John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment which would help one of our most vulnerable populations, our children, by addressing the growing problem of HMOs denying insurance coverage of reconstructive surgery for kids suffering from physical defects and deformities. This amendment 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 external limbs, such as ears, and other facial deformities. Unfortunately, it has become commonplace for insurance companies to label these medical procedures as cosmetic surgery and deny coverage to help these children eradicate or reduce deformities and acquire a normal appearance. In fact, a recent survey of the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons indicated that over half of 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 there surgical procedures. I find it disgraceful that many insurance companies claim that reconstructive procedures are not medically necessary and are therefor cosmetic. These companies claim that medical services restoring some semblance of a normal appearance are superfluous and performed merely for vanity or cosmetic purposes. Many of my colleagues may be wondering how such a ludicrous and cruel practice can occur when it seems obvious that these procedures are clearly reconstructive and not cosmetic in nature. While an insurance plan may attempt to claim that helping a child born without ears or with a cleft so severe it extends to her hairline is superfluous surgery, I adamantly disagree and am committed to stopping the abhorrent practice. The medical and developmental complications which arise from many of these conditions are tremendous. Speech impediments, hearing difficulties and dental problems are a few of the physical side effects which may result from a child's physical deformity. In addition, the effect a child's deformities may have on their personal development, confidence, self-esteem and their future aspirations and achievements are often very far reaching. A healthy self image is vitally important to develop self esteem and confidence. How a person sees themselves, and how others see them, determines how the person feels about himself and defines whether he has the strength to resist unfortunate obstacles, including the taunting of peer and disengagement from school activities. As parents, we want our children to be armed with a healthy sense of self esteem and confidence. The best way to guarantee that happens is to help them develop a strong and health self image. While this is critical, we must be pragmatic and recognize that we live in a society which places a high value on physical beauty and often unfairly uses it as a measurement of a person's worth, ability or potential in society. While this is wrong and we must work together to instill self-worth in our children, it is unrealistic to not recognize the importance which is place on physical appearances in our world and the unfair obstacles which children born with deformities face if they are not provided access medical services which help them attain a 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 provide Bridget access to the reconstructive services she needs, despite denials by our health plan. Unfortunately, most hard working American families are not so fortunate. This is not right and it is why I am offering this important amendment to assist all American children. I want to stress that this is not a new mandate which could cause health care premiums to escalate. What I am proposing simply prohibits plans from frivolously ruling that substantial, medically needed reconstructive surgery for children to obtain a relatively normal appearance is cosmetic, or denying reconstructive coverage which American families have purchases. I urge each of my colleagues to work with me on behalf of our children and ensure that they are afforded an opportunity to realize their full potential. Amendment No. 1248 At the appropriate place, insert the following:

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this evening I cast several difficult votes regarding core principles facing this body as we work to ensure the health care rights of Americans are protected. I voted for an amendment creating an external appeals process for patients who are denied medical care by their health plan. While I strongly support this initiative, I am concerned that this specific proposal needs further strengthening ensuring that the individual health care rights of Americans are the priority. I will be working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to strengthen the external appeals process, including access to reasonable legal remedies while ensuring that the external review process is conducted by unbiased and independent entities whose sole purpose is to protect the rights of American patients. In addition, I support guaranteeing an individual medical care in an emergency room without prior approval from their HMO if the person believes that it is an emergency situation. However, I was forced to vote against an amendment which provided this protection but then superseded state rights and created an opportunity for emergency rooms to begin providing a litany of treatments outside of the realm of the perceived emergency which could have negative financial repercussions. Finally, I support providing American women with direct access to OB/ GYNs and ensuring they receive quality health care while battling breast cancer. However, I was forced to vote against an amendment providing this critical access because it eliminated an important provision ensuring that health care costs do not skyrocket thereby causing thousands, if not millions of new Americans to lose their health care coverage.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. We could not have succeeded without them. I do not intend to make further remarks except to reserve about 5 minutes of my time for the Senator from Washington. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending business and turn to the conference report to accompany H.R. 775.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from South Carolina for his spirited and impassioned defense of his position. It is a great privilege to do combat with him, both in the committee and on the floor. I appreciate his eloquence as always. Since this time I believe we have the votes, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. I have only been in this body for 13 years. I have never heard quite such a mischaracterization of legislation as the Senator from North Carolina just displayed. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I don't intend to use all of my time. I intend to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Washington. I have talked to other Members who have time under this agreement. For the benefit of my colleagues, I think we will not use all of the time as outlined in the unanimous-consent agreement. I am pleased to urge the final passage of the conference report on H.R. 775. This has been a long and arduous process. While there have been times when the bill appeared to be moving slowly, or even dying, I was always confident we would do the right thing and pass this final bill. We are now ready to enact this critical legislation. For the benefit of my colleagues, the House has just passed the conference report by a vote of 404-24. This is a victory for the Nation and for the continued prosperity of our economy as we enter the new millennium. This is a critical piece of legislation. It allows all of our businesses and industries, large and small, hitech and non-hitech, to concentrate their efforts for the next 6 months on preventing Y2K problems from happening, and planning remediation measures. Rather than spending time, resources and money planning litigation defenses, we can be focusing on the means for fixing the problems. This legislation strikes a very fair and practical balance in protecting the economy and protecting the rights of consumers. And very importantly, I want to note, it addresses needs and problems of small businesses, as well as large. I would like to dispel any misconceptions or misinformation that there was any underhandedness in the final negotiation and drafting