John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Children's Internet Protection Act, which is designed to protect children from exposure to sexually explicit and other harmful material when they access the Internet in school and in the library. This legislation is substantially similar to the Internet School Filtering Act, which I introduced in the last session of Congress. This legislation, like its predecessor, comes to grips with one of the more unfortunate aspects of modern life: that the problems modern life don't stop at the schoolhouse door. Societal problems like violence and drugs have become part of the curriculum of life at many schools. Now, however, we are adding another problem to the list. And this particular wolf of a problem will walk into our schools disguised in the worthiest of sheeps' clothing: the Internet. Today, pornography is widely available on the Internet. According to ``Wired'' magazine, today there are approximately 28,000 adult Web sites promoting hard and soft-core pornography. Together, these sites register many millions of ``hits'' by websurfers per day. Mr. President, there is no question that some of the websurfers who are accessing these sites are children. Some, unfortunately, are actively searching for these sites. But many others literally and unintentionally stumble across them. Anyone who uses seemingly innocuous terms while searching the World Wide Web for educational or harmless recreational purposes can inadvertently run into adult sites. For example, when the term ``H20'' was typed recently into a search engine, one of the first of over 36,000 sites retrieved led to another site titled ``www.hardcoresex.com.'' This site provided the typical warning to those under 18 not to enter--and then proceeded to offer a free, uncensored preview of the pornographic material on the site. And when the searcher attempted to escape from the site, new porn-oriented sites immediately opened. Parents wishing to protect their children from exposure to this kind of material can monitor their children's Internet use at home. This is a parent's proper role, and no amount of governmental assistance or industry self-regulation will ever be as effective in protecting children as parental supervision. But parents can't supervise how their children use the Internet outside the home, in schools and libraries. Mr. President, the billions of dollars per year the federal government will be giving schools and libraries to enable them to bring advanced Internet learning technology to the classroom will bring in the Internet's explicit online content as well. These billions of dollars will ultimately be paid for by the American people. So it is only right that if schools and libraries accept these federally- provided subsidies for Internet access, they have an absolute responsibility to their communities to assure that children are protected from online content that can harm them. And this harm can be prevented. The prevention lies, not in censoring what goes onto the Internet, but rather in filtering what comes out of it onto the computers our children use outside the home. Mr. President, Internet filtering system work, and they need not be blunt instruments that unduly constrain the availability of legitimately instructional material. Today they are adaptable, capable of being fine-tuned to accommodate changes in websites as well as the evolving needs of individual schools and even individual lesson-plans. Best of all, their use will channel explicit material away from children while they are not under parental supervision, while not in any way inhibiting the rights of adults who may wish to post indecent material on the Web or have access to it outside school environs. Mr. President, it boils down to this: The same Internet that can benefit our children is also capable of inflicting terrible damage on them. For this reason, school and library administers who accept universal service support to provide students with its intended benefits must also safeguard them against its unintended harm. I commend the efforts of those who have recognized this responsibility by providing filtering systems in the many educational facilities that have already have Internet capability. This legislation assures that this responsibility is extended to all other institutions as they implement advanced technologies funded by federally-mandated universal service funds. Mr. President, this bill takes a sensible approach. It requires schools receiving universal service discounts to use a filtering system on their computers so that objectionable online materials will not be accessible to students. Libraries with more than one computer are required to use a filtering system on at least one computer used by minors. Filtering technology is itself eligible to be subsidized by the E-rate discount. Schools and libraries must install and use filtering or blocking technology to be eligible to receive universal service fund subsidies for Internet access. If schools and libraries do not do so, they will not be eligible to receive universal service fund-subsidized discounts and will have to refund any E-rate subsidy funds already paid out. Some have argued that the use of filtering technology in public schools and libraries would amount to censorship under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has found, however, that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. And insofar as other sexually- explicit material is concerned, the bill will not affect an adult's ability to access this information on the Internet, and it will in no way impose any filtering requirement on Internet use in the home. Perhaps most important, the bill prohibits the federal government from prescribing any particular filtering system, or from imposing a different filtering system than the one selected by the certifying educational authority. It thus places the prerogative for determining which filtering system best reflects the community's standards precisely where it should be: on the community itself. Mr. President, more and more people are using the Internet each day. Currently, there may be as many as 50 million Americans online, and that number is expected to at least double by the millennium. As Internet use in our schools and libraries continues to grow, children's potential exposure to harmful online content will only increase. This bill simply assures that universal service subsidies will be used to defend them from the very dangers that these same subsidies are otherwise going to increase. This is a rational response to what could otherwise be a terrible and unintended problem. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill appear in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today to limit and prevent needless and costly litigation which is arising as a result of the computer programming problem commonly known as Y2K. Even before December 31 arrives lawsuits are beginning to be filed. This is an unfortunate reflection on our overly litigious society, and a situation which needs to be remedied. The Y2K Act takes a step toward encouraging technology producers to work with technology users and consumers to ensure a seamless transition for the 1990's to the year 2000. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that we look to solving the technology glitch known as Y2K rather than clog our courts with years of costly litigation. The legislation is designed to compensate actual losses, but to assure that the courts do not punish defendants who have made good faith efforts to remedy the technology failure. My goal is to provide incentives for fixing the potential Y2K failures before they happen, rather than create windfalls for those who litigate. The bill would also encourage efficient resolution of failures by requiring plaintiffs to afford their potential defendants an opportunity to remedy the failure and make things right before facing a lawsuit. We should encourage people to talk to each other, to try to address and remedy problems in a timely and professional manner. Physical injuries are not covered by the limitations on litigation and damages in this bill. In those instances where a computer date failure is responsible for personal physical injury, it is best to leave the remedy to existing state laws. Further, it would be imprudent policy to offer any ``safe harbor'' in such situations because to do so might have the undesired result of discouraging proactive remediation. This bill is a starting point. It provides an opportunity to begin discussion. It is my intention to hold a hearing in the near future, and to bring this bill to mark-up as quickly as full discussion will permit. I know many of my colleagues are interested in addressing this issue as well, and I look forward to working with them, and with affected industries and consumers to arrive at an acceptable piece of legislation which will benefit industry and consumers alike.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to repeal the three percent federal excise tax that all Americans pay every time they use a telephone. Under current law, the federal government taxes you three percent of your monthly phone bill for the so-called ``privilege'' of using your phone lines. This tax was first imposed one hundred years ago. To help finance the Spanish-American War, the federal government taxed telephone service, which in 1898 was a luxury service enjoyed by relatively few. The tax reappeared as a means of raising revenue for World War I, and continued as a revenue-raiser during the Great Depression, World War II, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and the chronic federal budget deficits of the last twenty years. Fortunately for telephone subscribers, we are enjoying some long- overdue good news: thanks to the Balanced Budget Act enacted by the Congress in 1997, we are now expecting budget surpluses for the next decade, perhaps as much as $700 billion. Mr. President, just as it did in the 105th Congress, that announcement should mean the end of the federal phone excise tax. Here's why. First of all, the telephone is a modern-day necessity, not like alcohol, or furs, or jewelry, or other items of the sort that the government taxes this way. The Congress specifically recognized the need for all Americans to have affordable telephone service when it enacted the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The universal service provisions of the Act are intended to assure that all Americans, regardless of where they live or how much money they make, have access to affordable telephone service. The telephone excise tax, which bears no relationship to any government service received by the consumer, is flatly inconsistent with the goal of universal telephone service. It's also a highly regressive and unfair tax that hurts low-income and rural Americans even more than other Americans. Low-income families spend a higher percentage of their income than medium- or high-income families on telephone service, and that means the telephone tax hits low-income families much harder. For that reason the Congressional Budget Office has concluded that increases in the telephone tax would have a greater impact on low-income families than tax increases on alcohol or tobacco products. And a study by the American Agriculture Movement concluded that excise taxes like the telephone tax impose a disproportionately large tax burden on rural customers, too, who rely on telephone service in isolated areas. But, in addition to being unfair and unnecessary, there is another reason why we should eliminate the telephone excise tax. Implementation of the Telecom Act of 1996 requires all telecommunications carriers-- local, long-distance, and wireless--to incur new costs in order to produce a new, more competitive market for telecommunications services of all kinds. Unfortunately, the cost increases are arriving far more quickly than the new, more competitive market. The Telecom Act created a new subsidy program for wiring schools and libraries to the Internet, and the cost of funding that subsidy has increased bills for business and residential users of long-distance telephone service and for consumers of wireless services. Mr. President, the fact that the Telecom Act has imposed new charges on consumers' bills makes it absolutely incumbent upon us to strip away any unnecessary old charges. And that means the telephone excise tax. Mr. President, the telephone excise tax isn't a harmless artifact from bygone days. It collects money for wars that are already over, and for budget deficits that no longer exist, from people who can least afford to spend it now and from people who are footing higher bills as a result of the 1996 Telecom Act implementation. That's unfair, that's wrong, and that must be stopped. San Juan Hill and Pork Chop Hill have now gone down in history, and so should this tax. