John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. May I ask what that means?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to authorize expansion of the Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona. I'm pleased that Representative Rick Renzi will introduce companion legislation in the House of Representatives. The Petrified Forest National Park is a national treasure among the Nation's parks, renowned for its large concentration of highly colored petrified wood, fossilized remains, and spectacular landscapes. However, it is much more than a colorful, scenic vista, for the Petrified Forest has been referred to as ``one of the world's greatest storehouses of knowledge about life on earth when the Age of the Dinosaurs was just beginning.'' For anyone whom has ever visited this park, one is quick to recognize the wealth of scenic, scientific, and historical values of this park. Preserved deposits of petrified wood and related fossils are among the most valuable representations of Triassic-period terrestrial ecosystems in the world. These natural formations were deposited more than 220 million years ago. Scenic vistas, designated wilderness areas, and other historically significant sites of pictographs and Native American ruins are added dimensions to the park. The Petrified Forest was originally designated as a National Monument by former President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906 to protect the important natural and cultural resources of the Park, and later re-designated as a National Park in 1962. While several boundary adjustments were made to the Park, a significant portion of unprotected resources remain in outlying areas adjacent to the Park. A proposal to expand the Park's boundaries was recommended in the park's General Management Plan in 1992, in response to concerns about the long-term protection needs of globally significant resources and the Park's viewshed in nearby areas. For example, one of the most concentrated deposits of petrified wood is found within the Chinle encarpment, of which only thirty percent is included within the current Park boundaries. Increasing reports of theft and vandalism around the Park have activated the Park, local communities, and other interested entities to seek additional protections through a proposed boundary expansion. It has been estimated that visitors to the Park steal about 12 tons of petrified wood every year. Other reports of destruction to archaeological sites and gravesites have also been documented. Based on these continuing threats to resources intrinsic to the Park, the National Parks Conservation Association listed the Petrified Forest National Park on its list of Top Ten Most Endangered Parks in 2000. Support for this proposed boundary expansion is extraordinary, from the local community of Holbrook, scientific and research institutions, state tourism agencies, and environmental groups, such as the National Parks Conservation Association, NPCA. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support from the National Parks Conservation Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I always enjoy hearing from candidates for higher office.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I just say that, in consultation with Senator Kyl, and thinking about this, rather than force the Senate through a series of votes, this is an important piece of legislation. So tomorrow I will be proposing an amendment that includes the provisions that I described that I believe are extraneous and not related to this bill, as is stated in the title. I will include the $50 million for the MARAD loan guarantees. Shortly, I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment because I will include it in the wraparound amendment that will be considered tomorrow on behalf of myself and Senator Kyl and, I hope, others. Let me finally say that I do believe the appropriators exercised great restraint. I congratulate the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Mississippi. I believe this contains probably less unnecessary spending than any appropriations bill I have seen. Now I would like to see if it is possible to send an entirely clean bill to the President of the United States, and that would be a monumental achievement. Amendment No. 456, Withdrawn Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment at this time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Mississippi to grant me 2 minutes.

