John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the first letter I would like to quote briefly from is from the National Federation of Independent Business, the Voice of Small Business. On behalf of the 600,000 members of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), I would like to thank you for helping the nation's small business community prepare for the millennium. NFIB strongly supports S. 96 . . . specifically the provisions that limit punitive damages and urge quick resolution of legal disputes. We believe that S. 96 creates a fair and level playing field for the settlement of year 2000 (Y2K) disputes. Because small business owners operate on such a slim profit margin, every second and every dollar counts. Therefore, legislation addressing Y2K litigation must provide a speedy and effective solution to disputes. Small businesses do not have the luxury of waiting months or years for courts to replace lost revenues or failed products. S. 96 encourages the use of alternate dispute resolution (ADR) and provides a ``cooling off" period during which disputes can be resolved outside of court. NFIB's goal is to keep small businesses out of court, and we believe S. 96 will do that in most cases. We do realize that some businesses will--and should-- resolve their disputes in court. Regardless of whether they would be plaintiffs or defendants, 93% of NFIB members support limiting punitive damages. Caps help eliminate frivolous lawsuits and the unnecessary expenditure of legal fees by small businesses. That is from the National Federation of Independent Business. There are those who have argued in the media that this legislation is simply there to support the ``high-tech community'' and large corporations. I don't think that would make it possible for the NFIB, which represents 600,000 members, to support this legislation. Next I would like to briefly quote from the American Insurance Association, which represents nearly 300 property casualty/insurers with millions of policyholders and thousands of employees across the Nation. Member companies insure families, small businesses and large businesses in every State. Even with this commitment and dedication to minimizing Y2K disruption, we can expect problems to occur. And unfortunately in our litigious society, lawsuits or the fear of lawsuits will inhibit solutions and multiply the disruptive impact of system failures. [Again,] on behalf of the member companies of the American Insurance Association, I urge you to support the year 2000 reforms on final passage and cloture. The Intel Corporation, Tosco, the leading technology corporations, many of the leading technology industry companies in America, including the CEO of American Electronics Association, President and CEO of Alexander Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide, CEO of Marimba, Managing Director of Merrill Lynch, chairman and CEO of Novell, Chairman and CEO of FileNet, and the list goes on of leading presidents and CEOs of the high-tech industries in America, MicroAge, Alcatel, and the International Mass Retail Association--all these organizations and more support this legislation. I don't think they necessarily do so for selfish reasons, although certainly they are motivated to a large degree by their ability to provide the necessary profits to their shareholders. But I think also they are more committed to making sure that this incredible economy that we are experiencing would continue to provide so many jobs and opportunities for so many Americans, without draining hundreds of billions of dollars from the economy. My friend, Senator Hollings, has asserted that S. 96 is the camel's nose under the tent for product liability and tort reform. I clearly do not believe that is the case. I am a strong supporter of product liability tort reform, but I believe that this legislation clearly is not the case. It contains a sunset provision to assure that this is considered, as it should be, a temporary measure to deal with a unique situation. The sunset language in section 4(a) of the bill provides that the act applies to a Y2K failure occurring before January 1 of the year 2003, hardly a victory for widespread tort or product liability reform. The potential for massive litigation involving virtually every industrial segment of our country, both small businesses and large, compels a rational and practical solution to prevent litigation from destroying the economic well-being of the country. There is a need for this bill, Madam President. I will just point out one example of opportunistic legislation. I am told that Mr. Tom Johnson, acting as a private attorney general under California consumer protection laws, has brought an action against a group of retailers, including Circuit City, Office Depot, Office Max, CompUSA, Staples, Fryes, and the Good Guys, Incorporated for failing to warn consumers about products that are not Y2K compliant. He has not alleged any injury or economic damage to himself, but pursuant to State statute, has requested relief in the amount of all of the defendants' profits from 1995 to date from selling these products and restitution to ``all members of the California general public.'' Although he claims that numerous products are involved, he has not specified which products are covered by his allegations, but has generally named products by Toshiba, IBM, Compaq, Intuit, Hewlett Packard and Microsoft. This is precisely, Madam President, the type of frivolous and opportunistic lawsuit which would be avoided by S. 96. Rather than have all of these named companies wasting time and resources preparing a defense for this case, S. 96 would direct the focus to fixing real problems. In this instance, it does not appear that Mr. Johnson has an actual problem. But if he does, he would need to articulate what is not working due to a Y2K failure. The company or companies responsible would then have an opportunity to address and fix the specific problem. If the problem isn't fixed, then Mr. Johnson would be free to bring his suit. It is crystal clear that the real reason for this lawsuit is not to fix a problem that Mr. Johnson has with any of his computer hardware or software, but to see whether he can convince the companies involved that it is cheaper to buy him off in a settlement than to litigate, even if the case is eventually dismissed or decided in their favor. This case is the tip of the iceberg. If thousands of similar suits are brought after January 1, the judicial system will be overrun and the Nation's economy will be thrown into turmoil. This is a senseless and needless abuse that we can avoid by passing S. 96. Madam President, there are numerous provisions in this bill, but I just want to repeat one of the most crucial aspects of this legislation. If a problem is identified, then whoever it is that is the manufacturer has 90 days in order to fix the problem. If they do not fix the problem, then go to court. But it is hard for me to understand why a company or corporation who manufactured this particular product should not be allowed to have an opportunity to fix the problem for the user. It makes perfect sense--how could anyone object to such a thing-- because these companies and corporations, if they are not committed to fix the problem, then they should be sued. That is what our court system is all about. But it makes perfect sense to me to give them an opportunity to fix a problem that they may not have knowledge of before they find themselves all day hauled into court. Exhibit No. 1 National Federation of Independent Business, Washington, DC, April 21, 1999. Hon. John McCain, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman McCain: On behalf of the 600,000 members of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), I would like to thank you for your leadership in helping the nation's small business community prepare for the millennium. NFIB strongly supports S. 96, the McCain-Wyden ``Y2K Act,'' specifically the provisions that limit punitive damages and urge quick resolution of legal disputes. We believe that S. 96 creates a fair and level playing field for the settlement of Year 2000 (Y2K) disputes. Every day, more small businesses prepare themselves for potential Y2K problems within their own operations. No amount of preparation, however, can keep them from being affected by problems afflicting others: their suppliers, customers or financial institutions. For this reason, businesses of all sizes and types must be encouraged to address their Y2K problems now. S. 96 encourages mitigation now to avoid litigation later. Because small business owners operate on such a slim profit margin, every second and every dollar counts. Therefore, legislation addressing Y2K litigation must provide a speedy and effective solution to disputes. Small businesses do not have the luxury of waiting months or years for courts to replace lost revenue or failed products. S. 96 encourages the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and provides a ``cooling off'' period during which disputes can be resolved outside of court. NFIB's goal is to keep small businesses out of court, and we believe S. 96 will do that in most cases. We do realize that some businesses will--and should-- resolve their disputes in court. Regardless of whether they would be plaintiffs or defendants, 93% of NFIB members support limiting punitive damages. Caps help eliminate frivolous lawsuits and the unnecessary expenditure of legal fees by small businesses. As S. 96 moves to the floor, I would like to commend and thank you for your leadership on Y2K preparedness legislation. I appreciate your consideration of the concerns of the small business community on this issue and look forward to working with you in the future. Sincerely, Dan Danner, Vice President, Federal Public Policy.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. No. I will always do what the Senator from South Carolina says. (Laughter.)

