John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as per the agreement with the Senator from Delaware, I will ask unanimous consent that the amendment be laid aside as soon as I use my 5 minutes.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by Senator Gorton regarding the European Union's (EU) rule affecting hushkitted and re-engined aircraft. This Sense of the Senate amendment will make clear to the Europeans that the United States will not tolerate unfair, discriminatory restrictions on trade that go against international principles and standards. For those who are not familiar with the issue, I will provide a brief background. To comply with international aircraft noise standards, the U.S. aviation industry adopted so-called hushkit technology to bring its older aircraft into compliance. Some airlines also purchased new engines for their older aircraft. Even though these hushkitted and re- engined aircraft comply with the new international noise standard, the EU took legislative action to freeze the number of these aircraft within the EU Community at the 1999 level. Although the EU delayed final implementation of this rule for one year, this move has the effect of setting a more stringent noise standard in Europe. Unfortunately, implementation of this rule is likely to have a discriminatory and costly impact on the United States aviation industry without any noise reduction benefits. The fact that this rule does not have a similar effect on industries in the EU is troubling. It is my understanding that certain aspects of the rule were tailored to protect European aviation interests. But one of the worst aspects of this rule is the terrible precedent that it sets for unilateral action by countries or groups of countries outside of the established international standards-setting process. Earlier this year I wrote to European officials to express my deep frustration with their having chosen this particular, unilateral course of action to address the issue of aircraft emissions. Regulations such as the one at issue should be taken through the appropriate international channels, such as the International Civil Aviation Organization. Adoption of this rule by the EU has effectively breached a 50-year regime of global environmental rules in aviation. A regional rule such as this one will undermine the ability of lesser-developed nations, the aerospace industry, airlines, and the United States to work toward international standards for more stringent aircraft engine emissions, which is the purported rationale for the EU rule. I sincerely hope that the EU will come to realize the benefits of a single, rational aviation regime for all nations. The delay in implementation of the rule was granted as a result of a U.S. commitment to work in partnership with the EU within the established international process to develop a new, more stringent global aircraft noise standard. Since its adoption, the Federal Aviation Administration has been working bilaterally with representatives of the European Commission to develop an agreement to work in partnership on resolving this matter to everyone's satisfaction. Despite the ongoing consultations, and regardless of the delay in implementation of the rule, U.S. industry is being negatively impacted right now. Because the hushkit rule is on the books, the market assumes that the rule will eventually come into effect. This has had a profound impact upon many businesses. So it is important that this matter be resolved soon. The Europeans must understand how important it is that the considerations of the United States are taken into account with respect to this matter. If progress is not made in the near future, calls for taking strong action against the EU will grow. As a committed proponent of free trade, I am adamantly opposed to the EU rule. For the same reason, I do not support inappropriate retaliation on the part of the United States in this matter. Despite my opposition, however, the U.S. may in fact retaliate, which could do harm to businesses and consumers on both sides of the Atlantic. Whether retaliatory in nature or not, the U.S. has many tools at its disposal to address the matter if the EU proves to be intractable in its position. For example, the United States Trade Representative is considering preparation of a World Trade Organization case focusing on the discriminatory aspects of the rule. Northwest Airlines has filed a complaint with Department of Transportation asking for retaliatory measures. Most recently, the U.S. aviation industry has asked the government to take official action under the so-called Chicago Convention, which governs many aspects of international aviation, claiming that the EU rule is not in compliance with international standards. I do not want this issue to become the subject of a trade war. But if the EU fails to grasp the determined opposition of the U.S. aviation industry to this rule, there may be serious repercussions. I hope that this Sense of the Senate will begin to get the message to the EU that this issue cannot remain unresolved for too much longer.