues, if it isn't in statute or in writing, then where is it? The answer is, of course, that it doesn't currently exist. Mr. President, it is not my intent to stop the Boston project. The project should be completed as quickly and as fiscally responsibly as possible. The purpose of my amendment is to direct the Secretary and the State of Massachusetts to do what the Secretary said he would do at the May 3rd hearing--to execute a written agreement capping the federal obligation of the project at the level announced by the Department-- that is, no more than $8.549 billion. It has been six weeks since the Secretary indicated the Department was working on an agreement to cap the funding. DOT officials informed my office again today that an agreement is in the works and I am to be assured it will include the $8.549 billion cap. Given this, I can think of no reason why not to support my amendment to spur their actions to execute the agreement sooner rather than later. The House-passed DOT Appropriations bill includes a provision that would effectively halt the project for fiscal year 2001. My amendment would not do that. It just ensures that the promised written agreement is executed once and for all and that the American taxpayers are not on the hook of having any more gas tax dollars shifted away from other important highway infrastructure projects. Again, there is no cap on the Federal funding share for the project. In my view, a federal cap would help ensure the project managers reign in their run-away costs and project overruns because they will not be able to expect the rest of the nation's highway dollars to be funneled into their project. This amendment is fair, it is based on what the Secretary of DOT has promised, and it is what is already in the works. Let's help encourage the timely resolution of this important matter so that the needed continuation of construction of the Central Artery/Tunnel project is not further impeded.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I report favorably nomination lists which were printed in the Records of the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the managers of the Transportation Appropriations bill for accepting my amendment that would prohibit the Department of Transportation from making any airport grant to the Los Angeles International Airport until the Federal Aviation Administration concludes an investigation into illegal revenue diversion at the airport. The exception to this prohibition would be if such grants were required to ensure public safety. The investigation at issue here has been going on for more than five years without resolution, and American taxpayers deserve to know whether their money has been used for illegal purposes. The investigation of revenue diversion about which I am concerned involves the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles International Airport, LAX. Unfortunately, this airport has served as the poster child for the problem of illegal revenue diversion for as long as I care to remember. In this case, a complaint was filed with the FAA in 1995 about the transfer of $59 million from LAX to the city. Despite the fact that the DOT's Office of Inspector General has periodically contacted the FAA to inquire about the status of a decision by the FAA on the complaint, no decision has been forthcoming. As the Inspector General stated in a recent memo to the FAA on this subject, 5 years should be more than sufficient time for the FAA to consider the facts in the case and render a decision. If there is no objection, I ask unanimous consent to print the Inspector General's memo in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. It is with a deep sense of frustration that I am compelled to act on this matter. As many of my colleagues know, I have been fighting against the illegal diversion of airport revenues for purposes that do not serve the aviation system. In fact, four years ago I spearheaded the legislative effort in the Senate to strengthen the laws against such revenue diversions. Because we have a national air transportation system with considerable federal investment and oversight, funded in large part by the users of the system, it is critical that airports or the bodies that control them do not use monies for non-airport purposes. We cannot allow airports to receive federal grant dollars on the one hand, and spend other airport revenues for non-aviation purposes. This type of shell game results in the misuse of the underlying grant. That is one of the principal reasons there are laws against diversions of airport revenues. Unfortunately, many cities that control airports see them as sources of cash that can be tapped for popular purposes. Another reason that revenue diversion is harmful is that our Nation's airports are meant to be self-sustaining. By keeping monies generated by airports at those airports, we ensure that an important part of the national transportation system is kept strong. If airports are used to generate cash for local jurisdictions, the airport itself will suffer from the loss of resources. Even worse, air travelers will be effectively double taxed--once through federal aviation excise taxes, and a second time through the higher air fares that airlines will charge when their costs of maintaining the airport go up. I stress that I am not advocating a specific result in this matter, and I trust that whatever decision or course of action the FAA may take will be made in the best interests of the country. In that vein, my amendment would allow grants to be made once the investigation is concluded, even if the determination is made that no action is necessary. Again, I seek no