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with a sense of disappointment and frustration that Congress is adjourning without reauthorizing the Older Americans Act. Our senior citizens deserve better. In January, our Nation will enter the fourth year without an authorization for Older American programs which provide a multitude of support services for our Nation's elderly including: community-based long-term care, transportation, legal services, adult day care, ``Meals on Wheels'' and senior citizens centers. For our Nation's Indian tribes, it is the cornerstone of programs for their elderly and is the only federal legislation that allows them to directly plan for the needs of their elderly based on their culture and traditions. My personal concern about the lack of authorization for the OAA programs was heightened while traveling around my home state of Arizona. I continually hear from seniors concerned that the OAA programs are at serious risk because of Congress' failure to reauthorize them. They are particularly disturbed that funding for the programs has not been keeping up with inflation, thereby jeopardizing important programs for the most vulnerable elderly. I recognize the commitment of the Senate Subcommittee on Aging to produce a reauthorization bill, but I became concerned when the committee did not produce an OAA bill by July. It became clear to me that the limited time left in Congress' schedule would prevent the committee from completing their work and moving a bill through the full legislative process. This is why, on July 13, I introduced S. 2295, the Reauthorization of the Older Americans Act. I simply could not allow another year to go by without reaffirming Congress' support and commitment to older Americans. This bill would reauthorize the OAA using the same language from the 1992 reauthorization which expired in 1995. The bill would extend the OAA until 2001, giving the Subcommittee on Aging and Congress sufficient time to thoroughly evaluate these programs and reconcile differences on the reforms needed if we are to ensure the relevance of the OAA, continue to meet our obligations to our current seniors, and be more adequately prepared to meet the needs of future seniors. Sixty-seven of my colleagues agree that Congress should reauthorize the OAA this year and alleviate the fears of our Nation's senior citizens who believe that these programs are in jeopardy. It is disheartening that a bill with such broad bipartisan support was prevented from being implemented due to the objections of a small minority. I am confident that their concerns could have been addressed even as we moved forward on a short-term extension. I remain committed to resolving this issue next year and will work with Senators Gregg and Mikulski to develop a bill that strengthens and more effectively defines the OAA programs for our Nation's elderly. It is imperative that we continue our efforts on behalf of older Americans and pass a bill which recognizes their unique needs and addressed those needs by reauthorizing the programs of the Older Americans Act.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, unless less than 48 hours ago, only a few in this body had actually seen this nearly 4,000-page, 40-pound, non- amendable, budget-busting legislation that provides over half-a- trillion dollars to fund 10 Cabinet-level federal departments for the fiscal year that started 21 days ago. The bill exceeds the budget ceiling by $20 billion for what is euphemistically called emergency spending, much of which is really everyday, garden-variety, pork-barrel appropriations. The bill is loaded with locality-specific, special interest, pork-barrel spending projects, which are paid for by robbing billions from the budget surplus. I cannot in good conscience support a bill that makes a mockery of the Congress' role in fiscal matters. This bill is a betrayal of our responsibility to spend the taxpayers' dollars wisely and enact laws and policies that reflect the best interests of all Americans, rather than the special interests of a few. Most offensive and disturbing to me is the misallocation of more than $9 billion in so-called emergency defense funding in the bill. The decision to spend only slightly more than $1 billion on military readiness, when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and each of the Service Chiefs testified just last month about an impending readiness crisis, is a fundamental abandonment of the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces. I recently released a comprehensive report on the state of military readiness that includes a lengthy compilation of material provided by the Chiefs detailing the myriad of problems the Armed Forces are facing as a result of inadequate resources to support the missions their civilian leaders have assigned them. In these documents and in their testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee just last month, the Chiefs were unambiguous in pressing for additional funding to address several serious concerns. Restoring military retirement benefits was the Chiefs' principal concern, and I and others introduced legislation to do so. The Chiefs cited the need to increase military pay for the 25,000 military families on food stamps. They asked for money to provide incentives to attract and retain qualified people in military service. They talked about the dire need for more training and maintenance funds. Mr. President, the Chiefs are the highest ranking military officers in our nation. Their sole mission is to ensure that our Armed Forces can fight and win any future conflict. They are the ones whom we should heed when we are told how to avert a crisis in military readiness. So what did the Congress decide to do to address the Chiefs' concerns? We put over $9 billion in so-called emergency defense funding in this bill. But we allocated only $1.1 billion to the Chiefs' priorities, and spent the other $8 billion on other programs that, while important, will not reverse the declining readiness trend in our military. We did nothing to address the Chiefs' number-one concern--restoring military retirement benefits for 20-year veterans to a full 50 percent of their highest three salary years. General Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Congress very clearly that fixing the military retirement system is his top recommendation for restoring the readiness of our armed forces: The most critical element of both current and future readiness is the men and women we are privileged to have serving in uniform today. Our people are more important than hardware. I concur whole-heartedly with the Chairman's remarks. Army Chief of Staff General Reimer has written to me that: . . . the retirement package we have offered our soldiers entering the Army since 1986 is inadequate. Having lost 25 percent of its lifetime value as a result of the 1980's reforms, military retirement is no longer our number one retention tool. Our soldiers and families deserve better. We need to send them a strong signal that we haven't forgotten them. Mr. President, we did nothing to address this clearly stated, number- one concern. Instead, we bought three Gulfstream executive passenger jets, bought helicopters for the Colombian anti-drug effort, and padded the budget to pay for burying utilities at Keesler Air Force Base. We gave another $210 million of defense money to the Coast Guard to pay for its drug interdiction mission. We did give the Services $200 million for military health care, but that's less than a quarter of what's needed to ensure military personnel and their families receive the care they need. And we took care of other legitimate emergency costs, like ongoing operations in Bosnia and embassy security. But on the whole, the Congress ignored the clear warnings of our highest ranking military leaders and, once again, let their parochial priorities take precedence. Obviously, the waste in this bill does not stop with defense spending. Here is just a sampling of the egregious pork-barrel spending in this bill: $250,000 to an Illinois firm to research caffeinated chewing gum; $750,000 for grasshopper research in Alaska; $1 million for peanut quality research in Georgia; $1.1 million for manure handling and disposal in Starkville, Mississippi; $5 million for a new International Law Enforcement Academy in Roswell, New Mexico; $1 million for Kings College in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, for commercialization of pulverization technologies; $250,000 for Hawaii Volcanoes Observatory; $1.2 million for a C&O Canal visitors center in Cumberland, Maryland; $250,000 for a lettuce geneticist in Salinas, California; $500,000 for the U.S. Plant Stress and Water Conservation Lab in Lubbock, Texas; $162,000 for research on peach tree short life in South Carolina; $200,000 for research on turkey carnovirus in Indiana; $64,000 for urban pest research in Georgia; $100,000 for vidalia onion research in Georgia; An additional $2.5 million for the Office of Cosmetics and Color; and $200,000 for a grant to the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission. And there is much more wasteful spending in this 4,000-page document. I have here 52 pages of items that I have found in this bill that meet one or more of the criteria that I and others, such as Citizens Against Government Waste, the National Taxpayers Union, and other well-known pork-watchers have used for many years. I have no idea yet of the total amount of pork on this list, but I am sure it is in the billions of dollars. Some of these earmarked projects may well prove meritorious and deserving of the priority given them in this bill. The problem is that none of these provisions went through the appropriate merit-based selection process, which is necessary to determine whether they are more or less a priority than thousands of other projects that are not funded in this bill. In addition, some of these provisions were never included in either the House or Senate version of any regular appropriations bill. They were simply added, behind closed doors, to this massive, nonamendable omnibus bill. Mr. President, we are wasting the people's money when we fund these dubious proposals. We undermine the faith of our constituents--the taxpayers--when we continue the practice of earmarking and inappropriately designating funding for projects based on political interests rather than national priority and necessity. Unfortunately, that has occurred here. This bill is a shameful example of why the American public has become cynical and skeptical of government. We seem to have forgotten that all these programs, whether meritorious or not, must be paid for. Designating spending as an ``emergency'' doesn't make it free; it still has to be paid for. And the Congress, blessed with the first budget surplus since 1969, has been unable to resist the temptation to dip into that $70 billion surplus and spend it on pork. The President declares we must save Social Security first. Members of Congress declare we must save Social Security first. Yet, we spend billions from the surplus on everything but Social Security. We don't save Social Security. We don't pay down the debt. We don't return to taxpayers a little