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to designate the month of May National Military Appreciation Month. As my colleagues may recall, I had sponsored a resolution earlier in the year, cosponsored by 61 Senators, designating May 1999 as National Military Appreciation Month. That resolution, S. Res. 33, passed by a vote of 93-0 on April 30. The new bill will make that designation permanent. The introduction of an All-Volunteer Army was an outgrowth of the disenchantment many Americans felt in the wake of the Vietnam War. The end of conscription and the transition to the All-Volunteer concept has been criticized by some for not adequately reflecting socioeconomic divisions within our country. In point of fact, however, with the requisite attention and care, it produced the finest armed forces in history. How far we had come since the tumultuous times of the 1970s when military readiness descended to abysmal levels was evident for all the world to see in the overwhelming victory over Iraqi forces during Operation Desert Storm. But that success has been taken for granted too long. Over 15 years of declining military budgets, combined with record high levels of deployments, have stretched the military to precarious levels. The end of conscription had another, more far-reaching and subtle implication: it diminished the percentage of the public, including its elected officials, with military experience. This is not a criticism of those who did not serve; on the contrary, as a strong supporter of the All-Volunteer Army, I remain committed to its survival and success. This gradual diminishment in the shared experience of having served in uniform, however, makes it increasingly important that the public reflect every year on the enormous role their armed forces have on preserving freedom. As thousands of American soldiers move into position in Kosovo, while others continue to serve in Bosnia as well as on the demilitarized zone in Korea and around the world, it is imperative that our men and women in uniform know of the strong continuing support of their country for their dedication and service to this country. Whether we individually agree with each and every deployment or not, we have learned to separate our support every deployment or not, we have learned to separate our support for the armed forces from our differences over the policies that sent them into harm's way. Dedicating one month every year to express our appreciation for the armed forces, the same month in which we recognize Victory in Europe Day, Military Spouse Day, Armed Forces Day, and, most importantly, Memorial Day, is an appropriate measure that I hope will have the support of all my colleagues in Congress. Mr. President, I generally take a somewhat dim view of celebratory resolutions. But those who fought on the battlefields of Lexington, Gettysburg, Normandy, in the Ardennes and on Okinawa, in Hue and at Khe Sanh, in the deserts of the Persian Gulf and the dusty streets of Mogadish, in the skies over Kosovo and who stand a lonely vigil on the DMZ, must not be forgotten. Too much blood has been spilled in defense of liberty. We owe to those who perished and those who survived, to devote one month out of the year to reflect on the sacrifices of those who have worn their nation's uniform throughout its history. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, the attached correspondence in support of S. Res. 33 from the Secretary of the Air Force and Air Force Chief of Staff, as well as a letter from retired General Gordon Sullivan, president of the Association of the United States Army, be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I would agree that as the current law is written a number of our law enforcement agencies that operate public aircraft are faced with burdens in being reimbursed for the costs associated from flying missions in support of neighboring jurisdictions. The Senate Commerce Committee intends to act to review the matter and work to develop legislation that will help law enforcement.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would be pleased to engage in a discussion with the distinguished Senators from Florida and Ohio on the substance of this matter.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the managers of this bill for their hard work in putting forth annual legislation which provides federal funding for numerous vital programs. The Senate will soon vote to adopt the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Bill for the Fiscal Year 2000. I intend to support this measure because it provides funding for fighting crime, enhancing drug enforcement, and responding to threats of terrorism. This further 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 bill and its accompanying report. This year's bill has over $1 billion in pork-barrel spending. This is a disgracefully huge increase over last year's FY 99 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Bill, which contained $361 million in pork-barrel spending. $1.2 billion is an unacceptable amount of money to spend on low-priority, unrequested, wasteful projects. In short, Congress must curb its appetite for such unbridled spending. CBO projects that we will have close to a trillion dollar budget surplus over the next 10 years. However, if we continue with our current levels of wasteful spending, these budget surpluses may not occur. 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 unrequested earmarks buried in this proposal will undoubtedly further burden the American taxpayers. While the amounts associated with each individual earmark may not seem extravagant, taken together, they represent a serious diversion of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars 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. I have compiled a lengthy list of the numerous add-ons, earmarks, and special exemptions provided to individual projects in this bill. It would take a substantial amount of time to recite this list to you. Instead, I will ask unanimous consent to include this list in the Record. Mr. President, because of our nation's robust economy, we now have a balanced budget. But we cannot continue to bear the financial burden of servicing a $5.6 trillion national debt. We need to continue to work to cut unnecessary and wasteful spending so we can begin to pay down our debt and save billions in interest payments. As I mentioned earlier, CBO recently projected that we will have close to a trillion dollar budget surplus over the next 10 years. These are projections and not real