preferential treatment for any of the parties in this matter. I desire only that this investigation be conducted appropriately, fairly, and in a timely manner. The delays that have occurred so far are just not acceptable. Again, I thank my colleagues for accepting my amendment. Exhibit 1 U.S. Department of Transportation, May 10, 2000. memorandum To: Jane F. Garvey, Federal Aviation Administrator From: Kenneth M. Mead, Inspector General Subject: Action: Complaint by Air Transport Association Concerning Los Angeles International Airport The Air Transport Association (ATA) requested the Inspector General's assistance in expediting resolution of ATA's formal complaint to FAA over the transfer of revenues from Los Angeles International Airport (Airport) to the City of Los Angeles (City). The complaint, filed in March 1995 pursuant to FAA's Investigative and Enforcement Procedures (14 CFR Part 13), questioned the transfer of about $59 million from the Airport to the City. These funds were the proceeds from sale of Airport property to the State of California Department of Transportation for construction of the Century Freeway. The ATA considered the transfer to be a prohibited revenue diversion in violation of Federal regulations and grant assurances. In May 1996 we issued a Management Advisory Memorandum (Report Number R9-FA-6-011) to your Associate Administrator for Airports discussing issues which FAA needed to consider in its deliberations on the merits of the ATA complaint. We pointed out the land sold to the State of California was used for aeronautical purposes, was purchased by the Airport, and severance damages associated with the sale should be paid to the Airport. In a June 1996 reply to our memorandum, FAA agreed to consider our information and make the memorandum a part of the Record of Decision on the complaint. Over the past several years we have periodically contacted your Office of Associate Administrator for Airports to inquire as to the status of a decision by FAA on the ATA complaint. However, no decision on the complaint has been forthcoming. On Apri 26, 2000, we informed the Acting Associate Administrator for Airports of the ATA request and she promised to look into why it was taking so long to resolve this complaint. Five years has elapsed since ATA filed its complaint. This should be more than sufficient time for FAA to consider the facts in the case and render a decision. Please advise us as to when FAA expects to render a decision on the ATA complaint. If the decision is not forthcoming in the near term, please provide the estimated date of completion and an explanation for further delays. If you have any questions, or would like additional information, please contact me at (202) 366-1959, or my Deputy, Raymond J. DeCarli, at (202) 366-6767.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to express my concerns over a provision included in this legislation that would effectively prevent the Department of Transportation (DOT) from continuing its work to fulfill a statutory directive to revise its regulations that limits the driving and duty time of truck and bus drivers. The federal hours of service regulations were established in 1937. Yet, despite the vast technological advancements and dramatic changes in the motor carrier industry, those rules have remained largely unchanged after more than 60 years. Due to the growing safety concerns stemming from truck driver fatigue and other factors, the National Transportation Safety Board has repeatedly called for the Department to develop new hours of service rules that reflect current research on truck and bus driver fatigue. Further, the ICC Termination Act of 1995 required the department to issue an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) addressing motor carrier hours-of-service regulations by March 1996 and a final rule by March 1999. Unfortunately, the Department failed to meet the time frames as required under the law. The ANPRM was not issued until November 1996. It wasn't until April of this year that the Notice of Proposed rule was issued--a proposal not embraced by industry or safety advocates. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which has jurisdiction over most federal transportation policy, I believe it critical to allow and actually require the Department to continue its work to develop sound new rules governing motor carrier operators. I fully recognize the DOT's regulatory proposal is not acceptable in its current form. Moreover, the public needs sufficient time to analyze the proposal and the Department must clearly evaluate and understand its implications before a final rule can be issued. But the Appropriations Committee approach which prevents the DOT from doing anything in this area is simply wrong. Section 335 of the Transportation Appropriations bill would prohibit DOT's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) from using any funds to ``consider or adopt any proposed rule'' contained in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) issued on April 24, 2000 or to ``consider or adopt'' any ``similar'' rule. I will not and am not defending the DOT's regulatory proposal. But I do not think that preventing any further work in this area is sound judgement on our part. If the provision in this bill is allowed to stand in conference, it will effectively prevent any changes to the more than 60-year-old truck driver rules. We must urge the DOT to move forward with reasoned regulations in lieu of the depression era regulations that today continue to dominate a technologically driven industry. The safety of the traveling public is at stake. Amendment No. 3454

Mr. McCAIN. For how long?