of their hard-earned money. But we can spend a little more on pork. I guess we can never have too much of that, Mr. President, surplus or no surplus. Mr. President, we have lost track of our priorities. I am disheartened that Congress found the time and money to finance any number of pet projects, yet we failed to address the needs of over 7,000 children and families whose lives have been devastated by hemophilia-related AIDS, in part because of the government's failure to implement the appropriate safety precautions for the nation's blood supply in the 1980's. This is simply shameful. Mr. President, we are supposed to follow a process in Congress for considering important legislation--a process that relies on openness, fairness, and public input. If we had adhered to that process in crafting this bill, many of these egregious provisions might have been eliminated and our priorities might have been compatible with the public's priorities. The process by which this bill was created is deplorable. Negotiations were conducted behind closed doors, out of sight of the public as well as the vast majority of Members of Congress. Decisions were made, and then reversed without notice. A case in point, Mr. President, is a provision to clarify the status of auctioned spectrum licenses if the purchaser declares bankruptcy. At 5:00 p.m. on Monday, just a few hours before the Omnibus Appropriations bill was filed in the House, I was told that this provision was included in the legislation. Yesterday morning, it had been dropped from the bill. In addition, only after the bill was filed did I learn that several provisions which are clearly within the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee, which I chair, were included in the bill. I know other authorizing chairmen share my frustration at never having been consulted or even advised about these matters. Let me point to one example of an appropriation exceeding the amount authorized for a program. The Senate authorized $192 million for the Advanced Technology Program of the Commerce Department; the House approved $180 million. Yet this bill appropriates $203.5 million for the program. What is the purpose of authorizing funding levels, when the appropriators simply ignore it and alone decide how much money to appropriate? Mr. President, I learned yesterday that the bill does not include a cost cap on the international space station, as I had earlier been assured--a cost cap that was included in the NASA reauthorization bill that was reported from the Commerce Committee and passed by the Senate. And I learned that the bill includes a provision for a $20 million, taxpayer-funded buyback of three boats to limit domestic competition in the fishing trade off Alaska--legislation that the Commerce Committee had not yet sent to the Senate. Mr. President, speaking about the authorizing legislation in this bill, one of the greatest failures of the omnibus bill is its rejection of comprehensive legislation to improve aviation competition, safety, and security. Critical aviation programs were due to be reauthorized this year, and the Commerce Committee duly reported the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization bill to the Senate. It passed the Senate last month, on an overwhelming vote of 92 to 1. In this bill, we had an opportunity to stimulate much-needed competition in the aviation industry and enact a host of other critical improvements in aviation policy. Frankly, because of the influence of the major airlines and other secondary interests, the legislation was blocked. But what we did see fit to do is place a hold on activities of the Department of Transportation to address anti-competitive behavior in the airline industry. Major airlines won; competition and consumers lost. Mr. President, I am very disappointed to report that the major airlines have succeeded in dealing yet another setback to the nation's consumers. As many of my colleagues are aware, the major airlines were able to scuttle the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill that passed the Senate last month by a vote of 92 to one. Some of the biggest players in the industry fought against it because the bill contained numerous provisions that would have enhanced airline competition, promoted new entry, and benefitted consumers. That is why the reauthorization bill was reduced to a mere six-month extension of the airport grant program. To add insult to injury, the major carriers have now succeeded in hampering efforts by the Department of Transportation (DOT) to curtail illegal competitive behavior industry. Regrettably, the omnibus appropriations bill includes provisions that would needlessly delay the issuance of pro-consumer airline competition guidelines that have been proposed by the DOT. Once again, the major airlines have gotten their way in Congress when it comes to protecting their turf. Not satisfied with maintaining the status quo, these carriers have forced us to take a step backwards. Last April, the DOT took the commendable step of proposing guidelines to curb unfair and anti-competitive pricing behavior in the airline industry. It didn't take long, however, for the major airlines to begin attacking the DOT for having the audacity to address this issue. The DOT has already been taking its time reviewing public comments on its proposed guidelines, which I admit may be in need of improvement. The added delay provided in the omnibus budget bill only serves to aggravate the existing situation. The airlines readily admit that this extended delay gives them more time to kill the competition guidelines outright. That has been the airlines' goal from the start. Shortly after the DOT proposed its guidelines, the Aviation Subcommittee held a hearing on airline competition, and the main focus was these guidelines. The DOT presented very compelling evidence that there have been instances of predatory behavior. But the major airlines merely shrug when confronted with very specific examples of a major carrier's driving a new entrant out of a market by irrationally cutting prices and increasing capacity. Even though such conduct makes sense only if predatory behavior is the standard, the major airlines insist that they only respond in normal ways to new entrants. Clearly, the DOT's effort to address this sort of behavior was too much for the major carriers to accept. They were able to exert enough influence on the budget negotiation process to put the competition guidelines on hold. The carriers were successful, despite that fact that no such provision passed either Chamber of Congress. With respect to airline competition policy, as well as many other matters in the omnibus bill, this situation represents the triumph of special interests over the public interest. The losers here are not just the new airlines, but the consumers. Despite this setback, I want to assure everyone that I will continue my fight for full and fair airline competition. Whether because of predatory behavior, or artificial barriers to entry such as slots and perimeter rules, the traveling public has yet to realize fully the benefits of deregulation. Fortunately, Congress will have an opportunity to take action again soon when the authorization for the Airport Improvement Program expires at the end of next March. Mr. President, we must not let the major airlines dictate the terms of competition in their own industry. I am determined to see Congress do better by consumers next time. Mr. President, I am also deeply disturbed that the House leadership has killed aviation competition legislation this session of Congress. Congress' record shows that it has done nothing to ensure a vibrant, competitive airline industry. Instead, the negotiators eliminated competition provisions such as new slot exemptions at capacity controlled airports, as well as efforts to loosen the perimeter rule at Reagan National Airport. Legislation to manage the environmental effects of flights over national parks also fell by the wayside because of this approach. Obviously the agenda of some is only to protect the big airlines against competition. Let's be clear, the big airlines have won. Consumers lost. That is a record about which nobody should be proud. Most of my Senate colleagues know that the Commerce Committee worked hard this year to develop a bill to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration and the programs it oversees. Following a bipartisan, inclusive, and constructive process, we developed a package that among other things would authorize important airport construction grants. The legislation would institute a host of safety and security enhancements. It would provide the necessary spending to add more air traffic controllers in a congested system, and to make sure that the critical air traffic control systems are equipped to deal with the year 2000 problem. And, the bill would have established a widely-endorsed system for managing the environmental consequences of commercial air tour flights over national parks. One of the key elements of the Senate FAA bill was the aviation competition title. It would have modestly enhanced the capacity at the four slot-controlled airports in the country--LaGuardia and JFK in New York, Chicago O'Hare, and Reagan National. The new entrant, low fare carriers have been effectively shut out of these key markets, which are critical to sustaining a healthy network and giving consumers new low cost choices. Service to underserved markets in the country would have greatly benefited under the Senate bill. Rural America has suffered the most from the effects of hub dominance and the lack of airline competition. My colleagues from the Dakotas can tell you firsthand about the crippling effects of the recent Northwest Airline strike, for instance. Northwest dominates their region. When it shut down, they were literally cut off from the rest of the country. This is unconscionable. There are other, clear ``pockets of pain,'' according to the Department of Transportation and the General Accounting Office. These include communities in the Appalachian Region, such as Knoxville, Tennessee; communities in the southeast, such as Jackson, Mississippi; Des Moines, Iowa, in the midwest; Rochester, Syracuse and Albany in upstate New York. The citizens of these communities will continue to suffer from having to pay exorbitant air fares without any real kind of relief that could have been provided with the FAA bill's promotion of additional airline competition on existing routes, and additional access for these underserved communities in key business markets such as Washington and New York. There are two reasons why the FAA reauthorization bill failed in the 105th Congress, along with its provisions to enhance competition in the domestic airline industry. The first reason is the utter intransigence on the part of the major airlines, and the unmitigated gall that they exhibit in defending the anti-competitive status quo. Their motives are dictated solely by increasing their profits with no concern for the free market. It's about blatant anti-competitiveness. At the same time that they herald industry consolidation and hoard capacity at their hubs, they continue to thwart efforts to respond to these changing dynamics in the industry. Parochial interests on the part of members of Congress constitute the second reason that this bill failed. Specifically, House lawmakers from Illinois and Virginia have taken down the entire FAA bill because of a few noise complaints from their districts. We have done everything possible to accommodate their constituents' noise concerns. We have minimized the impact of new flights by spreading them out so that there are only one or two new flights per hour. We have increased their noise mitigation funding. Further, the FAA continues to enforce Congressional aircraft noise requirements that have brought noise levels down in their neighborhoods significantly over the last decade. Notwithstanding, these Members refused even to come to the table to acknowledge legitimate interests. Let us not forget, the