dollars until they materialize. Further, these surplus projections are all contingent on Congress maintaining the spending caps. Unfortunately, I already hear the grumbling to break these caps even as we have only deliberated on a small number of appropriations bills. Simply because we can fund programs of questionable merit within the spending caps does not mean that we should. There is no room for pork- barreling when we are so close to breaking the caps. Last year alone, I uncovered over $14 billion of wasteful spending in the appropriations bills. $14 billion funds a lot of worthy programs. As a matter of simple fairness, 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. Pork barrel spending cannot be justified in an environment where our highest fiscal priorities should be to save Social Security, and provide much needed tax relief such as: increasing the number of tax payers in the 15% tax bracket, elimination of the marriage penalty; reduced taxation of savings and investment income; repeal of the estate and gift tax; repeal of the Social Security Earnings Test; increasing the contribution level for 410(k), and 457 retirement plans; and increasing the contribution level for the traditional IRA to $5,000. Let me say very frankly that I do not generally like the idea of griping year after year regarding Congress' appetite for wasteful pork- barrel spending. But 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. I ask unanimous consent the list be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. As I have indicated to my colleague, I will as the Chairman of the Commerce Committee review this matter by the end of the year and work with my colleague from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, in a good faith effort to resolve this issue by the end of the year.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to inform my colleagues of a significant honor recently bestowed upon our colleague, the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Abraham. On June 16, Senator Abraham became the first United States Senator to receive the ``Cyber Champion'' award, from the Business Software Alliance. He was recognized for his legislative accomplishments in support of America's high-technology economy. I would like to congratulate Senator Abraham on receiving this well-deserved honor. Senator Abraham has been a champion of high-tech since coming to the Senate. He has worked hard on a high-tech agenda to keep Americans employed in good jobs at good wages, and to help our nation keep the edge we need in the global marketplace. It has been my pleasure to work with him on many of these issues. Whether fighting to expand and rationalize the use of electronic signatures, expanding high-tech visas, increasing charitable giving to our schools so that we can train our kids in the uses of high- technology, keeping the Internet free from unnecessary interference and taxation, or seeing to it that we are prepared for the year 2000, Senator Abraham has been a leader on high-tech issues. Now Senator Abraham is working to protect property rights on the Internet through his anti-cybersquatting legislation. His bill would empower trademark owners to protect their marks, at the same time protecting consumers from potential fraud. There is no doubt in my mind that Senator Abraham's efforts will help workers and the economy in Michigan and across the United States. Once again, I congratulate him on this honor, and on the accomplishments that have earned it for him.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I object at this time, until we get this.

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, I deeply regret this, but Senator Levin is on the floor right now. I hope we can come to an agreement on whether or not he would object to that unanimous consent agreement. I would like to finish it. I will yield to him at this time.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask, does this mean that the majority leader will not fill up the tree with first- and second-degree amendments? In other words, the intent is to move forward with the amending process, up-or-down votes on the amendments and move forward? That is the intent of the majority leader?

Mr. McCAIN. If the majority leader will agree, for the remainder of the first session, we would not bring it up.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I yield to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the majority leader. This is a time now where we will be able to have a legitimate amending process. Amendments to perfect the legislation will be placed on the calendar by the close of business on September 14 so that we can improve or not improve. However, the legislative process will move forward, as we normally do on pieces of legislation before the body, with the exception, of course, that respecting the fact that the Senate does act with 60 votes to cut off debate, if Senator Feingold and I fail to get 60 votes, then there is no sense in prolonging the debate or the discussion, including that we would not raise the issue again during the 106th Congress. We would have debates and amendments and votes on those amendments.