Mr. McCAIN. I have no objection.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my list of add-ons, increases, and earmarks to the fiscal year 2001 Defense appropriations bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise once again to address the issue of wasteful spending in appropriations measures, in this case the bill funding the Department of Defense. A careful review of this bill reveals that the obvious deleterious implications of pork-barrel spending on our national defense continue to be ignored by Congress. I find it absolutely unconscionable that I have had to fight so hard to secure $6 million per year to eliminate the food stamp Army while the defense appropriations bill before us today includes over $4 billion in wasteful, unnecessary spending that was not included in the Pentagon's budget request and, in most instances, is not reflected in the ever- expanding unfunded requirements lists. In point of fact, it would appear from this bill that there is no sense of propriety at all when it comes to spending the taxpayers money. With the armed forces stretched thin as a result of 15 years of declining budgets while deployments have expanded exponentially, how can we stand before the public with a collective straight face when we pass a budget funding those very same armed forces that includes language ``urging'' the Secretary of Defense ``to take steps to increase the Department's use of cranberry products in the diet of on- base personnel and troops in the field.'' ``Such purchases,'' the language goes on to say, ``should prioritize cranberry products with high cranberry content such as fresh cranberries, cranberry sauces and jellies, and concentrate and juice with over 25 percent cranberry content.'' Mr. President, what heretofore shall be referred to as ``the cranberry incident'' must be an attempt at humor on someone's part. When I read through a defense spending bill, I see hundreds of millions of dollars earmarked for such programs and activities as the development of a small aortic catheter, marijuana eradication inside the United States, and the recovery of Civil War vessels on the bottom of Lake Champlain. I see every single year money earmarked for the Brown Tree Snake. I see a list of unrequested programs added to the budget that includes such items as the Alaska Federal Health Care Network, the Hawaii Federal Health Care Network, the Pacific Islands Health Care Referral Program, the Pacific Missile Range Facility, Fort Wainwright utilidors, and Fort Greely runway repairs. Was the $300 million in the budget for the Pearl Harbor shipyard so inadequate that an additional $24 million had to be added, four times the amount needed to remove military families from the rolls of those eligible for food stamps? Fifteen million dollars was added for the Maui Space Surveillance System--$15 million--to improve our ability to track asteroids. I do not intend to minimize the importance of such activities, but only the cast of Star Trek could conceivably have looked at a list of military funding shortfalls and concluded that a total of $19 million had to be in the fiscal year 2001 budget for this purpose. And whether $9.5 million should be earmarked for the West Virginia National Guard is, of course, open to question. Mr. President, I voted against the defense authorization bill in committee because of my frustration at that measure's failure to include vital quality of life initiatives for our active duty military--initiatives that were thankfully accepted when the bill moved to the Floor. And that bill included less than the companion appropriations bill does in unneeded and wasteful spending. I dislike the annual earmarks for hyperspectral research in the authorization bill as much as the ones in the appropriations measure, and the authorizers similarly demonstrate an absence of fiscal restraint in throwing money at chem-bio detectors of questionable merit, and the $9 million in the authorization bill for the Magdalena Ridge Observatory is every bit as deserving of skepticism as the money in the appropriations bill for the aforementioned Maui program, but, on the whole, the authorizers adhered more closely to the unfunded requirements lists than did the appropriators, who seem to have missed the idea. Mention should also be made of the growing corruption of the integrity of the process by which the budget request and the unfunded priority lists are assembled. To the extent that repeated efforts at shining a light on pervasive and damaging pork-barrel spending has borne fruit, it further cannot be denied that the problem, to a certain degree, has merely been pushed underground. Like the speakeasies and bathtub gin of an earlier era, the insatiable appetite in Congress for pork has been increasingly reflected in the amount of political pressure placed on the services to include unneeded projects in the budget request and on the unfunded priorities lists. The integrity of the budget process is under increasing assault, and the national defense cannot help but suffer for our weakness for pork. Mr. President, I look forward to the day when my appearances on the Senate floor for the purpose of deriding pork-barrel spending are no longer necessary. There have been successes along the way, but much more needs to be done. There is $4 billion in unrequested programs in the defense appropriations bill. Combine what that $4 billion could buy with the savings that could be accrued through additional base closings and more cost-effective business practices and the problems of our armed forces, be they in terms of force structure or modernization, could be more assuredly addressed. The public demands and expects better of us. It remains my hope that they will one day witness a more responsible budget process. For now, unfortunately, they are more likely to witness errant asteroids shooting through the skies like tax dollars through the appropriations process.