FAA bill was approved freestanding by the Senate on a vote of 92 to one. However, the House refused to even conference with the Senate on the bill. This is not an insignificant issue. As I noted earlier, just ask the people of North and South Dakota who were effectively paralyzed because of one airline. Competition is the principle upon which our free market economy is based. It is a complete, utter and wholesale abrogation of our responsibilities, not only to kill pro- competition and pro-consumer provisions of the FAA bill, but to stop any addressing of the issue by the proper authorities. The omnibus appropriations bill blocks pro-consumer airline competition guidelines, which were recently proposed by the Department of Transportation. During these six months we will seize the momentum we developed this year to enact aviation competition legislation. We will also be examining additional pro-competition issues. It is too important to our country, to consumers and to the principles of our free market economy to look the other way. Mr. President, as we work over the next six months to finish the job of reauthorizing federal aviation programs, I intend to use all means at my disposal to rectify this situation. Mr. President, even today, there is confusion about what is in the bill and what is not, because the only copy that was available Tuesday to all Republican Senators was scattered in pieces around the Republican Cloakroom. There are no copies of this bill available to the public and only a few copies available in the Capitol. Most of what the public knows about this bill comes from media reports and the rumor mill. Members of Congress are only slightly better informed about the details of this bill, and we have had no opportunity to carefully review it. And even if a Senator discovers that there is something in this bill that is highly objectionable to him, he cannot amend the bill. He can only vote for or against the entire package. It is all or nothing--take it or leave it. We are all held hostage to a process that protects pork-barrel spending at the expense of good policy. Well, I, for one, will leave it. That is why I voted against the wanton fiscal irresponsibility this legislation represents. Mr. President, we cannot continue to do business this way. We have an established process and we should follow it. I intend to work with like-minded Senators to develop needed reforms in that process to ensure that the Congress cannot so easily sidestep the checks and balances that are so clearly necessary to control wasteful spending and ensure responsible legislating, and that were intended by the Constitution. Mr. President, I do want to take a moment to talk about some of the programs and provisions in this bill that are meritorious and which, in other circumstances, would have received my full support and my vote. For example, the bill blocks the use of taxpayer-funded needle exchange programs for drug addicts, institutes new reforms to ensure accountability and market-based response measures within the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and extends important tax provisions, such as the work opportunity and research and development tax credit. Also, the bill contains $18 billion to replenish the International Monetary Funds depleted resources, which is critical to restoring confidence and economic stability in the global economy. This bill funds many important programs directly benefitting American families and providing critical assistance to our children, including Child Care Block grants and Head Start. It increases funding for the Department of Education to almost $33 billion, including $8 billion for disadvantaged children and over $5 billion for children with special needs, but not at the expense of local control. The bill sends $1.1 billion directly to local classrooms ensuring schools have the flexibility to determine how to meet the unique educational needs of their students instead of Washington bureaucrats, and it prohibits federally funded national tests, leaving that decision to state and local authorities. I am also pleased to see inclusion of the Internet Tax Freedom bill, introduced as S. 442, in the omnibus appropriations bill. This limited moratorium reflects the need for careful thought and analysis of the implications for taxing electronic commerce, and the proper roles for local, state and federal government in taxing the Internet. Present federal law neither authorizes, imposes, nor ratifies any excise, sales, or domain name registration tax on Internet use for electronic interstate commerce, and only one fee for the Intellectual Infrastructure Fund. I am confident that this moratorium will allow Congress to move forward in developing a national strategy for advancing electronic commerce and appropriate taxation of the Internet. I am pleased to see that the provisions concerning Amtrak generally maintain the integrity of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act and continue the mandate for Amtrak to operate free of taxpayer subsidies by 2002. The bill also provides funding, though limited, directly to the Amtrak Reform Council instead of channeling such funds through the Secretary of Transportation. These are good decisions, ones which I support. Also contained in this omnibus bill is legislation to increase the number of H-1B visas for skilled foreign professionals who wish to work temporarily in the United States in jobs unfilled by American workers. I cosponsored the original Senate legislation to raise the existing cap on H-1B visas. The provisions in this bill will allow dynamic American companies and research labs to hire more skilled foreign professionals. At the same time, we have incorporated safeguards to protect American workers and provide substantial funding to educate and train Americans to fill the lucrative high-tech jobs that are available across our country. American companies, American workers, and the American consumer will all benefit as a result. The provisions I have just mentioned, and many others, are good for the American people. In fact, if these and many of the other policies and programs contained in the Omnibus Appropriations bill had been proposed and considered in the established process, I would have voted for them. Unfortunately, because the Congress has abandoned the normal process of legislating, my vote against this Omnibus Appropriations bill may also be construed, albeit wrongly, as a vote against these meritorious provisions. My vote against this precedent-setting legislation should be recognized for what it was--a vote against wasting taxpayer dollars and failing to ensure the readiness of our Armed Forces. Responsible spending is the cornerstone of good governance. I look forward to the day when we can go before the American people with a budget that is both fiscally responsible and ends the practice of earmarking funds in the appropriations process. Mr. President, those of my colleagues who support this legislation will say of us who oppose it that we are not practical politicians, that we ask for the impossible--legislation that is free of compromise, that we would let the perfect be the enemy of the good. That is a false charge, and it fails utterly as a defense of a legislative process that everyone agrees is terribly, terribly flawed. We do not ask that a Republican majority produce legislation that reflects in every detail our priorities and dismisses completely the views of the President and the minority. We ask only that, on balance, any legislation--and surely legislation of this magnitude--reflect the principles upon which our majority was elected. We ask only that the Congress complete its work when it is supposed to complete it work, and in a manner that ensures fairness, openness, and inclusions. We ask only that we adhere to a little truth in advertising. When we say we are going to save Social Security first, we ask only that we make some attempt to do so. When we call something an emergency, we should be able to say it with a straight face. When we promise to restore the resources necessary to provide for the common defense, we must pay just a little attention to the concerns of the military. When we promise to return to the people some percentage of the money they have sent to Washington, we ask only that we rank that pledge somewhat higher on our list of priorities than the usual cornucopia of parochial spending. Those who voted against the omnibus appropriations bill would not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We simply oppose letting back- room negotiations, business as usual, and pork-barrel politics be the enemy of principle. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Montana. I do concur with the statements just delivered concerning the interpretation of Section 5 in S. 2375.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from Pennsylvania. The Senator is correct that this is an issue of personal importance to me, and I appreciate his support as we work to defeat this terrible disease. I would also like to acknowledge the tremendous efforts of the Parkinson's community--courageous individuals in my state and all across the country who have worked so hard to pass the Udall Act and continue to work to achieve its full funding. There are an estimated one million Americans living with Parkinson's disease, and the nature of its symptoms are such that they impact heavily on families and loved ones as well. Add to these staggering human costs the fiscal burden of health care expenses and lost productivity, and it's easy to see that Parkinson's deserves to be a higher national priority. Parkinson's disease also represents a real research opportunity, where an investment of funds is likely to yield improved therapies sure to reduce both the personal and financial costs to our families and our nation. To realize this opportunity, though, it is up to Congress and the NIH to ensure that these funds get allocated to research focused on Parkinson's. Chairman Specter and others in this body have worked hard to ensure that NIH has the overall funding it needs to aggressively pursue research opportunities like those relating to Parkinson's. I have received a letter dated May 21, 1998 from NIH Director, Dr. Harold Varmus, which includes a chart indicating that the NIH will spend over $106 million on Parkinson's research in fiscal year 1999. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the NIH to see that this funding goes for research principally focused on the cause, pathogenesis, and/or potential therapies or treatments for Parkinson's disease as mandated by the Udall Act.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I also recognize the Senator's concerns and I will work with the Senator from Michigan to find a solution that eliminates an unfair competitive disadvantage when the Commerce Committee considers the legislation as early as possible next year. This is a complex issue and I am sure that the Senator from Michigan would agree that fairness to all parties involved must be taken into account in addressing it. I would also like to address the broader issue of what type of dredging should be conducted on the Great Lakes so there is clarification on this issue in the future.