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Montana for yielding me time. Mr. President, just a few facts. We process 96 percent of the ROVR applications. Last year we processed only 78 percent. The Jackson-Vanik waiver is working. Almost 16,000 applicants have been granted admission to the United States. Today there are only 79 outstanding ROVR cases. Last year there were 1,353 outstanding cases. Mr. President, I oppose this motion to discharge from the Senate Finance Committee. It disapproves the extension of the Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam. I do so because I believe the House should properly act first on a measure of this nature, because the committee should be afforded the opportunity to render judgment on Senator Smith's resolution before it is taken up by the full Senate, and because Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik waiver, like China's normal trade relation status, is too important to fall victim to the political currents buffeting the Senate at this time. As we all know, procedurally, the Senate has traditionally reserved consideration of Jackson-Vanik waivers and the granting of normal trade relation status until after the House has acted. As my colleagues know, the House Ways and Means Committee has unfavorably reported the House resolutions of disapproval for both Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik waiver and China's normal trade relation status. These measures are scheduled for floor action in the House. The Senate should not rush to judgment on either of these measures until the House has voted on them. Indeed, the Senate has over 40 remaining days under the statutory deadline for action on the waiver. Substantively, the Jackson-Vanik amendment exists to promote freedom of emigration from non-democratic countries. The law calls for a waiver if it would enhance opportunities to emigrate freely. Opportunities for emigration from Vietnam have clearly increased since the President first waived the Jackson-Vanik amendment in 1998. The waiver has encouraged measurable Vietnamese cooperation in processing applications for emigration under the Orderly Departure Program and the Resettlement Opportunity for Vietnamese Returnees agreement, ROVR. The Jackson-Vanik waiver has also allowed the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Export-Import Bank, and the Department of Agriculture to support American businesses in Vietnam. Withdrawing OPIC, EXIM, and USDA guarantees would hurt U.S. businesses and slow progress on economic normalization. It would reinforce the position of hard-liners in Hanoi who believe Vietnam's opening to the West has proceeded too rapidly. Let me assure my colleagues that I harbor no illusions about the human rights situation in Vietnam. There is clearly room for improvement. The question is how best to advance both the cause of human rights and U.S. economic and security interests. The answer lies in the continued expansion of U.S. relations with Vietnam. Although the Jackson-Vanik waiver does not relate to our POW/MIA accounting efforts, Vietnam-related legislation often serves as a referendum on broader U.S.-Vietnam relations, in which accounting for our missing personnel is the United States' first priority. Thirty- three Joint Field Activities conducted by the Department of Defense over the past 6 years, and the consequent repatriation of 266 sets of remains of American military personnel during that period, attest to the ongoing cooperation between Vietnamese and American officials in our efforts to account for our missing servicemen. I am confident that such progress will continue. It really does not serve much of a purpose for us to have divided opinion on the degree of Vietnam cooperation. We should rely on the opinion of the U.S. military who are there on the ground in Vietnam doing the job. Invariably, they will attest to the cooperation, despite perhaps the hopes of others. They will attest that the fact is the Vietnamese are providing full cooperation as far as resolution of the Vietnamese POW/MIA issues. Again, do not take my word for it; take the word of the American military who are on the ground doing the job. Just as the naysayers who insisted that Vietnamese cooperation on POW/MIA issues would cease altogether when we normalized relations with Vietnam were proven wrong, so have those who insisted that Vietnam would cease cooperation on emigration issues once we waived Jackson- Vanik been proven wrong by the course of events since the original waiver was issued in March 1998. The Jackson-Vanik amendment was designed to link U.S. trade to the emigration policies of communist countries, primarily the Soviet Union. The end of the Cold War fundamentally restructured global economic and security arrangements. As the recent expansion of NATO demonstrated, old enemies have become new friends. Moreover, meaningful economic and political reform can only occur in Vietnam if the United States remains engaged there. Last year, I initiated a Dear Colleague letter to Members of the House of Representatives, signed by every Vietnam veteran in the Senate, except Senator Smith, who has opposed every step in the gradual process of normalizing--I ask for 1 additional minute.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I oppose Senator Smith's motion to discharge from the Senate Finance Committee his resolution disapproving of the extension of the Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam. I do so because I believe the House should properly act first on a measure of this nature, because the Committee should be afforded the opportunity to render judgment on Senator Smith's resolution before it is taken up by the full Senate, and because Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik waiver, like China's Normal Trade Relation status, is too important to fall victim to the political currents buffeting the Senate at this time. Procedurally, the Senate has traditionally reserved consideration of Jackson-Vanik waivers and the granting of Normal Trade Relation status until after the House has acted. As my colleagues know, the House Ways and Means Committee has unfavorably reported the House resolutions of disapproval for both Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik waiver and China's Normal Trade Relation status. These measures are scheduled for floor action in the House. The Senate should not rush to judgment on either of these measures until the House has