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will quote from the Washington Post on June 4, this Sunday: Both parties use these section 527 committees. Failure to disclose is the insidious, ultimate corruption of a political system in which offices, if not the officeholders themselves, are increasingly bought. At least they could vote for sunshine, or is the truth too embarrassing for either donors or recipients? Mr. President, we have heard some very interesting arguments and discussions about whether it is appropriate, as to whether it favors one side or another. There isn't an American who is well informed who does not know that this system has lurched completely out of control, when people are allowed to engage in the political system and give unlimited amounts of money and have it undisclosed. The reason this is on this bill, I say to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, is that we have been unable to propose an amendment on any bill so far. This has been the first opportunity. I regret doing so. But I was willing to enter into a time agreement to get this done. I must tell my friend we will continue on this issue until we resolve the objections that may exist concerning it. It is too important. If we are concerned about these men and women in the military--and he and I share that concern--then we should also be concerned about giving them the kind of Government and political system they can be proud of. Today, if they are informed about it, they are ashamed. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, apparently the Senator from Pennsylvania does not agree with the Bush campaign, in which, according to an AP story, Bush says: Plenty of left-leaning groups led by the AFL-CIO help Democrats. The AP goes on to say: So far for Gore, the Sierra Club, an environmental group and one of the first to create a 527 spin-off, is in the midst of an $8 million ad campaign aiding Democrats running for Congress and attacking Bush on the environment. I don't know where the Senator from Pennsylvania has been, but I will be glad to show him ample testimony that this comes from both the left and right equally. So the evidence is obviously contrary to that. I would also hope that the Senator from Pennsylvania would join the Senator from Wisconsin and me where the next amendment would be one that included all organizations. Would the Senator from Wisconsin be willing to do that as well? The fact is, this is most egregious, because there is no reporting whatsoever in this newfound cornucopia, which would allow the Mafia, drug money, Chinese money, any other kind of money, to come into American political campaigns undisclosed. If that is what the Senator from Pennsylvania believes is honesty, then I plead guilty.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 30 seconds. The majority leader is well known for his advocacy for campaign finance reform. I doubt seriously if anyone believes that the Senator from Virginia, by propounding a sense-of-the-Senate amendment that is not binding legally in any way and will disappear in the mist of time as a myriad of other sense-of-the Senate amendments have--I think it is time the Senator from Virginia got candid with this body. The Senator from Virginia should either come on board and stop this egregious violation of everything in which we believe or state his opposition to it. Please do not think anyone--anyone--will believe that a sense-of-the-Senate amendment will have any impact on the present practices which most observers in America believe are corrupt.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask what force of law that sense-of-the-Senate amendment will have and what the prospects are that these organizations that are currently engaged in these activities will be motivated by a sense-of-the-Senate amendment? Also, will the Senator from Virginia be willing to add to that sense- of-the-Senate amendment that on the next appropriate vehicle, as deemed appropriate by the Parliamentarian, the McCain-Feingold-Lieberman amendment be made in order for a vote with no second-degree amendments? I ask that question because we clearly know that, without the force of law, there is no way these people are going to comply with a sense- of-the-Senate amendment. I hope the Senator, to give it any meaning whatsoever, will at least have that same sense-of-the-Senate amendment state unequivocally that we intend to enact this sense-of-the-Senate amendment into law, because that is the only way we can force these people to comply. I am sure the Senator from Virginia understands and appreciates that. My question is, Will the Senator be willing to modify his sense-of- the-Senate amendment to make it in order that on the next appropriate vehicle, as deemed by the Parliamentarian, there will be an up-or-down vote on the McCain-Feingold-Lieberman amendment without any intervening amendments or second-degree amendments?