of revisions to this bill. Despite attempts to address Administration concerns last week with revisions and compromises that were made Friday, over the weekend, and on Monday, final negotiations and proposals by the White House were made on Tuesday morning, as we pressed against the deadline for completion of the conference report. Final revisions and drafting were made with every effort and good faith intention to respond to the generalized requests of the White House. Challenges to the integrity, professionalism and honor of the conferees and staff are unwarranted. This is a fair bill that reflects a bipartisan compromise. Perhaps the recent vote just a few minutes ago in the House might indicate that is an overwhelming view in the other body. I am sure the vote in the Senate will also indicate overwhelming support for this legislation. During the conference, the Senate and the House proponents of the legislation agreed to at least 10 substantive changes to the bill. These significant compromises were in addition to 10 or more major concessions made in the Senate from the time it was passed by the committee until its passage on the floor. These revisions and compromises have resulted in a more narrowly tailored piece of legislation but one that will still accomplish everything we set out to accomplish when the bill was introduced in January. We know the provisions of the bill: The 30-day notice and 60-day remediation period allows prompt resolution of problems without time-consuming and expensive litigation It provides that defendants are responsible for the share of harm they cause, with some exceptions to ensure that consumers are made whole. It requires plaintiffs to mitigate damages. It penalizes defendants who intentionally defraud or injure plaintiffs; or who are bad actors. It provides liability protection for those not directly involved in a Y2K failure. It assures that someone will not lose his house if a mortgage payment cannot be made or processed because of a Y2K failure. It sunsets in three years. It does not deny the right of anyone to redress legitimate grievances. This legislation will encourage an atmosphere of cooperation in solving problems, rather than rushing to the courthouse. Emphasizing the need to talk out and resolve differences rather than litigating them will be helpful not only in the Y2K situation, but I hope will move us away from the litigious nature of our country today. I am especially pleased at the level of bipartisan and bicameral cooperation in bringing this legislation to fruition. This legislation demonstrated the true ability of both parties and both bodies of Congress to work together for the good of the country. The efforts on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol to achieve consensus have been tireless. This conference has truly been a civics class example of how Congress can rise above special interest demands to do the right thing in the public interest Mr. President, there are many who have contributed to this effort, particularly during the conference with the House. I want to especially mention the steadfast support and efforts of both Senator Dodd and Wyden. They worked late into the night this week to negotiate with the White House and assure the President's support. I thank my two colleagues, Senator Dodd and Senator Wyden. This bill passed the Commerce Committee 11-9 on a strict partisan vote. Thanks to the efforts of those two individuals, who have been tireless, we were able to not only work with the other side of the Capitol, but the White House. Senator Wyden and Senator Dodd have better relations with the White House than I do. That is no secret to anyone around here. The fact that they were able to work more closely with the White House than I ever could have was a significant and, frankly, critical part of this agreement that we made. I again extend my deep appreciation to them. It did not win them the ``Miss Congeniality'' award in their own caucus--something I am familiar with on this side of the aisle. My appreciation, as well as a certain amount of sympathy, goes out to them. In all seriousness, without their efforts we would not be here. I also think they would join me in expressing appreciation to Congressman Goodlatte and Congressman Davis on the other side. Congressman Goodlatte and Congressman Davis started with a piece of legislation far more ``restrictive''--if that is the right word--in the opinion of some, a lot better. The fact is, they were willing to agree to the movement in the compromises that were made. They clearly could have held their ground and we couldn't have moved forward. By the way, Congressmen Goodlatte, Davis, and Sensenbrenner were the originators of this legislation. I also thank Senator Gorton, Senator Feinstein, Senator Hatch, and Senator Bennett. It reminds me of the old line of Jack Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs: Victory has 1,000 fathers and defeat has 1 poor lonely orphan. Along with that philosophy, I thank the staff members on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol: Carol Grunberg of Senator Wyden's staff; Shawn Maher of Senator Dodd's staff; Jeanne Bumpus of Senator Gorton's staff; Larry Block with Senator Hatch; Steven Wall on Senator Lott's staff; Laurie Rubenstein with Senator Lieberman; Tania Calhoun of the Y2K Committee; Diana Schacht of the House Judiciary Committee; Phil Kiko, of Congressman Sensenbrenner's staff; Amy Herrink, of Congressman Davis staff; and Ben Kline of Congressman Goodlatte's staff. Finally, I thank the coalition that got behind this legislation. Their help was as broad as any coalition of businesses--large, small, and medium sized--I have seen in my experience here in the Senate. I thank the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chambers of Commerce, and hi-tech groups, including ITAA, ITI, and BSA. I ask unanimous consent a list of the year 2000 coalition members be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. In closing, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the Capitol and on both sides of the aisle to develop a better standard which curbs our habit of funneling hard-earned taxpayer dollars to locality-specific special interests.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the managers of this bill for their hard work in putting forth this legislation which provides federal funding for numerous vital programs. However, I am sad to say, once again, I find myself in the unpleasant position of speaking about unacceptable levels of parochial projects in another appropriations bill. I have asked rhetorically on the floor of the Senate many times when we are going to stop this destructive and irresponsible practice of earmarking special-interest pork-barrel projects in appropriations bills primarily for parochial reasons. I have yet to receive an answer and this practice has neither stopped nor slowed. Last year's Treasury Postal Appropriations bill contained well over $826 million in specifically earmarked pork-barrel spending. This year's bill is a drastic improvement over last year's bill in that it only contains a little over $293.6 million in wasteful, pork-barrel spending. $293.6 million of waste is much better than $826 million of waste, but waste is still waste. Where does all this pork go? Well, as usual, this bill contains millions on top of millions for court house construction and repairs. We have $11,606,000 earmarked for repairs and alterations to the Frank M. Johnson, Jr. Federal Building--U.S. Courthouse in Montgomery, Alabama, and $21,098,000 for repairs and alterations to the Federal Building--U.S. Courthouse Annex in Anchorage, Alaska. I know that these court houses may be in dire need of repair and modernization. But are these particular projects more important than the litany of other court houses competing for funding? The process by which these two earmarks were added makes it impossible to assess the relative merit of these programs against all other priority needs. In addition to earmarks for court houses, this bill contains the usual earmarks of money for locality-specific projects such as: $500,000 for the State Patrol Digital Distance Learning project to help the Nebraska