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, obviously I am disappointed that we did not proceed to S. 96. I am encouraged by the comments of the Senator from Massachusetts and others. The Senator from Oregon and I are continuing to have a dialog also with the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, and, of course, with the distinguished Democrat on the committee, Senator Hollings. So I hope we can come to some agreement. I am given occasionally to flights of rhetoric, but the fact is, this is a very, very serious issue and one that we really cannot delay too much longer. The clock is ticking. We need to move forward. There may be some differences. I don't think anybody believes that we need to do something destructive. This problem is critically important. The potential for litigation to overwhelm the judicial system for the most egregious cases involving Y2K problems is very real. Litigation costs have been estimated as high as $1 trillion. Certainly the burden of paying for litigation will be distributed to the public in the form of increased costs in technological goods and services. The potential drain on the Nation's economy and the world's economy from fixing computer systems and responding to litigation is staggering. While the estimates being circulated are speculative, the costs of making the corrections in all the computer systems in the country are astronomical. Chase Manhattan Bank has been quoted as spending $250 million to fix problems with its 200 million lines of affected computer codes. The estimated costs of fixing the problem in the United States ranges from $200 billion to $1 trillion. The resources which would be directed to litigation are resources that would not be available for continued improvements in technology- producing new products and maintaining the economy that supports the United States position as a world leader. Time is of the essence. If the bill is going to have the intended effect of encouraging proactive prevention and remediation of Y2K problems, it has to be passed quickly. This bill will have limited value if it is to be passed after the August recess. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture on Monday when we move forward with that. I have a number of letters, studies, and a lot of information I will present when we move to the bill. I will be very clear. From the technology network, we have letters of support from Cisco Systems, Intel, Microsoft, American Online, Merrill Lynch, Novell, Adobe Systems, Alexander Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide, Platinum Software, American Electronics Association, Marimba, Inc., NVCA, Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers, LSI Logic--the list goes on and on. This is an important issue to the high-tech industry in America. It is very important. It is of critical importance as to how these corporations that are leading the American economy are able to proceed with the business of business rather than the business of litigation. I hope all of my colleagues will support this legislation and that we can move forward. As the Senator from Connecticut will state, we still have differences but we are working hard on working those out with the Senator from Oregon, the Senator from Massachusetts, and of course, the much esteemed Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Hollings. I see my other colleagues would like to make comments on this very important issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senators Lott, Domenici, and others in cosponsoring this amendment to S. 577, The Budget Reform Act. I was an original cosponsor along with Senator Abraham and others of the legislation upon which the Lott-Domenici amendment is based. This amendment expresses clearly our commitment to protect the Social Security Trust Fund for current and future beneficiaries. This legislation reiterates the importance of adhering to the provisions of the 1990 law that prevented Congress and the President from using Social Security surpluses to mask the size of annual budget deficits. It also urges the establishment of a budgetary ``lock box'' for Social Security funds, with effective enforcement mechanism, to prevent Congress and the President from using Social Security receipts to pay for other government spending or to offset tax cuts. We all have seen the predictions that the Social Security system will be bankrupt in 2032, short-changing the millions of Americans who included Social Security benefit payments in their retirement planning. Simply walling off the Trust Fund from depletion for other purposes will not solve this long-term problem. Clearly, we must continue to work to find a viable long-term solution to the financial problems of the Social Security system that restructures the system in a manner which provides working Americans with the opportunity, choices, and flexibility necessary to ensure their future retirement needs are fully met. At the same time, we must guarantee that everyone who has worked and invested in the Social Security system receives the benefits they were promised, without placing an unfair burden on today's workers. Saving Social Security should not be a partisan issue. For our parents today and our grandchildren tomorrow, saving Social Security is too important for politics to guide us rather than principle. With predictions of sustained budget surpluses for at least the next ten years, saving Social Security should be our first priority. I endorse the President's proposal to set aside two-thirds of the estimated $2.8 trillion non-Social Security surplus to shore up the Social Security system. However, I question whether the President is truly wedded to saving Social Security. His own budget shows that he does not set aside a single extra dollar for Social Security for at least ten years. Instead, he spends the surplus on new government programs. It is also alarming that the President feels that the government should become an institutional investor in the stock market, using Social Security funds. The government has no business going into business. How could the government bring action against a company for violating anti-trust laws if it has a large equity investment in that same company? And can anyone fathom how the forces of political correctness might distort the market? Would the government eventually become the majority stockholder in Ben and Jerry's? Saving Social Security has one simple objective: to guarantee that everyone who has worked and invested in Social Security receives the benefits they were promised. We must establish an effective ``lock box'' to ensure that 100 percent of Social Security receipts go to the Social Security trust fund and stay there earning interest. We must stop the federal government from stealing money from the Social Security trust fund to pay for its excessive spending habits. Social Security is a sacred promise which must not be broken. Fiscally responsible members of Congress must stand up and not allow the Federal Government to take the hard-earned money of taxpayers and threaten the financial security of our nation's retirement system. Let me just point out that walling off the Social Security Trust Fund and reserving future surpluses to ensure the solvency of our nation's retirement system does not mean we can not also have a tax cut. Americans need and deserve a tax cut. Federal taxes consume nearly 21 percent of America's gross domestic product, the highest level since World War II. A recent Congressional Research Study found that over the next ten years an average American family will pay $5,307 more in taxes than the government needs to operate. Congress did not balance the budget so Washington spending could grow unnecessarily at the taxpayer's expense. Letting the American people keep more of their own money to spend on their priorities will continue to fuel the economy and help create more small business jobs and other employment opportunities. We can provide meaningful tax relief to American families and still save Social Security. The Federal Government wastes billions of dollars every year on pork-barrel spending projects, much of which is earmarked by powerful Members of Congress for their home states and districts. Just this past year, Congress directed over $9 billion to special- interest projects. We also continue to allow businesses to use tax loopholes and other subsidies that do not make economic sense. According to the Progressive Policy Institute, we could easily save $200 billion over the next five years by eliminating inequitable corporate subsidies, including phasing out operating subsidies for Amtrak and eliminating the ethanol tax credit. We can and should pay for tax relief for middle-class Americans and families with the money we throw away on pork-barrel projects and inequitable corporate subsidies, not money raided from Social Security surpluses. Mr. President, on behalf of the millions of Americans who have paid into the Social Security system for decades and those who are working and paying into the system today, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and demonstrate their continued commitment to truly saving Social Security for future generations.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, when the Commerce Committee filed the report for S. 96, the Y2K Act, the Congressional Budget Office had not completed the cost estimate for the bill. Recently, the committee received the estimate. In summary, the estimate concludes that the measure would most likely result in a savings to the Federal court system. I look forward to debating this measure, and I ask unanimous consent that the report be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield as much time as the Senator from Mississippi may consume.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I introduce a joint resolution cosponsored by Senators Biden, Cochran, Hagel, Lieberman, Lugar, Dodd and Robb. Before I go into my statement, I will mention that the Veterans of Foreign Wars today will be issuing a statement regarding their support for this resolution. The Veterans of Foreign Wars statement will read: The United States, acting as a part of the NATO alliance, should use a full range of force in an overwhelming and decisive manner to meet its objectives. I think it is important to note that this resolution would be supported by those American veterans who have fought in foreign wars. As my colleagues know, I am concerned that the force the United States and our NATO allies have employed against Serbia, gradually escalating airstrikes, is insufficient to achieve our political objectives there, which are the removal of the Serb military and security forces from Kosovo, the return of the refugees to their homes, and the establishment of a NATO-led peacekeeping force. I hope this resolution, should it be adopted, will encourage the administration and our allies to find the courage and resolve to prosecute this war in the manner most likely to result in its early end and successful conclusion. In other words, I hope this resolution will make clear Congress' support for adopting our means to secure our ends rather than the reverse. But that is not our central purpose today. Our central purpose is to encourage Congress to meet its responsibilities, responsibilities that we have thus far evaded. Many of my colleagues oppose this war and would prefer that the United States immediately withdraw from a Balkan conflict which they judge to be a quagmire so far removed from America's interests that the cost of victory cannot be justified. I disagree, but I respect their opinion as honest and honorable. I believe that they would welcome the opportunity to express their opposition by the means available to Congress. Those of us who support this intervention and those who may have had reservations about either its necessity or its initial direction but are now committed to winning it should also welcome this resolution as the instrument for doing our duty, as we have called on so many fine young Americans to do their duty at the risk of their lives. If those who oppose this war and any widening of it prevail, so be it. The President will pursue his present course as authorized by earlier congressional resolutions until its failure demands we settle on Mr. Milosevic's terms. Those of our colleagues who feel that course is preferable to the price that would be incurred by fully prosecuting this war can rightly claim that they followed the demands of conscience and Constitution, but they must also be accountable to the country and the world for whatever negative consequences ensue from our failure. Should those of us who want to use all necessary force to win this war prevail, then we must accept the responsibility for the losses incurred in its prosecution. That is the only honorable course. But no matter which view any Senator holds, should this resolution be adopted at the end of a thorough debate, all Members of Congress should then unite to support the early and complete accomplishment of our mission in Kosovo. Silence and equivocation will not unburden us of our responsibility to support or oppose the war. I do not recommend lightly the course I have called on the President to pursue. I know, as should any one who votes for this resolution, that if Americans die in a land war with Serbia, we will bear a considerable share of the blame for their loss. We are as accountable to their families as the President must be. But I would rather face that sad burden than hide from my conscience because I sought an ambiguous political position to seek shelter behind. Nor could I easily bear the dishonor of having known that my country's interests demanded a course of action, but avoided taking it because the costs of defending them were substantial, as were its attendant political risks. Congress, no less than the administration, must show the resolve and confidence of a superpower whose cause is just and imperative. Let us all, President and Senator alike, show the courage of our convictions in this critical hour. Let us declare ourselves in support of or opposition to this war, and the many sacrifices it will entail. Our duty demands it. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to extend the commercial space launch indemnification. As a result of the discussions over the last year on the alleged China technology transfer situation, the need to ensure that the United States launch companies maintain a competitive position in the International launch market has never been greater. One of the more important features of the Commercial Space Launch Act (``CSLA'') to the commercial industry is the comprehensive risk allocation provisions. The provisions are comprised of: (1) cross-waivers of liability among launch participants; (2) a demonstration of financial responsibility; and (3) a commitment (subject to appropriations) by the U.S. Government to pay successful third party claims above $500 million. Since its establishment, this three-pronged approach has been extremely attractive to the customers, contractors, and subcontractors of the U.S. launch licensee and to the contractors and subcontractors of its customers, as they are all participants in and beneficiaries of CSLA. As such, it has enabled the U.S. launch services industry to compete effectively with its foreign counterparts who offer similar coverage. This ability to compete effectively will be threatened on December 31, 1999. At that time, the most important element of the CSLA insurance section, the U.S. Government payment of claims provision, is scheduled to sunset. Without this provision, the advances in market share that this burgeoning U.S. industry has made--an industry that is critical to U.S. national security, foreign policy and economic interests--will be lost. The indemnification has been extended previously for a period of 5 years. This bill extends the authorization for this indemnification for an additional 10 years. With this length of extension, companies will be able to finalize strategic plans in a more stable environment. Therefore, I, along with my cosponsors, urge the Members of this body to support this bill and to provide the needed legislation which will allow this key industry continuous operation in a safe and responsible manner.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I introduce a joint resolution cosponsored by Senators Biden, Cochran, Hagel, Lieberman, Lugar, Dodd and Robb. Before I go into my statement, I will mention that the Veterans of Foreign Wars today will be issuing a statement regarding their support for this resolution. The Veterans of Foreign Wars statement will read: The United States, acting as a part of the NATO alliance, should use a full range of force in an overwhelming and decisive manner to meet its objectives. I think it is important to note that this resolution would be supported by those American veterans who have fought in foreign wars. As my colleagues know, I am concerned that the force the United States and our NATO allies have employed against Serbia, gradually escalating airstrikes, is insufficient to achieve our political objectives there, which are the removal of the Serb military and security forces from Kosovo, the return of the refugees to their homes, and the establishment of a NATO-led peacekeeping force. I hope this resolution, should it be adopted, will encourage the administration and our allies to find the courage and resolve to prosecute this war in the manner most likely to result in its early end and successful conclusion. In other words, I hope this resolution will make clear Congress' support for adopting our means to secure our ends rather than the reverse. But that is not our central purpose today. Our central purpose is to encourage Congress to meet its responsibilities, responsibilities that we have thus far evaded. Many of my colleagues oppose this war and would prefer that the United States immediately withdraw from a Balkan conflict which they judge to be a quagmire so far removed from America's interests that the cost of victory cannot be justified. I disagree, but I respect their opinion as honest and honorable. I believe that they would welcome the opportunity to express their opposition by the means available to Congress. Those of us who support this intervention and those who may have had reservations about either its necessity or its initial direction but are now committed to winning it should also welcome this resolution as the instrument for doing our duty, as we have called on so many fine young Americans to do their duty at the risk of their lives. If those who oppose this war and any widening of it prevail, so be it. The President will pursue his present course as authorized by earlier congressional resolutions until its failure demands we settle on Mr. Milosevic's terms. Those of our colleagues who feel that course is preferable to the price that would be incurred by fully prosecuting this war can rightly claim that they followed the demands of conscience and Constitution, but they must also be accountable to the country and the world for whatever negative consequences ensue from our failure. Should those of us who want to use all necessary force to win this war prevail, then we must accept the responsibility for the losses incurred in its prosecution. That is the only honorable course. But no matter which view any Senator holds, should this resolution be adopted at the end of a thorough debate, all Members of Congress should then unite to support the early and complete accomplishment of our mission in Kosovo. Silence and equivocation will not unburden us of our responsibility to support or oppose the war. I do not recommend lightly the course I have called on the President to pursue. I know, as should any one who votes for this resolution, that if Americans die in a land war with Serbia, we will bear a considerable share of the blame for their loss. We are as accountable to their families as the President must be. But I would rather face that sad burden than hide from my conscience because I sought an ambiguous political position to seek shelter behind. Nor could I easily bear the dishonor of having known that my country's interests demanded a course of action, but avoided taking it because the costs of defending them were substantial, as were its attendant political risks. Congress, no less than the administration, must show the resolve and confidence of a superpower whose cause is just and imperative. Let us all, President and Senator alike, show the courage of our convictions in this critical hour. Let us declare ourselves in support of or opposition to this war, and the many sacrifices it will entail. Our duty demands it. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield as much time as the Senator from Mississippi may consume.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to extend the commercial space launch indemnification. As a result of the discussions over the last year on the alleged China technology transfer situation, the need to ensure that the United States launch companies maintain a competitive position in the International launch market has never been greater. One of the more important features of the Commercial Space Launch Act (``CSLA'') to the commercial industry is the comprehensive risk allocation provisions. The provisions are comprised of: (1) cross-waivers of liability among launch participants; (2) a demonstration of financial responsibility; and (3) a commitment (subject to appropriations) by the U.S. Government to pay successful third party claims above $500 million. Since its establishment, this three-pronged approach has been extremely attractive to the customers, contractors, and subcontractors of the U.S. launch licensee and to the contractors and subcontractors of its customers, as they are all participants in and beneficiaries of CSLA. As such, it has enabled the U.S. launch services industry to compete effectively with its foreign counterparts who offer similar coverage. This ability to compete effectively will be threatened on December 31, 1999. At that time, the most important element of the CSLA insurance section, the U.S. Government payment of claims provision, is scheduled to sunset. Without this provision, the advances in market share that this burgeoning U.S. industry has made--an industry that is critical to U.S. national security, foreign policy and economic interests--will be lost. The indemnification has been extended previously for a period of 5 years. This bill extends the authorization for this indemnification for an additional 10 years. With this length of extension, companies will be able to finalize strategic plans in a more stable environment. Therefore, I, along with my cosponsors, urge the Members of this body to support this bill and to provide the needed legislation which will allow this key industry continuous operation in a safe and responsible manner.