Mr. McCAIN. I yield such time as I have remaining to the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before I get into the amendment, we have made a preliminary examination of the--this is the reason I said to the Senator from Mississippi we may need a few more minutes--we have made a preliminary examination of the bill, and the first time through it, tragically--I say tragically because the title of this bill is ``making supplemental appropriations to support Department of Defense operations in Iraq, Department of Homeland Security, and Related Efforts for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes.'' The first thing we find is $98 million under the Agriculture Research Service, buildings and facilities, to complete a research center in Ames, IA. What is that all about? How in the world do you call $98 million for an agricultural research service center in Ames, IA--remember, it is designated for Ames, IA, not Des Moines, IA; Ames, IA,--that fits into a bill that is called ``making supplemental appropriations to support Department of Defense operations in Iraq, Department of Homeland Security, and Related Efforts for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003.'' Disgraceful. We have $1 million for the Jobs for America's Graduates school-to- work program for at-risk young people. I am sure that is an important program. Someone will have to tell me how that is related to the title of this legislation. There is $6.8 million from O&M Air Force to build and install fiberoptic and power improvements and upgrades at the 11th Air Force Range in Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska. There is $3 million from O&M Army to build a rifle range for the South Carolina National Guard. There is $12 million for research, development, test, and evaluation Defense-wide for airfield improvements in Alaska that may be associated--may I emphasize: may be associated--with the ground-based midcourse missile defense program. There is requiring a study regarding delivery of pediatric health care in northeastern Oklahoma. There is $225,000 for the Mental Health Association of Tarrant County, TX. There is $200,000 for the AIDS Research Institute at the University of California, San Francisco, for developing a county medical program to facilitate clinician exchange between the United States and developing countries. There is $1 million for the Geisinger Health System, Harrisburg, PA, to establish centers of excellence for the treatment of autism. Why can't we, for once--for once--bring forward a bill--especially when we are at war, especially when we have young men and women fighting and dying--that is free of these outrageous kinds of spending? Can't we do that just once? Well, now let's get to the $50 million for the title XI Maritime Loan Program, which is the subject of the amendment. Mr. President, chapter 10 of the bill would provide $50 million in funding to the Maritime Administration's title XI loan guarantee program for shipbuilders and shipyards. It is not justified as part of an emergency supplemental to fund the ongoing war. Not only is the program riddled with problems, but the administration has proposed no funding for it in either its fiscal year 2004 budget or for the prior year, and for good reason. The title XI program does not serve any defense or homeland security purpose, and it should not receive funding under the guise of a wartime need. I have never been a proponent of the Title XI program. I think that many of my colleagues must be as shocked as I to learn that $50 million for this program has been added to this emergency supplemental appropriations bill in the name of defense. The Appropriations' Committee report accompanying this bill claims that this funding is needed to help transport military equipment and supplies to deployed military forces during the time of war. Such an allegation is simply not true. According the Maritime Administration, there are 51 vessels currently being utilized in direct support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Only one of those 51 vessels was constructed with the use of a title XI loan guarantee. Any claims by the proponents of this mismanaged pork barrel program that it serves an essential military purpose are ridiculous. The title XI program is, without question, one of the most wasteful and mismanaged guarantee programs in the Federal Government. Since 1998, loan defaults--loan defaults--have totaled $490 million. On Monday of this week, the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General released a report that details the multiple problems with the program's administration. The IG's report details the increasing number of loan defaults, coupled with the increasing number of bankruptcies of companies that have been granted loan guarantees. The report notes that Enron--Enron-- has three loan guarantees that will soon go under and cost the taxpayers $122 million--Enron. The DOT Inspector General found that ``MARAD needs to improve administration and oversight in all phases of the Title XI loan process . . .'' The report says: The financial interests of the United States would be better protected through use of compensatory loan provisions to reduce risk, improved loan application review procedures, more rigorous financial oversight of borrowers during the term of loan guarantees, better monitoring and protection of vessels and shipyards while under guarantee, and more effective stewardship of assets acquired through foreclosures. The Senate Commerce Committee will hold a hearing next month to consider the IG's findings, along with a report being prepared by the General Accounting Office. I am informed that the GAO's preliminary findings fully support the Department of Transportation IG's findings and provide even greater detail on missteps by MARAD that, again, have led to this program having suffered losses of nearly $500 million. I close by reminding my colleagues of just how awry this program can go when Congress jumps in without full and complete consideration of what is being done. In exchange for a Congressionally ordered monopoly for service among the Hawaiian Islands, American Classic Voyages entered into a contract