State Patrol create computer-based training programs, and $250,000 to the Fort Buford reconstruction project for planning and design of the reconstruction of this Fort--a Lewis and Clark ``Corps of Discovery'' site. Then there are the many sections of the report which have language strongly urging various Departments of the Federal Government to recognize or participate in a joint-venture with a particular project in a state. While these objectionable provisions have no direct monetary effect on the bill, this not-so-subtle ``urging'' is sure to have some financial benefit for someone or some enterprise in a member's home state. For example: Report language urging the continuation and expansion of the collaboration between the University of North Dakota and the Customs Service for rotorcraft training, and report language urging GSA to strongly consider the U.S. Olympic Committee's need for additional space and to give priority to the USOC's request to gain title or acquire the property located at 1520 Willamette Avenue in Colorado Springs, Colorado. This bill also selects particular sites across the country for which the report language either provides additional spending for extra staff and personnel, or ``urges'' the Agency not to reduce its staff. For example: $750,000 for part-time and temporary positions in the Honolulu Customs District, Report language designating the Hector International Airport as an International Port of Entry, to be adequately staffed and equipped so that the users of the facility are provided efficient services, and report language directing the Customs Service to ensure that staffing levels are sufficient to staff and operate all New Mexico border facilities. Why are these facilities protected at a time when each agency is required to abide by the Government Program Reduction Act which mandates that they operate more efficiently with less bureaucracy? Even if these positions are critical, why are they not prioritized in the normal administrative process? Everyone knows that we are very close to breaking the spending caps. We have not done so as of yet. I hope my colleagues understand that just because we can fund these programs of questionable merit within the spending caps, that does not mean we have the right to spend tax payers' hard-earned dollars in such an irresponsible fashion. I am constantly amazed by the arbitrary fashion by which the Appropriations Committee chooses to allocate the dollars that should be spent only for important and necessary federal programs. The examples of wasteful spending that I have highlighted in this floor statement is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many more low-priority, wasteful, and unnecessary projects on the extensive list I have compiled, and I ask unanimous consent that the list be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I fully support this amendment that is included in the manager's package to strike language from S. 1234, the foreign operations appropriations bill, which would have suspended the availability of fiscal year 2000 funding for the Inter-American Foundation until the General Accounting Office completes an investigation of alleged civil and criminal wrongdoing by employees at the Foundation. I want to thank the managers of the bill and the chairman of the committee for their willingness to remove this language. I think it is important to explain for the record why this language was included in the committee-reported bill and what led to the amendment to strike. Several months ago, the GAO contacted the Appropriations Committee asking permission to investigate information provided to their fraud hotline regarding allegations of contract and hiring regulatory abuses at the Foundation. GAO forwarded a report on these issues to the committee on May 20, 1999. During the course of that investigation, additional anonymous allegations were made to GAO investigators by employees of the Foundation, and the GAO requested permission from the committee to brief the Board of the Foundation on those allegations. However, the committee initially decided that the GAO should investigate these additional allegations, and included language in the bill to restrict the Foundation's funding until the investigation was completed. When apprised of the language included in the bill and the committee's intention to direct GAO to investigate these additional allegations, I raised the issue with Chairman Stevens and asked him to reconsider this approach. After discussing the matter, we agreed that additional information on the nature of the allegations should be sought in order to determine the appropriate course of action. Last week, members of my staff and the Appropriations Committee staff met with representatives of the General Accounting Office to discuss their findings regarding the administrative investigation which was completed on May 20, as well as the additional allegations. Based on the information received at that briefing and GAO's characterization of the additional allegations as administrative in nature, we determined that the more appropriate way to proceed would be to accede to the GAO's request to brief the Board of the Foundation on these matters and allow the Board members to determine what further action, if any, should be taken. Chairman Stevens and Chairman McConnell advised me that, by referring the matter to the Board, the committee would view this investigation as complete, and GAO would not be requested to conduct any further investigations of these matters. This amendment, therefore, removes any restrictions on IAF funding as well as any language that contemplates further GAO involvement in this matter, aside from advising the Board of their findings and the existence of additional allegations. Mr. President, I fully support the decision to permit the General Accounting Office to brief the Board of the Foundation about allegations of misconduct at the Foundation. I believe that this is the appropriate and normal course of action in this type of matter, and I thank Senators Stevens and McConnell for agreeing to refer this matter to the Foundation's Board. As my colleagues know, allegations of this sort are generally referred to an agency's inspector general for investigation and action, if necessary. Since the Foundation does not have an inspector general at this time, advising the Board or perhaps the Audit Committee of the Board (which functions as the Foundation's Inspector General) is the appropriate course of action, instead of pursuing a congressionally directed GAO investigation. In addition, I sponsored and the Senate earlier adopted an amendment to S. 886, the foreign relations authorization bill, which requires the inspector general of the Agency for International Development to function in that capacity for the IAF, as well as the African Development Foundation. Hopefully, this will provide IAF with the oversight and investigatory authority to discover and deal with issues of this sort in the future, if necessary. When our staff members were briefed by the GAO, they were advised of the specific nature of these so-called ``criminal'' allegations. The GAO characterized the allegations as administrative in nature, stating that, even if substantiated, these types of activities would very rarely draw criminal penalties and would instead be dealt with by a request for reimbursement or a reprimand, at most. In addition, it is important to know that most, if not all, of these allegations have already been reviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and their investigation found all of them to be unsubstantiated--a conclusion which the FBI addressed in a letter to the Foundation's Board Chair earlier this year. Mr. President, I would never attempt to thwart any legitimate effort to uncover and eliminate fraud, unethical activities, or any type of misconduct in government or government-affiliated agencies. In this instance, however, I an concerned that these allegations about an individual at the Inter-American Foundation were designed to accomplish one end--the removal of that individual from effective employment at the Foundation because of his very successful efforts over the past several