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am renewing my efforts to provide innovative solutions to address urgently needed repairs and enhancements at our nation's parks. The legislation I am introducing today is nearly identical to the bill I sponsored in the 105th Congress, which received substantial support from many of the organizations supporting the National Parks system. I am pleased that Representative Kolbe will introduce companion legislation in the House. The National Parks Capital Improvements Act of 1999 would help secure taxable revenue bonding authority for National Parks. This legislation would allow private fundraising organizations to enter into agreements with the Secretary of Interior to issue taxable capital development bonds. Bond revenues would then be used to finance park improvement projects. The bonds would be secured by an entrance fee surcharge of up to $2 per visitor at participating parks, or a set-aside of up to $2 per visitor from current entrance fees. Our national park system has enormous capital needs--by last estimate, over $3 billion for high-priority projects such as improved transportation systems, trail repairs, visitor facilities, historic preservation, and the list goes on and on. The unfortunate reality is that even under the rosiest budget scenarios, our growing park needs far outstrip the resources currently available. Parks are still struggling to address enormous resource and infrastructure needs while seeking to improve the park experience to accommodate the increasing numbers of visitors to recreation sites. Revenue bonding would take us a long way toward meeting our needs within the national park system. For example, based on current visitation rates at the Grand Canyon, a $2 surcharge would enable us to raise $100 million from a bond issue amortized over 20 years. That is a significant amount of money which we could use to accomplish many critical park projects. Let me emphasize, however, the Grand Canyon National Park would not be the only park eligible to benefit from this legislation. Any park unit with capital needs in excess of $5 million is eligible to participate. Among eligible parks, the Secretary of Interior will determine which may take part in the program. I also want to stress that only projects approved as part of a park's general management plan can be funded through bond revenue. This proviso eliminates any concern that the revenue could be used for projects of questionable value to the park. In addition, only organizations under agreement with the Secretary of Interior will be authorized to administer the bonding, so the Secretary can establish any rules or policies he deems necessary and appropriate. Under no circumstances, however, would investors be able to attach liens against Federal property in the very unlikely event of default. The bonds will be secured only by the surcharge revenues. Finally, the bill specifies that all professional standards apply and that the issues are subject to the same laws, rules, and regulatory enforcement procedures as any other bond issue. The most obvious question raised by this legislation is: Will the bond markets support park improvement issues, guaranteed by an entrance surcharge? The answer is an emphatic yes. Bonding is a well-tested tool for the private sector. Additionally, Americans are eager to invest in our Nation's natural heritage, and with park visitation growing stronger, the risks appear minimal. Are park visitors willing to pay a little more at the entrance gate if the money is used for park improvements? Again, I believe the answer is yes. Time and time again, visitors have expressed their support for increased fees provided that the revenue is used where collected and not diverted for some other purpose devised by Congress. The National Park Service conducted a survey last year which indicated that nearly 83 percent of participating respondents were satisfied with their paid fees, or thought the fees too low. With the fee demonstration program currently being implemented at parks around the Nation, an additional $2 surcharge may not be necessary or appropriate at certain parks. Under the bill, those parks could choose to dedicate $2 per park visitor from current entrance fees toward a bond issue. The latest figures from the National Park Service indicate that revenues from fees doubled in 1998 to $180 million. This legislation can easily complement the recreational fee program to increase benefits to support our parks and increase the quality of America's park experience well into the future. I look forward to working with my colleagues and National Parks supporters to ensure passage of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am renewing my efforts to provide innovative solutions to address urgently needed repairs and enhancements at our nation's parks. The legislation I am introducing today is nearly identical to the bill I sponsored in the 105th Congress, which received substantial support from many of the organizations supporting the National Parks system. I am pleased that Representative Kolbe will introduce companion legislation in the House. The National Parks Capital Improvements Act of 1999 would help secure taxable revenue bonding authority for National Parks. This legislation would allow private fundraising organizations to enter into agreements with the Secretary of Interior to issue taxable capital development bonds. Bond revenues would then be used to finance park improvement projects. The bonds would be secured by an entrance fee surcharge of up to $2 per visitor at participating parks, or a set-aside of up to $2 per visitor from current entrance fees. Our national park system has enormous capital needs--by last estimate, over $3 billion for high-priority projects such as improved transportation systems, trail repairs, visitor facilities, historic preservation, and the list goes on and on. The unfortunate reality is that even under the rosiest budget scenarios, our growing park needs far outstrip the resources currently available. Parks are still struggling to address enormous resource and infrastructure needs while seeking to improve the park experience to accommodate the increasing numbers of visitors to recreation sites. Revenue bonding would take us a long way toward meeting our needs within the national park system. For example, based on current visitation rates at the Grand Canyon, a $2 surcharge would enable us to raise $100 million from a bond issue amortized over 20 years. That is a significant amount of money which we could use to accomplish many critical park projects. Let me emphasize, however, the Grand Canyon National Park would not be the only park eligible to benefit from this legislation. Any park unit with capital needs in excess of $5 million is eligible to participate. Among eligible parks, the Secretary of Interior will determine which may take part in the program. I also want to stress that only projects approved as part of a park's general management plan can be funded through bond revenue. This proviso eliminates any concern that the revenue could be used for projects of questionable value to the park. In addition, only organizations under agreement with the Secretary of Interior will be authorized to administer the bonding, so the Secretary can establish any rules or policies he deems necessary and appropriate. Under no circumstances, however, would investors be able to attach liens against Federal property in the very unlikely event of default. The bonds will be secured only by the surcharge revenues. Finally, the bill specifies that all professional standards apply and that the issues are subject to the same laws, rules, and regulatory enforcement procedures as any other bond issue. The most obvious question raised by this legislation is: Will the bond markets support park improvement issues, guaranteed by an entrance surcharge? The answer is an emphatic yes. Bonding is a well-tested tool for the private sector. Additionally, Americans are eager to invest in our Nation's natural heritage, and with park visitation growing stronger, the risks appear minimal. Are park visitors willing to pay a little more at the entrance gate if the money is used for park improvements? Again, I believe the answer is yes. Time and time again, visitors have expressed their support for increased fees provided that the revenue is used where collected and not diverted for some other purpose devised by Congress. The National Park Service conducted a survey last year which indicated that nearly 83 percent of participating respondents were satisfied with their paid fees, or thought the fees too low. With the fee demonstration program currently being implemented at parks around the Nation, an additional $2 surcharge may not be necessary or appropriate at certain parks. Under the bill, those parks could choose to dedicate $2 per park visitor from current entrance fees toward a bond issue. The latest figures from the National Park Service indicate that revenues from fees doubled in 1998 to $180 million. This legislation can easily complement the recreational fee program to increase benefits to support our parks and increase the quality of America's park experience well into the future. I look forward to working with my colleagues and National Parks supporters to ensure passage of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will vote today, somewhat reluctantly, in support of the Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Resolution. I say reluctantly because I am very concerned about the inadequate level of funding provided in this resolution for national defense. On the positive side, this budget resolution establishes a road map for this Congress to enact the largest tax cut since the Reagan Administration, lock up the Social Security surplus, shore up Medicare, substantially reduce the public debt, and still keep spending within the limits established in the 1997 bipartisan budget agreement. It also provides the largest increase in history, $1.8 billion above the President's budget, for veterans' health care, which has been consistently underfunded for years. Most important, the resolution takes an important step toward preserving Social Security for current and future recipients. It reaffirms the 1990 law, now expired, that prohibited using the Social Security Trust Fund surpluses to offset other spending, and it establishes a new point of order against spending any of the Social Security surplus on anything other than payment of Social Security benefits or reforming the system. This resolution walls off the Social Security Trust Fund so that money paid in by taxpayers for their retirement cannot be stolen by spendthrift politicians to pay for their favorite pork-barrel projects or new government programs of dubious merit. Saving Social Security and providing greater retirement security for our citizens should be our first priority. We must find a viable solution to the impending bankruptcy of Social Security which restructures the system in a manner which provides working Americans with the opportunity, choices, and flexibility necessary to ensure their future retirement needs are fully met. Everyone who has worked and invested in the Social Security system must be guaranteed to receive the benefits they were promised, but reform must not place an unfair burden on today's workers. Until we find that solution, however, it is imperative that we shore up the system to ensure payment of benefits will continue, on time and in full, to everyone who has earned them. To do this, we must not only protect the existing Social Security surplus, as this resolution does, but ensure that additional funds are available, if needed, to shore up the system in the absence of meaningful reforms. The President's ``smoke and mirrors'' budget promised to save 62 percent of the non-Social Security surplus to shore up Social Security, but that has been shown to be a baseless claim when his budget is carefully analyzed. Unfortunately, this budget resolution did not dedicate additional funds to save Social Security either. I believe we should set aside a significant portion of the additional surplus to extend the fiscal viability of the system and ease the fears of our senior citizens, and I intend to work to see that happen. Locking up the Social Security Trust Fund surplus and setting aside a significant portion of the non-Social Security surplus does not mean we cannot also provide significant tax relief to those who need it most-- lower- and middle-income Americans and their families. The Budget Resolution provides for $142.3 billion in tax relief over the next five years, amounting to $779.9 billion over ten years. The tax cuts are appropriately targeted toward eliminating the marriage penalty, expanding the lowest 15% tax bracket, estate tax relief, more favorable tax treatment of health insurance cost for the self-employed, and capital gains tax fairness for farmers. But Americans need and deserve