to build two cruise ships in a U.S. shipyard. It is that requirement that has led to the most outrageous example of how provisions inserted to benefit special interest can and often do lead to waste and burden American taxpayers. To help push the program, MARAD, in the face of strong political support for the project, approved a $1.1 billion title XI loan guarantee for the construction of these two vessels. Loan guarantees and commitments to this company represented over one quarter of the title XI portfolio. On October 19, 2001, American Classic Voyages filed a bankruptcy petition under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The petition listed total assets of $37.4 million and total liabilities of $452.8 million. The cruise line said in its petition that it had more than 1,000 creditors, including the American taxpayers being represented by the Department of Transportation. MARAD never once sounded the alarm that this project was in trouble. It did nothing to further protect the taxpayers' interest. To the contrary, as noted by the DOT IG in its report, just weeks before American Classic Voyages filed for bankruptcy, MARAD granted ACV additional exemptions and modifications to the requirements of the program and their contract. The failed project is the most costly loan guarantee ever granted under the Maritime Loan Guarantee Program, resulting in the U.S. Maritime Administration paying out over $187.3 million of the American taxpayers' money to cover the loan default for this project. Only $2 million was recovered from the sale of some of the construction materials and parts. Overall, American Classic held a total of six loan guarantees that cost the American taxpayer $329 million. I ask my colleagues to learn from this lesson. Fifty million dollars in MARAD guarantees on a bill like this is, first, wrong. And to continue to fund this program until it is fundamentally reformed, according to the Department of Transportation's inspector general's report and an upcoming GAO report, is a criminal waste of American tax dollars. It has no place on this bill. The Senator from Arizona and I were talking, and I believe the best thing to do, given these projects I just listed, is probably to have one amendment that we will propose tomorrow, Senator Kyl and myself, to strike all of these provisions so we give everybody a chance to vote yes or no on all these provisions of the bill. Then we can answer to the American taxpayer as to whether $98 million for Agricultural Research Service building facilities; whether money for the Mental Health Association of Tarrant County, TX; whether the Geisinger Health System in Harrisburg, PA, to establish centers of excellence for the treatment of autism are what is needed to win the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq today. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, if I need a few more minutes than that--I don't think I will--I hope the Senators from Mississippi and Nevada will indulge me.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Arkansas, the prime cosponsor, along with the Senator from Colorado. I will briefly make a comment to thank them for producing this amendment. I thank Senator Warner, as well as Senator Chambliss and others on both sides of the aisle who are responsible for this amendment. It is much needed. We had a hearing on this issue yesterday. It was one of the most remarkable evasions of responsibility I have ever seen. Basically, in summary, testimony by the Secretary of the Air Force and Chief of Staff of the Air Force said, really, no one is responsible. We know people are responsible and people are held responsible, including the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and the Secretary of the Air Force. The Secretary of the Air Force has proven, to our satisfaction, that he cannot and will not address this situation, this crisis, at the Air Force Academy in a mature and efficient fashion. That is what triggered this amendment by Senators Allard and Pryor. I strongly support it. Clearly, the quicker this panel will act and send its recommendations, the sooner we will implement changes in policy that will prevent a recurrence. I might add, the situation apparently has been going on for 10 years. That is clearly an unacceptable situation at one of our finest institutions. I thank the Senator from Arkansas, the Senator from Colorado, and others involved in this important amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, we are addressing the immediate needs. This is an emergency supplemental. The needs as identified by the Senator from Louisiana are all nice to have, but they should go through the orderly process, through the Senate Armed Services Committee, a request by the President of the United States, and then a full and open debate. This is neither the appropriate nor, I believe, fiscally responsible thing to do at this time. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. McCAIN. I am suggesting to the Senator from Louisiana, this is a very large appropriation which has not been examined by members of the committee themselves in this context and is added after carefully thought out, carefully requested amounts of funds have gone through the Appropriations Committee in the form of an emergency supplemental. I am sure these are all worthy causes. There are billions and billions of dollars of worthy causes.