John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to establish a process to eliminate and reform federal subsidies and tax advantages received by corporations. This bill, ``The Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission Act'' is identical to a bill that was reported out of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in May, 1997. I am pleased to have as cosponsors Senators Thompson, Lieberman, and Abraham. I would like to briefly describe the major provisions of the Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission Act. It defines inequitable subsidies as those provided to corporations without a reasonable expectation that they will return a commensurate benefit to the public. The Act excludes any subsidies that are primarily for research and development, education, public health, safety, or the environment. Also excluded are subsidies or tax advantages necessary to comply with international trade or treaty obligations. The Act would create a nine-member commission nominated by the President and the Congressional leadership. Federal agencies would be required to submit to the Commission, at the time of the Administration's next budget, a list of subsidies and tax advantages that it believes are inequitable. The Commission will provide recommendations to either terminate or reduce the corporate subsidies. The President has the authority under the Act to either terminate the process, or submit the Commission's recommendations to the Congress as a legislative initiative. The Congress would then have four months to review the Commission's recommendations which have been endorsed by the President. At that time, the actions of all involved committees in each respective body would be sent to the floor for debate, under expedited procedures. Many federal subsidies and special-interest tax breaks for corporations are unnecessary, and do not provide a fair return to the taxpayers who bear the heavy burden of their cost. If a corporation is receiving taxpayer-funded subsidies or tax breaks that are unsupported by a compelling benefit to the public, the subsidy should be ended. Our nation is just now beginning to pay down a national debt of over $5 trillion. Every American shoulders an unconscionable amount of debt--somewhere in the range of $19,000 each--not due to any profligate spending of their own, but because of the fiscal irresponsibility of their elected officials in Congress. The citizens who expect leadership and accountability from their representatives have gotten special interest pandering in return. This is devastating to our nation's fiscal stability, and crippling to the ability of the Congress to respond to truly urgent social needs such as health care, education, and national security. Let me note a couple of estimates of this scope of unjustified federal subsidies to corporations that illustrates how expensive this burden is. When I first introduced this legislation, the CATO Institute had identified 125 federal programs that provided over $85 billion in industry subsidies. The Progressive Policy Institute identified an additional $30 billion in tax loopholes for major industries. Unfortunately, the pervasive system of pork-barreling and special interest legislating is speeding along unabated in Washington. Instead of pursuing our nation's priorities in a bipartisan manner, both parties continue to legislate, posture, and spend for partisan advantage. I have worked hard during my service in the Senate to eliminate wasteful earmarks in appropriations bills. Yet this year alone, more than $13 billion in pork barrel spending was approved by the Senate. I was also dismayed at the inclusion of numerous special- interest tax breaks contained in the comprehensive tax bill passed by the Congress this year, then vetoed. Mr. President, I want to state openly that I would strongly prefer to eliminate corporate subsidies and inequitable tax subsidies without resorting to a commission. I would rather have every committee in the House and Senate open the next session of Congress by expeditiously examining their areas of jurisdiction for unwarranted corporate pork. Then, each respective body could engage in a full and thorough debate on the merits of each subsidy, and vote on their termination or modification. However, I regret that approach is unlikely to occur, because of the difficulty in resisting the requests of the special interests. The bill I am introducing today represents a practical approach to establishing not only a credible process to identify corporate pork, but to then take the important next step of achieving real reductions on behalf of over-taxed constituents. I look forward to this bill being brought before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee early next year. To ensure that the Senate Committee on Finance has an opportunity to evaluate any tax policy modifications contained in this Act, I have agreed to a sequential referral consent request with the leadership of those two committees. I am hopeful that this bill represents the beginning of a serious and productive process to alleviate the public burden of unnecessary corporate subsidies and tax breaks.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, just like the rest of our health care delivery system, our nation's military health care delivery system cries out for reform. While both systems are plagued with rising costs and barriers to full access, the military health care delivery system is facing some very unique challenges. I intend to submit the ``Contract With Our Service Members--Past and Present'' first thing next session. A principal objective of this Contract will be military health care reform. One of the critical challenges is how best to reconfigure the military health care delivery system so that it might continue to meet its military readiness and peace-time obligations at a time of continuous change for our base and force structure. This is a challenge with which I have been grappling for some time. In the process of deciding how to proceed, I have been meeting with, and hearing from, many military family members, veterans and military retirees from around the country. I was inundated with suggestions for reform. In every meeting and every letter, I encountered retired service men and women who have problems with every aspect of the military medical care system--with long waiting periods, with access to the right kind of care, with access to needed pharmaceutical drugs, and with the broken promise of lifetime health care for military retirees and their spouses. I heard these concerns expressed as I have traveled across the United States over the past several months. One of the areas of greatest concern among military retirees and their families is the ``broken promise'' of lifetime medical care, especially for those over age 65. I believe grappling with these issues presents a great challenge and demands our very best effort. Not lost on me is the urgent need to address the over-age 65 issue since there are reportedly 1,000 World War II and Korean veterans dying every day. It is imperative that as changes are made to our nation's military force and continue to be made in the future with regards to base structure, that Congress not only stay fixated on bringing health care costs under control, but that steps be taken to retain the health care coverage so critical to our nation's active duty personnel, their families, retirees, and survivors. While the world situation necessitates a modified force and base structure transformed for the new millennium, it should not carry with it an abandonment of the responsibility that our nation has to assist those who have served our country to obtain access to the health care services they need. Make no mistake, retiree health care is a readiness issue, as well. Today's servicemembers are acutely aware of retirees' disenfranchisement from military health coverage, and exit surveys cite this issue with increasing frequency as one of the factors in members' decisions to leave service. In fact, a recent GAO study found that ``access to medical and dental care in retirement'' was the number five career dissatisfier among active duty officers in retention-critical specialties. Failure to keep health care commitments is hurting service recruiting efforts as well. Traditionally, retirees have been the services' most effective recruiters, and their children and those of family friends have had a high propensity to serve. Unfortunately, increasing numbers of retirees who have seen the government renege on its ``lifetime health care'' promises have become reluctant to recommend service careers to their family members and friends. Restoring their confidence in their health care coverage will go a long way toward restoring this invaluable recruiting resource. One of the reasons that Congress has not implemented meaningful reform in the past is because of the cost of providing quality health care. Although Congress has increased the President's defense budget requests to attempt to meet our future needs, it has squandered billions each year on projects the military did not request and does not need. This year alone, Congress appropriated over $6 billion for wasteful, unnecessary, and low-priority projects that have absolutely no positive effect on preparing our military for future challenges. Congress also continues to refuse to close military bases that are not essential to our security, permitting politics to outweigh military readiness, at a cost to the taxpayer of nearly $7 billion each year. If Congress would allow the Pentagon to privatize or consolidate depot and base maintenance activities, savings of $2 billion each year could be achieved. In addition, Congress refuses to eliminate anti-competitive ``Buy American'' restrictions, which could save almost $5.5 billion annually on defense contracts. These common sense reforms alone would free up more than $20 billion per year, which could be used to begin remedying our readiness shortfalls and provide once-and-for-all a quality health care delivery system for our aged military retirees. Additionally, most disgraceful is the fact that, while Congress wastes taxpayer money on obsolete infrastructure, unneeded weapons systems, and projects that have no meaningful value to the Armed Forces, it simultaneously refuses to adequately pay the nearly 12,000 enlisted military personnel who are forced to subsist on food stamps. In October 1999, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the rest of the Joint Chiefs testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the state of the military and universally declared the year 2000 to be the year of health care reform. Although this was a critical step for the senior uniformed military leadership to acknowledge this thinking in their testimony to the Senate, it must not become our military's Y2K problem and fall prey to election year politics. On October 26, 1999 General Henry Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate Committee on Armed Services: Although we have done much over the past year to improve readiness, much more needs to be done to sustain the momentum. This year, for example, we intend to focus on another component that affects personnel readiness, the quality of our military medical system . . . . The Joint Chiefs are fully committed to supporting the Department of Defense efforts to improve both the fact and the perception of military health care for all the beneficiaries. Those who serve or have served proudly deserve quality care. One of the critical pieces of the last several years' laws on military health care was the institution of several limited pilot projects in Medicare subvention and FEHBP. As important as the select locations was the cooperation that was achieved between several agencies who were responsible for implementing the pilot project legislation devised by the Republican Congress. These pilot projects serve as important interim measures for health care reform and as a valuable comparisons of the strengths and weaknesses of the military health care delivery system. Moreover, valuable lessons can be learned from comparing the current state of the military health care program with those available in the private sector system that may have applicability to the military system, to lay the groundwork for a more comprehensive reform effort. The rush to implement military health care reform and the evaluation of current health care delivery pilot projects must be balanced with the need to provide critical health care to the over-65 military retirees and their families. Their angst towards losing any minimal health care they had from the time they retired to turning age-65 is multiplied on their 65th birthday. If this is to be the year of military health care, a key part of this effort must entail reassuring these older retirees that the Department of Defense will no longer deny or ignore their legitimate health care needs. By doing so, Congress also will be taking an essential step to reassure today's servicemembers that the government does, in fact, keep its recruiting and retention promises concerning health care and other career service benefits. The legislation that I am working on in the Senate would be the next step down the road to meaningful reform of our Nation's military health care delivery system. This legislation would offer the military retiree and his family several health care delivery plans to choose from. Having the choice to decide which health care plan works well is important for two reasons. One to be able to control overall health care reform costs and secondly, each retirees needs are different. Some military retirees may not mind driving 100 miles to a military treatment facility for health care as long as they have access to a viable, quality pharmaceutical plan. Other military retirees and their families may not be able to drive long distances for their primary health care needs and instead require a health care delivery plan that is much closer to their home. Another objective of this health care reform plan, is that in the event of another base closure round, any plan be portable and less dependent on any military hospital system. Some military retirees live near military installations and would be happy to use military care if they only had access to it. Others who live far from installations may be satisfied with the addition of a relatively low-cost prescription drug benefit. Still others desperately need full-coverage insurance such as FEHBP. I am working on another key health care bill with cosponsors Representative Norwood from Georgia and Representative Shows from Mississippi. I have worked closely with my dear friend and Medal of Honor recipient, Colonel Bud Day, over the years and he has helped me to understand how unfair our health care system is to our military retirees and the governments' failure to keep its promise to them. I believe that if we are to restore the credibility in our government we must begin by keeping our promises to our men and women in uniform, past and present. The health care reform plan that is enacted must also promote more efficiency in the military health care system. Right now our military health care system which offers limited health care benefits to those over-age 65 retirees is operating $800 million in the red. There are many efficiency practices that the beneficiaries have brought to my attention that would improve the military health care delivery system through: better billing practices, quality control of electronic forms processing, regular surveys of military health care beneficiaries, and bringing the various health care delivery systems under a single system could save hundreds of millions of dollars. The federal government must not abandon the health care coverage needs of our nation's military retirees, their families, and survivors. I will continue to work over the next couple of months with The Military Coalition and The Military Veterans Alliance, representing nearly 10 million members, to enact comprehensive reform of the military health care system, which fulfills our obligation to our military retirees, and bolsters retention and readiness among today's servicemembers by assuring them that retention promises will be fulfilled once their active service is over. Mr. President, next year will be, in the words of the Joint Chiefs, the year of health care reform. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the ``Contract With Our Service Members--Past and Present.'' A key objective of this Contract, legislation to reform our military health care system, must be successful if Congress is to restore the American people's faith in their government. Thank you and I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I agree with my colleague that the authors of this bill did not mean to interfere with the expert technical and regulatory judgment of the FCC with respect to licensing applicants in the Ku- band. The term ``primary user'' in Section 2002 is intended to include primary users, regardless of whether these users are primary on the date of enactment or are later designated as primary. The provision in no way seeks to grant preferential regulatory treatment to terrestrial license applicants over satellite system applicants. While there appears to be an error in the report accompanying this legislation, which incorrectly states that the statute says that ``existing'' primary users must be protected, clearly the statute does not contain this qualifier, and it is our intent that the FCC protect primary users, whether designated now, or later.