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act. The House recently passed an amended version of the Senate Coast Guard bill. While I support the overall reauthorization of the Coast Guard, I want to comment on several provisions contained in the House passed bill. There is currently an administrative process in place to convey excess Federal government property. I believe that legislation which mandates the transfer or disposal of Federal property under terms which circumvent the established administrative procedures is inappropriate. Consequently, the Senate bill used discretionary language to address certain conveyances requested by individual senators. However, the House bill includes mandatory legislative conveyances. In this case only, I am accepting the mandatory language because I am satisfied that the Coast Guard is willing and prepared to make each of these particular conveyances. Another important difference between the House and Senate passed bills relates to drug interdiction. I sponsored an amendment in the Senate bill which would have established criminal sanctions for the knowing failure to obey an order to land an airplane. As a former pilot, let me clearly state that this provision was not designed to put any pilot at risk of an arbitrary or random forced landing. Arbitrary or random forced landings are impermissible under the Senate provision. As with all aviation legislation in which I have been involved, safety is a top priority. Under current law, if a Federal law enforcement officer who is enforcing drug smuggling or money laundering laws witnesses a person loading tons of cocaine onto a plane in Mexico, sees the plane take off and enter the United States, he may issue an order to land, and if the pilot knowingly disobeys that order, there is currently no criminal penalty associated with such a failure to obey the order. The criminal sanctions contained in the Senate bill would only be applied to a person who knowingly disobeyed an order to land issued by a Federal law enforcement agent who is enforcing drug smuggling or money laundering laws. The bill would also require the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to write regulations defining the means by and circumstances under which it would be appropriate to order an aircraft to land. One of the FAA's essential missions is aviation safety. Accordingly, the FAA would be required to ensure that any such order is clearly communicated in accordance with international standards. Moreover, the FAA would be further required to specify when an order to land may be issued based on observed conduct, prior information, or other circumstances. Therefore, orders to land would have to be justifiable, not arbitrary or random. Orders to land would only be issued in cases where the authorized federal law enforcement agent has observed conduct or possesses reliable information which provides sufficient evidence of a violation of Federal drug smuggling or money laundering laws. If enacted, I would take every step possible to ensure that this provision does not diminish safety in any way. Last year, 430 metric tons of cocaine entered the United States from Mexico. In 1995, drugs cost taxpayers an estimated $109 billion. The average convicted drug smuggler was sentenced to only 4.3 years in jail, and is expected to serve less than half of that sentence. It is incumbent on all of us to fight the war on drugs with every responsible and safe measure at our disposal. The provision in the Senate bill would help those men and women who fight the war on drugs at our borders by providing an additional penalty for those who knowingly disobey the law. A provision included in both the House and Senate bill relates to the International Safety Management Code (ISM Code). On July 1, 1998, the owners and operators of passenger vessels, tankers and bulk carriers were required to have in place safety management systems which meet the requirements of the ISM Code. On July 1, 2002, all other large cargo ships and self-propelled mobile offshore drilling units will have to comply. Companies and vessels not ISM Code-certified are not permitted to enter U.S. waters. Shipowners required to comply with the ISM Code have raised concerns that the ISM Code may be misused. The ISM Code requires a system of internal audits and reporting systems which are intended to encourage compliance with applicable environmental and vessel safety standards. However, the documents produced as a result of the ISM Code would also provide indications of past non-conformities. Obviously, for this information to be useful in rectifying environmental and safety concerns, it must be candid and complete. However, this information, prepared by shipowners or operators, may be used in enforcement actions against a shipowner or operator, crews and shoreside personnel by governmental agencies and may be subject to discovery in civil litigation. The provision in both the Senate and House bills would require the Secretary to conduct a study to examine the operation of the ISM Code, taking into account the effectiveness of internal audits and reports. After completion of the study, the Secretary is required to develop a policy to achieve full compliance with and effective implementation of the ISM Code. Under the provision, the public shall be given the opportunity to participate in and comment on the study. In addition, it may be appropriate for the Secretary to form a working group of affected private parties to assist in the development of the study and the issuance of the required policy and any resulting legislative recommendations. Any private citizen who is a member of any such working group cannot receive any form of government funds, reimbursement or travel expenses for participation in, or while a member of, the working group. The bill also includes a provision that would fix a curious conflict in maritime statutes that currently prohibits U.S. and foreign commercial vessel operators from agreeing among themselves to comply with the Maritime Administration's cargo preference policies concerning vessel sharing agreements, but allows the Maritime Administration to impose those policies on the agreements themselves. The vessel sharing agreement provision in the bill would allow the commercial vessel operators to voluntarily comply with that policy. This provision is consistent with a recent U.S. appeals court decision on this issue and simply preserves the status quo. The proper place to resolve concerns with cargo preference, many of which I share, is in the cargo preference statutes themselves.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to offer legislation to authorize the Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation to establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia to honor all disabled American veterans. This legislation is not controversial, costs nothing, and deserves immediate consideration and passage as the 105th Congress prepares to adjourn for the year. As a nation, we owe a debt of gratitude to all Americans who have worn their country's uniform in the defense of her core ideals and interests. We honor their service with holidays, like Veterans Day and Memorial Day, and with memorials, including the Vietnam Wall and the Iwo Jima Memorial. But nowhere in Washington can be found a material tribute to those veterans whose physical or psychological health was forever lost to a sniper's bullet, a landmine, a mortar round, or the pure terror of modern warfare. To these individuals we owe a measure of devotion not accorded those who served honorably but without permanent damage to limb or spirit. For these individuals, a memorial in Washington, DC, would stand as testament to the sum of their sacrifices, and as proof that the country they served values their contribution to its cause. We cannot restore the health of those Americans who incurred a disability as a result of their military service. It is within our power, however, to authorize a memorial that would clearly signal the nation's gratitude to all whose disabilities serve as a living reminder of the toll war takes on its victims. Under the terms of this legislation, the Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation would be solely responsible for raising the necessary funding. Our bill explicitly requires that no Federal funds be used to pay any expense for the memorial's establishment. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senators Cleland, Coverdell, and Kerrey in support of this legislation. America's disabled veterans, of whom Senator Cleland himself is one of our most distinguished, deserve a lasting tribute to their sacrifice. They honored us with their service; let us honor them with our support today.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Oceans Act of 1998 and several other fisheries issues included in the legislation. In addition to the Oceans Act, this bill approves the Governing International Fishery Agreements between the government of the United States and the governments of the Republics of Lithuania and Estonia. These agreements will permit large processing vessels from these countries to enter the United States Exclusive Economic Zone and process fish caught by U.S. fishermen in fisheries where American processors have insufficient capacity. These privileges have been authorized this year for vessels of Poland and Latvia as well. I support these agreements because they provide needed markets for American fishermen to sell their catch. However, I believe we have inadvertently worked an injustice upon a large U.S. vessel, the Atlantic Star. The Atlantic Star is a U.S.-owned, U.S. flag fishing vessel that was refitted last year for the herring and mackerel fisheries off the East Coast. The vessel had received all necessary permits to enter these fisheries. Because the Regional Fishery Management Councils had not then developed plans or plan amendments addressing the entry of large vessels into these fisheries, Congress enacted an appropriations rider which voided the permits for this specific vessels and imposed a one- year moratorium on the entry of the Atlantic Star into any U.S. fishery in order to give the Councils time to examine the issue. Meanwhile, the vessel has had to leave the United States in order to operate at all. The Councils held hearings and carefully reviewed the issues. Recently, the Mid-Atlantic Council recommended size limitations on large harvesting vessels engaged in the mackerel fishery, but has not decided to extend similar limitations to processing vessels. This would allow U.S. flag vessels, such as the Atlantic Star to process fish caught by U.S. fishermen, just as the foreign flag vessels we are allowing in today will be able to do. By providing another market for U.S. fishermen it would also provide employment and economic benefits to the region. Moreover, unlike foreign vessels, U.S. flag processing vessels must pay U.S. income taxes, employ Americans and are subject to U.S. labor and environmental laws, requirements that benefit all Americans. Unfortunately, during deliberations on the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Act of 1999, which will be included in the Omnibus Appropriations bill for 1999, the Senate accepted language creating a blanket exclusion of the Atlantic Star. We are now in the awkward position of authorizing the entry of foreign vessels to process U.S.- caught fish, while excluding our own U.S. processing vessels. Ironically, if the Atlantic Star were to give up her U.S. flag and operate under Lithuanian or Estonian flag, she could come into the United States and operate as a processing vessel in these U.S. fisheries, free from U.S. income tax, employing all foreign crew and exempt from other U.S. laws. I support the development of our American fishing industry, while ensuring the long-term health and management of the resource. The principles of the Magnuson-Stevens Act--the primary fisheries law of the land--long ago established the priority to be afforded American vessels to harvest and process fish inside the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. Excluding U.S. processing vessels in the face of the Council's contrary judgment and while allowing foreign processing vessels into the same fishery does a disservice, not only to American catcher-vessel fishermen who seek markets for the fish and to the crew and owners of the Atlantic Star, but to all Americans. Frankly, it is a policy that simply makes no sense. I hope my colleagues will join me in revisiting this issue early in the new Congress.