Mr. McCAIN. We have just totally disclosed what this is all about. This is not about the defense of the Nation. This is a defense of a corrupt system which, in the view of objective observers, has made a mockery of existing campaign finance laws, which has caused Americans to become alienated from the system. We were worried about Chinese money in the 1996 elections. Under the present system of 527, Chinese money, drug money, Mafia money, anybody's money can come into American political campaigns, and there is no reason to disclose it. So now here we are with 100 Members of this Senate all saying we need full disclosure, using a constitutional facade which is not correct as a reason to vote against this amendment and vote it down. I say again, for the third time, if it is a constitutional objection, and that objection is legitimate, then the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Colorado have no reason to object to this amendment being made part of the next appropriate vehicle which is deemed appropriate by the Parliamentarian. And by so objecting to that unanimous consent agreement, their defense or their argument that somehow we are harming the Defense authorization bill does not have credibility. Mr. President, I do not want to yield all the time. I would be glad to engage in this. But I wondered what would happen last night after we proposed this amendment for full disclosure. I wondered. I wondered what the defense against cleaning up at least to some degree, allowing the American people to know who are contributing to American political campaigns in unprecedented amounts of money, would be. I repeat, one more time, I yield to no one in this body as to my advocacy for our Nation's defense and the men and women in the military. But if we want to give these men and women in the military confidence in their Government, we should have fully disclosed who it is that contributes to the political campaigns. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, just to repeat, this amendment would mandate disclosure of all contributors to, and expenditures by, 527 organizations--a new phenomenon in American politics, with unlimited amounts of money from any source. China, the Mafia, and drug dealers can be part of our political campaigns, and we will never know who they are. It affects both parties and all ideologies. For the benefit of my friends on this side of the aisle, it was the Sierra Club that first began the 527 new gimmick example of corruption in American politics. It will not harm the defense bill. If the defense bill is blue- slipped, I will be the first to say that bill, when it comes back, should have no amendments on it, and I would work as hard as I can to get it done. Please, do not believe that the defense bill would be harmed or blue- slipped. The fact is, every Member on both sides of the aisle of this body has said they are for full disclosure. Now we are going to find out whether we are for disclosure or we will continue to allow the corruption of American politics. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield to no one in my concern for the men and women in the military in defense of this Nation. I yield to no one in this body. I deeply regret that the distinguished chairman of the committee would be part of this red herring which has been raised so Members on both sides of the aisle who oppose disclosure, who have publicly stated time after time they are in favor of full disclosure--I see the Senator from Colorado on the floor. Senator Wayne Allard stated, in reference to campaign finance reform: I strongly believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant. That is from the Congressional Record, page 145, Monday, October 18, 1999. He will now be on the floor, I believe, in trying to cover up for that statement. I tell you what, I say to the distinguished chairman. Right now I will ask him to agree to a unanimous consent agreement-- right now--that if this provision causes the House, the other body, to blue-slip this, on which they have no grounds to do so, the next appropriate vehicle that the Parliamentarian views is appropriate, this amendment will be made part of. I ask unanimous consent.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for pursuing this issue. I would like to broaden it as well. I think it is a fair agreement. I would like to try to move forward, meanwhile, having adopted this amendment, and the President to sign the bill. I thank the majority leader and the Democratic leader.

Mr. McCAIN. There are eight types of amendments that have been offered in the Senate in the past that were returned by the House after the House decided that the Senate's action was an infringement on the House's constitutional privilege with respect to originating revenue legislation. In each of the eight noted examples in the precedents, it is clear that the Senate was seeking to raise revenue of one sort or another, from increasing postal rates to raising bonds or taxing fuel. This amendment in no way raises any revenue nor does it change in any way the amount of revenue collected by the Treasury pursuant to the Tax Code. It is simply a clarification in what information must be disclosed by entities seeking to claim status under section 527 of the Tax Code. I say to my friend from Virginia, the American people will see through this. The American people will understand what is being done here--an effort to contravene what literally every Member of this body has said, that we need full disclosure of people who donate to American political campaigns. And if that were not the reason--if that were not the reason--then the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Colorado would agree to my unanimous consent agreement, which I repeat. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on the next appropriate vehicle that is viewed appropriate by the Parliamentarian, this amendment be made in order for an up-or-down vote with no second-degree amendments.