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I cannot support this budget deal because it spends the budget surplus, breaks our pledge to reduce the size and intrusiveness of the government, fails to deliver the tax relief American families deserve, and further imperils the Social Security system upon which so many Americans depend for their retirement security. The ``budget crisis'' has become an annual, end-of-the-year ritual in which closed-door deals produce even more fodder for public cynicism about their government. This budget deal short-changes American taxpayers and benefits special interests, illustrating once again that the President and a majority of the Congress would rather spend the budget surplus on big government, special interest giveaways, and pork- barrel spending. This deal makes a mockery of our obligation to responsibly exercise the ``power of the purse'' conferred on the Congress by the Constitution. It busts the budget caps set just two years ago by more than $20 billion. It obscures the true cost of the deal by using $36 billion in budget gimmickry. It contains nearly $14 billion in everyday, garden-variety pork- barrel spending. It spends every dime of the non-Social Security surplus, instead of setting that money aside to provide tax relief to American families, and shore up Social Security and Medicare. It resorts to an across-the-board budget cut to avoid dipping into the Social Security surplus, rather than making the hard choices among spending priorities. Some people have said this year's deal is not as bad as last year's deal. Looking at some statistics, that could be true to a certain extent: Last year, the omnibus appropriations bill was 4,000 pages long and weighed over 40 pounds; this year's stack of bills is only about 1,500 pages long but it's almost a foot high. Last year's deal was done 21 days late and covered 8 of the regular appropriations bill that funded 10 federal agencies; this year's deal covers only 5 of the regular spending bills for 7 agencies, but it's 50 days overdue--more than twice as late as last year. Last year, the negotiators added more than $20 billion in extra spending; this year, they only added a little more than $6 billion. And last year, the whole deal was wrapped up in a single bill that included the text of 7 spending bills and a host of other legislation; this year, we are casting one vote, but it will count as a vote on each of 10 separate bills. I guess one could legitimately claim, based on those statistics, that this year's deal is not as bad as last year's deal. But like last year, this year's budget-busting behemoth is not amendable by any Member of Congress not involved in the negotiations over the past several weeks. Like last year, the process was deliberately designed to prevent any Member of Congress from changing any aspect of this back-room deal. What a farce. Mr. President, like last year, this non-amendable budget deal is loaded down with pork, its true cost is obscured by budget gimmickry, and it is weighed down by policy ``riders'' that have no place in budget bills. Before this deal was cut, the Senate had already passed spending bills containing over $13 billion in wasteful, unnecessary, and low- priority spending that was added without benefit of consideration in the normal, merit-based review process. That's more than the $11 billion added by Congress for Fiscal Year 1999, and almost twice the $7 billion wasted in Fiscal Year 1998. On my website, I have published 264 pages of pork-barrel spending projects in the appropriations bills that passed the Senate earlier this year. The bill before the Senate today contains even more everyday, garden- variety pork-barrel spending--almost half a billion dollars more than in the original bills. Some items which agencies were ``encouraged'' or ``urged'' to fund in earlier versions of these appropriations bills have now been earmarked for funding. Other projects that were earmarked in report language are now included in the bill language. Presumably, these further clarifications of Congressional intent were included to improve upon the already near certainty that these pork-barrel projects will be funded ahead of other projects of possibly higher priority or more deserving of the taxpayers' support. Just a few examples of new earmarks and special interest items in this bill include: $2 million for the University of Mississippi for a phytomedicine project. $1 million for the Noble Army Hospital of Alabama bio-terrorism program. $300,000 for the Vasona Center Youth Science Institute. $5 million for the International Law Enforcement Center for the Western Hemisphere in Roswell, New Mexico $160,000 for a Mason City, Iowa, bus facility $250,000 for the New York Hall of Science in Queens, New York $100,000 for the Philadelphia Orchestra's Philly Pops to run a jazz- in-the-schools program in Philadelphia $2.5 million for the Dante-Fascell North-South Center $1,840,000 for Kansas buses and bus facilities (in addition to the $1.5 million already provided). Mr. President, as my colleagues know, over $7.4 billion of the pork- barrel spending in this year's budget is in the defense budget, including almost $1 billion in low-priority military construction projects. This waste is disgraceful at a time when the Army's most recent assessments of its forces show none of the Army's divisions is rated at the highest state of readiness, or C-1. Not one of our Army divisions has the resources and training to undertake the wartime missions for which they are ordered to be ready. Shortfalls in personnel, parts, and funding, combined with extended deployments on peacekeeping and other contingency operations, have contributed to a serious decline that puts our soldiers at greater risk if a conflict were to erupt, and threatens the ability of our forces to prevail. This is a disgrace and an abomination that the American people will not tolerate. Mr. President, for those who wonder how these projects are paid for, let's look at the clever budget gimmicks that are included in this deal. First, there is the ``emergency'' spending designation, which most reasonable people assume should be used only for disasters, emergencies, and other unforeseeable happenings. Well, in this deal, the Congress has expanded somewhat the definition of ``emergency'' to include: the 2000 census, which we've known about since the Constitution was written, routine military training and base operations, and even the Head Start program. So-called emergencies in this year's spending bills add up to $24 billion. Some of the uses of these funds are truly emergencies, such as alleviating severe economic hardship on small farmers or assisting those devastated by hurricanes. But over half of the emergency funds are designated as such in a blatant effort to avoid the discipline of the budget caps. The reality, however, is that ``emergency'' spending must still be paid for by tax revenues. And the tax revenues that will pay for most of these emergencies are those generated by Social Security taxes, that are supposed to be reserved to pay benefits for retirees. Another gimmick is the use of ``forward-funding'', whereby money is appropriated for projects or programs, but it cannot be spent until the first day of the next fiscal year. This money is not counted against this year's budget caps, but again, it is real spending that must be paid for next year, within even more stringent budget caps. Using the ``forward funding'' gimmick, a staggering $10 billion for job training, medical research, and education grants is pushed into next year, potentially impairing the management and effectiveness of these programs. In addition, the Department of Defense is directed to delay timely payments on its contracts to save $2 billion. This gimmick will result in higher costs for the Pentagon because of late payment fees and disruption in programs under contract. Mr. President, most disgraceful, however, is a new gimmick that will delay paychecks for all military personnel and federal civilian employees for three days from September 29 to October 2, 2000. For the sake of a few billion dollars worth of pork, the Congress is withholding hard-earned pay from those who volunteer to serve their nation in the military or as a civil servant. The potential impact on these men and women and their families is immeasurable. Many may have to pay late fees on rent or other bills and penalties and higher interest on credit cards. Some families, especially those who already are forced to subsist on food stamps, will have to struggle doubly hard to put food on the table while they wait for the Congress to pay them for their service. Mr. President, I find it absolutely outrageous that the Congress would attempt to balance this pork-laden budget deal on the backs of our men and women in uniform. Is this the way we show our respect and appreciation for those who are willing to put their lives at risk for all of our freedoms? Is this the way we repay the families of our service men and women who spend many months and years separated from their loved ones during wars and overseas assignments? This is disgraceful, and I am ashamed that the Congress would take this action against those whose duty and sacrifice we should honor, not abuse. Mr. President, I think it is important that the American public know that this paycheck slip gimmick--a gimmick that denies our proud men and women in the military, and hard-working people who work for the government the pay they have worked for and deserve--this gimmick does not affect the Congress. No one who works on Capitol Hill will get their paychecks even a day late. No one who was involved in negotiating this abominable deal--not Senators or Congressmen or their staffs--will get their paychecks late. Clearly, this demonstrates to the American people the Congress' opinion of its own importance. Several other gimmicks abound in this deal--transferring surplus funds from the Federal Reserve into general revenues, improved collection of student loans, and more rescissions of funding from various programs, totaling several billion dollars in claimed savings. And finally, in order to get closer to balancing the books on this budget deal, the negotiators picked and chose among the cost estimates provided by the competing budget scorekeepers for the Congress and the Administration, taking the lowest estimate they could find for each program so that they could squeeze more pork into the deal. The negotiators claim that their deal costs about $17 billion less the Congressional Budget Office estimates. What this means is that, despite vehement claims to the contrary, $17 billion of the Social Security surplus will be used to pay for the waste and largesse in this budget deal. Taking another $17 billion from an already financially unstable Social Security system will only exacerbate the fears of many Americans about their retirement security. Ironically, Mr. President, none of these specific gimmicks yielded enough ``savings'' to bring the budget deal back under control and keep our hands out of the Social Security cookie jar. And since no one was willing to volunteer cuts in any of their special interest programs, the negotiators took the easy way out. Rather than setting budget priorities, like any American family must do to make ends meet, the negotiators resorted to an across-the-board cut of about $2 billion. At first glance, one would think that the President, who so stridently objected to this indiscriminate cut when he vetoed an earlier bill, would have objected to its inclusion in this deal. But it seems that the negotiators decided to give the President a whole lot of flexibility in choosing the programs that will be cut. For example: If the President doesn't want to cut the White House travel budget by four-tenths of a percent, he can instead cut funding for the National Security Council staff. If he doesn't want to cut the staff budget of the Attorney General, he can instead cut the funding for the Waco investigation or take a million dollars out of programs to prevent violence against women. If he doesn't want to cut the administrative accounts of the Secretary of Education, he can cut Head Start by another couple million dollars. If he doesn't want to cut the drug czar's office expenses account, he can cut $200,000 or more of the funding for the anti-heroin strategy. If the President doesn't want to cut four-tenths of a percent of the funding for any one program, he can instead cut up to 15 percent of any line item approved by the Congress in any appropriations bill this year to get the savings. Even though I clearly don't think Congress has done a very good job of allocating resources among our nation's priorities, why in the world would the Congress cede to the President the ability to decide where to take almost $2 billion from programs that have been approved by Congress through the appropriations process? Frankly, I recommend that the President take that money out of the $13 billion in pork that the Congress added to the budget. Finally, Mr. President, let me take a moment to talk about the policy ``riders'' that have found their way into the appropriations process this year. As my colleagues know, the Senate has a rule--Rule 16--that is supposed to prevent the inclusion of legislative or authorizing provisions in spending bills. In fact, the Senate voted earlier this year to reinstate that rule. Unfortunately, when a process moves behind closed doors, these ``riders'' seem to proliferate. There were over 65 legislative riders on the appropriations bills that passed the Senate earlier this year, but it seems that every time I turn around, I hear about another issue that will be rolled into this non-amendable budget package. Perhaps that is a result of the fact that these end-of-the-year budget deals are usually negotiated by Members of the Appropriations Committee, rather than the authorizers. Or it may be driven by the need to garner support for the deal from Members who may have a special interest in an issue. Whatever the reason, the inclusion of legislative matters thwarts the very process that is needed to ensure that our laws address the concerns and interests of all Americans, not just a few who seek special protection or advantage. Some of these riders are not necessarily objectionable to me, but the circumvention of the authorization process that took place makes me unable to benefit from the advice and recommendations of the committees of jurisdiction and their members. I should note, however, that many of the reported efforts to add riders to the bill were unsuccessful, for which I applaud the negotiators. However, most of the 32 new riders in this bill are highly objectionable because of their content as well as the process that led to their inclusion in this budget deal. For example, one of the last-minute riders in this legislation would grant a new lease on life to the milk cartel known as the Northeast Dairy Compact, which milks consumers in New England by providing an above-market price to the region's dairy farmers. The compact is set to expire under a bill this Congress passed in 1996, but the pending legislation would reverse this ``Freedom to Farm'' reform. The legislation before us would also overturn milk pricing reforms mandated by Congress in 1996, supported by our Department of Agriculture, and ratified by the nation's dairy farmers in a referendum last summer. These reforms were developed by USDA over a three-year period and reflect a consensus-based approach worked out with America's dairy farmers and producers. Consumer groups estimate that blocking milk pricing reform in favor of the current system, as this legislation does, will cost consumers across America between $185 million and $1 billion a year--a sharp blow to low-income individuals, who spend more on dairy products as a portion of household income. I cannot in good conscience support the repeal of market-oriented reforms passed by a Republican Congress in 1996 to benefit American consumers. I fear that, yet again, a narrow core of special interests has trumped the people's interest in consumer-oriented milk pricing and marketing reforms. Another last-minute rider will carve out liability exemptions for certain recycling businesses under the Superfund law. Although these same provisions are under consideration in a separate bill as well as part of a broader Superfund reform effort, this rider affords special treatment to a small group of affected industries with a last-minute add-on that is another of a targeted special interest deal. Superfund reform is important to our nation, yet such piece-meal measures can thwart the intentions and progress of those who have made good-faith efforts to work through a legislative process. Regarding the inclusion in this deal of the restoration of certain Medicare benefits, in 1997, Congress made some difficult, but necessary changes in the financial structure of the Medicare system as a part of the Balanced Budget Act. These changes were needed to strengthen the system and delay its impending bankruptcy from 2001 until 2015. These reforms allowed us to preserve and protect the Medicare program while increasing choice and expanding benefits for beneficiaries. However, at the end of last year, many of us began hearing from health care providers and seniors about the unintended negative consequences which certain provisions may be having on current beneficiaries and providers in the Medicare system. There has been increasing concern that certain reimbursement reductions and caps contained in the Balanced Budget Act could result in