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to offer legislation to authorize the Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation to establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia to honor all disabled American veterans. This legislation is not controversial, costs nothing, and deserves immediate consideration and passage as the 105th Congress prepares to adjourn for the year. As a nation, we owe a debt of gratitude to all Americans who have worn their country's uniform in the defense of her core ideals and interests. We honor their service with holidays, like Veterans Day and Memorial Day, and with memorials, including the Vietnam Wall and the Iwo Jima Memorial. But nowhere in Washington can be found a material tribute to those veterans whose physical or psychological health was forever lost to a sniper's bullet, a landmine, a mortar round, or the pure terror of modern warfare. To these individuals we owe a measure of devotion not accorded those who served honorably but without permanent damage to limb or spirit. For these individuals, a memorial in Washington, DC, would stand as testament to the sum of their sacrifices, and as proof that the country they served values their contribution to its cause. We cannot restore the health of those Americans who incurred a disability as a result of their military service. It is within our power, however, to authorize a memorial that would clearly signal the nation's gratitude to all whose disabilities serve as a living reminder of the toll war takes on its victims. Under the terms of this legislation, the Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation would be solely responsible for raising the necessary funding. Our bill explicitly requires that no Federal funds be used to pay any expense for the memorial's establishment. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senators Cleland, Coverdell, and Kerrey in support of this legislation. America's disabled veterans, of whom Senator Cleland himself is one of our most distinguished, deserve a lasting tribute to their sacrifice. They honored us with their service; let us honor them with our support today.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act. The House recently passed an amended version of the Senate Coast Guard bill. While I support the overall reauthorization of the Coast Guard, I want to comment on several provisions contained in the House passed bill. There is currently an administrative process in place to convey excess Federal government property. I believe that legislation which mandates the transfer or disposal of Federal property under terms which circumvent the established administrative procedures is inappropriate. Consequently, the Senate bill used discretionary language to address certain conveyances requested by individual Senators. However, the House bill includes mandatory legislative conveyances. In this case only, I am accepting the mandatory language because I am satisfied that the Coast Guard is willing and prepared to make each of these particular conveyances. Another important difference between the House and Senate passed bills relates to drug interdiction. I sponsored an amendment in the Senate bill which would have established criminal sanctions for the knowing failure to obey an order to land an airplane. As a former pilot, let me clearly state that this provision was not designed to put any pilot at risk of an arbitrary or random forced landing. Arbitrary or random forced landings are impermissible under the Senate provision. As with all aviation legislation in which I have been involved, safety is a top priority. Under current law, if a Federal law enforcement officer who is enforcing drug smuggling or money laundering laws witnesses a person loading tons of cocaine onto a plane in Mexico, sees the plane take off and enter the United States, he may issue an order to land, and if the pilot knowingly disobeys that order, there is currently no criminal penalty associated with such a failure to obey the order. The criminal sanctions contained in the Senate bill would only be applied to a person who knowingly disobeyed an order to land issued by a Federal law enforcement agent who is enforcing drug smuggling or money laundering laws. The bill would also require the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to write regulations defining the means by and circumstances under which it would be appropriate to order an aircraft to land. One of the FAA's essential missions is aviation safety. Accordingly, the FAA would be required to ensure that any such order is clearly communicated in accordance with international standards. Moreover, the FAA would be further required to specify when an order to land may be issued based on observed conduct, prior information, or other circumstances. Therefore, orders to land would have to be justifiable, not arbitrary or random. Orders to land would only be issued in cases where the authorized federal law enforcement agent has observed conduct or possesses reliable information which provides sufficient evidence of a violation of Federal drug smuggling or money laundering laws. If enacted, I would take every step possible to ensure that this provision does not diminish safety in any way. Last year, 430 metric tons of cocaine entered the United States from Mexico. In 1995, drugs cost taxpayers an estimated $109 billion. The average convicted drug smuggler was sentenced to only 4.3 years in jail, and is expected to serve less than half of that sentence. It is incumbent on all of us to fight the war on drugs with every responsible and safe measure at our disposal. The provision in the Senate bill would help those men and women who fight the war on drugs at our borders by providing an additional penalty for those who knowingly disobey the law. A provision included in both the House and Senate bill relates to the International Safety Management Code (ISM Code). On July 1, 1998, the owners and operators of passenger vessels, tankers and bulk carriers were required to have in place safety management systems which meet the requirements of the ISM Code. On July 1, 2002, all other large cargo ships and self-propelled mobile offshore drilling units will have to comply. Companies and vessels not ISM Code-certified are not permitted to enter U.S. waters. Shipowners required to comply with the ISM Code have raised concerns that the ISM Code may be misused. The IBM code requires a system of internal audits and reporting systems which are intended to encourage compliance with applicable environmental and vessel safety standards. However, the documents produced as a result of the ISM Code would also provide indications of past non-conformities. Obviously, for this information to be useful in rectifying environmental and safety concerns, it must be candid and complete. However, this information, prepared by shipowners or operators, may be used in enforcement actions against a shipowner or operator, crews and shoreside personnel by governmental agencies and may be subject to discovery in civil litigation. The provision in both the Senate and House bills would require the Secretary to conduct a study to examine the operation of the ISM Code, taking into account the effectiveness of internal audits and reports. After completion of the study, the Secretary is required to develop a policy to achieve full compliance with and effective implementation of the ISM Code. Under the provision, the public shall be given the opportunity to participate in and comment on the study. In addition, it may be appropriate for the Secretary to form a working group of affected private parties to assist in the development of the study and the issuance of the required policy and any resulting legislative recommendations. Any private citizen who is a member of any such working group cannot receive any form of government funds, reimbursement or travel expenses for participation in, or while a member of, the working group.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend, Senator Inhofe, for raising these issues. As he said, the goal of this amendment is to help U.S. law enforcement officers fight the war on drugs. The provision would make it unlawful for a pilot subject to U.S. jurisdiction to knowingly disobey an order to land issued by an authorized Federal law enforcement officer. The provision does try to address the issues you raise by requiring that the FAA write the regulations to define the means by and circumstances under which it would be appropriate to order an aircraft to land. The regulations would include guidelines for determining when an officer may issue an order to land based on observed conduct, prior information, or other circumstances. Clearly, safety must be a primary consideration in the formulation and administration of these guidelines. Let me also assure the Senator from Oklahoma that the intent of this provision is not to allow for seizure of aircraft owned by people whose planes have been stolen, borrowed or rented and used illegally without the owner's knowledge. If the general aviation community still has concerns, we will work with you to make sure the issues involving safety and fair treatment of innocent pilots are thoroughly considered. As we discuss the Coast Guard bill with the House, we will work with you and review the language in this provision. I want to assure my friend that I will discuss all of your concerns and recommendations, and recommendations from other Senators with our colleagues in the House.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act of 1998, 1999, and 2000. The Coast Guard is a branch of the armed forces and a multi-mission agency. The Coast Guard is responsible for our national defense, search and rescue services on our nation's waterways, maritime law enforcement, including drug interdiction and environmental protection, marine inspection, licensing, port safety and security, aids to navigation, waterways management, and boating safety. This bill will provide the Coast Guard with funding and authority to continue to provide the United States with high quality performance of its diverse duties through fiscal year 2000. I commend the men and women of the Coast Guard who serve their country with honor and distinction. This bill authorizes $100 million over the Administration's budget request in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 for drug interdiction activities. This additional money will restore drug interdiction funding to approximately the same level which the Coast Guard spent on the war on drugs in 1997. As the primary maritime law enforcement agency, the Coast Guard has played an essential role in our nation's war on drugs. The Commandant of the Coast Guard serves as the Administration's drug interdiction coordinator. With the leadership provided by the Coast Guard, several successful drug interdiction operations performed with other federal agencies have proven to be quite effective. In Operation Frontier Shield, 36,262 pounds of cocaine were seized off the coast of Puerto Rico, and in three months during Operation Frontier Lance, 2,990 pounds of cocaine were seized off the coast of Haiti. Despite these successful operations, the Administration has not provided for an actual increase in drug interdiction funding levels in its fiscal year 1999 budget request. The funding included in this bill signifies the Commerce Committee's endorsement of the Coast Guard's continued role in the war on drugs. In addition to funding the important multi-missions of the Coast Guard, this bill makes a series of programmatic changes which will help the Coast Guard operate in a more efficient and effective manner. I will briefly highlight and explain several provisions contained in the bill. The bill gives the Coast Guard parity with the Department of Defense for severance pay. It gives the Coast Guard discretion in making decisions related to severance pay for officers being separated with a less than Honorable Discharge and removes the existing cap on warrant officer severance pay. In both instances, the Committee expects the Coast Guard to implement this provision in a fair and uniform manner. The bill also prohibits a foreign-flag vessel which has been detained for a violation of an international safety convention to which the United States is a party from carrying cargo