an even bigger tax cut. Federal taxes consume nearly 21% of America's gross domestic product, the highest level since World War II. A recent Congressional Research Service study found that, over the next ten years, an average American family will pay $5,307 in taxes over and above what the government needs to operate. Congress did not balance the budget so Washington spending and government bureaucracy could continue to grow at the taxpayers expense. Letting the American people keep more of their own money to spend on their priorities will continue to fuel the economy and help create more small business jobs and other employment opportunities. The tax cuts in this Budget Resolution are significant, but I think we should return even more of the surplus back to the taxpayers. I believe we should reserve part of the non-Social Security surplus to shore up the system and give a bigger tax cut to American families, which would be paid for partially by closing tax loopholes and eliminating inequitable corporate subsidies to offset the cost. Saving Social Security, cutting taxes, providing for our veterans, and many other aspects of this Budget Resolution are sufficient reason to vote for it. However, the shortfall in defense spending in this budget raises very serious concerns. It is no secret that there are serious readiness, retention and recruiting problems throughout the military. The Service Chiefs testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in September last year, and again in January, that they require an additional $20 billion over the fiscal year 1999 budget in fiscal year 2000 to stop declining force readiness. The President, after promising an additional $12 billion, only added $4 billion in his budget request. Then, during this year's budget hearings, the Service Secretaries and Chiefs confirmed that readiness unfunded requirements still exist and submitted lists to meet their readiness requirements. Yet the Budget Resolution does not provide sufficient funding to meet the minimum requirements of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to adequately fund critical readiness, personnel and modernization programs. The Conference Report veils its underfunding of vital defense programs by putting an additional $8.3 billion for Fiscal Year 2000 in the Pentagon's bank in the form of increased budget authority, but because of the arcane scorekeeping rules of the Congressional Budget Office, the Services would not be able to actually spend that money because it would exceed the outlay cap. Fortunately, the conference agreement provides $2 billion more in outlays than the Senate version, but the spending limit is still $6.7 billion less than the President's budget when estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. And the resolution shortchanges defense next year and every year thereafter. Earlier this year, the Senate passed legislation of which I was a primary architect, along with Senator Roberts, Majority Leader Lott and Senator Warner. This legislation, the ``Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999'', would restore military retirement benefits to a full 50 percent of base pay for 20-year retirees, includes a 4.8 percent pay raise effective January 1, 2000, pay table reform, Thrift Savings Plan proposals, and a Special Subsistence Allowance to help the neediest families in the Armed Forces who now require federal food stamp assistance. This Budget Resolution puts all these recruitment and retention tools in jeopardy because it does not provide the dollars needed to fulfill these promises to our service members and their families. Mr. President, the nuclear carrier U.S.S. Enterprise (CVN-65) is currently deployed in the Persian Gulf, undermanned by some 800 sailors. We are losing pilots to the commercial airlines faster than we can train them. The Navy has one-half the F/A-18 pilots, one-third of the S-3 pilots, and only one-quarter of the EA-6B pilots it needs. Only 26 percent of the Air Force pilots have committed to stay beyond their current service agreement. The Army says that five of its ten divisions lack enough majors, captains, senior enlisted personnel, tankers and gunners. The military's problems do not stop at recruiting and retention issues. For example, the Army's number one modernization program, the Comanche helicopter, is undergoing flight testing with just one asset. If that helicopter has a serious malfunction or is lost, who knows how long the program will be delayed. The Army has another test platform but has testified that they simply cannot afford to fly it. With the recent deployment in the Balkans, the world watched night after night as the Air Force's main bomber, the B-52, was once again called to duty to deliver air launched cruise missiles in combat. How many times has the Air Force called upon this 40-year old workhorse to deliver devastating firepower? The B-52 bomber was already old when I saw it fly in Vietnam, and yet the Air Force plan will carry the current bomber fleet through the next 40 years, with a replacement to the B-52 tentatively planned in 2037. The Navy is struggling to maintain a fleet of 300 ships, down from over 500 in the early 1990s. The fiscal year 2000 budget will not support a Navy of even 200 ships. The Marine Corps saves money in spare parts by retreading light trucks and Humvees, so as to afford small arms ammunition for forward deployed Marines. The list goes on and on, but what we must recognize is that it illustrates very serious readiness problems that continue to grow and must be stopped if we hope to preserve the world's finest military and continue to support the men and women in uniform, many of whom are in harm's way in Operation Allied Force in Kosovo today. Mr. President, I could go on, but suffice it to say that the military needs more money to redress the serious problems caused by more than a decade of declining defense budgets. Those of us who have been criticized for sounding alarm bells about military readiness now have the empty satisfaction of seeing that there is more to maintaining a strong defense than a politician's history of falsely promising to do so. What is at risk, without exaggeration, are the lives of our military personnel and the national security of the United States. Mr. President, for many years, the Services have struggled to make do with the funding we provide to them, as Congress persists in draining away resources for low-priority, wasteful, pork-barrel spending projects. After hearing from the Service Chiefs in testimony this year, I hope my colleagues are prepared to halt the long-standing practice of earmarking funds for home-state programs and special interest items. If not, we will exacerbate the dangers of failing to provide the resources necessary to maintain military readiness and our war-fighting capability. Mr. President, I will vote for this Budget Resolution because it provides a measure of tax relief, additional veterans funding, and, most important, locks up the Social Security Trust Fund for Social Security. But I am gravely concerned about the defense spending levels in this budget, and I intend to do everything I can to ensure that every dollar in the Defense and Military Construction Appropriations bills is used for high-priority defense requirements, like recruiting and retention incentives, operations and training, and urgent modernization programs. I urge my colleagues to put aside their parochial interests and join me in that effort.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced a bill to ``Promote Reliable On-Line Transactions to Encourage Commerce and Trade,'' the PROTECT Act. This legislation seeks to promote electronic commerce by encouraging and facilitating the use of encryption in interstate commerce consistent with the protection of United States law enforcement and national security goals and missions. During the last Congress, there was a very intense debate surrounding the encryption issue. That debate, as with any discussion regarding encryption technology, centered around the challenge of balancing free trade objectives with national security and law enforcement interests. There were various proposals put forward. None, however, emerged as a viable solution. In the end, the debate became polarized, as many became entrenched upon basic approaches, losing sight of the overall policy objectives upon which everyone generally agreed. It was my objective to get outside the box of last year's debate. In the past, balancing commercial and national security interests has been treated as a zero sum game, as if the only way to forward commercial interest was at the expense of national security, or vice versa. This is simply not the case. Certainly, advanced encryption technologies present a unique set of challenges for the national security and law enforcement community. However, these challenges are not insurmountable. What the PROTECT Act does, is to lay out a forward-looking approach to encryption exportation, a course that puts into place a rational, fact-based procedure for making export decisions, that places high priority on bringing the national security and law enforcement community up to speed in a digital age, and that ultimately provides a national security backstop to make certain that advanced encryption products do not fall into the hands of those who would threaten the national security interests of the United States. Title I of the legislation deals with domestic encryption. The bill establishes that private sector use, development, manufacture, sale, distribution and import of encryption products, standards and services shall be voluntary and market driven. Further, the government is prevented from tying encryption used for confidentiality to encryption used for authentification. It is established that it is lawful for any person in the United States, and for any U.S. person in a foreign country, to develop, manufacture, sell, distribute, import, or use any encryption product. The PROTECT Act prohibits mandatory government access to plaintext. The bill prohibits the government from standards setting or creating approvals or incentives for providing government access to plaintext, while preserving existing authority for law enforcement and national security agencies to obtain access to information under existing law. Title II of the legislation deals with government procurement procedures. The bill makes clear that it shall be the policy of the Federal government to permit the public to interact with the government through commercial networks and infrastructure and protect the privacy and security of any electronic communications and stored information obtained by the public. The Federal government is encouraged to purchase encryption products for its own use, but is required to ensure that such products will interoperate with other commercial encryption products, and the government is prohibited from requiring citizens to use a specific encryption product to interact with the government. Title II of the PROTECT Act authorizes and directs NIST to complete establishment of the Advanced Encrytion Standard by January 1, 2002. Further, the bill ensures the process is led by the private sector and open to comment. Beyond the NIST role in establishing the AES, the Commerce Department is expressly prohibited from setting encryption standards--including U.S. export controls--for private computers. A critical component of the PROTECT Act is improving the