voted on them. Indeed, the Senate has over 40 remaining days under the statutory deadline for action on the waiver. Substantively, the Jackson-Vanik amendment exists to promote freedom of emigration from non-democratic countries. The law calls for a waiver if it would enhance opportunities to emigrate freely. Opportunities for emigration from Vietnam have clearly increased since the President first waived the Jackson-Vanik amendment in 1998. The waiver has encouraged measurable Vietnamese cooperation in processing applications for emigration under the Orderly Departure Program (ODP) and the Resettlement Opportunity for Vietnamese Returnees agreement (ROVR). The Jackson-Vanik waiver has also allowed the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), the Export-Import Bank (EXIM), and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to support American businesses in Vietnam. Withdrawing OPIC, EXIM, and USDA guarantees would hurt U.S. businesses and slow progress on economic normalization. It would reinforce the position of hard-liners in Hanoi who believe Vietnam's opening to the West has proceeded too rapidly. Let me assure my colleagues that I harbor no illusions about the human rights situation in Vietnam. There is clearly room for improvement. The question is how best to advance both the cause of human rights and U.S. economic and security interests. The answer lies in the continued expansion of U.S. relations with Vietnam. Although the Jackson-Vanik waiver does not relate to our POW/MIA accounting efforts, Vietnam-related legislation often serves as a referendum on broader U.S.-Vietnam relations, in which accounting for our missing personnel is the United States' first priority. Thirty- three Joint Field Activities conducted by the Department of Defense over the past six years, and the consequent repatriation of 266 sets of remains of American military personnel during that period, attest to the ongoing cooperation between Vietnamese and American officials in our efforts to account for our missing service men. I am confident that such progress will continue. Just as the naysayers who insisted that Vietnamese cooperation on POW/MIA issues would cease altogether when we normalized relations with Vietnam were proven wrong, so have those who insisted that Vietnam would cease cooperation on emigration issues once we waived Jackson- Vanik been proven wrong by the course of events since the original waiver was issued in March 1998. The Jackson-Vanik amendment was designed to link U.S. trade to the emigration policies of communist countries, primarily the Soviet Union. The end of the Cold War fundamentally restructured global economic and security arrangements. As the recent expansion of NATO demonstrated, old enemies have become new friends. Moreover, meaningful economic and political reform can only occur in Vietnam if the United States remains engaged there. Last year, I initiated a Dear Colleague letter to members of the House of Representatives signed by every Vietnam veteran in the Senate but Senator Smith, who has opposed every step in the gradual process of normalizing our relations with Vietnam over the years. There are those in Congress, including Senator Smith, who remain opposed to the extension of Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik waiver. But they do not include any other United States Senator who served in Vietnam and who, as a consequence, might be understandably skeptical of closer U.S.-Vietnam relations. That body of opinion reminds us that, whatever one may think of the character of the Vietnamese regime, such considerations should not obscure our clear humanitarian interest in promoting freedom of emigration from Vietnam. The Jackson-Vanik waiver serves that interest. Consequently, I urge my colleagues to oppose Senator Smith's extraordinary motion to discharge consideration of his resolution from the Finance Committee. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Dear Colleague letter to Members of the House of Representatives was signed by every Vietnam veteran in the Senate except Senator Smith, who has opposed every step in the gradual process of normalizing our relations with Vietnam over the years. There are those in Congress, including Senator Smith, who remain opposed to the extension of Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik waiver. But they do not include any other U.S. Senator who served in Vietnam and who, as a consequence, might be understandably skeptical of closer U.S.-Vietnam relations. That body of opinion reminds us that, whatever one may think of the character of the Vietnamese regime, such considerations should not obscure our clear humanitarian interest in promoting freedom of emigration from Vietnam. The Jackson-Vanik waiver serves that interest. Consequently, I urge my colleagues to oppose Senator Smith's extraordinary motion to discharge consideration of his resolution from the Finance Committee. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I want to make it clear to the majority leader, in anticipation or not anticipation of the Senator from Michigan agreeing to the unanimous consent request, that it is the majority leader's intention to follow through with the unanimous consent request as is now presently in the Record no later than October 12 to move forward with the amending process as agreed to by the Senator from Kentucky and all of us until the Senator from Michigan objected; is that correct, I ask my friend from Mississippi?

Mr. McCAIN. Again, I want to reaffirm that it is the intention of the majority leader to comply with the unanimous consent request which was agreed to on both sides, with the exception of the Senator from Michigan, that no later than October 12, we will move forward with the legislation as articulated in the unanimous consent request.