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the nation has been patiently waiting for far too long for Congress to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights that will grant American families enrolled in health maintenance organizations (HMOs) the health care protections they deserve, including the right to remedy insurance disputes through the courts if all other means are exhausted. For far too long, achievement of this vital reform has been frustrated by special interest gridlock, principally the trial lawyers who insist on the ability to sue everyone for everything, and the insurance companies who simply want to protect their bottom line, even at the expense of fairness. Both sides hope to continue affecting their agenda with the ``soft money'' contributions they hand over to the political parties, while neither represents the hopes, expectations and best interests of the American people. Today's debate is further evidence of how politicized this issue has become. Once again this debate is being governed by special interests and partisan politics. This is no longer a debate about how we can work together in the best interest of the American people. Nor is this a debate about providing affordable access to quality health care for all Americans. Instead it is a contest--a contest between the political parties and special interests. This is a contest between the interests of trial lawyers versus the interests of insurance companies. This is a contest that no one not Republicans, not Democrats, certainly not the American people wins, except, of course, the special interests who are only concerned about their financial well-being, rather than the physical or financial well-being of every American. It is a shame that this body is so controlled by special interests that we cannot even put the health of the American people ahead of politics. Under today's medical system too many Americans feel powerless when faced with a health care crisis in their personal life. Many feel as if important, life-altering decisions are being micro-managed by business people rather than medical professionals, and too many Americans believe they have no access to quality care or cannot receive the necessary medical treatment recommended by their personal physician. Many Americans work hard and live on strict budgets so they can afford health insurance coverage for their family. Then, the moment they need health care, they are confronted with obstacles limiting which services are available to them: confronted by frustrating bureaucratic hoops; and confronted by health plans that provide little, if any, opportunity for patients to redress grievances. While I appreciate the important contributions of managed care, we must protect the rights of patients in our nation's health care system. Too many Americans feel trapped in a system which does not put their health care needs first. They believe that HMOs value a paper dollar more than they do a human life. It is time for us to finally help these fine Americans and begin working together to get safe, quality health care for Americans. As my colleagues know, last summer I reluctantly voted for the Senate version of the Patients Bill of Rights. At that time I made it known that my vote for passage was contingent on a strong conference agreement with a higher standard for protecting the needs of patients than those contained in the Senate bill. I supported the Senate bill because it was important to move forward and send legislation for strengthening in conference with the House. It was my strong hope that the House would pass stronger, more reasonable health care reform similar to the Norwood/Dingell legislation that honestly puts the needs of patients first. Then we could work together for a practical and fair compromise during conference. Mr. President, I am voting today in support of the proposed Norwood/ Dingell amendment before the Senate because I share the frustration of millions of Americans who are waiting for the conference to begin making substantial efforts towards reaching a viable agreement providing patient protections. This conference has had more than four months to work on reaching an agreement and yet they are not even close to finding a solution. And I am concerned that once again, partisan politics and special interests are blocking us from enacting meaningful health care reform for our constituents. It is time for all of us to finally put aside partisanship and the influence of special interests to work together for what is needed and wanted by our constituents-safe, quality, affordable health care. This is too important an issue to allow the influence of special interests to prevent us from doing what is right for all Americans. While I am supporting this amendment I would like to make clear that I believe that there is still work that must be done in conference before it is enacted into law. I support the intentions of the Norwood/ Dingell bill but there are areas that need to be strengthened and improved before it becomes law, including the liability provisions. Real patient protection must permit individuals to resolve insurance disputes through the courts but it must also place common sense limits on excessive non-economic damage awards and ban punitive judgements that make health care more costly. This must be structured in a manner that does not encourage frivolous law suits, unnecessarily make health insurance more costly or make employers vulnerable for health care decisions they are not making. In addition, I do not support extending U.S. Customs Service user fees to pay for this proposal. Before agreeing to this amendment I was assured that the extension of the user fees was merely a tactical move to help prevent this amendment from being defeated by partisan parliamentary procedures. I have been assured that if this amendment were to pass that an alternate means of paying for it--one that does not undermine Customs operations or constrain international commerce-- would be incorporated. It is important that US Customs continue having adequate funding for conducting their programs including implementing a new automation system for reducing backlogs at ports of entry to help facilitate the dramatic expansion of commerce that has helped fuel our strong economy. Let me reiterate in no way does my vote for strong patient protections in any way provide an endorsement for extending user fees and placing a further burden on businesses and our economy. It is my strong hope that today's vote will provide the impetus for the conference to finally work together on finding a viable and real solution for providing Americans with the health care protections they deserve.