government's technological capabilities. Much of the concern from law enforcement and national security agencies is rooted in the unfortunate reality that the government lags desperately behind in their understanding of advanced technologies, and their ability to achieve goals and missions in the digital age. This legislation expands NIST's Information Technology Laboratory duties to include: (a) obtaining information regarding the most current hardware, software, telecommunications and other capabilities to understand how to access information transmitted across networks; (b) researching and developing new and emerging techniques and technologies to facilitate access to communications and electronic information; (c) researching and developing methods to detect and prevent unwanted intrusions into commercial computer networks; (d) providing assistance in responding to information security threats at the request of other Federal agencies and law enforcement; (e) facilitating the development and adoption of ``best information security practices'' between the agencies and the private sector. The duties of the Computer System Security and Privacy Board are expanded to include providing a forum for communication and coordination between industry and the Federal government regarding information security issues, and fostering dissemination of general, nonproprietary and nonconfidential developments in important information security technologies to appropriate federal agencies. Title V of the legislation deals with the export of encryption products. The Secretary of Commerce is granted sole jurisdiction over commercial encryption products, except those specifically designed or modified for military use, including command and control and intelligence applications. The legislation clarifies that the U.S. government may continue to impose export controls on all encryption products to terrorist countries, and embargoed countries; that the U.S. government may continue to prohibit exports of particular encryption products to specific individuals, organizations, country, or countries; and that encryption products remain subject to all export controls imposed for any reason other than the existence of encryption in the product. Encryption products utilizing a key length of 64 bits or less are decontrolled. Further, certain additional products may be exported or reexported under license exception. These include: recoverable products; encryption products to legitimate and responsible entities or organizations and their strategic partners, including on-line merchants; encryption products sold or licensed to foreign governments that are members of NATO, ASEAN, and OECD; computer hardware or computer software that does not itself provide encryption capabilities, but that incorporates APIs of interaction with encryption products; and technical assistance or technical data associated with the installation and maintenance of encryption products. The Commerce Department is required to make encryption products and related computer services eligible for a license exception after a 15- day, one-time technical review. Exporters may export encryption products if no action is taken within the 15-day period. A formal process is established whereby encryption products employing a key length greater than 64 bits may be granted an exemption from export controls. Under the procedures established by this legislation, encryption products may be exported under license exception if: the Secretary of Commerce determines that the product or service is exportable under the Export Administration Act, or if the Encryption Export Advisory Board created under this Act determines, and the Secretary agrees, that the product or services is, generally available, publicly available, or a comparable encryption product is available, or will be available in 12 months, from a foreign supplier. As referenced, the PROTECT Act creates an Encryption Export Advisory Board to make recommendations regarding general, public and foreign availability of encryption products to the Secretary of Commerce who must make such decisions to allow an exemption. The Secretary's decision is subject to judicial review. The President may override any decision of the Board or Secretary for purposes of national security without judicial review. This process is critical. It ensures that the manufacturer or exporter of an encryption product may rely upon the Board's determination that the product is generally or publicly available or that a comparable foreign product is available, and may thus export the product without consequences. However, a critical national security backstop is provided. Regardless of the recommendation of the board, or the decision of the Secretary, the President is granted the absolute authority to deny the export of encryption technology in order to protect U.S. national security interest. However, a process of review is established whereby market- availability, and other relevant information may be gathered and presented in order to ensue that such determinations are informed and rational. Any products with greater than a 64 bit key length that has been granted previous exemptions by the administration are grandfathered, and decontrolled for export. Upon adoption of the AES, but not later than January 1, 2002, the Secretary must decontrol encryption products if the encryption employed is the AES or its equivalent. Finally, the PROTECT Act prohibits the Secretary from imposing any reporting requirements on any encryption product not subject to U.S. export controls or exported under a license exception. Mr. President, as I have stated, my purpose in putting this legislation together was to get outside the zero sum game thinking that has become so indicative of the debate surrounding the encryption export controls. I would like to commend the outstanding and creative leadership of Senator Burns on this issue. He is a leader on technology issues in the Senate, and has played an invaluable role in developing this approach. I look forward to working with him, and our other original cosponsor in building the support necessary to see the PROTECT Act signed into law during this Congress.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending legislation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to cosponsor and support the E-911 Act of 1999, which has been introduced by Senator Burns. I commend Senator Burns for his outstanding work on this legislation which will help build a national wireless communications system and save lives. Mr. President, I want to make sure that Americans everywhere can dial 9-1-1 to summon prompt assistance in an emergency. When a person is seriously injured, every second counts. In fact, medical trauma and public safety professionals speak of a ``golden hour''--the first hour after serious injury when the greatest percentage of lives can be saved. The sooner that the seriously injured get medical help, the greater the chance of survival. And prompt notification to the authorities is the first critical step in getting medical assistance to the injured. I believe that injured Americans should be able to get emergency medical assistance as quickly as possible. Over 60 million Americans carry wireless telephones. Some of these people own them specifically for safety reasons, in order to summon help in an emergency. Others would be willing to use their phones to report emergencies to the authorities. But in many parts of the country when a person who is seriously injured--or a frantic bystander--calls 9-1-1 on their wireless telephone, nothing happens. Although many Americans think that 9-1-1 is already a national emergency number everywhere, it isn't. There are many places in America where 9-1-1 isn't the right number to call for help. The rule in America ought to be uniform and simple--if you have an emergency wherever you are, dial 9-1-1. This bill reduces the danger of not knowing what number to call, by making 9-1-1 the universal emergency telephone number. Mr. President, I also believe that we also need to tie our citizens through their wireless telephones to emergency medical centers, police and firefighters so that they can get lifesaving assistance even when they are too injured to make a 9-1-1 call, or can make the call but cannot give their location. This bill supports the upgrading of 9-1-1 systems so that they can deliver more information, like location and automatic crash information data which will better enable emergency services to reach those incapacitated by injury. This legislation also promotes the expansion of the areas covered by wireless telephone service, so that more people can use wireless phones in an emergency. Because if a wireless telephone isn't within range of a wireless tower, a wireless call can't go through. Mr. President, I would like to see an America where more people in more places can call 9-1-1 and quickly get the right help in emergencies. This legislation will help reduce medical response time for millions of Americans, by helping to make sure that people can use their wireless phones to call 9-1-1 immediately and get the ambulances rolling I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Commerce Committee on this important life-saving legislation, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would make the International Olympic Committee subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This legislation is in response to what I believe is a failure on the part of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to adequately respond to corruption in the selection of cities to host the Olympic games. This morning, I chaired a hearing of the Commerce Committee on the recent public controversies involving the Olympic bid process. As most of you know, allegations of bribes and corruption in the Salt Lake City bid process have prompted investigations by the Utah Attorney General and the Department of Justice. The purpose of the hearing was not to focus on a single investigation. Instead, the Committee examined the bid process as a whole and the reform efforts undertaken by the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) and IOC respectively. The Committee heard testimony from the USOC, IOC and the Special Bid Oversight Commission. The Commission was appointed by the USOC to review the circumstances surrounding the selection of Salt Lake City to host the 2002 Winter Olympics. The Commission, composed of a group of highly respected individuals including our former colleague Senator Mitchell and Ken Duberstein, made a series of recommendations to reform both the USOC and the IOC. The recommendations focused on bringing transparency and accountability to both organizations. The USOC appears to be moving forward with reform. It adopted in full the recommendations of the Commission and took responsibility for its own failure to oversee the Salt Lake City bid process. While not complete, I believe the process of reform at the USOC has begun. Unfortunately, the hearing did very little to ease my concerns about the IOC. IOC representatives expressed opposition to several of the commissions' recommendations and continues to be resistant to change. While I understand the IOC may have legitimate concerns about some of the suggested reforms, I question their commitment to reform. This morning Senator Mitchell and the other members of the Commission agreed that Congress could and should take action to ensure that the IOC is subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. In the United States, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is available to law enforcement to combat official corruption in international business transactions. Currently, IOC members are not governed by the Act because they do not generally act in the role of a foreign official. Rather, they act on behalf of the IOC, a private enterprise. My amendment includes the IOC in the definition of a Public International Organization subjecting them to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This bill should be a considered vehicle for discussion. This morning, Senator Mitchell and the Commission offered to provide the committee with further comments on possible legislative solutions to this problem. I look forward to hearing their ideas and working with them. However, based upon the recommendation of the panel this morning and the need to send a strong signal to IOC that we are serious about reform, I wanted to introduce this first step today. I know that many of my colleagues either will introduce measures as well and I look forward to working with them.