access problems for our nation's seniors if they were not adjusted this year. Personally, I have grown increasingly concerned about this problem, particularly about the negative impact on health care delivery which it may pose for our nation's most frail or rural elderly. While I support the overall intentions of these provisions, I am concerned about provisions which have been slipped in to benefit only a select area or specific companies, rather than addressing the national problem of access to safe, quality and affordable health care for Medicare recipients. For example, hospitals in Iredell County, North Carolina; Orange County, New York; Lake County, Indiana; Lee County, Illinois; Hamilton-Middletown, Ohio; Brazoria County, Texas; and Chittenden County, Vermont are given special consideration for reimbursement under the Medicare program. Wesley Medical Center in Mississippi as well as Lehigh Valley Hospital are given special reimbursement consideration under this bill. Meanwhile, the District of Columbia, Minnesota, Wyoming and New Mexico are provided increases for their hospitals. Sadly, Congress has once again taken a well intentioned piece of legislation and inserted provisions directly benefitting only a select few at the expense of all taxpayers. Finally, Mr. President, nothing would please me more than being able to endorse all the satellite television provisions included in this appropriations bill. Some of them are good news for satellite TV consumers, who would gain the ability to receive local TV signals as part of their satellite TV service package, have discontinued distant network TV station signal service restored, and be relieved of unfair limitations on their ability to subscribe to distant network signals when their local network stations are unwatchable off-air. Cable TV subscribers would also be indirect beneficiaries, because anything that makes satellite TV a more attractive alternative to cable TV increases the cable operators' incentive to keep monthly rates in check. Considering the fact that cable TV rates have increased more than 20 percent since the passage of the 1996 Telecom Act, cable subscribers more than deserve this kind of break. Despite all this, and despite the fact that I have worked for over a year and a half to bring procompetitive relief to satellite TV and cable TV subscribers, I find myself having to speak out against some of the other satellite TV provisions that also appear in this bill. Why? Because these other provisions substantially undercut the bill's promised consumer benefits. Why, then, were they included? To protect special interests--in this case, the TV broadcasters, the TV program producers, and the professional sports leagues. The primary special interest benefitted by these new provisions is the TV broadcasters. Under the law they're considered to be ``public trustees,'' and as such they have enjoyed considerable protection against competition, thanks to the Congress (which fears the power of the local network stations) and to the FCC (which fears the Congress). Nevertheless, neither Congress nor the FCC can hold back technology, and local broadcasters have increasingly found themselves subjected to competition from new multichannel video technologies--first cable TV, and now, satellite TV. So the last thing the broadcast TV industry is receptive to is the prospect that satellite TV might be able to increase its competitive power and thereby lure more of the local broadcast audience--and revenue base--away. That was one of the reasons why local broadcasters finally sued satellite TV companies that were offering distant network TV stations to subscribers who technically weren't entitled to receive them--even though many of these subscribers had, in fact, been receiving them for years without causing any apparent harm to local stations. The lawsuit was successful, and as a result many existing satellite TV subscribers found their distant network stations suddenly dropped, even when they couldn't get satisfactory off-air service from their local stations. Not surprisingly, this led to widespread consumer protest. The House and the Senate Commerce Committees passed legislation that, taken together, would have solved satellite TV consumers' problems without inflicting material harm on broadcasters. But the legislation before us today contains a number of new provisions that will hurt satellite TV consumers and serve no purpose other than protecting the congruent interests of the well-heeled TV broadcasters, program producers, and professional sports leagues. These new provisions will adversely impact the very competition Congress claims it's trying to enhance, and the very satellite TV consumers Congress claims it's trying to help. The first of these objectionable new provisions directly affects the ability of satellite TV companies to offer their subscribers local TV stations. Specifically, it governs the process whereby satellite TV companies negotiate with the TV networks for the rights to carry their local affiliates. This issue has always been one of considerable concern because the TV networks have the stronger bargaining position, and the incentives, to extract unfair prices and conditions from satellite TV companies in return for giving them the right to carry local affiliates. Satellite TV companies' inability to offer local network stations has been cited repeatedly as the principal competitive disadvantage satellite TV companies face. The TV networks, therefore, begin with a strong bargaining advantage. Added to this is the fact that the networks also hold substantial cable TV programming interests, which increases the possibility that they could seek to extract further competition- dampening conditions that would serve the interests of their cable- channel partners. And, of course, the fact that the networks' local affiliates have been in litigation with the satellite TV industry adds to the concerns about the networks' incentives to withhold consent to carry their local affiliates unless, and until, the satellite TV carriers agree to whatever onerous and unfair terms and prices the networks might choose to dictate. Now let's see how this legislation deals with this critical issue. Not only does this legislation omit fair-dealing requirements that had been included in the House bill; it adds a new provision, dictated by the broadcast industry, that makes a mockery of any notion of fair dealing. This new provision gives satellite TV companies a six-month ``shot- clock'' to negotiate and obtain a signed retransmission consent agreement from a TV network for carriage of its local affiliate. During this time the satellite TV company could begin offering the station to its subscribers. But there's a catch if, at the end of six months, the satellite TV company doesn't get the consent. First of all, the broadcaster, and only the broadcaster, is allowed to file a complaint and request a cease-and-desist order from the FCC. Moreover, the legislation doesn't simply deprive an aggrieved satellite TV company of the ability to file a complaint against an unreasonably recalcitrant broadcaster; it goes further, and specifically denies the satellite TV company any right to claim that the broadcaster didn't negotiate in good faith. These patently unfair provisions are complemented by penalties so stringent that no satellite TV company in its right mind would knowingly risk them. Let's examine exactly what this is will mean in real terms. The big benefit that satellite TV consumers are supposed to get from this legislation is local signals, and their ability to get local signals depends on their satellite TV company's ability to close a deal with the networks, which have strong bargaining power and palpable disincentives to deal dispassionately. So what does this new provision do? It deletes the substantive provision that would have provided a statutory guarantee of fair dealing, adds a complaint process front- loaded to benefit the party that has the stronger bargaining position and the incentive to deal unfairly, deprives the party that's in the weaker bargaining position from raising unfair treatment as a defense, and imposes huge penalties on the party with the weaker bargaining position if it fails to enter into an agreement before the six-month deadline expires. In practical terms, this presents any underdog satellite TV companies that don't already have retransmission consent agreements with a set of Hobson's Choices when it comes to offering local stations. They can, of course, simply not begin carrying local stations unless and until they have the required retransmission consents. That's the safest thing to do. But if they don't start carrying local signals right away, they certainly won't be offering their customers the ``local stations by Christmas'' promised by those who back this legislation. In addition, they'll not only be perpetuating the competitive disadvantage they already face when it comes to competing with cable TV; they'll be incurring a completely new competitive disadvantage when it comes to competing with other satellite TV companies that already have agreements. If, on the other hand, a satellite TV company begins offering local signals before obtaining the necessary agreements, it entails the risk that if the six month negotiation period runs out without mutually-acceptable terms having been reached, the satellite TV company will have to either drop the local signals or agree to whatever terms the network wants. Pretty clearly, the effect of this new provision is pro-broadcaster, not pro-consumer or pro-competitive. But it's not the only new provision that protects special interests at the expense of the public's interest. This legislation also protects local network TV stations from any action by the FCC to change an outdated 50-year old law whose effect is to prevent many satellite TV subscribers from receiving additional distant network stations. The legislation's new program blackout provisions are another Congressional valentine to special interests. These provisions could result in blackouts of scheduled network programming, non-network programming, and especially sports programming, on the distant stations satellite TV consumers get. This will make the broadcasters and TV program producers happy, at the expense of making millions of satellite TV consumers unhappy when uninterrupted reception of distant station programming becomes a thing of the past. The sports programming that so many satellite TV consumers enjoy is at the greatest risk. In a special favor to the NFL and the other professional sports leagues, the legislation will require satellite TV carriers to black out sports programming on distant network stations unless the FCC finds it's ``economically prohibitive'' for the satellite TV company to do so--a standard that virtually guarantees blackouts. And when these blackouts are imposed, no existing satellite TV subscriber--not even those who have their distant network signal service restored, or the big backyard dish owners who were the very first satellite TV subscribers--would be exempt, no matter how long they have received multiple distant stations without blackouts and without inflicting any detectable harm on any of the special interests at whose behest these new provisions were added. Rather than prolonging this discussion further, let me sum up. Before you now is the latest example of how special interests can, and do, make Congress shape legislation to suit what they want, rather than what average Americans need and deserve.. At some point, the American people will get fed up, and the ability of special interests to exercise unwarranted influence like this will be constrained. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen today, and therefore I will close--but not without some promises that, I assure you, I intend to keep. I will continue to do everything I can to make sure that satellite TV consumers are helped, and multichannel competition improves, after this legislation is enacted. I will convene the Commerce Committee early next year to examine how competition and consumers are being affected by this legislation. I will introduce and I will move new legislation to correct any problems we see. I will also make sure that the FCC does all it can to help Congress serve the interests of satellite TV consumers and multichannel video competition. To begin this process I will send a letter tomorrow to FCC Chairman William Kennard, requesting that the Commission establish, as quickly as possible, the minimum requirements for bargaining in ``good faith'' for retransmission consent agreements, and submit recommendations to Congress, as quickly as possible, on further legislation that will redefine what constitutes a ``viewable'' local TV signal. This will remove the problem that keeps satellite TV subscribers from getting as many distant TV stations from their satellite TV companies as they otherwise could. All these measures will enable us to cure the problems these particular special-interest provisions will cause. In the meantime, it's helpful to recall that in the final analysis they won't affect our everyday lives as profoundly as other special interests do when it comes to other legislation. The provisions before us today won't determine how much we must pay in taxes, how we are permitted to educate our children, how we obtain health care, or how our seniors will be protected. But in spite of that, they will serve to remind us-- when we watch satellite TV or open our monthly cable TV bills--that, when it comes to legislation pending before Congress, no corporate issue is too small, and no consumer issue is too big, to avoid the pervasive grasp of entrenched special interests. Mr. President, I cannot support this budget deal. I wonder, Mr. President, when will we begin to listen to the American people? When will we take heed of the absolute cynicism about the ways of Washington? When will we reform the way we do business so that we might reclaim the faith and confidence of the people we are sworn to serve? Sadly, we seem never to learn. The last-minute, end-of-year budget agreement has become a yearly ritual and a tired cliche. Mr. President, we have all year to complete our business in a responsible manner like grownups. But every day, at great expense to the taxpayers, we whirl about in our self-importance, never to be diverted from playing at our pathetic partisan political games. After all the hearings, paper-shuffling, and speech-making, the taxpayers' hard-earned money is spent according to the whims of a massive, hastily compiled budget deal that contains lots of goodies for Members of Congress and special interests, but very little for the American people--an annual monument to our arrogance that is chock full of pork-barrel spending, special-interest riders, and clever budget gimmicks, but not one morsel of family tax relief. Mr. President, in just a few short weeks, we will usher in a new century and a new millennium. This is a time of renewal and reform. Just as individual Americans take stock of themselves and resolve to do and be better, perhaps we elected officials might resolve to set a better example in the way we conduct the people's business. Perhaps in the year 2000, we might address ourselves not to partisan gridlock and political games, but to restoring the people's faith in their elected leaders. Perhaps next year we can spare the American people the grim faces and high drama of the last-minute budget summit, and simply do our work responsibly, in the open, and on time. Maybe then we can restore the confidence in our public institutions that is so badly flagging, but is so essential to making the new century worthy of the highest dreams and aspirations of the people we are privileged to serve.