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair. This legislation, introduced on behalf of Senators Allen, Chambliss, Lindsey Graham, Craig, Miller, and others, would improve the ability of American service personnel fighting overseas to communicate with their loved ones at home. It provides a monthly allotment of free telephone calling time to members of the Armed Forces outside of the United States who are directly supporting or involved in military operations in Iraq or Afghanistan for such period of time as the conflict continues in both areas. I have discussed this issue with the Department of Defense and at this time they have not gotten back to me. I spoke to the Deputy Secretary of Defense. She supports the idea. There may be some changes proposed by the Department of Defense, but I am confident of their support. This legislation would direct the Secretary of Defense to provide these troops with the financial ability to call home by providing a prepaid calling card or equivalent telecommunications benefit up to $40 every month. The bill would also direct the Secretary to work with telecommunications providers to facilitate the deployment of additional telephones for use by our troops. Our military mission must remain a priority of the Department of Defense. Therefore, the bill makes clear that the Secretary shall not take any action to implement the bill that would compromise our overall military objectives. Moreover, the bill gives the Secretary complete discretion on how best to implement it. If it is simply impractical to provide the benefit to certain soldiers, then the Secretary may refrain, obviously, from providing it. If the cost of providing the service to one branch of the military or the other is more costly, then the Secretary can determine the most equitable method of distributing the benefit. The bill also directs the Secretary to maximize the use of all resources to fulfill the goals of the act and, thus, he may use existing programs, private support programs, or offers from private entities to make telephone service available to our troops. For example, I received a generous offer today from Joseph Wright, CEO of PanAmSat Corporation. In his letter he said: [This bill] is a terrific idea and I would like to support it. . . .We would be willing to provide satellite services free to support your initiative. The only intended beneficiaries of this bill are the troops serving this country. It is not intended to benefit any particular provider. Thus the bill urges the Secretary to implement the bill in a manner that is consistent with the timely provision of the benefits but also in a manner that allows for competition in the provision of such benefits. All of us are aware of the importance of communicating with one's family and friends, particularly when you are in a time of crisis and combat. This is a modest attempt to try and help these men and women who are serving. Some of them have already been there for a very long time. The USS Abraham Lincoln has been at sea in the area for more than 300 days. Communications with their loved ones at home is obviously a very important aspect of preserving family and also communicating with friends as well. Modern technology enables our service personnel to communicate with their loved ones by phone, and these real-time discussions can provide significant emotional and psychological support to both the soldier and the family. Unfortunately, for some the cost of placing these calls can be prohibitively expensive. On March 18, 2003, USA Today reported on the high cost of telephone calls from bases in Kuwait: It cost one soldier $35 to make two quick phone calls home to his wife. Likewise, my office was recently told the story of a Marine corporal who didn't have enough money to call his son in the States on his birthday. Last Friday, I asked the country's telephone companies to commit to ensure that families of service personnel don't have their telephone lines disconnected due to a short-term inability to pay the costs incurred for calls from troops overseas. I also asked for a commitment to implement special reduced rates where feasible for telephone calls with members of the Armed Forces overseas. Madam President, the response has been overwhelming. From the smallest companies serving a few hundred customers to the largest of companies, around 60 companies have agreed to make these commitments. I wish to quote from a few of these letters and I will have many printed in the Record at the appropriate time. Some of them are extremely touching, believe it or not. One that especially got my attention was from the Andrew Telephone Company in Andrew, IA. They will not disconnect service from servicemen's families for the duration of the war. They write: We don't offer long distance, but we will assist subscribers to find the best rates possible. Andrew is a community of 450 and we have 19 young men and women serving at this time. Yours, Mil Cornelius, President. Remarkable. Andrew, IA, a community of 450 and they have 19 young men and women serving at this time. That is a very wonderful commitment. We have commitments from small companies from Andrew Telephone Company to Quest, Southern Bell, SBC, Verizon, AT&T, MCI, Sprint. All the major corporations in America have also made these commitments. I am extremely grateful to them. More importantly, I am sure the service men and women and their families all over America are grateful as well. Just a couple more: William P. Heaston, vice president of PrairieWave Communications in Sioux Falls, SD, wrote: I am a retired Army officer, who served in Vietnam and other remote areas. I can assure you that PrairieWave fully appreciates the benefit to morale and military service that the ability to communicate with loved ones brings. William E. Morrow, CEO of Grande Communications in San Marcos, TX, writes: We are proud of our troops and know their families are in need of our support during these difficult times. This is the least we can do in light of their great sacrifice for our country. All of them make statements along those lines. OmniTel Communications: We will also be providing cash credits as a donation on the billing, which have yet to be determined, of these families later this year to help defray other costs they may have incurred. OmniTel Communications supports our Armed Forces in its critical action and wish the very best to all Americans who have to make very serious decisions for the future of our great country. Ronald Laudner, CEO, OmniTel Communications, Nora Springs,

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back and we move to consideration of the legislation, S. 718.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield such time as she may consume to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. McCAIN. Just to be clear, at the expiration or yielding back of time, the amendment is adopted, and the bill, as amended, will be read a third time and passed, without intervening action or debate?