yeas to bring accountability, order, and legitimacy to an agency whose programs had been fraught with waste and abuse. The individual involved discovered serious deficiencies and improprieties regarding the Foundation's grant-making program and the lack of oversight exercised by the Foundation program offers charged with overseeing Foundation grant organizations and contractors overseas. For example, this individual found that the Foundation had made grants to organizations in Ecuador involved in the kidnapping of U.S. citizens. This individual also took decisive action when it was discovered that the Foundation provided financial support to an organization in Argentina that engaged in acts of serious civil disobedience, including the seizure of public buildings and the blockage of roadways. This individual also exposed fraudulent activities of overseas contractors of the Foundation, including the extortion of funds from Foundation grantee organizations. Finally, he established personnel time and attendance policies at the Foundation to correct rampant absenteeism and non-performance of duties. This individual's successful efforts to make the Foundation's employees and Board accountable for their actions and decisions involving U.S. taxpayer dollars have caused some of these people to engage in a vendetta to remove him from his position at the Foundation, or at least minimize his effectiveness in that post. Mr. President, regardless of the outcome of the Board's review of these latest retaliatory allegations against this individual, I believe there should be a thorough investigation of the Board and employees of the Foundation to ensure that the above-mentioned activities are no longer occurring. I also believe it would be prudent to determine whether improper hiring or personnel practices, misuse of government funds or equipment, theft or loss of government funds or property, conflicts of interest, or other improprieties or mismanagement-- allegations similar to those falsely made against the individual involved in this matter--exist anywhere in the organization. These are matter that should be reviewed at the earliest opportunity by the AID inspector general, who will soon be serving as the inspector general for the Foundation. Let me serve notice that I will continue to monitor activities at the Foundation with respect to the handling of this matter, and I will do everything in my power to ensure that the matter is resolved fairly and in a manner consistent with the handling of similar allegations in any other agency of government. Again, I thank my colleagues for concluding the committee's involvement in this issue and referring the matter to the Foundation for appropriate administrative review. amendment no. 1129 On page 7, line 22, after the colon, insert the following: ``Provided further, That funds made available to grantees may be invested pending expenditure for project purposes when authorized by the President of the Foundation: Provided further, That interest earned shall be used only for the purposes for which the grant was made: Provided further, That this authority applies to interest earned both prior to and following enactment of this provision: Provided further, That notwithstanding section 505(a)(2) of the African Development Foundation Act, in exceptional circumstances the board of directors of the Foundation may waive the $250,000 limitation contained in that section with respect to a project: Provided further, That the Foundation shall provide a report of the Committees on Appropriations before each time such waiver authority is exercised:''.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to join with Senator Kerry in offering an amendment to the foreign operations appropriations bill that would replace language currently in the bill pertaining to Cambodia with language that I firmly believe will prove far more productive in accomplishing our goals in that strife-torn nation. The amendment would replace the current prohibition on assistance pending unrealistic and counterproductive certifications with attainable goals consistent with the positive developments that have occurred in Cambodia since its elections last July. Few countries in the entire world have experienced the scale of suffering since the Second World War that was inflicted upon the people of Cambodia between 1975 and 1979. A phrase that has become a part of our normal lexicon in discussions of tragedies of great proportion in foreign countries originated in descriptions of the killing fields of Cambodia. What transpired in that country during the rule of the Khmer Rouge defies comprehension. It is a history, however, that must not be forgotten. After decades of struggling with political events in Cambodia, we have an opportunity to finally help it move in a positive direction. We have an opportunity to help the people of that beautiful nation to begin to put their painful past behind them, and to join the community of nations in good standing. We cannot accomplish that objective, however, with the language currently in the bill before us today. That language prohibits all direct U.S. assistance to the central government of Cambodia until the Secretary of State certifies that the July 1998 elections were free and fair, with emphasis on the period leading up to election day. Few would argue that numerous irregularities occurred in the months leading up to the election of July 26, 1998. I wish that had not been the case. But those irregularities took place, and we cannot change the past. The question, however, becomes where we go from here. The election itself was, by and large, a free and fair election, and it is unlikely that the pre-election irregularities fundamentally altered its outcome. Since the election, the main competing factions have agreed at an amicable arrangement, and Cambodia today stands its best chance of making significant political and economic progress. A U.S. role, which is currently limited to support of nongovernmental organizations anyway, can be instrumental in facilitating greater levels of liberalization. The Central Government of Cambodia shows every sign of wanting to move in that direction. That is why the language in this bill is so troubling. It fails to account for a far more positive political atmosphere in Cambodia than has existed in decades. We can help Cambodia to move forward, or we can stand aside and see an opportunity to act productively in Southeast Asia squandered. I am under no illusions about the scale of problems that continue to plague that troubled nation. The government of Phnom Penh must move forward on the issue of establishing an international tribunal for the prosecution of Khmer Rouge officials, it must continue to address pressing issues like deforestation, and it must carry out needed political and economic reforms. But we must not let an important opportunity to help such reforms move forward by restricting aid unless the State Department certifies to something all parties know cannot be certified. We can predicate our policy toward Cambodia on the past, or we can remember the past but look to the future. The Kerry-McCain amendment provides an opportunity to do the latter. I urge its support. Amendment 1173 At the appropriate place, insert the following section:

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, United States national security and economic well-being is closely tied to our ability to formulate and execute foreign policies that both protect our interests and reflect our ideals. It is the responsibility of the Congress to pass legislation on foreign policy consistent with those interests and ideals. We may differ about the means, but we seldom disagree about the goal: political stability and economic prosperity in every region of the globe. Sometimes we employ political and economic sanctions in pursuit of our objectives; sometimes we resort to the use of military force. These responsibilities are considerable, and they are real. And we owe it to the American public to handle them responsibly. I do not wish to exaggerate the implications of the questionable spending that is included in the bill before us. Clearly, the wasteful and unnecessary spending provisions, as well as the numerous earmarks, threaten neither our national interest nor our economic well-being. They do, however, detract from the integrity of the process by which the federal budget is put together, and they do undermine our credibility with the public. The net result is to diminish our ability to contribute substantially to this nation's national security and economic policies. Frivolous items placed in major spending bills for parochial or personal reasons is a serious disservice to the institution to which we belong, and to the public that we serve. It is for this reason that is so discouraging to read the foreign operations appropriations bill and find that, once again, it includes $5 million to establish an International Law Enforcement Academy in Roswell, New Mexico. To see that provision once again placed in the bill is to reaffirm the notion that fiscal prudence and operational requirements are alien concepts to some members of this body. Similarly, language in the report accompanying the bill recommending that the Agency for International Development spend as much as necessary on such worthwhile projects as research on pond dynamics strikes me as representing a seriously misplaced sense of priorities. And should we really be earmarking more than $1 million in additional funds so that a Minnesota job training program can shift its dependence to private sector funding? In a foreign aid bill? I have to question the wisdom of provisions like these. Mr. President, as United States military forces take up positions in Kosovo while others continue their peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia and soldiers serve unaccompanied hardship tours on the demilitarized zone of the Korean peninsula, what kind of message are we sending about our role in the foreign policy process when we pass a bill that directs the Agency for International Development to study and, almost certainly, fund research on protea germplasm in South Africa? With all the problems around the world demanding our attention, do we really need to focus on the future welfare of the Waboom tree? I think not. And, of course, the bill provides the usual absurd amount--specified as ``at least'' $4 million--for that oldie but goodie, the International Fertilizer Center in Alabama. I have to believe, Mr. President, that if the Department of State or the Agency for International Development agreed with the need to spend so much annually out of the foreign operations budget for research on fertilizer, it would probably include such an item in its budget request. Israel and Hawaii collaborating on research regarding the competitiveness of the tropical fish and plant global market sounds contrived, but I'll allow for the possibility that there's more to that program than meets the eye. When viewed alongside the report's language ``urging'' AID to allocate $500,000 for the Pacific International Center for High Technology Research, a pattern begins to form, but I won't elaborate further. As usual, the foreign operations appropriations bill includes a long list of earmarks for specific American universities, the very kind of budgeting that ensures the American taxpayers get the least value for their dollar. A competitive process wherein funding is allocated according to which project, if any, is the most meritorious is a preferred process for allocating financial resources, but this bill goes far in the opposite direction. As a leader in the effort at developing normal economic relations with Vietnam, I applaud projects designed to facilitate the establishment of a market economy in that country; whether Boise State University deserves a $3 million earmark to establish a business school there, however, strains credulity. There is much that is good in this bill in terms of genuine efforts at improving health care in less developed countries. I continue to be troubled, however, by the Committee's tendency to specify precisely which organizations it believes should be the recipient of foreign aid dollars. That is a practice that deserves closer scrutiny than heretofore has been the case. I would like to think that such determinations are solely merit based following a competitive process and that parochial considerations play no part. Skepticism, though, is warranted. In closing, I am a strong supporter of maintaining an active U.S. role in global affairs. United States foreign aid programs are an essential instrument of our national security policy. Even with the vast number of troubling items in this bill, I will support its passage. But I would be remiss in my responsibilities were I to ignore what I firmly believe is an imprudent budgeting process that has a self-defeating tendency to squander foreign aid dollars that we can ill-afford to waste. I will continue to hope for improvements in the process by which these bills are assembled. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying list be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, unfortunately I was unable to vote on the cloture petition on the motion to proceed to H.R. 975, the Steel Import Limitation Act. If I was able, I would have voted against cloture. This legislation will not achieve its desired purpose and will only hurt American workers and consumers. Some supporters of this legislation have asserted that this bill is necessary to support the steel industry. I am willing to do my part to ensure that America continues to have the most efficient and competitive steel industry in the world. The domestic steel industry plays an important role in protecting our national security by ensuring that we will have enough steel to build ships, tanks, planes, and missiles to protect the United States. Additionally, steel remains an important input in large sectors of our economy, including transportation equipment, fabricated metal products, industrial machinery and construction. However, this legislation is not written to save domestic steel jobs, but instead will jeopardize American jobs. For every 1 job that produces steel, 40 jobs in the downstream industries use steel. If Congress passes this quota legislation, it will cause a shortage and drastic increase in the price of steel that will threaten the jobs of the 8 million employees in steel-using industries. For example, Caterpillar, Inc. uses a heavy special-section steel for bulldozer track-shoes. This steel is not produced in the United States, so Caterpillar imports it from overseas to its American plants. If we pass this quota legislation, Caterpillar will not be able to import the steel it requires, which will threaten the jobs of Caterpillar's 40,261 workers in the U.S. I also do not think that this quota legislation will help the steel industry. According to the Wall Street Journal, American steelmakers buy up to 25% of the steel coming into the United States. The steel companies need to buy this steel to reach their highest capacity of steel production. Weirton imports close to 400,000 tons of slab a year. Bethlehem Steel imported at least 416,000 tons of steel last year. If we shut off the necessary imports of foreign steel to these companies, how can they keep American steel product workers employed? While I know that the steel industry has been affected by the dumping of foreign steel in the U.S. market, I believe that the proper steps have been taken to deal with this crisis. Since January, 1999, 42 antidumping and countervailing duty steel investigations have been initiated or completed. As a result of just one of these anti-dumping cases, duties of between 67.14% and 17.86% will be imposed on select Japanese firms. These duties will ensure that U.S. companies will have a better chance to compete. That the existing process for handling anti-dumping cases is working is proven by the recent statistics on steel imports. Total steel imports dropped 42% from August, 1998, to April, 1999. In fact, April, 1999, imports are actually 6% below steel imports in April, 1997. Imports of hot-rolled steel, which account for 25 percent of all steel imports, fell 72% since the peak levels of November, 1998. Hot-rolled steel imports from Japan, Russia, and Brazil fell almost 100% from November to April. It is no wonder