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fastener Quality Act Amendments Act of 1999. This bill represents major revisions to the original Fastener Quality Act as passed in 1990. Every year billions of special high-strength bolts, screws, and other fasteners are sold in the United States which carry grade identification markings. The markings indicate that the fasteners conform to specifications set by consensus standards organizations. These grade-marked fasteners are used in critical applications like aircraft, automobiles, and highway bridges where failure of a fastener could jeopardize public safety. In 1998, the Congress passed legislation (P.L. 105-234) delaying implementation of the Fastener Quality Act to allow the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a review of changes in fastener manufacturing processes and the existence of other regulatory programs covering fasteners. The review was submitted to the Congress on February 24, 1999, in coordination with several other Federal agencies which have public safety responsibilities including the Defense Industrial Supply Center, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This bill reflects the findings and recommendations of that report. The bill's content further represents discussions between both the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Science Committee, the Department of Commerce, and private industry representatives. Mr. President, let me note that if these revisions to the Fastener Quality Act are not implemented into law by June 24 of this year, the Secretary of Commerce will have no other choice but to implement the Act as originally passed in 1990. Therefore, several of the nation's key industries may be brought to a halt due to lack of certified fasteners. The impact of such a slow down would be disastrous both economically and in terms of continuous flow of products and services to maintain our current way of life. The bill defines fasteners as ``a metallic screw, nut, bolt, or stud having internal or external threads, with a nominal diameter of one- fourth inch or greater, or a load-indicating washer, that is through- hardened or represented as meeting through-hardening, and that is grade identification marked or represented as meeting a consensus standard that requires grade identification marking.'' This definition substantially reduces the scope of covered fasteners under the Act. The bill also establishes a hotline in which the public may notify the Department of Commerce of alleged violations of the Fastener Quality Act. It requires record keeping for a period of five years, instead of the previous ten years, via both traditional and electronic means. To address current inventory concerns, the Act will be applicable only to fasteners fabricated 180 days after the enactment of this bill. Furthermore, in cases of fasteners manufactured to a consensus standard or standards that require end-of-line testing, the testing is to be performed by an accredited laboratory. This accredited laboratory requirement shall not take effect until two years after enactment of this Act. Therefore, I, along with my co-sponsors, urge the members of this body to support this bill and to provide the needed legislation which will allow several key industries in this country continuous operation in a safe and responsible manner.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to cosponsor and support the E-911 Act of 1999, which has been introduced by Senator Burns. I commend Senator Burns for his outstanding work on this legislation which will help build a national wireless communications system and save lives. Mr. President, I want to make sure that Americans everywhere can dial 9-1-1 to summon prompt assistance in an emergency. When a person is seriously injured, every second counts. In fact, medical trauma and public safety professionals speak of a ``golden hour''--the first hour after serious injury when the greatest percentage of lives can be saved. The sooner that the seriously injured get medical help, the greater the chance of survival. And prompt notification to the authorities is the first critical step in getting medical assistance to the injured. I believe that injured Americans should be able to get emergency medical assistance as quickly as possible. Over 60 million Americans carry wireless telephones. Some of these people own them specifically for safety reasons, in order to summon help in an emergency. Others would be willing to use their phones to report emergencies to the authorities. But in many parts of the country when a person who is seriously injured--or a frantic bystander--calls 9-1-1 on their wireless telephone, nothing happens. Although many Americans think that 9-1-1 is already a national emergency number everywhere, it isn't. There are many places in America where 9-1-1 isn't the right number to call for help. The rule in America ought to be uniform and simple--if you have an emergency wherever you are, dial 9-1-1. This bill reduces the danger of not knowing what number to call, by making 9-1-1 the universal emergency telephone number. Mr. President, I also believe that we also need to tie our citizens through their wireless telephones to emergency medical centers, police and firefighters so that they can get lifesaving assistance even when they are too injured to make a 9-1-1 call, or can make the call but cannot give their location. This bill supports the upgrading of 9-1-1 systems so that they can deliver more information, like location and automatic crash information data which will better enable emergency services to reach those incapacitated by injury. This legislation also promotes the expansion of the areas covered by wireless telephone service, so that more people can use wireless phones in an emergency. Because if a wireless telephone isn't within range of a wireless tower, a wireless call can't go through. Mr. President, I would like to see an America where more people in more places can call 9-1-1 and quickly get the right help in emergencies. This legislation will help reduce medical response time for millions of Americans, by helping to make sure that people can use their wireless phones to call 9-1-1 immediately and get the ambulances rolling I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Commerce Committee on this important life-saving legislation, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would make the International Olympic Committee subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This legislation is in response to what I believe is a failure on the part of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to adequately respond to corruption in the selection of cities to host the Olympic games. This morning, I chaired a hearing of the Commerce Committee on the recent public controversies involving the Olympic bid process. As most of you know, allegations of bribes and corruption in the Salt Lake City bid process have prompted investigations by the Utah Attorney General and the Department of Justice. The purpose of the hearing was not to focus on a single investigation. Instead, the Committee examined the bid process as a whole and the reform efforts undertaken by the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) and IOC respectively. The Committee heard testimony from the USOC, IOC and the Special Bid Oversight Commission. The Commission was appointed by the USOC to review the circumstances surrounding the selection of Salt Lake City to host the 2002 Winter Olympics. The Commission, composed of a group of highly respected individuals including our former colleague Senator Mitchell and Ken Duberstein, made a series of recommendations to reform both the USOC and the IOC. The recommendations focused on bringing transparency and accountability to both organizations. The USOC appears to be moving forward with reform. It adopted in full the recommendations of the Commission and took responsibility for its own failure to oversee the Salt Lake City bid process. While not complete, I believe the process of reform at the USOC has begun. Unfortunately, the hearing did very little to ease my concerns about the IOC. IOC representatives expressed opposition to several of the commissions' recommendations and continues to be resistant to change. While I understand the IOC may have legitimate concerns about some of the suggested reforms, I question their commitment to reform. This morning Senator Mitchell and the other members of the Commission agreed that Congress could and should take action to ensure that the IOC is subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. In the United States, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is available to law enforcement to combat official corruption in international business transactions. Currently, IOC members are not governed by the Act because they do not generally act in the role of a foreign official. Rather, they act on behalf of the IOC, a private enterprise. My amendment includes the IOC in the definition of a Public International Organization subjecting them to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This bill should be a considered vehicle for discussion. This morning, Senator Mitchell and the Commission offered to provide the committee with further comments on possible legislative solutions to this problem. I look forward to hearing their ideas and working with them. However, based upon the recommendation of the panel this morning and the need to send a strong signal to IOC that we are serious about reform, I wanted to introduce this first step today. I know that many of my colleagues either will introduce measures as well and I look forward to working with them.