sponsored by the United States Government for one year after the violation. The Committee intends this penalty to be triggered in the case of serious violations of such conventions. The bill authorizes the Coast Guard to establish seasonal helicopter search and rescue capability based in Westhampton, NY, from April 15 through October 15. Due to the discretionary nature of this provision, the Committee fully expects the Coast Guard to continue to maintain its complete search and rescue mission based on need. By including this provision, the Committee does not intend to extend any inference of priority for the establishment of such search and rescue capability in a manner that contravenes meeting higher priorities. The bill authorizes the Coast Guard to administratively convey excess lighthouses. In granting such authority, the Committee is focused on the historic preservation of the lighthouses. However, the Committee expects the Coast Guard to take factors, such as the protection of the taxpayer, into consideration when making such an administrative conveyance. For example, if a conveyance is the source of a local controversy or would result in a waste of taxpayer dollars, the Committee would anticipate that the Coast Guard would exercise its discretion and not make the conveyance. The bill also provides an administrative process for obtaining a waiver of the coastwise trade laws to allow vessels to commercially operate in the coastwise trade under certain conditions. The waiver authority allows the Administration to process noncontroversial waiver requests in a more expeditious manner than the Congress and improve the responsiveness of the federal government in meeting the needs of many vessel-operating small businesses. I introduced this provision separately as S. 661 and it was adopted by the Committee. The bill includes S. 1480, the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998. This bill was adopted by the Committee and provides funding for Federal research, monitoring, and management activities to address harmful algal blooms and hypoxia on a national scale. The bill includes a provision which authorized the Commandant of the Coast Guard to recognize the community of Grand Haven, Michigan as ``Coast Guard City USA''. The community has a long and lofty tradition of making the Coast Guard at home in Grand Haven. Senator Abraham, Senator Levin, and Representative Hoekstra worked tirelessly to secure this recognition for Grand Haven. The bill contains discretionary language because the Committee was concerned about possibly precluding any other community in the United States from attaining such recognition under any circumstances. This bill represents a comprehensive set of improvements which should enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the day-to-day operation of the Coast Guard. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude and that of the full Commerce Committee to staff who worked on this bill, including Clark LeBlanc, Sloan Rappoport, Jim Sartucci, Penny Dalton, Jean Toal, Carl Bentzel, as well as Tim Cook, a Coast Guard fellow, who provided valuable insight into life in the Coast Guard and how certain provisions in the Coast Guard bill would benefit the men and women in uniform, and Stephanie Bailenson, a Sea Grant fellow, who helped develop the harmful algal bloom legislation and provided an essential scientific perspective on the bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Fair Competition in Foreign Commerce Act of 1998, to address the serious problem of waste, fraud and abuse, resulting from bribery and corruption in international development projects. This legislation will set conditions for U.S. funding through multilateral development banks. These conditions will require the country receiving aid to adopt substantive procurement reforms, and independent third-party procurement monitoring of their international development projects. During the cold war, banks and governments often looked the other way as pro-western leaders in developing countries treated national treasuries as their personal treasure troves. Information technologies and the resulting global economy have transformed the world in which we live into a smaller and smaller community. For example, economic turmoil in Indonesia hits home on Wall Street. Allegations of misconduct in the White House negatively impact Wall Street, which causes capital flight to other nation's stock exchanges. In today's increasingly interdependent global economy, nations are ill-advised to ignore corruption and wrongdoing in neighboring countries. The U.S. is a vital part of the global economy. We cannot afford to look the other way when we see bribery and corruption running rampant in other countries. Bribery and corruption abroad undermine the U.S. goals of promoting democracy and accountability, fostering economic development and trade liberalization, and achieving a level playing field throughout the world for American businesses. Developing nations desperately need foreign economic assistance to break the devastating cycle of poverty and dependence. The United States is increasingly called upon to lead multilateral assistance efforts through its participation in various lending institutions. However, it is critical that we take steps to ensure that the American taxpayer dollars are being used appropriately. The Fair Competition in Foreign Commerce Act of 1998 is designed to decrease the stifling effects of bribery and corruption in international development contracts. The Act will achieve this objective by mandating that multilateral lending institutions require that nations receiving U.S. economic assistance subject their international development projects to independent third-party procurement monitoring, and other substantive procurement reforms. By decreasing bribery and corruption in international development procurements, this legislation will (1) enable U.S. businesses to become more competitive when bidding against foreign firms which secure government contracts through bribery and corruption; (2) encourage additional direct investment to developing nations, thus increasing their economic growth, and (3) increase opportunities for U.S. businesses to export to these nations as their economies expand and mature. Multilateral lending efforts are only effective in spurring economic development if the funds are used to further the intended development projects. The American taxpayers make substantial contributions to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Development Association, the International Finance Corporation, the Inter-American Development Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Asian Development Bank, the Inter-American Investment Corporation, the North American Development Bank, and the African Development Fund. These contributions provide significant funding for major international development projects. Unfortunately, these international development projects are often plagued by fraud and corruption, waste and inefficiency, and other misuse of funding. This inefficient use of valuable taxpayer dollars is bad for the U.S. and the nation receiving the economic assistance. When used for its intended purpose, foreign economic aid yields short and long term benefits to U.S. businesses. Direct foreign aid assists developing nations to develop their infrastructure. A developed infrastructure is vital to creating and sustaining a modern dynamic economy. Robust new economies create new markets for U.S. businesses to export their goods and services. Exports are key to the U.S. role in the constantly expanding and increasingly competitive global economy. Emerging economies of today become our trading partners of tomorrow. However, foreign economic assistance will only promote economic development if it is used for its intended purpose, and not to line the pockets of foreign bureaucrats and their well-connected political allies. The current laws and procedures designed to detect and deter corruption after the fact are inadequate and meaningless. This bill seeks to ensure that U.S. taxpayers' hard-earned dollars contributed to international projects are used appropriately, by detecting and eliminating bribery and corruption before they can taint the integrity of these vital international projects. Past experience illustrates that it is ineffective to attempt to reverse waste, fraud, and abuse in large scale foreign infrastructure projects, once the abuse has already begun. Therefore, it is vital to detect the abuses before they occur. The Fair Competition in Foreign Commerce Act of 1998 requires the United States Government, through its participation in the multilateral lending institutions and in its disbursement of non-humanitarian foreign assistance funds, to: (1) require the recipient international financial institution to adopt an anti-corruption plan that requires the aid recipient to use independent third-party procurement monitoring services, at each stage of the procurement process, to ensure openness and transparency in government procurements, and (2) to require the recipient nation to institute specific strategies for minimizing corruption and maximizing transparency in procurements at each stage of the procurement process. If these criteria are not met, the legislation directs the Secretary of the Treasury to instruct the United States Executive Directors of the various International Development Banks to use the voice and vote of the United States to oppose the lending institution from providing the funds to the nations requesting economic aid which do not satisfy the procurement reforms criteria. This Act has two important exceptions. First, it does not apply to assistance to meet urgent humanitarian needs such as providing food, medicine, disaster, and refugee relief. Second, it also permits the President to waive the funding restrictions with respect to a particular country if making such funds available is important to the national security interest of the United States. Independent third-party procurement monitoring is a system where an independent third-party conducts a program to eliminate bias, to promote transparency and open competition, and to minimize fraud and corruption, waste and inefficiency and other misuse of funds in international procurements. The system does this through an independent evaluation of the technical, financial, economic and legal aspects of each stage of a procurement, from the development and issuance of technical specifications, bidding documents, evaluation reports and contract preparation, to the delivery of goods and services. This monitoring will take place throughout the entire term of the international development project. Mr. President, this system has worked for other governments. Procurement reforms and third-party procurement monitoring resulted in the governments of Kenya, Uganda, Colombia, and Guatemala experiencing significant cost savings in recent procurements. For instance, the Government of Guatemala experienced an overall savings of 48% when it adopted a third-party procurement monitoring system, and other procurement reform measures, in a recent procurement of pharmaceuticals. Independent third-party procurement monitoring is effective because it monitors each stage of the procurement process during and prior to each stage's completion, as opposed to following completion of a particular stage of the procurement process. Independent third-party procurement monitoring also improves transparency and openness in the procurement process. Increased transparency helps to minimize fraud and corruption, waste and inefficiency, and other misuse of funding, and promotes competition, thereby strengthening international trade and foreign commerce. Mr. President, bribery and corruption have many victims. Bribery and corruption hamper vital U.S. interests. Both harm consumers, taxpayers, and honest traders who lose contracts, production, and profits because they refuse to offer bribes to secure foreign contracts. Bribery and corruption have become