Mr. McCAIN. Absolutely.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, yesterday, I introduced the Adoption Awareness Act of 1999. The objective of this legislation is to provide proactive support for adoption as an option for women with unplanned pregnancies, and for couples who are unable to conceive a child due to problems with infertility. The bill would require certain federally- funded health centers to provide adoption counseling by trained adoption counselors. The Adoption Awareness Act makes grants available to national adoption organizations to provide staff training in adoption counseling to eligible health centers. These health centers include Title X funded clinics, community health centers, migrant health centers, centers for the homeless, school-based clinics, and crisis pregnancy centers. The objective is to ensure that woman and their families are provided professional, compassionate, and understanding counseling about adoption. This legislation also provides that faith-based charities may receive grants to provide adoption counseling training services on the same basis as any other nongovernmental provider without impairing the religious character of such institutions and without diminishing the religious freedom of those receiving services. Finally, this legislation authorizes the appropriation of $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 for purposes of providing adoption counseling training. There are no unwanted babies in this country. Across America there are countless couples who cannot conceive a baby, and struggle, often hopelessly, to adopt a child. All the while, tragically, 1.5 million children are aborted every year. There are parents who desperately want the opportunity to provide these children with a loving home, and the gift of life itself. The purpose of this legislation is not to incite a debate about abortion. The purpose of this legislation is to stress the value, indeed the sanctity of life, and the importance of adoption as an alternative to abortion. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that a woman struggling with the tragic choice of abortion is provided professional and compassionate counseling on adoption. A mother deserves to know that there are millions of couples out there who are willing, indeed desperate, to provide her child with a loving home. A mother deserves to know that ending her child's life is not the only choice she has. I speak from personal experience. I am an adoptive father. I am a staunch supporter of the choice of adoption. Every mother pondering the agony which is abortion deserves the hope this legislation offers. Every unborn child deserves the opportunity for life that this legislation offers. I believe in the sanctity of human life. I have always fought for the rights of the unborn child, and the preservation of the intrinsic value of all human life. At approximately 1.5 million abortions every year, that is some 35 million children killed since the Roe v. Wade decision. Mr. President, regardless of your beliefs, pro-abortion, or pro-life, that is a staggering and tragic statistic. This legislation offers a chance at reducing that number. It is not the answer, but it does provide hope to couples struggling desperately to adopt children. As important, it provides hope to that mother or couple who is standing on the tragic precipice of abortion, ensuring that they know there is another choice. Every child embodies the hope for our future. It is our children, in their purity and their innocence, that hope is born again in an increasingly cynical world. Abortion is the great tragedy of our time. America is not a country of kings. America is not defined by any single geographic characteristic, by any single race or creed. America is an idea, a collection of high ideals, eloquently articulated, inscribed in our Constitution, and embodied on our institutions. Abraham Lincoln, in pondering the profound wisdom and our founding fathers, wrote of them: ``This was their majestic interpretation of the economy of the universe. This was their lofty, and wise, and noble understanding of the justice of the Creator to his creatures . . . In their enlightened belief, nothing stamped with the divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on . . . They grasped not only the whole race of man then living, but they reached forward and seized upon the farthest posterity. They erected a beacon to guide their children, and their children, and the countless myriads who would inhabit the Earth in other ages.'' Mr. President, confronting the tragic figures on abortion I have previously cited, I cannot help but question whether we can continue on this course and maintain hope that the intrinsic value of every human life, that principle out of which all the rights of man flow, can survive. The Adoption Awareness Act represents one step in the effort toward restoring the sanctity of life as the foundation of our system of human rights.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, our personal health and the health of our loved ones is the most valuable thing we possess. Unfortunately, we often take good health for granted until tragedy strikes and the health or well-being of a family member is jeopardized by disease, accident, or the ills often associated with aging. This is when we fully appreciate the value of good health, as well as the importance of access to quality health care. When one of us or a loved one becomes ill, the obstacles of daily life become insignificant in comparison to ensuring the best health care services are available to ensure a full and speedy recovery. Our priority instantly becomes seeking and receiving the best possible care from qualified medical professionals. Unfortunately, too many Americans feel powerless when faced with a health care crisis in their personal life. Many feel as if important, life-altering decisions are being micro-managed by business people rather than medical professionals, and too many Americans believe they have no access to quality care or cannot receive the necessary medical treatment recommended by their personal physician. Many Americans work hard and live on strict budgets so they can afford health insurance coverage for their family. Then, the moment they need health care, they are confronted with obstacles limiting which services are available to them: confronted by frustrating bureaucratic hoops; and confronted by health plans that provide little, if any, opportunity for patients to redress grievances. This happens too often and can be attributed to several factors. Our health care system is very complicated. It is comprised of thousands of acronyms and codes, and