that Secretary Daley said in the Friday, June 18, Washington Post that ``the steel crisis of '98, in my opinion, is over.'' Given the decline in recent imports, there seems to be no need for this legislation. These results, under existing law, were attained in a manner fully consistent with our obligations under the World Trade Organization. This leads me to a more important point. We should not look at this legislation in only the narrow view of what it will do for the steel industry. Instead, we should see what it will do to the world economy. The past two years have been devastating for many of our trading partners. Most of Asia is slowly turning the corner back from the disaster of the Asian economic crisis. Just recently, Japan announced a positive growth rate of 1.9% after six successive quarters of contraction. Both Brazil and Argentina have suffered from economic turmoil. In Europe, the Russian economy remains a basket case. Germany, the former European economic powerhouse, grew a mere 0.4% in real terms, and is on the verge of recession. The United States must be careful not to do anything that will plunge the world into recession. If we were to pass this non-WTO compliant legislation, the likely result is that other countries will respond by limiting our products from their markets. The resulting trade wars could affect millions of workers and lead to economic and political turmoil. While some view such a result as extreme, we all should remember that the Smoot-Hawley tariff legislation started a similar series of trade wars in the early 1930s that directly corresponded to the rise of Hitler and the origins of World War II. Some would urge us to pass this legislation with the hopes that it will emasculate the WTO. I can only tell you how much I regret this short-sighted view. The United States, more than any other country, created today's trading system based on the principles of free trade. It was developed after witnessing how the trade wars of the 1930s led to the worldwide calamity of World War II. The United States has pursued a trade policy based on open markets for more than 50 years under both Republican and Democratic leadership. We should not allow misguided politics to destroy all of the gains that we fought so hard to achieve, precisely when we are reaping the benefits of these policies. Instead, the United States, which has the strongest economy in the world, should try to use its leverage to continue to open markets. We should open the November WTO Ministerial as the champions of competition and open markets, not hiding behind a wall of quotas and tariffs. We in Congress should do our part to ensure that the United States remains in its position of world leadership. Instead of debating this ill-advised quota bill, we should be passing fast track authority for the President. The President needs this authority to continue to make agreements to knock down foreign barriers to American goods. Additionally, we should pass legislation to grant NAFTA parity to our Caribbean allies and to give trade incentives to help Africa grow and prosper. My hope is that after we reject this current legislation, we can start debating real progress in trade policy and how we can eliminate barriers to foreign goods to ensure that our citizens continue to prosper into the 21st Century. In conclusion, I congratulate my colleagues who voted against cloture on the motion to proceed to this legislation. We will now begin the next global century not hiding behind barriers, but continuing the fight for open markets and prosperity.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would increase the authorization level of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The recently passed TEA-21 legislation authorized NHTSA at its requested level, approximately $87.4 million. Although the Department of Transportation requested $87.4 million, Secretary Slater now informs us that this authorization level will not permit the funding of key safety initiatives. The bill would increase the funding levels to approximately $107.8 million. This amount is consistent with the amount recently reported by the House Commerce Committee. It is my intention to move this matter quickly in the committee. I know that no one in this body wants a situation where highway safety is degraded in any way. I look forward to working with my colleagues to address this important issue of highway safety in a manner that provides the appropriate funding level to meet safety needs while also meeting our budget obligations and the consensus of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would increase the authorization level of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The recently passed TEA-21 legislation authorized NHTSA at its requested level, approximately $87.4 million. Although the Department of Transportation requested $87.4 million, Secretary Slater now informs us that this authorization level will not permit the funding of key safety initiatives. The bill would increase the funding levels to approximately $107.8 million. This amount is consistent with the amount recently reported by the House Commerce Committee. It is my intention to move this matter quickly in the committee. I know that no one in this body wants a situation where highway safety is degraded in any way. I look forward to working with my colleagues to address this important issue of highway safety in a manner that provides the appropriate funding level to meet safety needs while also meeting our budget obligations and the consensus of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. McCAIN

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

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is pretty straightforward. It restricts the expenditure of funds for loan guarantee programs until the appropriate committees have authorized the expenditures for these programs and these authorizations have been approved by the Congress. In other words, with this amendment, we carry out what is supposed to be the procedures of the Senate, and that is, before taxpayers' dollars are expended, they are authorized. All of my colleagues know that this loan program for steel, oil and gas companies has been inserted into the appropriations bill, and it has not gone through the authorizing committee process. The legislation creates an unnecessary and unwarranted loan program for steel, oil and gas industries. Once again, Congress is seizing an opportunity to engage in the all-too-common game of pork barrel politics. The bill was originally intended to address the President's request of $6 billion for the war in Kosovo but quickly became a vehicle for a hasty and ill-conceived program to subsidize the steel, oil and gas industries. The bill creates a $1 billion loan guarantee program to support the domestic steel industry and a $500 million loan guarantee program for oil and gas companies. These programs will provide loan guarantees of up to $250 million for any domestic steel company, $10 million for any oil and gas company that ``has experienced layoffs, production losses, or financial losses.'' I do not take lightly the value of these industries to our Nation, nor do I disagree that in the case of steel imports, illegal dumping of foreign steel has occurred. However, I question the wisdom of creating an emergency loan program to subsidize an industry that finds itself in trouble. We set a dangerous precedent by opening the Federal Treasury to industries facing economic difficulties. Specifically, I have three problems with this measure. There is no need for these substantial loan programs. The legislation is fundamentally flawed, and using the appropriations process to enact this measure circumvents the normal authorization process. These elements are common in all three loan programs. I will focus my comments on the steel loan program because I believe it is the driving force behind this matter and the most egregious. First, I seriously question the need to create such a substantial loan guarantee program. During today's debate, I am certain my colleagues will forewarn and have forewarned the dire consequences to the steel industry if we fail to enact this legislation. As