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to establish a process to eliminate and reform federal subsidies and tax advantages received by corporations. This bill, ``The Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission Act'' is identical to a bill that was reported out of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in May, 1997. I am pleased to have as cosponsors Senators Thompson, Lieberman, and Abraham. I would like to briefly describe the major provisions of the Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission Act. It defines inequitable subsidies as those provided to corporations without a reasonable expectation that they will return a commensurate benefit to the public. The Act excludes any subsidies that are primarily for research and development, education, public health, safety, or the environment. Also excluded are subsidies or tax advantages necessary to comply with international trade or treaty obligations. The Act would create a nine-member commission nominated by the President and the Congressional leadership. Federal agencies would be required to submit to the Commission, at the time of the Administration's next budget, a list of subsidies and tax advantages that it believes are inequitable. The Commission will provide recommendations to either terminate or reduce the corporate subsidies. The President has the authority under the Act to either terminate the process, or submit the Commission's recommendations to the Congress as a legislative initiative. The Congress would then have four months to review the Commission's recommendations which have been endorsed by the President. At that time, the actions of all involved committees in each respective body would be sent to the floor for debate, under expedited procedures. Many federal subsidies and special-interest tax breaks for corporations are unnecessary, and do not provide a fair return to the taxpayers who bear the heavy burden of their cost. If a corporation is receiving taxpayer-funded subsidies or tax breaks that are unsupported by a compelling benefit to the public, the subsidy should be ended. Our nation is just now beginning to pay down a national debt of over $5 trillion. Every American shoulders an unconscionable amount of debt--somewhere in the range of $19,000 each--not due to any profligate spending of their own, but because of the fiscal irresponsibility of their elected officials in Congress. The citizens who expect leadership and accountability from their representatives have gotten special interest pandering in return. This is devastating to our nation's fiscal stability, and crippling to the ability of the Congress to respond to truly urgent social needs such as health care, education, and national security. Let me note a couple of estimates of this scope of unjustified federal subsidies to corporations that illustrates how expensive this burden is. When I first introduced this legislation, the CATO Institute had identified 125 federal programs that provided over $85 billion in industry subsidies. The Progressive Policy Institute identified an additional $30 billion in tax loopholes for major industries. Unfortunately, the pervasive system of pork-barreling and special interest legislating is speeding along unabated in Washington. Instead of pursuing our nation's priorities in a bipartisan manner, both parties continue to legislate, posture, and spend for partisan advantage. I have worked hard during my service in the Senate to eliminate wasteful earmarks in appropriations bills. Yet this year alone, more than $13 billion in pork barrel spending was approved by the Senate. I was also dismayed at the inclusion of numerous special- interest tax breaks contained in the comprehensive tax bill passed by the Congress this year, then vetoed. Mr. President, I want to state openly that I would strongly prefer to eliminate corporate subsidies and inequitable tax subsidies without resorting to a commission. I would rather have every committee in the House and Senate open the next session of Congress by expeditiously examining their areas of jurisdiction for unwarranted corporate pork. Then, each respective body could engage in a full and thorough debate on the merits of each subsidy, and vote on their termination or modification. However, I regret that approach is unlikely to occur, because of the difficulty in resisting the requests of the special interests. The bill I am introducing today represents a practical approach to establishing not only a credible process to identify corporate pork, but to then take the important next step of achieving real reductions on behalf of over-taxed constituents. I look forward to this bill being brought before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee early next year. To ensure that the Senate Committee on Finance has an opportunity to evaluate any tax policy modifications contained in this Act, I have agreed to a sequential referral consent request with the leadership of those two committees. I am hopeful that this bill represents the beginning of a serious and productive process to alleviate the public burden of unnecessary corporate subsidies and tax breaks.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today the Senate will consider H.R. 3419, the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. H.R. 3419 reflects a negotiated compromise between the House and Senate on two bills (S. 1501 and H.R. 2679). I want to extend my appreciation to Senators Hutchison, Hollings, and Breaux, along with Congressmen Shuster and Oberstar, for their bipartisan effort in developing this comprehensive motor carrier safety legislation. I also want to acknowledge the recommendations by the Office of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Inspector General, Ken Mead and his staff, as well as the highway safety advocates, truck drivers, industry officials, and safety enforcement officials for their suggestions on improving truck and bus safety. During the past year, significant attention has been directed toward truck safety issues in both chambers. Following a comprehensive analysis on the federal motor carrier safety program by the DOT Inspector General, the Commerce Committee held two hearings on truck safety concerns. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee also conducted a number of oversight hearings and DOT initiated its own programmatic review. Based on these efforts, a consensus on the need to enact legislation to improve truck safety developed leading to the bipartisan legislation before the Senate today. The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act would establish a separate Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration within the DOT to carry out motor carrier safety responsibilities. I clearly do not desire to expand the size of the federal government. I know my view is shared by many of my colleagues. However, the near unanimous views voiced by all the interested parties involved in motor carrier safety agree that a separate agency is needed to remedy a severe lack of leadership over motor carrier safety enforcement and regulatory responsibilities at DOT. This legislation addresses this serious safety lapse, but guards against increasing the already bloated Federal bureaucracy by capping employment and funding for the new agency for Fiscal Year 2000. This legislation provides additional motor carrier safety funding and we fully expect those resources to be dedicated toward increased motor carrier safety enforcement and inspection activities. The cost for unnecessary headquarters administrative or overhead positions, including public affairs officers, congressional liaison representatives and other nonsafety related positions, is not a proper use of the additional authorized funding. Therefore, the Administration is required to provided a detailed justification to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure before increasing any administrative or overhead positions beyond the current level. Mr. President, this legislation includes numerous provisions to remedy truck and bus safety problems. I believe one of the most important items in the bill is the provision directing the Department to implement all of the safety recommendations issued by the IG's April 1999 audit report. DOT has indicated it will act on some of the recommendations, but it has been more than six months since the release of the IG's report and DOT has yet to articulate a definitive action plan to implement all of the IG's recommendations. I do not believe we can risk the consequences of ignoring any of these recommendations and accordingly, H.R. 3419 would require concrete action to eliminate the identified safety gaps at DOT. It also gives DOT authority to establish an advisory committee to assist the Secretary in the timely completion of rulemakings and other matters. This legislation is also designed to improve the Commercial Driver's License program. It would ensure a commercial motor vehicle driver has only one driver record. This uniform driving record would include all traffic violation convictions, whether those violation are committed in a passenger vehicle or a commercial vehicle. The legislation would also require DOT to initiate a rulemaking to combine driver medical records with the commercial drivers license. Mr. President, the legislation also initiates several actions to remedy inaccurate and incomplete safety data. We must have accurate data if we are going to be able to target enforcement action against unsafe carriers and get them off our roads. Consequently, H.R. 3419 directs the Secretary to carry out a program to improve the collection and analysis of commercial motor vehicle crash data, including accident causation. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in cooperation with the newly established Motor Carrier Safety Administration, would administer the data improvement program. The legislation also addresses problems identified by the DOT Inspector General concerning foreign truck companies. It reaffirms the existing prohibition on foreign motor carriers from operating or leasing equipment anywhere within the United States outside the boundaries of a commercial zone along the U.S.-Mexico Border unless such foreign carriers have DOT authority to operate beyond the zones. Mr. President, this comprehensive safety legislation includes many other important provisions. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this important safety legislation. I ask unanimous consent a detailed Joint Explanatory Statement of the bill be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks. This Joint Statement will provide legislative history interpreting this important motor carrier safety legislation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will require a comprehensive study of alternative land management options for areas comprising the Barry Goldwater military training range and Organ Pipe National Monument in Arizona. Earlier this year, the Congress finalized the Department of Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000 which included language to renew a land-withdrawal for the Barry Goldwater training range for an additional twenty-five years to the year 2024. The final proposal transferred land management of the natural and cultural resources within the range to the Air Force and the Navy, a decision that was fully supported by both the Interior Department and the President's Council on Environmental Quality. In practical effect, the Air Force and Marine Corps have been performing the management functions at the Goldwater range for many years, and doing a very good job of it, according to most observers. In fact, the Department of Defense already dedicates significant resources to land and natural resource management of the Range. The decision to formally transfer management recognizes the superior fiscal and manpower resources available to the military Services, who also have the most compelling interest in maintaining future training access to the range, which can only be accomplished by effectively addressing environmental concerns regarding its use. During consideration of the legislative environmental impact statements and subsequent renewal proposals, no one disagreed that essential military training should continue on the range. However, several environmental groups registered concerns about the Administration's proposal for DOD management of the Range and expressed their fears that the military Services would be inappropriate and ineffective natural resources managers. I took personal interest in these expressed concerns and advocated for the strongest possible language in the final withdrawal bill to redress any potential problems should the land management of these areas ever be jeopardized under primary military authority. However, in response to continuing apprehension about proper land management in the newly passed withdrawal package, I worked with the concerned individuals to develop language directing the Department of the Interior to study and make recommendations for alternative land management scenarios for the range. Such a comprehensive study would provide information to guide the Administration and the Congress in taking appropriate future action to ensure that the cultural and natural resources on the range will continue to be preserved and protected in future years. Although I was unable to convince my colleagues that studying various land management options should be added to the Defense authorization package, I am continuing to explore appropriate land management options for the long-term. I do so because it is important that we assure that the best possible protection will be provided to the unique natural and cultural resources of these areas, consistent with the primary purpose of the range. While the Barry Goldwater Range will continue to serve its vital purpose, we have an obligation to ensure proper stewardship of our natural resources. This study will provide us with the critical information necessary to fulfill that obligation. Once an alternative management study is completed, I will ensure that any recommendations for improved management of the Goldwater Range are considered and acted on, as necessary, by the Congress. I strongly urge my colleagues to work with me to pass this legislation to ensure that the Goldwater Range is managed by the agency most qualified to protect the public's interest and preserve the precious land and natural resources of these pristine areas for future generations.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will require a comprehensive study of alternative land management options for areas comprising the Barry Goldwater military training range and Organ Pipe National Monument in Arizona. Earlier this year, the Congress finalized the Department of Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000 which included language to renew a land-withdrawal for the Barry Goldwater training range for an additional twenty-five years to the year 2024. The final proposal transferred land management of the natural and cultural resources within the range to the Air Force and the Navy, a decision that was fully supported by both the Interior Department and the President's Council on Environmental Quality. In practical effect, the Air Force and Marine Corps have been performing the management functions at the Goldwater range for many years, and doing a very good job of it, according to most observers. In fact, the Department of Defense already dedicates significant resources to land and natural resource management of the Range. The decision to formally transfer management recognizes the superior fiscal and manpower resources available to the military Services, who also have the most compelling interest in maintaining future training access to the range, which can only be accomplished by effectively addressing environmental concerns regarding its use. During consideration of the legislative environmental impact statements and subsequent renewal proposals, no one disagreed that essential military training should continue on the range. However, several environmental groups registered concerns about the Administration's proposal for DOD management of the Range and expressed their fears that the military Services would be inappropriate and ineffective natural resources managers. I took personal interest in these expressed concerns and advocated for the strongest possible language in the final withdrawal bill to redress any potential problems should the land management of these areas ever be jeopardized under primary military authority. However, in response to continuing apprehension about proper land management in the newly passed withdrawal package, I worked with the concerned individuals to develop language directing the Department of the Interior to study and make recommendations for alternative land management scenarios for the range. Such a comprehensive study would provide information to guide the Administration and the Congress in taking appropriate future action to ensure that the cultural and natural resources on the range will continue to be preserved and protected in future years. Although I was unable to convince my colleagues that studying various land management options should be added to the Defense authorization package, I am continuing to explore appropriate land management options for the long-term. I do so because it is important that we assure that the best possible protection will be provided to the unique natural and cultural resources of these areas, consistent with the primary purpose of the range. While the Barry Goldwater Range will continue to serve its vital purpose, we have an obligation to ensure proper stewardship of our natural resources. This study will provide us with the critical information necessary to fulfill that obligation. Once an alternative management study is completed, I will ensure that any recommendations for improved management of the Goldwater Range are considered and acted on, as necessary, by the Congress. I strongly urge my colleagues to work with me to pass this legislation to ensure that the Goldwater Range is managed by the agency most qualified to protect the public's interest and preserve the precious land and natural resources of these pristine areas for future generations.