even has acronyms for acronyms. Our overly complex health insurance system intimidates and confuses many Americans. Many of us fail to fully examine the coverage provided by our health plans until we become ill, and then it is difficult to understand the legalese of the plan documents. Another contributing factor is the depersonalization of health care, which has become focused more on profits than on proper patient care. I am not embarrassed to admit that I find the complexity of the health system very disconcerting and am often overwhelmed by its intricacies. I can certainly relate to the majority of Americans who are overwhelmed by a system which does not meet their basic needs in a simple, efficient and affordable manner. Let me stress that I am not here today to bash managed care. I am not here to condemn Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) and the services they provide millions of Americans. I applaud the success of managed care in reining in skyrocketing health care costs, eradicating excessive and costly health care expenditures, and significantly reducing unnecessary overuse of the system. Managed care has played a direct role in reducing health care costs so that health care coverage is affordable for millions of hard-working American families. However, while I appreciate the important contributions of managed care, we must protect the rights of patients in our Nation's health care system. Too many Americans feel trapped in a system which does not put their health care needs first. They believe that HMOs value a paper dollar more than they do a human life. I know that my colleagues share my view, as do most managed care companies, that we cannot continue to ignore the rights of patients. For far too long, we have allowed the health care reform debate to be determined by special interest groups. Democrats are perceived as advocating certain principles and priorities for the trial lawyers, who are drooling over the prospect of unlimited and excessively costly litigation against insurers. Meanwhile, Republicans are perceived as working to protect the profit margin of the insurance companies and big business. As a result, this critical debate is overwhelmed with partisan bickering, and millions of Americans are left with no representation and inadequate health care. It is time for all of us to put aside partisanship and the influence of special interests to work together for what is needed and wanted by our constituents--safe, quality, affordable health care. I believe several fundamental health care principles must guide our health care debate: First, we must put Americans in charge of their own health care. There are too many people who feel overpowered and overwhelmed by the current medical system. The current structure has created a caste system, and many patients believe they have become the serfs. Patients and their doctors should control their health care decisions, not HMO bureaucrats or political bureaucrats in Washington. Physicians utilizing the best medical data must make the medical decisions, not insurance companies or trial lawyers. We need to put in place a balanced system that allows managed care companies to reduce costs but also reinvigorates the patient-doctor relationship which is essential for receiving optimal care. On the other hand, patients need to recognize that they cannot rely solely on doctors to always provide the best medical options. We each have a responsibility to learn how our medical plan operates, read about the options available to us and our family before we become sick, and most importantly, become better consumers of health care. I don't think many people would enter a salesroom or bank unprepared with the pertinent information for purchasing a new car or home, but too many of us blindly enter into major decisions affecting our health without doing any research. I know this is not easy, particularly with our very complex health care system and when so many of us barely find the time for sleep between work and family responsibilities. But we must become better advocates for ourselves in this complex medical system. To that end, the government should help Americans become educated consumers by ensuring pertinent health care information is readily accessible. I have advocated and will continue to advocate a central web site or other service which simplifies research for Americans as they gather data on available health care options. Second, we must improve access to affordable health care. It is simply disgraceful that 43 million Americans can not afford health care coverage. This is the largest number of uninsured citizens in over a decade, despite our strong economy and past actions to provide greater access to medical care. We must continue building upon already enacted reforms by expanding medical savings accounts, offering flexible savings accounts, providing full tax deductibility for self-employed health insurance costs, and allowing tax deductibility for long-term care expenses. We must stop wasting our limited resources on pork and wasteful spending projects, so that we have more money to assist Americans who are uninsured and can not afford to put money away in medical savings accounts or will not be able to benefit from a tax credit. We should provide more funding for our nation's community health centers which are a tremendous resource in helping millions of Americans gain access to health care who would otherwise go without. Community health centers have instituted a sliding fee schedule which allows people to contribute what they can afford and still receive health benefits. We should strengthen and expand these successful centers throughout our country. In addition, our tax code impedes a competitive market by prohibiting many Americans from truly being health care consumers. Many people lack purchasing power and are dependent on their employers for health care coverage. Tax benefits should not be limited for health care purchased only by big businesses. We should develop a method for providing the same tax benefits to individuals and families. Third, Americans must have a choice of doctors to meet their health care needs. Today, too many women cannot go directly to an obstetrician or gynecologist for medical care. Instead, they are forced to waste valuable time seeking a perfunctory referral from a ``gatekeeper'' doctor before they can go directly to their OB/GYN. The same is true for children. Mothers and fathers should be allowed to take their children directly to a pediatrician. Instead, the current system forces them to go through a gatekeeper for referral. Women and children must be given the opportunity to seek care directly from the