my colleagues hear these predictions, I ask you to keep a few facts in mind. In 1998, the U.S. steel industry produced 102 million tons of steel. This was only slightly below the record of 1997 of 105 million tons, making it the second highest production year since 1980. This record production year resulted in earnings of $1.4 billion. Furthermore, 11 of the 13 largest steel mills were profitable. These numbers make it difficult for me to understand the need to create a $1 billion loan program. Even if there were a steel crisis, it is certainly over. Citing Commerce Department statistics, the White House recently stated that during the first quarter of 1999, overall steel imports returned to the traditional pre-crisis levels. In fact, imports were down 4 percent in comparison to 1997. Again, the need for this program at this point eludes me. My second concern is that the bill will result in the needless loss of taxpayers' funds. Supporters argue that this measure is paid for with budget cuts and administrative fees. They point out the program guarantees loans and does not actually lend money. This assertion ignores the history of such loan programs. In the mid-1970s, the Economic Development Administration operated a similar program for the steel industry. The result of that program was disastrous for the taxpayers. Steel companies defaulted on 77 percent of the dollar value of their guarantees. An analysis of that loan program by the Congressional Research Service concluded that loans to steel companies represent a high level of risk. Nevertheless, we are poised today to provide an additional $1 billion in guarantees. I find it ironic that at a time when the American public is demanding reform of our public institutions, we offer them the failed economic policies of the 1970s. The measure also fails to require that losses triggering access to the loans relate to the so-called steel crisis. Therefore, companies that lost production as a result of the 54-day GM strike will also be eligible for the loan program. Furthermore, the program could benefit companies that suffer losses after the steel crisis was over. Companies that suffer losses or layoffs in 1999 or even the year 2000 are eligible for the program. Many of the losses suffered by steel companies are the normal result of operating in a competitive global market. The measure also fails to set terms, conditions, or interest rates for the guarantees. Instead, it leaves these critical decisions to the discretion of the board making the loans. The only guidance given to the board is that the terms should be reasonable. These provisions are problematic and will likely result in taxpayers guaranteeing bad loans. Finally, I have serious concerns about how this provision was brought to the Senate floor. I will remind my colleagues that our forebears intended the Senate to be a forum for reasoned and informed debate. Unfortunately, some Members choose to legislate complex and controversial matters in appropriations bills. The result is a hasty review of legislation with very little time to identify and discuss its implications. It also denies the committee of jurisdiction the ability to review these important measures, which will require the commitment of millions of taxpayer dollars. The amendment that is at the desk will restrict the expenditure of funds for the loan guarantee programs until the appropriate committees have explicitly authorized the expenditure for these programs. Authorizing on an appropriations bill has become an all too common event in the Senate. However, this is one of the most egregious examples of legislating on an appropriations bill I have seen since I have been in Congress. Out of the more than 20 pages of text in the bill, only 23 lines contain appropriations language. The rest of the bill goes on to authorize a $1 billion loan guarantee program for steel companies and a $500 million loan guarantee program for oil and gas companies. These programs will place at risk hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. It will do so without a hearing, without testimony from those affected by it, and without the consideration of those who have the most experience with loan guarantee programs. I point out also that this legislation is complex and controversial. My colleagues will offer amendments today which attempt to resolve some of these issues, but this process is inadequate and is not a substitution for the authorization process. The appropriate authorizing committee should be allowed to examine the provisions of this bill. They can most appropriately determine what remedies, if any, should be taken to help the domestic steel, oil, and gas industries. Instead, these loan guarantee programs are simply being rushed upon us on the Senate floor without proper consideration. This amendment requires that the measure go through the normal authorization process that every other measure should go through. I hope my colleagues will support the amendment. I listened carefully to the words of the Senator from West Virginia, who is an individual I admire and appreciate. He is a person of great compassion. I believe I share that compassion, whenever there are changes or layoffs in industries that for one reason or another are unable to compete in what is now becoming increasingly a global marketplace. I also am happy to say I will support job training programs, ways for workers to make a transition into other lines of business and work, retraining, and other public-private partnerships, of which there are many in America today. But there should be one lesson that the 1970s and 1980s and early 1990s have taught us, and that is the economy of the world is undergoing a profound and fundamental change. We are changing from what once was an economy based on the steel industry, the oil industry, the railroads, the automobile industries, the product of the industrial revolution, to one which is rapidly evolving into a high-tech information, technology-based economy. I refer my colleagues to the testimony of Alan Greenspan to the Joint Economic Committee in the last few days. It is a very illuminating discussion of the transition that America's economy is undergoing. This transition overall has led to the strongest economic period in the history of this country. There is literally a kind of prosperity that, thank God, is affecting this country which is providing jobs and opportunities that we literally have never seen before in our lifetimes. That is the good news. But the bad news is there are industries which, for a broad variety of reasons--which we have seen throughout history, as certain industries have been replaced by others--either cannot compete or there is not a need for the product that they manufactured. I remember once visiting Pittsburgh, PA, once one of the heartlands of the steel industry in America, and seeing where there had once been steel mills; and there were the ensuing environmental problems associated with that. Now high-tech industries, that are clean industries, are employing people at equal or higher salaries. People in Pittsburgh went through a wrenching change. I remember in the State of California, and to a lesser extent my State, when we started cutting back on defense spending in the early 1990s. Literally hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs because of the cutbacks in defense spending. Now I travel to California and see a booming economy, an incredibly, unbelievably, booming economy, both in my State and the neighboring States. What happened? It went through a very wrenching and difficult experience going from a defense-dependent industrial base to now a high-tech information technology base. It was not an easy transition. Hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs in California. But I know of no one who said: Keep spending this level of defense money and prop up these industries forever, because we don't want them to lose jobs because they're going through difficult times. I have the greatest sympathy for any steelworker who is out of a job. I will do everything I can to help in retraining, in job opportunity, and education for those workers. But if there should be one lesson we learned in the 1970s