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, today has been designated National Trade Education Day. We should use this opportunity to demonstrate how the United States' belief in free trade and open markets have fostered American prosperity. This issue is especially timely, because the United States will be hosting a Ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Seattle later on this month. Public support of these WTO negotiations is necessary to ensure continued economic growth in the 21st Century. The United States' economy is currently in a period of historic economic growth, low inflation, and low unemployment. America's open market plays a vital role in this achievement. Growth in the volume of American exports in goods and services accounted for more than 40% of overall U.S. economic growth in 1997. Today, exports represent 12% of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. Export sales are now responsible for over 41% of the production of American semiconductors, 42% of aircraft, 43% of computers, and 68% of power turbines. Recent stories about the trade deficit also show promise. The resurgence of the economies of our Asian, Latin American, and European trading partners created an increase in American exports of $2.9 billion totaling $82 billion in August. The trade deficit dropped $800 million last month to $24.1 billion. The recent economic news gives credence to the saying that ``A rising tide lifts all boats.'' American exports help everyone from corporate CEOs to the average American worker. In 1997, over 11,500,000 jobs depended on American exports. In addition, export-supported jobs pay 13% more than the average domestic wage. High technology industry jobs that are directly supported by exports have averaged hourly earnings 34% higher than the national average. The continued bipartisan free trade policy has benefitted the American people. It is important that the United States remain a leader in promoting policies of open markets worldwide. While our trade deficit has stabilized, we should remove remaining foreign barriers to American goods to reduce this deficit. American farmers, manufacturers and workers are hurt, when foreign countries use high tariffs, quotas, and questionable legal and safety procedures to lock American goods out of their markets. The President should make it a top priority to remove these barriers, and the Congress must give him the authority to achieve this objective. The World Trade Organization (WTO) can play an important role in pursuing American trade objectives. All members of the WTO have to make commitments to reduce barriers to goods and services, and protect intellectual property rights. The WTO has an established procedure to ensure that countries meet their obligations. The United States should ensure that our trading partners meet their commitments. When our trading partners do not meet their obligations, such as the European Union has done concerning American agricultural goods, then we should use the WTO to apply as much pressure as possible to bring these countries into compliance. The upcoming Seattle negotiations offer us a great opportunity to use the WTO to reduce more foreign barriers to American goods, agricultural products, and services. We should also ensure the growth of our high technology exports by making permanent the international moratorium on customs duties relating to electronic commerce. It is also important that we realize that international trade meets many of our national security interests. As countries trade with the United States and each other, they learn the benefits of peace and stability to economic growth. These countries see the benefits of pursuing policies that support stability, which is a major American national security objective. Last week, the Senate sent a strong message that the United States is committed to the principles of free trade by passing major trade legislation. However, the President and Congress must work together to pass another major piece of trade legislation to ensure American prosperity in the 21st Century. It is imperative that the President make a serious effort to work with the Congress to pass ``fast track'' legislation. As the next round of the WTO negotiations develop, it is important that American negotiators have the leverage to secure our trade policy objectives. In addition, ``fast track'' authority lets our trading partners know that any agreement they negotiate with the United States will not be subject to exemptions and gross re-writings by the special interests in Washington. When the negotiations concerning the WTO, the Free Trade Area of the Americas, and other ongoing trade talks come to fruition, the President will need to have ``fast track'' authority to ensure that the agreements are implemented. My hope is that we can pass ``fast track'' legislation soon in order to establish the framework for another century of American economic growth. In conclusion, I hope that we can use National Trade Education Day to gain public support for the continued pursuit of policies based on the principles of free trade. Bipartisan American trade policies, based on the belief in open markets free of regulations and tariffs, have played a major role in causing the current American prosperity. The United States should continue to pursue free trade policies that will remove barriers to American exports. I urge my colleagues to establish the foundation for future prosperity by passing ``fast-track'' legislation during this Congress.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I regret that I was unable to be here for the votes yesterday on the minimum wage. In the past, I have opposed increases in the minimum wage because of my concern about the impact on small businesses, as well as the combined effects of the 1996 minimum wage increase on jobs and the economy. Many small enterprises operate on a very thin margin, and the imposition of additional costs could result in the closure of businesses and the loss of jobs. Such an outcome would serve only to hurt the very people we are trying to assist. I understand how difficult it is to make ends meet in today's economy. Many families are struggling and many small business people who create the vast majority of new jobs are clinging to solvency. I believe Congress must work to enact measures to strengthen the small business sector, bolster job creation, and enhance job security, including further responsible tax and regulatory relief. I oppose the Kennedy amendment because it combines a minimum wage increase with an additional tax burden on the very businesses that will face higher personnel costs. I support the Domenici amendment to incrementally increase the minimum wage because it also provides real tax and regulatory relief for small business owners who may be adversely affected by the additional costs they will incur. The Domenici amendment allows minimum-wage workers to earn a better living. At the same time, it provides $18.4 billion in tax relief over five years to small business people across America to help them offset the increased employee costs of this minimum wage increase. Small businesses will now be allowed to increase their expensing to $30,000, and benefit from a permanent extension of the Work Opportunity Tax Credit and a repeal of the temporary Federal Unemployment Tax Act surtax. Furthermore, this amendment allows 100-percent deduction for self-employed health insurance, phases in health-insurance and long- term care above-the-line deductions, and makes pension reform proposals to increase employees' financial security. This tax relief is entirely paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes in the first year and then using a small portion of the projected non-Social Security surplus in the ensuing years, without dipping into the Social Security Trust Fund. One aspect of the Domenici amendment that troubles me is the increased deductibility of business meals and entertainment costs. I have always opposed allowing a tax deduction for the so-called ``three- martini power lunch'' for corporate executives, although this amendment limits the benefits of this tax deduction to small businesses and self- employed individuals. I question whether this tax deduction is the highest priority of small businesses, or whether there are other more broadly beneficial tax breaks that could have been included in this bill to assist those businesses most likely to be affected by the minimum wage increase. Mr. President, because the Domenici amendment combines a $1.00 increase in the minimum wage with tax and regulatory relief to offset the negative impact of increased personnel costs on small businesses and the economy as a whole, I would have voted for the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and my colleague, Senator Kyl, to offer legislation that will make an important clarification to the Ak-Chin Water Rights Settlement Act of 1984. Similar legislation has been introduced in the House by Representative Shadegg. Let me explain why this legislation is necessary. In 1992, Congress amended the Ak-Chin Water Rights Settlement Act to allow the Ak-Chin Indian Community to enter into leases of the Community's water for a term not to exceed 100 years. On December 15, 1994, the Ak-Chin Indian Community entered into an agreement with the Del Webb Corporation to allow the company the option to lease up to 10,000 acre-feet of water for a period of 100 years from the date the option was exercised. Del Webb exercised the option on December 6, 1996, with a principal objective of providing a water supply for its development of a master-planned community in the Phoenix area. However, since 1995, the State of Arizona, through its Department of Water Resources, has required certificates of assured water supply for 100 years for developments within the Phoenix Active Management Area. The 100-year assured water supply requirement is one of the key tenets of Arizona's water resource management. A certificate cannot be obtained unless a developer demonstrates that sufficient groundwater, surface water or adequate quality effluent will be continuously available to satisfy the proposed use of the development for at least 100 years. Unfortunately, the lease as signed in 1996 has now matured for three years without the actual application to the Arizona Department of Water Resources for a certificate of assured water supply. The Arizona Department of Water Resources advised the company that it interprets its regulations to require Del Webb to demonstrate that water leased under the agreement with the Community will be available for a period of 100 years from the date each certificate issued. Under ADWR's interpretation, if Del Webb applies for a certificate of assured water supply on December 6, 1999, it must show that water will be available under the lease agreement until December 6, 2099. However, because Del Webb exercised its option in 1996, the lease agreement between Del Webb and the Community will expire on December 6, 2096, and will not meet the State's test of continuing legal and physical availability of water supply. Moreover, the Community does not have statutory authority to grant leases with terms in excess of 100 years. To resolve this unanticipated conflict, the affected parties have agreed that what is required is a simple modification to the Ak-Chin Water Rights Settlement Act of 1984 to allow the extension of leasing authority to include options to lease and renew or extend existing leases. This change will allow the Ak-Chin Indian Community to extend or renew the existing lease to Del Webb for a cumulative term that would expire more than 100 years from today. Mr. President, this legislation will make a technical change to the Ak-Chin Water Rights Settlement Act in order for the Ak-Chin/Del Webb agreement to be in compliance with State law. All parties and interests directly impacted by this lease agreement are supportive of this amendment. Therefore, it is our hope that we can move this legislation quickly. I ask to include a complete text of the legislation in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and my colleague, Senator Kyl, to offer legislation that will make an important clarification to the Ak-Chin Water Rights Settlement Act of 1984. Similar legislation has been introduced in the House by Representative Shadegg. Let me explain why this legislation is necessary. In 1992, Congress amended the Ak-Chin Water Rights Settlement Act to allow the Ak-Chin Indian Community to enter into leases of the Community's water for a term not to exceed 100 years. On December 15, 1994, the Ak-Chin Indian Community entered into an agreement with the Del Webb Corporation to allow the company the option to lease up to 10,000 acre-feet of water for a period of 100 years from the date the option was exercised. Del Webb exercised the option on December 6, 1996, with a principal objective of providing a water supply for its development of a master-planned community in the Phoenix area. However, since 1995, the State of Arizona, through its Department of Water Resources, has required certificates of assured water supply for 100 years for developments within the Phoenix Active Management Area. The 100-year assured water supply requirement is one of the key tenets of Arizona's water resource management. A certificate cannot be obtained unless a developer demonstrates that sufficient groundwater, surface water or adequate quality effluent will be continuously available to satisfy the proposed use of the development for at least 100 years. Unfortunately, the lease as signed in 1996 has now matured for three years without the actual application to the Arizona Department of Water Resources for a certificate of assured water supply. The Arizona Department of Water Resources advised the company that it interprets its regulations to require Del Webb to demonstrate that water leased under the agreement with the Community will be available for a period of 100 years from the date each certificate issued. Under ADWR's interpretation, if Del Webb applies for a certificate of assured water supply on December 6, 1999, it must show that water will be available under the lease agreement until December 6, 2099. However, because Del Webb exercised its option in 1996, the lease agreement between Del Webb and the Community will expire on December 6, 2096, and will not meet the State's test of continuing legal and physical availability of water supply. Moreover, the Community does not have statutory authority to grant leases with terms in excess of 100 years. To resolve this unanticipated conflict, the affected parties have agreed that what is required is a simple modification to the Ak-Chin Water Rights Settlement Act of 1984 to allow the extension of leasing authority to include options to lease and renew or extend existing leases. This change will allow the Ak-Chin Indian Community to extend or renew the existing lease to Del Webb for a cumulative term that would expire more than 100 years from today. Mr. President, this legislation will make a technical change to the Ak-Chin Water Rights Settlement Act in order for the Ak-Chin/Del Webb agreement to be in compliance with State law. All parties and interests directly impacted by this lease agreement are supportive of this amendment. Therefore, it is our hope that we can move this legislation quickly. I ask to include a complete text of the legislation in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senate passed the conference agreement for the Interior appropriations bill on October 21, 1999. Although this conference report was approved by unanimous consent, I wanted to express my objections to the amount of excessive pork-barrel spending and extraneous legislative riders included in this final agreement. In late September, the Senate passed an Interior bill that included $217 million in wasteful and unnecessary spending. This new conference agreement has taken pork-barrel spending to higher proportions by adding an additional $140 million in earmarks that either were not included in the Senate or House bill, or increased funding levels for certain projects at levels far above the requested amounts. I am constantly amazed by tactics used by my colleagues to attach earmarks for parochial projects that have not been authorized or that circumvent a fair and merit-review process. The conferees have even included report language that directs federal agencies to fund targeted earmarks included in the conference report prior to distributing general allocated funds to the rest of the country. In my review of the final conference report, I have identified numerous earmarks and riders that are included in a list of objectionable provisions that is available on my Senate webpage. I remind my colleagues that I do not object to these projects based on their merit nor do I intend to belittle the importance of specific projects to local communities. My objections are based on issues of fairness and following established procedures to consider budgetary items as well as a undergoing a separate legislative process for policy and statutory changes to our federal laws. Unfortunately, the conferees have been able to side-step our established budget and legislative rules by utilizing deceptive wording and budget gimmickry. For example, this conference report includes an extra $22 million in designated ``emergency'' funding for certain areas in the State of Alaska. This funding was not considered in either the Senate or House bills, but added during last-minute negotiations. Again, I certainly understand economic hardships facing rural Alaskans, but why is funding economic projects such as building a regional shipyard, a larger fishing dock, as well as converting a pulp mill to a Coca Cola bottling plant, of higher priority than addressing important land and resources management issues that are intended to be paid for through the Interior appropriations bill? This added ``emergency'' spending, despite that fact that it will purportedly not count against budget cap restrictions, will still be paid for by the taxpayers. Also added in this conference report is an entirely new title that includes legislation, the ``Mississippi National Forest Improvement Act of 1999,'' which had not previously considered in the previous Senate or House bills. Furthermore, emergency funding of $68 million is provided for the ``United Mine Workers of America'' benefit fund, also not previously included in either the Senate or House versions of the Interior appropriations bills. The conferees have targeted funding for projects that provide little detail as to their overall national priority or merit. For example, $300,000 that was originally dedicated for a