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fastener Quality Act Amendments Act of 1999. This bill represents major revisions to the original Fastener Quality Act as passed in 1990. Every year billions of special high-strength bolts, screws, and other fasteners are sold in the United States which carry grade identification markings. The markings indicate that the fasteners conform to specifications set by consensus standards organizations. These grade-marked fasteners are used in critical applications like aircraft, automobiles, and highway bridges where failure of a fastener could jeopardize public safety. In 1998, the Congress passed legislation (P.L. 105-234) delaying implementation of the Fastener Quality Act to allow the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a review of changes in fastener manufacturing processes and the existence of other regulatory programs covering fasteners. The review was submitted to the Congress on February 24, 1999, in coordination with several other Federal agencies which have public safety responsibilities including the Defense Industrial Supply Center, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This bill reflects the findings and recommendations of that report. The bill's content further represents discussions between both the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Science Committee, the Department of Commerce, and private industry representatives. Mr. President, let me note that if these revisions to the Fastener Quality Act are not implemented into law by June 24 of this year, the Secretary of Commerce will have no other choice but to implement the Act as originally passed in 1990. Therefore, several of the nation's key industries may be brought to a halt due to lack of certified fasteners. The impact of such a slow down would be disastrous both economically and in terms of continuous flow of products and services to maintain our current way of life. The bill defines fasteners as ``a metallic screw, nut, bolt, or stud having internal or external threads, with a nominal diameter of one- fourth inch or greater, or a load-indicating washer, that is through- hardened or represented as meeting through-hardening, and that is grade identification marked or represented as meeting a consensus standard that requires grade identification marking.'' This definition substantially reduces the scope of covered fasteners under the Act. The bill also establishes a hotline in which the public may notify the Department of Commerce of alleged violations of the Fastener Quality Act. It requires record keeping for a period of five years, instead of the previous ten years, via both traditional and electronic means. To address current inventory concerns, the Act will be applicable only to fasteners fabricated 180 days after the enactment of this bill. Furthermore, in cases of fasteners manufactured to a consensus standard or standards that require end-of-line testing, the testing is to be performed by an accredited laboratory. This accredited laboratory requirement shall not take effect until two years after enactment of this Act. Therefore, I, along with my co-sponsors, urge the members of this body to support this bill and to provide the needed legislation which will allow several key industries in this country continuous operation in a safe and responsible manner.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to authorize special compensation for severely disabled military retirees who suffer under an existing law regarding ``concurrent receipt.'' As many of my colleagues know, current law requires military retirees who are rated as disabled to offset their military retired pay by the amount they receive in veterans' disability compensation. This requirement is discriminatory and wrong. Today, America's disabled military retirees--those individuals who dedicated their careers to military service, and who suffered disabling injuries in the course of that service--cannot receive concurrently their military retirement pay, which they have earned through at least 20 years of service in the Armed Forces, and their veterans' disability compensation, which they are owed due to pain and suffering incurred from military service. In other words, the law penalizes the very men and women who have sacrificed their physical or psychological well- being in uniformed service to their country. The legislation I am introducing today does not provide for full payment to eligible veterans of both the disability compensation and the retired pay they have earned. I regret that such a proposal, which I support in principle, would be far more expensive than many of my colleagues could accept. I learned that lesson the hard way in the course of sponsoring more ambitious concurrent receipt proposals in previous Congresses. My current legislation would instead authorize special compensation for the most severely disabled retired veterans--those who have served for at least 20 years, and who have disability ratings of between 70 and 100 percent. More specifically, it would authorize monthly payments of $300 for totally disabled retired veterans; $200 for retirees rated as 90 percent disabled; and $100 for retirees with disability ratings of 70-80 percent. These men and women suffer from disabilities that have kept them from pursuing second careers. If we cannot muster the votes to provide them with their disability pay and retired pay concurrently, the least we can do is authorize a modest special compensation package to demonstrate that we have not forgotten their sacrifices. At $42 million per year, this legislation comes nowhere near approaching the price tag of more expansive concurrent receipt proposals. Moreover, it involves only discretionary, not mandatory, spending. In short, it is affordable. And it is the right thing to do. But don't take my word for it. The Military Coalition, an organization of 30 prominent veterans' and retirees' advocacy groups, supports my legislation, as do many other veterans' service organizations, including the American Legion and Disabled American Veterans. These highly respected organizations recognize, as I do, that severely disabled military retirees deserve, at a minimum, special compensation for the honorable service they have rendered the United States. My interest in actively resolving the concurrent receipt issue dates to 1993, when I included a provision in the Fiscal Year 1994 Defense Authorization bill directing the Department of Defense (DoD) to submit a concurrent receipt legislative proposal to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. When that deadline was not met, I took the opportunity at a Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee hearing to ask the then-Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Manpower and Personnel Policy about the status of the concurrent receipt report. Although he replied that Congress would receive it in June 1993, the report arrived seven months late. Clearly, the concurrent receipt issue was not then a DoD priority, nor is it today. I also worked with the Armed Services Committee to include legislation in the FY 1994 Defense Authorization bill to exempt military retirees who are rated as 100 percent disabled from the requirement to offset their military pay by the amount they receive in veterans' disability pay. Although I had assumed that no one could deny a military retiree with 100 percent disability from receiving both his retirement and his disability pay, my legislation was never enacted into law. Undeterred, in 1994 I introduced legislation, which was included in the Senate version of the Defense Appropriations bill for FY 1995, directing the Secretary of Defense to authorize the concurrent payment of military retired pay and veterans' disability compensation. Although my amendment had 16 cosponsors and received bipartisan support in the Senate, it was regrettably reduced to just a study by the House of Representatives during conference negotiations on the bill. This amendment was heralded by more than 30 separate veterans' associations as a means of redressing the unjust offset of retirement pay with disability compensation. It provided for concurrent payment of retirement and disability compensation if the following criteria were met: (1) the veteran had completed 20 years of military service; (2) the disability was incurred or aggravated in the performance of duty in military service; and (3) the disability was rated as 100 percent at the time of retirement or within four years of the veteran's retirement date. I introduced these concurrent receipt amendments because the existing requirement that military retired pay be offset dollar-for-dollar by veterans' disability compensation is inequitable. I firmly believe that non-disability military retired pay is post-service compensation for services rendered in the United States military. Veterans' disability pay, on the other hand, is compensation for a physical or mental disability incurred from the performance of such service. In my view, the two pays are for very different purposes: one for service rendered and the other for physical or mental ``pain and suffering.'' This is an important distinction evident to any military retiree currently forced to offset his retirement pay with disability compensation. Concurrent receipt is, at its core, a fairness issue, and present law simply discriminates against career military people. Retired veterans are the only group of federal retirees who are required to waive their retirement pay in order to receive VA disability. This inequity needs to be corrected. In the 105th Congress, I was proud to have co-sponsored S. 657, a bill sponsored by Senator Daschle that would eliminate the offset on a graduated scale based on the inverse of the retiree's disability rating. For instance, a veteran who is 90 percent disabled would have to offset his retirement pay by an amount equal to 10 percent of his total VA disability. This compromise would establish the right of a disabled military retiree to receive at least a portion of his earned military retirement. Unfortunately, the full Congress did not act on this legislation before adjourning in October 1998. In the past, Congressional attempts to rectify discrimination against disabled career service members have been accompanied by staggering cost estimates, dooming to failure again and again proposed remedies to the concurrent receipt dilemma. The concurrent receipt legislation I supported in the 105th Congress reflected an attempt to ease the offset burden on retired disabled service members while avoiding significant deficit expansion. My current legislation in the 106th Congress is even more conscious of the costs associated with properly compensating disabled military retirees. Unfortunately, cost concerns must remain a consideration as we seek to promote a system of concurrent receipt that is both equitable and consistent with our balanced budget objective. While I would prefer to implement a system aimed first and foremost at severely disabled veterans, as my earlier legislation proposed, I believe S. 657 represented a step in the right direction and was worthy of Congress' support. Similarly, I believe the special compensation authorized by my current legislation makes progress by targeting the most severely disabled veterans, even if it does not revoke the discriminatory concurrent receipt restrictions that remain in place today. I continue to hope that the Pentagon, once it finally understands our message that it cannot continue to unfairly penalize disabled military retirees, will provide Congress with a fair and equitable plan to properly compensate retired service members with disabilities. It is hard to disagree with the simple logic that disabled veterans both need and deserve our full support after the untold sacrifices they made in defense of this country. I look forward to the day when our disabled retirees are no longer unduly penalized by existing limitations on concurrent receipt of the benefits they deserve. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.