and 1980s, it is that you cannot keep industries in business with Government subsidies, because if they cannot compete without them, over time they will not be able to compete with them. As much as I admire and respect the Senator from West Virginia, he and I have a profound philosophical difference of opinion about the role of Government. He said we should help whatever industry is in trouble. Yes, we should help, by trying to take care of the displaced workers, but not by keeping obsolete or noncompetitive industries in business when we have the ability to transition into much higher-paying jobs and better industries that provide advancements in technological improvement for all of our lives. I often have the pleasure of debating my dear friend and colleague from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, who makes an impassioned plea for the textile industry in South Carolina, and bemoans, laments the great dislocation that took place there. I had the pleasure of going to the BMW plant which, thanks to a great degree of effort by Senator Hollings, located in Columbia, SC. There are more jobs, higher-paying jobs, expanding jobs, and much better working conditions at the BMW plant than there were in the textile mills. The transition is going on. The transition is going on at an even more rapid pace than any of us in this body ever anticipated, and as a fundamental change from an industrial-based economy to one which is now increasingly technological-based. Those that take advantage of this opportunity and make the transition will grow and prosper. Fifteen years ago there was hardly a Member of this body who new where the Silicon Valley was; now everybody in America knows where it is. Recently, in the past few weeks, a corporation called Global Crossing announced they were going to merge with U.S. West, one of the largest telecommunications companies in America. Three years ago, Global Crossing did not exist as a corporation. This same story can be repeated throughout America's economy. We should not be spending our time authorizing on appropriations--not even authorizing. We should not be spending our time appropriating money to subsidize companies and corporations with loans which history shows us had a 77-percent default the last time we did it. What we should be doing is making every effort we can, as a Government, to help them make the transition, which sooner or later they will inevitably go through. Because over time, the harnessmakers, once the automobile was invented, went out of business. It will happen here, too. Again, I want to point out that I will do everything I can to help any worker who is displaced. I will support Government programs that work. I will especially support public-private partnerships, which have been largely successful, to provide America with the educated workforce necessary to take advantage of this incredible change that is going on in America and the world, in which America leads. But to go back to a failed program of subsidized loans, in which in the 1970s the steel companies defaulted on 77 percent of the dollar value of their guarantees, and eventually ended up, by the way, in just as bad shape as they were in before they received those guarantees and defaulted on all those loans, I think is a serious mistake, a failure to recognize that, as societies change and industries change, and as evolution goes on, to try to have Government intervene and subsidize is not a success. That is why I oppose this amendment, not only on the grounds of the procedures involved, which I find, as an authorizing committee chairman, offensive, but the concept and the idea that somehow this will succeed, I believe, flies in the face of all historical data, and, by the way, also flies in the face of what we Republicans are supposed to stand for. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote be delayed until the majority and minority leaders agree as to the time for the vote.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will be glad to wait until Senator Domenici finishes his remarks.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask for the regular order.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the energy and water appropriations bill is fundamental to our Nation's energy and defense-related activities, and takes care of vitally important water resources infrastructure needs. Unfortunately, this bill diverts from its intended purpose by including a multitude of additional, unrequested earmarks to the tune of $531 million. This amount is substantially less than the earmarks included in the FY '99 appropriations bill and I commend my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their hard work in putting this bill together. In fact, this year's recommendation is about 60 percent lower than the earmarks included in last year's appropriation bill. My optimism was raised upon reading the committee report which states that the Committee is ``reducing the number of projects with lower priority benefits.'' Unfortunately, while the Committee attempts to be more fiscally responsible, there is a continuing focus on parochial, special interest concerns. Funding is provided in this bill for projects where it is very difficult to ascertain their overall importance to the security and infrastructure of our nation. Let me highlight a few examples: $3,000,000 is provided for an ethanol pilot plant at Southern Illinois University; $300,000 is provided to the Vermont Agriculture Methane project; $400,000 is included for aquatic weed control at Lake Champlain in Vermont, and, $100,000 in additional funding for mosquito control in North Dakota. How are these activities connected to the vital energy and water resource needs of our nation? Why are these projects higher in priority than other flood control, water conservation or renewable energy projects? These are the type of funding improprieties that make a mockery of our budget process. Various projects are provided with additional funding at levels higher than requested by the Administration. The stated reasons include the desire to finish some projects in a reasonable timeframe. Unfortunately, other projects are put on hold or on a slower track. The inconsistency between the Administration's request, which is responsible for carrying out these projects, and the views of the Appropriators on just how much funding should be dedicated to a project, is troubling. As a result, various other projects that may be equally deserving or higher in priority do not receive an appropriate amount of funding, or none at all. Many of my objections are based on these types of inconsistencies and nebulous spending practices. Another $92 million above the budget request is earmarked in additional funding for regional power authorities. I fail to understand why we continue to spend millions of federal dollars at a time when power authorities are increasingly operating independent of federal assistance. Even the Bonneville Power Administration, one of these power entities, is self-financed and operates without substantial federal assistance. We must stop this practice of wasteful spending. It is unconscionable to repeatedly ask the taxpayers to foot the bill for these biased actions. We must work harder to focus our limited resources on those areas of greatest need nationwide, not political clout. I remind my colleagues that I object to these earmarks on the basis of their circumvention of our established process, which is to properly consider, authorize and fund projects based on merit and need. Indeed, I commend my colleagues for not including any projects which are unauthorized. However, there are still too many cases of erroneous earmarks for projects that we have no way of knowing whether, at best, all or part of this $531 million should have been spent on different projects with greater need or, at worst, should not have been spent at all. I supported passage of this bill, but let me state for the record that this is not the honorable way to carry out our fiscal responsibilities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this list of objectionable provisions in S. 1186 and its accompanying Senate report be printed in the Record.