Forest Service regional office is instead directed to be earmarked for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems at the Forest Products Labs in Wisconsin. Language is included to provide for specific acquisition of a high band radio system for the Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia. While these maintenance improvements may very well be necessary, is this the type of projects that deserve funding above other important land, forest and wildlife priorities? Much of this wasteful spending could be directed toward other priorities and programs that allow states and local communities to prioritize their own needs at the local level, such as the State-side program of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I, along with several of my colleagues, have supported prioritizing the State-side program of the Land and Water Conservation Fund as a program that provides federal resources for projects that are considered fairly and competitively. The conferees agreed to provide $20 million to the State-side program for the first time in many years, but this level is less than the $30 million approved by the Senate and far below what is necessary to address locally identified needs. Unfortunately, the State-side program, and many other programs that fund projects based on merit and national priority, are penalized due to other low-priority and special interest spending as part of this conference report. Mr. President, each year the conferees utilize the appropriations process to tack on legislative riders that either were not considered through a legislative process or added with the intension to delay important policy and regulatory changes. Many environmental and land management laws cannot be updated or reviewed when legislative riders are included that prohibit any action by federal agencies to proceed with a fair and comprehensive review of impacts on our natural resources. A few of the these riders include: A delay in promulgating rules to update oil valuation royalty assessments for oil drilled on federal lands; A two-year exemption for certain mining companies who utilize public lands for purposes of storing mine waste; A year-long delay for surface management regulations governing hardrock mining; and, A continuing moratorium on Indian tribal P.L. 93-638 Indian Self- Determination Contracts that allow direct management and funding for tribally operated programs. I support an open and fair review of our laws that govern public lands and resources, but we cannot fully evaluate the fairness and appropriateness of proposed changes when legislative riders such as these put a halt to our congressional review. Mr. President, there is no doubt that important land, forest and Native American programs will continue to be supported through this annual funding bill. Unfortunately, many communities across this country will not receive the critical resources they need because of the continuing and unfair practice of pork-barrel spending. This year, our American taxpayers will pay the tab for $357 million in parochial and low-priority spending.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am, unfortunately, unable to be present for this vote, but would like to express my support for the final passage of the amended version of H.R. 434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act. This legislation includes a modified version of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, the United States-Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act, and reauthorization of the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) and Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) programs. This legislation will end up helping more than 1 billion people begin to enjoy the benefits of democracy and the free market system. Unfortunately when most Americans think of recent politics in Sub- Saharan Africa and the Caribbean, they only think of dictatorships, civil wars, and people crushed in the grip of poverty. It is a compelling portrait and shows the necessity of this legislation. However, there is hope in the nightly news reports. Both in the Caribbean and in Africa, democracy and economic development are emerging from the shambles of the past. According to a 1998 global survey by Freedom House, 30 countries in Africa are now politically free or partially free. In addition, these countries are beginning to pursue policies of economic development that will help their citizens rise above the debilitating poverty of the past. In 1998, while the Asian economic crisis pummelled other countries, Africa's economies actually grew by an average rate of 3.1 percent. Democracy and market economics also are established in the Caribbean. The civil wars in El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala have ended. Unfortunately, many of these countries are still suffering from the effects of Hurricanes Mitch and Georges, and need these trade benefits to rebuild their economies. This year's elections in Nigeria and South Africa, and the upcoming election in Guatemala, exemplify the democratic developments in Africa and the Caribbean. As the bulwark of freedom and liberty, the United States must do all that it can to ensure that democracy and market economics continue to spread and grow. This legislation is crafted to aid these transformations. The African Growth and Opportunity Act establishes a special GSP program to give duty and quota-free treatment to selected African textiles and goods, and enhances cooperation between the United States and Sub-Saharan Africa. It is my hope that the President will use the provisions of this legislation to seriously pursue a free trade agreement with the leaders of Sub-Saharan African countries. The United States-Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act grants selected exports from Caribbean nations the duty- and quota-free treatment that has benefitted Mexico in the North American Free Trade Agreement. Finally, the reauthorization of the GSP program helps many other developing countries benefit from preferential trade treatment. These GSP provisions will help developing countries become members of the global community and prosper in the growing world marketplace. Also, this legislation will reinforce the core American values of freedom and equal opportunity that are a cornerstone of our great country. This legislation is based on the commonsense principle that if you give a nation a handout, you feed it for a day, but if you teach its people to grow and trade, you assist them in becoming independent and self- reliant. This legislation also helps U.S. workers and companies. U.S. exports to the Caribbean nations exceeded $19 billion last year, and produced a $2 billion trade surplus. This trade has created 400,000 American jobs. In 1998, the United States exported $6.5 billion in goods to Sub- Saharan Africa. This trade supported over 100,000 American jobs. However, the United States only has a 7% share in the African market, while Europe has a 40% share. More U.S. trade and investment in both the Caribbean and Sub-Saharan Africa will increase U.S. market share and create more American jobs. While I support this legislation, I believe that it can be improved during the conference with our colleagues from the House side. The House-passed version of the African Growth and Opportunity Act includes programs under the auspices of the Export-Import Bank and Overseas Private Investment Corporation that will give American companies incentives to invest in Africa. Also, I am concerned that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that ``almost no apparel imports would qualify for special treatment'' under the textile provisions of the Finance Committee amendment. The House-passed version of the bill removes quotas and duties on all African textile imports, and will be of much greater benefit to the African nations as well as to the U.S. It is my hope that the conferees will adopt these provisions in the House-passed version of the African Growth and Opportunity Act. These measures will ensure true economic development and increased U.S. market access in Africa. In addition, I have some concerns about the provision of the bill referring to the excise tax collected on rum. This provision increases by $3.00 the amount of the excise tax on rum that is transferred to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands retroactively from June 30, 1999, to October 1, 1999. The bill earmarks $0.50 of this tax for the Puerto Rico Conservation Trust Fund. I am aware of the importance of helping our territories to become economically self-reliant, while also protecting their environments. However, I believe that we should look at more efficient ways to achieve this goal. It makes no sense for the federal government to collect a tax and then turn it all back over to the territories. I hope that this provision will be stricken from this legislation, and that we can more thoroughly examine how to help our territories achieve economic growth without unnecessary federal bureaucracy and taxation. I am also concerned about certain other provisions that have found their way into this legislation. This legislation includes a provision to extend TAA benefits to farmers and fishermen. I know that the collapse of foreign markets abroad has hurt American farmers and believe that this issue should be given more consideration. I am also concerned by provisions included for Oregon power plant workers to apply for TAA benefits after their eligibility has expired, provisions to allow a company with operations in Connecticut and Missouri to obtain a refund on duties it paid on imports of nuclear fuel assemblies, and $2 million earmark for a two-year study on how American Land Grant Colleges and not-for-profit international organizations can improve the flow of American farming techniques and practices for African farmers. These measures should be examined in the usual authorization process to ensure that it is considered on merit and not special interests. It should not be attached to this legislation when Senators have not had a chance to examine the costs and benefits. In conclusion, I support this historic legislation to ensure the progress of democracy and economic development in Africa, the Caribbean, and other developing countries. By promoting freedom and interdependence, the United States can help millions of people live in a future without repression where any child's potential is limited only by their dreams.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on October 20, 1999, the Senate passed the conference report for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. I thank the conferees for their hard work in putting forth this legislation which provides federal funding for fighting crime, enhancing drug enforcement, and responding to threats of terrorism. This bill also addresses the shortcomings of the immigration process, funds the operation of the judicial system, facilitates commerce throughout the United States, and fulfills the needs of the State Department and various other agencies. For many years, I have tried to cut wasteful and unnecessary spending from the annual appropriations bills--with only limited success, I must admit. Nonetheless, I will continue my fight to curb wasteful pork- barrel spending, and I regret that I must again come forward this year to object to the millions of unrequested, low-priority, wasteful spending in this conference report. This legislation includes $535 million in pork-barrel spending. This is an unacceptable amount of money to spend on low-priority, unrequested, wasteful projects. Congress must curb its appetite for such unbridled spending. Pork-barrel spending today not only robs well-deserving programs of much needed funds, it also jeopardizes social security reform, potential tax cuts, and our fiscal well-being into the next century. The multitude of earmarks buried in this proposal will further burden the American taxpayers. While the amounts associated with each individual earmark may not seem extravagant, taken together, they represent a serious diversion of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars to low priority programs at the expense of numerous programs that have undergone the appropriate merit-based selection process. Congress and the American public must be made aware of the magnitude of wasteful spending endorsed by this body. For the Department of Commerce, there is $400,000 for swordfish research. For the Department of Justice, there is $1 million for the Nevada National Judicial College. For the Department of State, there is $12.5 million for the East-West Center in Hawaii, and for the Small Business Administration, there is $200,000 for Rural Enterprises, Inc., in Durant, Oklahoma. I have compiled a list on my Senate website of these examples and other numerous add-ons and earmarks in the report. Mr. President, we must continue to work to cut unnecessary and wasteful spending so we can begin to pay down our debt and save billions in interest payments. We have an obligation to ensure that Congress spends taxpayers' hard-earned dollars prudently to protect our balanced budget and to protect the projected budget surpluses. The American public cannot understand why we continue to earmark these huge amounts of money to locality specific special interests at a time when we are trying to cut the cost of government and return more dollars to the people. Mr. President, it is a sad commentary on the state of politics today that the Congress cannot curb its appetite to earmark funds for programs that are obviously wasteful, unnecessary, or unfair. Unfortunately, however, Members of Congress have demonstrated time and again their willingness to fund programs that serve their narrowly tailored interest at the expense of the national interest.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I regret that I was unable to be here for the vote but I thank the conferees for their hard work on the conference report that provides federal funding for the District of Columbia, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Education. I am very disappointed that this report includes wasteful, locality-specific, pork-barrel projects, legislative riders, and budget gimmicks such as ``forward funding'' and a 1-percent cut in government spending across-the-board. Therefore, I cannot support this bill. This legislation is intended to provide funding directly benefiting American families and senior citizens while assisting our most important resource, our children. It provides funding to help states and local communities educate our children. It also provides the funds to support our scientists in finding treatments for illness. This report also provides funds for ensuring our nation's most vulnerable-- our children, seniors and disabled have access to quality health care. Furthermore, it provides the monetary support for important programs assisting older Americans including Meals on Wheels and senior day care programs. I am pleased that this legislation took an important step towards ensuring that our nation's schools have the flexibility to determine how to meet the unique educational needs of their students instead of Washington bureaucrats mandating a ``one size fits all'' policy. Second, this bill provides a significant increase in funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) which is critical in our ongoing battle against disease. These are just some of the important provisions in this conference report. There are many additional items which are as pertinent to our nation's well-being which makes it all the more frustrating that this bill is still laden with earmarks, legislative riders and unjustifiable budget gimmicks. First, this legislation contains $388 million in total pork-barrel spending ($335 million in earmarks and set-asides for the Departments of Health and Human Services, and Education). Some of the more egregious violations of the appropriate budgetary review process include: $2.5 million for Alaska Works in Fairbanks, Alaska for construction job training; $1.5 million for the University of Missouri-St. Louis for their Regional Center for Education and Work; $104 million for the construction and renovation of specific health care and other facilities including: Brookfield Zoo/Loyola University School of Medicine, University of Montana Institute for Environmental and Health Sciences and Edward Health Services, Naperville, Illinois; and $3,000,000 to continue the Diabetes Lower Extremity Amputation Prevention (LEAP) programs at the University of South Alabama. While these projects may have good reason to be deserving of funding, it is appalling that these funds are specifically earmarked and not subject to the appropriate competitive grant process. I am confident that there are many organizations which need financial assistance and yet, are not fortunate enough to have an advocate in the appropriations process to ensure that their funding is earmarked in this legislation. This is wrong and does a disservice to all Americans who deserve fair access to job training and quality health care. Some of the legislative riders include $3.5 million in this report to implement the Early Detection, Diagnosis, and Interventions for Newborns and Infants with Hearing Loss Act. This legislative initiative was inserted into the Senate and House appropriation bill without hearings or debate on this proposal by either chamber. I applaud the intentions of this measure and share my colleagues' support for helping ensure that all hospitals, not just the current 20%, provide screening in order to produce early diagnosis and intervention for our children to ensure that they have an equal start in life and learning. However, the manner in which it was included in this measure bypasses the appropriate legislative procedure. Instead, this measure should have been given full consideration by the Senate as a free-standing initiative or as an amendment to appropriate legislation. Furthermore, I am also opposed to the use of budget gimmicks in this report. First, the report has opted to use the newly popular budget gimmick of ``forward funding,'' used to postpone spending until the next fiscal year to avoid counting costs in the current fiscal year. What this means is that $10 billion in funding for job training, health research, and education grants to states is pushed into next year--a budgetary sleight of hand that merely delays the inevitable accounting for these tax dollars. What a sham. Finally, now that the surplus has been spent for pork-barrel spending instead of shoring up Social Security and Medicare, paying down the debt, and providing tax relief, the appropriators have opted to include a 1-percent cut in government spending across-the-board to keep Congress from touching Social Security. Why not just cut the pork- barrel spending in the first place to avoid resorting to such gimmicks? Mr. President, because of the egregious amount of pork-barrel spending in this bill, the addition of legislative riders, and the 1- percent across-the-board spending cut, I must oppose its passage. I regret doing so because of the many important and worthy programs included in the conference agreement, but I cannot endorse the continued waste of taxpayer dollars on special interest programs, nor can I acquiesce in bypassing the normal authorizing process for legislative initiatives. If an Omnibus appropriations bill is required in order to complete the appropriations process for fiscal year 2000, I hope that the Congress finds the courage to remove the many earmarks, the budget gimmicks, and the legislative riders contained in this report, the bill, and all others so that we can provide the much needed financial support for job training, education, health care, research and senior programs and avoid a congressional sequester. The full list of the objectionable provisions is on my Senate website.