a serious problem. A World Bank survey of 3,600 firms in 69 countries showed 40% of businesses paying bribes. More startling is that Germany still permits its companies to take a tax deduction for bribes. A recent comment by Commerce Secretary Daley sums up the serious impact of bribery and corruption upon American businesses ability to compete for foreign contracts: Since mid-1994, foreign firms have used bribery to win approximately 180 commercial contracts valued at nearly $80 billion. We estimate that over the past year, American companies have lost at least 50 of these contracts, valued at $15 billion. And since many of these contracts were for groundbreaking projects--the kind that produces exports for years to come--the ultimate cost could be much higher.'' Exports will continue to play an increasing role in our continued economic expansion. We can ill afford to allow any artificial impediments to our ability to export. Bribery and corruption, significantly hinder American businesses' ability to compete for lucrative overseas government contracts. American businesses are simply not competitive when bidding against foreign firms that have bribed government officials to secure overseas government contracts. Greater openness and fairness in government procurement will greatly enhance opportunities to compete in the rapidly expanding global economy. Exports equate to jobs. Jobs equate to more money in hard-working Americans' pockets. More money in Americans' pockets means more money for Americans to save and invest in their futures. Bribery and corruption also harm the country receiving the aid because bribery and corruption often inflate the cost of international development projects. For example, state sponsorship of massive infrastructure projects that are deliberately beyond the required specification needed to meet the objective is a common example of waste, fraud, and abuse inherent in corrupt procurement practices. Here, the cost of corruption is not the amount of the bribe itself, but the inefficient use of resources the bribes encourage. Bribery and corruption have short and long term negative effects upon the nation receiving aid. The short term effect is that bribery and corruption drive up the cost of the infrastructure project. Companies are forced to increase prices to cover the cost of bribes they are forced to pay. A 2% bribe on a contract is said to raise costs by 15%. The aggregate or long term effect of this type of corruption is that, over time, tax revenues will have to be raised or diverted from other more deserving projects to fund the excesses in these projects. Higher taxes and the inefficient use of resources both hinder growth. The World Bank and the IMF both recognize the link between bribery and corruption, and decreased economic growth. Recent studies also indicate that high levels of corruption are associated with low levels of investment and growth. These studies illustrate that corruption discourages direct investment, which results in decreased economic growth. Furthermore, corruption lessens the effectiveness of industrial policies and encourages businesses to operate in the unofficial sector in violation of tax and regulatory laws. Most important, corruption begins a cycle where corruption breeds more corruption and discourages legitimate investment. In short, bribery and corruption create ``lose lose'' situation for the U.S. and developing nations. The U.S. recognizes the damaging effects bribery and corruption have at home and abroad. The U.S. continues to combat foreign corruption, waste, and abuse on many fronts: from prohibiting U.S. firms from bribing foreign officials, to leading the anti-corruption efforts in the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (``OECD''). The U.S. was the first country to enact legislation (the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) to prohibit its nationals and corporations from bribing foreign public officials in international and business transactions. However, we must do more. Our current efforts must expand. The FCPA prevents U.S. nationals and corporations from bribing foreign officials. It does nothing to prevent foreign nationals and corporations from bribing foreign officials to obtain foreign contracts. Valuable taxpayer resources are often diverted or squandered because of corrupt officials or the use of non-transparent specifications, contract requirements and the like in international procurements for goods and services. Such corrupt practices also minimize competition and prevent the recipient nation or agency from receiving the full value of the goods and services for which it bargained. In addition, despite the importance of international markets to U.S. goods and services providers, many U.S. companies refuse to participate in international procurements that may be corrupt. This legislation is designed to provide a mechanism to ensure, to the extent possible, the integrity of the U.S. contribution to the multilateral lending institutions and other non-humanitarian U.S. foreign aid. Corrupt international procurements, often funded by these multilateral banks, weaken democratic institutions and undermine the very opportunities that multilateral lending institutions were founded to promote. This bill will encourage and support the development of transparent government procurement capacity, which is vital for emerging democracies constructing a government procurement infrastructure that can sustain market economies in the developing world. Mr. President, I am committed to combating the waste, fraud and abuse resulting from bribery and corruption in international development projects. Procurement reforms and independent procurement monitoring are key to policing complicated international procurements, which are often plagued by corruption, inefficiency and other problems. These problems thwart the economic development purpose of multilateral assistance and make it more difficult for U.S. companies to compete for valuable large-scale international development projects. Mr. President, on behalf of the millions of Americans who will benefit from increased opportunities for U.S. businesses to participate in the global economy, and the billions of people in developing nations throughout the world who are desperate for economic assistance, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and demonstrate their continued commitment to the orderly evolution of the global economy and the efficient use of American economic assistance. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the managers of this bill for their hard work in putting forth this legislation which provides federal funding for numerous vital programs. However, I am sad to say, once again, I find myself in the unpleasant position of speaking before my colleagues about unacceptable levels of parochial projects in another appropriations Conference Report. Earlier this year, I came to the Senate floor and highlighted the numerous earmarks and set asides contained in the Senate version of this bill. That bill contained $826 million in specifically earmarked pork-barrel spending. That was a $791 million increase over last year's pork-barrel spending total for this bill, which only contained $34.25 million in wasted funds. While the Senate bill contained an unacceptable amount of pork, this conference report is even worse. It contains $1.5 billion in specially earmarked pork barrel spending. This is almost double the amount of pork which was in the bill. This is a tremendous burden which is patently unfair to the millions hard-working American taxpayers, who does not possess the resources to get a ``pet project'' placed in their back yard. The list of projects which received priority billing is quite long and the dollar amounts are staggering. Nevertheless, I will highlight a few of the more egregious violations. First the conference report instructs the Administrator of General Services to purchase a property adjacent to the new courthouse currently under construction in Scranton, PA, at whatever price she/he determines is appropriate. The language then provides $668 million for repairs, alterations, and construction services. That adds $668 million to the price of acquiring the building. I am not an expert on court house construction, but $668 million in addition to the purchase price seems like a lot of money for a courthouse. But, the unbridled spending does not stop with the Scranton, PA court house, it continues. The conference report also contains numerous provisions for millions of dollars to construct new court houses in specific locations throughout the U.S. Again, why are these particular sites so deserving of funding, that they receive specific earmarks to fund their construction? Unfortunately, this spending frenzy is not limited to court houses. Somebody in either the House of Representatives, or the Senate has concluded that the World Trade Office in Vermont ($500,000), and the IRS Service Center in Brookhaven, NY ($20 million) are so unique that they should receive specific earmarks. These are just a few examples of the spending excesses in this report. The list goes on, and on. Mr. President, why are we spending so much on locality specific pork barrel projects? Why are we spending so much on new court house construction? Maybe if we used some of the new court house construction money to combat teen drug use, we would not need to construct so many new court houses. Maybe, we should redirect some of this court house construction money to combating overall drug use, putting more police on our streets, or funding crime prevention programs to prevent people from ever becoming involved in the criminal justice system. Mr. President, I will not deliberate much longer on the objectionable provisions in the conference report. I simply ask my colleagues to apply fair and reasonable spending principles when appropriating funds to the multitude of priority and necessary programs in our appropriations bills. As I have said many times in the past, we must remain committed to open and fair consideration of public expenditures. Our objective must always be to further the greatest public good. This must remain the cornerstone of the appropriations process. And, most important, we must remember, responsible spending is the cornerstone of good governance.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information, of the Senate Judiciary Committee be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 8, 1998, at 8:00 a.m. in room 215, Senate Dirksen Office Building, on: ``National Security Considerations in Asylum Applications: A Case Study of 6 Iraqis.''

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to make a clarification to my list of objectionable provisions to the Senate passed version of the FY'99 Interior Appropriations bill. I was pleased to learn that the Indian health facility that is designated to be constructed on the Hopi reservation in Arizona was requested for funding in this year's budget. I had previously objected to this item in my pork list, not based on the merits of the project, but what appeared to be an unrequested, directed earmark. The Hopi Health Center in Polacca, Arizona is requested for funding at the level of $14,400,000 for construction of Indian health facilities, which is consistent with the budget request. I will remove this item as an objectionable provision. I assure Chairman Wayne Taylor and the Hopi Tribe that I continue to be supportive of establishing an Indian health center for the Hopi community.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3711, as modified.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding there is no further debate regarding the consideration of the amendment at the desk. I ask that it be adopted.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3711.

Mr. McCAIN. I withdraw it and call up amendment No. 3711. The amendment (No. 3711), as modified, was withdrawn.

Mr. McCAIN. But there is still a time limit that each individual Senator is allowed under the postcloture proceedings?