trained professionals best suited to address their unique health needs. Additionally, Americans should be free to choose their doctors, including specialists, if they are willing to bear the additional costs which may accompany this freedom. People should be able to enroll in a point-of-service plan with access to a multitude of physicians, rather than be limited to an HMO which restricts freedom of choice in doctors. Fourth, we must guarantee access to emergency care. If a man or woman in Phoenix, Arizona fears they are having a heart attack, they should not be required to seek approval from their managed care company prior to calling an ambulance and going to an emergency room. Any bill we pass must guarantee care in an emergency room without prior approval from an HMO if the person believes that it is an emergency situation. Fifth, we must ensure continuity of care. Individuals who are pregnant, terminally ill, or institutionalized should be given special consideration so that their necessary care is not interrupted abruptly if their employer changes health plans. Sixth, doctors must be able to communicate openly and fully with their patients. Today, some doctors are prevented by HMOs from openly discussing all medical treatments available to a patient. This is unconscionable. HMOs must not be allowed to stop doctors from openly discussing all possible care available, even if the procedures are not covered by the HMO. A doctor's loyalty must be to the patient and not an HMO's bottom line. Seventh, a free and fair grievance process must be available in the event an HMO denies medical care. A mother should have options when she is told her son or daughter's cancer treatment is not necessary and will not be covered by her insurance. We can not support a system that leaves that mother powerless against corporate health care. She must have access to both internal and external appeals processes which are fair and readily available and which use neutral experts who are not selected, paid, or otherwise beholden to the HMO. In life-threatening cases, there must be an expedited process. Finally, once all options to receive necessary medical care have been exhausted, including an external appeals process, and that care has not been appropriately provided, every American should have the right to seek reasonable relief in the courts. I find it incredible that HMOs and their employees are able to avoid responsibility for negligent or harmful medical care. Americans covered by ERISA health plans should have the same right of redress in the courts as those who are enrolled in non-ERISA plans if they are unable to receive a fair resolution through an unbiased appeals process. We must ensure that patients receive the benefits for which they have paid and rightfully deserve. We must also ensure that unscrupulous health plans not go unpunished when they act negligently, resulting in harm to a patient. I drafted a compromise on this issue which would be fair to patients and HMOs and would not cause excessive and costly lawsuits. The proposal, which is filed as amendment number 1246, would require patients to go through both the internal and external appeal processes if they were unsatisfied with care or decisions of their HMO. Once the appeal process reached a decision, they could accept the decision, or if they felt they still had not been treated fairly, they could go to the courts. In court, they could receive compensatory damages with a cap of $250,000 on non-economic damages. I believe this is a fair and reasonable compromise which would allow patients to be compensated, but eliminates the potential for extravagant awards that could drive up the cost of health care. Unfortunately, I was precluded from calling up this amendment and another amendment which would have protected the rights of children born with birth defects (amendment number 1247) because of the stringent controls established by the Leadership for debate on this bill. It is unfortunate that this health care reform debate has been controlled by special interest groups on both sides and mired in partisan political maneuvering. This has become a debate--not about providing affordable access to quality health care for all Americans-- but a debate about preserving the positions of competing special interests. It has become a debate about the interests of trial lawyers versus the interests of insurance companies--not the interests of patients. No reasonable compromise has been offered on either side to resolve issues like liability, choice, access, and cost. Instead, we are voting on competing proposals at the extremes. This is not a debate. It is a contest--a contest between parties and special interests. And it is a contest that no one--not Republicans, not Democrats, certainly not the American people--wins, except, of course, the special interests who are only concerned about their financial well-being, rather than the physical or financial well-being of every American. It is a shame that this body is so controlled by special interests that we cannot even put the health of the American people ahead of politics. I cosponsored the original Republican Patients' Bill of Rights, S. 326. And despite the concerted efforts of the trial lawyers and the insurance companies and those more interested in partisan politics than the health of the American people, we have succeeded in adopting some much-needed improvements to the original bill. For example, the external appeal process has been made more independent of the influence of the insurance companies; a small step has been taken toward requiring HMOs to pay for an individual's participation in a clinical trial; it requires expanded access to specialists and emergency medical care; and it mandates extended hospital care following mastectomies and related surgeries. These improvements are a step in the right direction--toward putting the needs of patients first. Because of these changes, I am reluctantly supporting final passage of this legislation. I am doing this because I believe it is important to move forward and enact legislation to implement much-needed health care reform. The House will soon take up health care reform, and I hope they will pass a reasonable health care reform bill which honestly puts the needs of patients first. We can then work for a practical and fair compromise during conference. I want to put my colleagues on notice that, if a conference agreement comes back to the Senate that does not meet the standard of putting patients first, then I will have to oppose that legislation. This is too important an issue to allow the influence of special interests to prevent us from doing what is right for all Americans.