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation with my colleague, Senator Snowe, to address the growing problem of HMOs denying insurance coverage for reconstructive surgery for children suffering from physical defects and deformities. This legislation would require medical plans to cover the medical procedures to reconstruct a child's appearance if they are born with abnormal structures of the body, including a cleft lip or palate. Today, approximately seven percent of American children are born with pediatric deformities and congenital defects such as cleft lip, cleft palate, missing limbs including ears, and other facial deformities. Unfortunately, it has become commonplace for insurance companies to label reconstructive procedures to correct these deformities as cosmetic surgery and deny coverage to help these children eradicate or reduce deformities and acquire a normal appearance. A recent survey of the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons indicated that over half the plastic surgeons questioned have had a pediatric patient in the last two years who has been denied, or experienced tremendous difficulty in obtaining, insurance coverage for reconstructive surgery. It is disgraceful that many insurance companies claim that medical services to restore to a child some semblance of a normal appearance are superfluous and merely for vanity or cosmetic purposes. My colleagues may be wondering how such a ludicrous and cruel argument can be made when these procedures are clearly reconstructive in nature. Helping a child born without ears or with a cleft so severe it extends to her hairline is not cosmetic surgery. The medical and developmental complications arise from these conditions are tremendous. Speech impediments, hearing difficulties and dental problems are a few of the physical side effects resulting from a child's physical deformity. In addition, the effect of a child's deformities on their personal development, confidence, and self-esteem and their future aspirations and achievements, is often very far reaching. A healthy self image is vitally important to develop self esteem and confidence. How people see themselves, and how others see them, helps determine how a person feels about himself and whether he has the strength to cope with difficult challenges, including the taunting of peers and disengagement from school activities. As parents, we want our children to be armed with a healthy self esteem and confidence. The best way to guarantee that happens is to help them develop a strong and healthy self image. At the same time, I recognize that we live in a society which places a high value on physical beauty and often unfairly uses it to measure a person's worth, ability or potential in society. It is unrealistic not to recognize the unfair obstacles facing children born with deformities if they are not provided access to medical services to help them attain a more normal physical appearance. Some of my colleagues may know that my daughter, Bridget, whom Cindy and I adopted from Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh, was born with a severe cleft. We are fortunate to have had the means and opportunities to provide the expert medical care necessary to help Bridget physically and emotionally. However, we, too, encountered numerous obstacles and denials by our insurance providers who did not believe that Bridget's medical treatment was necessary. Fortunately, Cindy and I were able to afford the reconstructive services Bridget needed, despite denials by our health plan. Most hard-working American families are not so fortunate. That is why I am introducing this important bill to assist all American children. This is not a new mandate that could cause health care premiums to escalate. What I am proposing simply prohibits plans from frivolously ruling that substantial, medically needed reconstructive surgeon for children to obtain a relatively normal appearance is cosmetic and refusing to pay for the procedures. This bill ensures that all children are afforded an opportunity to lead a more normal life and realize their full potential. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation with my colleague, Senator Snowe, to address the growing problem of HMOs denying insurance coverage for reconstructive surgery for children suffering from physical defects and deformities. This legislation would require medical plans to cover the medical procedures to reconstruct a child's appearance if they are born with abnormal structures of the body, including a cleft lip or palate. Today, approximately seven percent of American children are born with pediatric deformities and congenital defects such as cleft lip, cleft palate, missing limbs including ears, and other facial deformities. Unfortunately, it has become commonplace for insurance companies to label reconstructive procedures to correct these deformities as cosmetic surgery and deny coverage to help these children eradicate or reduce deformities and acquire a normal appearance. A recent survey of the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons indicated that over half the plastic surgeons questioned have had a pediatric patient in the last two years who has been denied, or experienced tremendous difficulty in obtaining, insurance coverage for reconstructive surgery. It is disgraceful that many insurance companies claim that medical services to restore to a child some semblance of a normal appearance are superfluous and merely for vanity or cosmetic purposes. My colleagues may be wondering how such a ludicrous and cruel argument can be made when these procedures are clearly reconstructive in nature. Helping a child born without ears or with a cleft so severe it extends to her hairline is not cosmetic surgery. The medical and developmental complications arise from these conditions are tremendous. Speech impediments, hearing difficulties and dental problems are a few of the physical side effects resulting from a child's physical deformity. In addition, the effect of a child's deformities on their personal development, confidence, and self-esteem and their future aspirations and achievements, is often very far reaching. A healthy self image is vitally important to develop self esteem and confidence. How people see themselves, and how others see them, helps determine how a person feels about himself and whether he has the strength to cope with difficult challenges, including the taunting of peers and disengagement from school activities. As parents, we want our children to be armed with a healthy self esteem and confidence. The best way to guarantee that happens is to help them develop a strong and healthy self image. At the same time, I recognize that we live in a society which places a high value on physical beauty and often unfairly uses it to measure a person's worth, ability or potential in society. It is unrealistic not to recognize the unfair obstacles facing children born with deformities if they are not provided access to medical services to help them attain a more normal physical appearance. Some of my colleagues may know that my daughter, Bridget, whom Cindy and I adopted from Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh, was born with a severe cleft. We are fortunate to have had the means and opportunities to provide the expert medical care necessary to help Bridget physically and emotionally. However, we, too, encountered numerous obstacles and denials by our insurance providers who did not believe that Bridget's medical treatment was necessary. Fortunately, Cindy and I were able to afford the reconstructive services Bridget needed, despite denials by our health plan. Most hard-working American families are not so fortunate. That is why I am introducing this important bill to assist all American children. This is not a new mandate that could cause health care premiums to escalate. What I am proposing simply prohibits plans from frivolously ruling that substantial, medically needed reconstructive surgeon for children to obtain a relatively normal appearance is cosmetic and refusing to pay for the procedures. This bill ensures that all children are afforded an opportunity to lead a more normal life and realize their full potential. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President I am please to introduce a bill intended to preserve the United States' world leadership position in technology into the coming century. This legislation is intended to assure that our scientific, mathematics, engineering and technology resources are surpassed by no one. It is intended to ensure that our most precious national resources, our people, receive the best education and training through our best national product, innovation. We must allow our most creative forces to interact to achieve improved math and science education in our schools. We must assure more highly trained college graduates in science, math, engineering and technology. And we must encourage the retooling of our country's experienced minds to address the problems and the solutions of tomorrow. Specifically, this legislation uses a portion of each H-1B visa fee to provide grants for innovative programs which will improve the math, science, engineering and technology skills of Americans so that they can fill the estimated average of 137,800 new positions expected to be created in these fields each year from now through 2006. During the interim, while the American pipeline of talent is filling, the bill lifts the caps on H-1B visas to allow our American companies to continue to grow and prosper. This legislation is necessary and beneficial to our nation. Let me explain in some detail why. First, although this country can be proud of having some of the most highly regarded colleges and universities in the world, our elementary and secondary education system is not sufficiently emphasizing science and math in the curriculum. Our students are falling behind in these areas. The results of the 1998 Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) are instructive. In math, our 4th graders ranked 12th out of 26 countries. Not a stellar performance. But even more discouraging, by 12th grade, the U.S. math rank was 19th out of 21 countries. As a result, not enough American college students are majoring in the sciences, including computer science, mathematics and engineering to fill the escalating need for highly trained professionals. According to information compiled by the American Electronics Association, at the same time that the number of jobs in these fields has increased by 20%, the number of college graduates with degrees in engineering, engineering technology, computer science, mathematics, business information systems, and physics has declined by 5%. To fill the jobs available, American companies are finding it increasingly necessary to hire foreign professionals. When they recruit on university campuses in the United States, 32% of the Masters degree and 45% of the doctoral degree candidates are foreign, not American, students. Even though they have been educated here, these foreign students cannot remain here to work without a visa. Even with these graduates available, there are more jobs to be filled than qualified candidates. When our companies cannot hire qualified people to work for them, they cannot function--they cannot compete. Most of these companies have concluded long ago that they need to retain the qualified people that they do hire. They understand that one way to retain them is to provide training to continually update and upgrade their skills. There are many examples of these kinds of programs. In addition, there are older American workers with advanced technical skills that are outdated, or whose experience is in industries which are not in a growth mode. Companies are finding ways to assist some of these professional to retool for the current and future needs of business. An example of retraining experienced workers is a program at San Diego State University. That institution's Defense Conversion Center has focused on retraining displaced defense industry professional, including military personnel and aerospace engineers. Let me read from their project proposal description dated 9/21/99. The expansion of the H-1B visa program is a limited and temporary fix to a critical national problem. Unless we find creative ways to meet our workforce needs internally, our ability to produce cutting-edge products will erode. Indeed, some experts predict that our position as the world's leader in innovation will slip from first place to sixth early in the next century. The risk goes beyond losing our competitive edge in the global marketplace; without a strong technology base, our national defense system will be jeopardized. The proposal goes on to describe the university's program: In the early 1990's, the defense industry in San Diego virtually disintegrated, resulting in the loss of over 42,000 jobs. Established with a grant from the Department of Defense, the SDSU Defense Conversion Center developed several certificate programs designed to fast-track displaced defense industry workers back into the marketplace. To date, over 1100 individuals have enrolled in the Center, and 80% of those who participated in the program found or retained employment in such high-tech fields as radio-frequency design, software engineering, concurrent design and manufacturing, and multi-media design. Many companies are also finding that it is not enough to focus on only their short term hiring needs. There are numerous examples of companies partnering with their local schools to provide innovative changes in curriculum and skill sets. For example, Hewlett-Packard has joined forces with Colorado State University to assist minority students beginning their studies at CSU. The assistance includes 10-week internships at H-P, during which CSU provides instructors to H-P to teach calculus. The internships provide a bridge from the academic to the real world, demonstrating the application of math and science skills. They also provide the freshmen with valuable experience that can lead to permanent jobs at H-P. Eastman Chemical Company in Tennessee offers another example. Working with its local school system, the company focused on two objectives: to help prepare and motivate all students to develop competency in math and science, and to create a school system of such excellence that college graduates would be drawn there as a great place to raise children. The result was several programs, including an ``Educator on Loan'' program where on a rotating basis, teachers could work at the company's manufacturing plant to under the skills required. These private/public partnerships are an excellent start. But these efforts are not sufficient to solve the problems we have with maintaining our country's ability to compete and lead the world in the 21st century. We must encourage more innovation, more achievement to fill the pipeline so that our children will be able to prosper in the technological revolution underway. This legislation encourages innovation. It provides financial assistance for ideas which will work. The proposed legislation is broad enough to cover any idea which can be demonstrated to produce results. Some of the programs I think should be considered would be to provide scholarships to students who possess the requisite talent and are willing to become certified as math and science teachers, and who will agree to teach for a number of years. Scholarships for students who will major in math, science, engineering or technology fields makes sense. But we should not limit our selves to these stock type approaches. There will be many other new and creative ideas and we should welcome them and reward them, as long as they produce the outcome we want. We want to improve and increase the American talent pool. In the meantime, I think it is important not to force our companies to develop off-shore bases in order to hire the foreign professional they need. The history of numeric caps on H-1B visas is one of best guess, rather than of calculated need. It is difficult to anticipate the total need, but simply inserting a number because it is politically agreeable isn't the right answer. During the last session we adopted legislation produced through the fine efforts of Senator Abraham and others who worked tirelessly in addressing a broad array of problems and issues. The result is that our law now requires those who are dependent on H- 1B worker to attest, to give their oath, that they have tried to hire an American to fill the position unsuccessfully before applying for a foreign worker visa. These requirements are stringent. They protect American workers against companies which might otherwise ignore qualified applicants in order to bring in a foreign worker. The law protects against layoffs followed by foreign hiring. With this law in place and with diligent enforcement of its requirements, there is no reason to also pick an arbitrary number as a cap for H-1B visas. We can let the marketplace prevail. We can focus on improving our own resources and our own children's education so that in the future we will have more highly skilled professionals to fill these positions. When our supply meets the demand we will have achieved the goals of improving our education curriculum and our ability to remain leaders in the 21st century.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President I am please to introduce a bill intended to preserve the United States' world leadership position in technology into the coming century. This legislation is intended to assure that our scientific, mathematics, engineering and technology resources are surpassed by no one. It is intended to ensure that our most precious national resources, our people, receive the best education and training through our best national product, innovation. We must allow our most creative forces to interact to achieve improved math and science education in our schools. We must assure more highly trained college graduates in science, math, engineering and technology. And we must encourage the retooling of our country's experienced minds to address the problems and the solutions of tomorrow. Specifically, this legislation uses a portion of each H-1B visa fee to provide grants for innovative programs which will improve the math, science, engineering and technology skills of Americans so that they can fill the estimated average of 137,800 new positions expected to be created in these fields each year from now through 2006. During the interim, while the American pipeline of talent is filling, the bill lifts the caps on H-1B visas to allow our American companies to continue to grow and prosper. This legislation is necessary and beneficial to our nation. Let me explain in some detail why. First, although this country can be proud of having some of the most highly regarded colleges and universities in the world, our elementary and secondary education system is not sufficiently emphasizing science and math in the curriculum. Our students are falling behind in these areas. The results of the 1998 Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) are instructive. In math, our 4th graders ranked 12th out of 26 countries. Not a stellar performance. But even more discouraging, by 12th grade, the U.S. math rank was 19th out of 21 countries. As a result, not enough American college students are majoring in the sciences, including computer science, mathematics and engineering to fill the escalating need for highly trained professionals. According to information compiled by the American Electronics Association, at the same time that the number of jobs in these fields has increased by 20%, the number of college graduates with degrees in engineering, engineering technology, computer science, mathematics, business information systems, and physics has declined by 5%. To fill the jobs available, American companies are finding it increasingly necessary to hire foreign professionals. When they recruit on university campuses in the United States, 32% of the Masters degree and 45% of the doctoral degree candidates are foreign, not American, students. Even though they have been educated here, these foreign students cannot remain here to work without a visa. Even with these graduates available, there are more jobs to be filled than qualified candidates. When our companies cannot hire qualified people to work for them, they cannot function--they cannot compete. Most of these companies have concluded long ago that they need to retain the qualified people that they do hire. They understand that one way to retain them is to provide training to continually update and upgrade their skills. There are many examples of these kinds of programs. In addition, there are older American workers with advanced technical skills that are outdated, or whose experience is in industries which are not in a growth mode. Companies are finding ways to assist some of these professional to retool for the current and future needs of business. An example of retraining experienced workers is a program at San Diego State University. That institution's Defense Conversion Center has focused on retraining displaced defense industry professional, including military personnel and aerospace engineers. Let me read from their project proposal description dated 9/21/99. The expansion of the H-1B visa program is a limited and temporary fix to a critical national problem. Unless we find creative ways to meet our workforce needs internally, our ability to produce cutting-edge products will erode. Indeed, some experts predict that our position as the world's leader in innovation will slip from first place to sixth early in the next century. The risk goes beyond losing our competitive edge in the global marketplace; without a strong technology base, our national defense system will be jeopardized. The proposal goes on to describe the university's program: In the early 1990's, the defense industry in San Diego virtually disintegrated, resulting in the loss of over 42,000 jobs. Established with a grant from the Department of Defense, the SDSU Defense Conversion Center developed several certificate programs designed to fast-track displaced defense industry workers back into the marketplace. To date, over 1100 individuals have enrolled in the Center, and 80% of those who participated in the program found or retained employment in such high-tech fields as radio-frequency design, software engineering, concurrent design and manufacturing, and multi-media design. Many companies are also finding that it is not enough to focus on only their short term hiring needs. There are numerous examples of companies partnering with their local schools to provide innovative changes in curriculum and skill sets. For example, Hewlett-Packard has joined forces with Colorado State University to assist minority students beginning their studies at CSU. The assistance includes 10-week internships at H-P, during which CSU provides instructors to H-P to teach calculus. The internships provide a bridge from the academic to the real world, demonstrating the application of math and science skills. They also provide the freshmen with valuable experience that can lead to permanent jobs at H-P. Eastman Chemical Company in Tennessee offers another example. Working with its local school system, the company focused on two objectives: to help prepare and motivate all students to develop competency in math and science, and to create a school system of such excellence that college graduates would be drawn there as a great place to raise children. The result was several programs, including an ``Educator on Loan'' program where on a rotating basis, teachers could work at the company's manufacturing plant to under the skills required. These private/public partnerships are an excellent start. But these efforts are not sufficient to solve the problems we have with maintaining our country's ability to compete and lead the world in the 21st century. We must encourage more innovation, more achievement to fill the pipeline so that our children will be able to prosper in the technological revolution underway. This legislation encourages innovation. It provides financial assistance for ideas which will work. The proposed legislation is broad enough to cover any idea which can be demonstrated to produce results. Some of the programs I think should be considered would be to provide scholarships to students who possess the requisite talent and are willing to become certified as math and science teachers, and who will agree to teach for a number of years. Scholarships for students who will major in math, science, engineering or technology fields makes sense. But we should not limit our selves to these stock type approaches. There will be many other new and creative ideas and we should welcome them and reward them, as long as they produce the outcome we want. We want to improve and increase the American talent pool. In the meantime, I think it is important not to force our companies to develop off-shore bases in order to hire the foreign professional they need. The history of numeric caps on H-1B visas is one of best guess, rather than of calculated need. It is difficult to anticipate the total need, but simply inserting a number because it is politically agreeable isn't the right answer. During the last session we adopted legislation produced through the fine efforts of Senator Abraham and others who worked tirelessly in addressing a broad array of problems and issues. The result is that our law now requires those who are dependent on H- 1B worker to attest, to give their oath, that they have tried to hire an American to fill the position unsuccessfully before applying for a foreign worker visa. These requirements are stringent. They protect American workers against companies which might otherwise ignore qualified applicants in order to bring in a foreign worker. The law protects against layoffs followed by foreign hiring. With this law in place and with diligent enforcement of its requirements, there is no reason to also pick an arbitrary number as a cap for H-1B visas. We can let the marketplace prevail. We can focus on improving our own resources and our own children's education so that in the future we will have more highly skilled professionals to fill these positions. When our supply meets the demand we will have achieved the goals of improving our education curriculum and our ability to remain leaders in the 21st century.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we are not here today to debate the legality of abortion. We are here to discuss ending partial-birth abortion--a particularly gruesome procedure that would be outlawed today but for the President's veto last year of a national ban. Banning partial-birth abortion goes far beyond traditional pro-life or prochoice views. No matter what your personal opinion regarding the legalization of abortion, we should all be appalled and outraged by the practices of partial-birth abortions. This procedure is inhumane and extremely brutal entailing the partial delivery of a healthy baby who is then killed by having its vibrant brain stabbed and suctioned out of the skull. This is simply barbaric. Some would argue that abortion, including partial-birth abortion, is a matter of choice--a woman's choice. Respectfully, I must disagree. What about the choice of the unborn baby? Why does a defenseless, innocent child not have a choice in their own destiny? Some may answer that the unborn baby is merely a fetus and is not a baby until he or she leaves the mother's womb. Again, I disagree, particularly, in the case of infants who are killed by partial-birth abortions. Most partial-birth abortions occur on babies who are between 20 and 24 weeks old. Viability, ``the capacity for meaningful life outside the womb, albeit with artificial aid'' as defined by the United States Supreme Court, is considered by the medical community to begin at 20 weeks for an unborn baby. Most, if not all, of the babies who are aborted by the partial-birth procedure could be delivered and live. Instead, they are partially delivered and then murdered. These children are never given a choice or a chance to live. Today, we have to make a choice. We can choose to protect our nation's most valuable resource--our children. We can choose to give a tomorrow full of endless possibilities to unborn children throughout our nation. We can choose to save thousands from being murdered at the hands of abortionists. Or we can choose to allow this barbaric procedure to continue, permitting doctors to kill more innocent, unborn children. We each have a choice, a choice which unborn children are denied. We must make the right choice when we vote today--the choice to save thousands of unborn children by banning partial birth abortions in this country. Today, I will choose to protect the unborn child. Today, I will once again cast my vote to ban partial birth abortions. I want to reiterate my strong support for this bill and my unequivocal and long-standing opposition to the practice of partial birth abortion. I find it disconcerting that a few people are attempting to dilute my unequivocal support for banning this horrific procedure as well as to cast doubt on my long standing commitment to protecting the life of unborn children merely because of my vote on a procedural motion. Yesterday, I voted against a parliamentary maneuver designed solely to end debate on S. 1593, the campaign finance reform bill. This was an unnecessary move since a unanimous consent agreement had been offered, with no known opposition, which would have allowed the chamber to temporarily lay aside the campaign finance reform bill so that the Senate could consider the partial birth abortion ban legislation. Under that procedure, when the Senate finished its work on the important bill banning partial birth abortions, we could then return to complete the debate on campaign finance reform. Instead, the opponents of McCain-Feingold forced a vote on a maneuver which returned the bill to the Senate calendar, effectively cutting off the debate, well short of the time promised to consider this important issue. In no way does my vote yesterday and strong support for campaign finance reform reduce my unequivocal, long-standing opposition to abortion, including the practice of partial birth abortion. I am a cosponsor of this legislation, as I was in previous years. I have voted 5 times over the past 5 years to ban this repugnant and unnecessary procedure, including 2 votes to overturn the President's veto of this legislation. When the Senate votes today on S. 1692, I will again vote for the ban. Mr. President, I am pro-life and will continue fighting for measures which protect our nation's unborn children and provide them with an opportunity for life--the greatest gift each of us has.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I intend to vote against the motion to proceed to S. 1692, legislation to ban partial birth abortions. This is an unnecessary parliamentary maneuver designed solely to displace S. 1593, the campaign finance reform bill, from the floor. A unanimous-consent agreement was offered, with no known opposition, to temporarily lay aside the campaign finance reform bill so that the Senate could consider the partial birth abortion ban legislation. Under that procedure, when the Senate finishes its work on the latter bill, we could then return to complete the debate on campaign finance reform. But if this procedural vote is successful, the McCain-Feingold bill will be returned to the Senate calendar, effectively cutting off the debate, well short of the time promised to consider this important issue. I want to make very clear, my strong support for this bill and my unequivocal and long-standing opposition to the practice of partial birth abortion. I am pro-life and oppose abortion except in the case of rape or incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger. Partial birth abortion is a repugnant procedure and an abomination, which should be outlawed. I am a cosponsor of this legislation, as I was in previous years. I have voted five times over the past 5 years to ban this repugnant and unnecessary procedure, including two votes to overturn the President's veto of this legislation. When the Senate votes on S. 1692, I will again vote for the ban. As I stated yesterday, I will not give up the fight to enact meaningful reform of our campaign finance system. If the McCain- Feingold bill is pulled from the floor today, I will return to the Senate floor with amendments on campaign reform this year, next year, and as long as it takes.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, is the motion debatable?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, if I am allowed to speak on the results of this vote before then, then I will agree to a unanimous- consent request.