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the McCain substitute be adopted at this time for consideration.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 718, the Troops Phone Home Free Act of 2003; that the only amendment in order be a McCain substitute amendment; further, that there be 1 hour of debate equally divided between Senator McCain and the Democratic leader or his designee; that at the expiration or yielding back of time, the amendment be adopted, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about two bills--S. 711 and S. 712. I am honored to cosponsor these bills with Senators Lindsey Graham, Chambliss, and Allen. There may be others that also wish to cosponsor these bills to support our service men and women. S. 711 simply authorizes a Selective Re-enlistment Bonus, SRB, for National Guard and Reserve service members who would be eligible for SRB if they were in a nonmobilized or drilling status. However, when they are mobilized under a Presidential select Reserve callup and they re-enlist during that period, National guardsmen and reservists are prohibited from receiving SRB payments until after they get off active duty or mobilization status sometimes 1 to 2 years later. S. 712 authorizes Survivor Benefit Plan, SBP, benefits to survivors of National Guard and Reserve service members who die while performing inactive duty training or weekend drills. This legislation provides equity with active duty service members and is consistent with Defense Department regulations when National guardsmen and reservists are mobilized under a Presidential select Reserve callup. However, since January there have been 13 Reserve Component deaths during weekend military training while their units were preparing for Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom where families of National guardsmen and reservists did not receive the survivor benefit payments. Furthermore, this legislation would cover those Reserve Component personnel who were serving in a drill status in the Pentagon during the attacks on the United States on 9/11. This bill has the support of the Military Coalition, a consortium of nationally prominent uniformed services and veterans organizations representing more than 5.5 million members, the National Guard, and the Senate Armed Services Committee. The roles and missions of the Reserve components has changed over the past several years, as the active duty force has evolved from the downsizing of our military forces during the last decade. I suspect that more changes will come as our national military strategy continues to evolve. Instead, we have a military force that continues to rely more on the Reserve Components--men and women in the National Guard and Reserves-- to go to war and to perform other critical military tasks abroad and at home. Many combat, combat support and other support missions are being carried on the backs of our active and Reserve Component forces-- soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. For example, in March 2001, the Army National Guard 29th Infantry Division took command of the American peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. The significance of this deployment was enormous, considering that more than 75 percent of the 4,000 U.S. Army soldiers on the ground were Army Reserve and Guard soldiers from 17 states--not just headquarters' staff, but operational units as well. More recently, in October 2002, Fighter/Attack Squadron 201's commanding officer received the call to mobilize that many Reserve Component commanding officers have recently received. With few exceptions over 100 Navy reservists mobilized with their 12 F/A-18 Hornet A-plus jets, and began work-ups with Carrier Air Wing 8 in Nevada and full day and night carrier qualifications at sea. The impact of this accomplishment cannot be overstated. It was the first time since the Korean War that an entire Naval Air Reserve Squadron has deployed aboard an aircraft carrier, and this time VFA-201's base was not Fort Worth, Texas but the flight deck of the USS Theodore Roosevelt, CVN-71. The reports from the field are outstanding. VFA-201, like hundreds of other aviators during the first night of ``shock and awe,'' flew their Hornets downtown to Baghdad. The pilots and their maintenance crews hailed from Texas, Arizona, California, New Mexico, Georgia, Florida, Nevada, Utah and Colorado. They are citizen soldiers. Thirteen of eighteen VFA-201 pilots are airline pilots who took a temporary leave of absence from their airline jobs. They were similar to active duty sailors, yet they were different. Because they were reservists, every aviator has cruise experience, over 1,000 flight hours, and many have over 1,000 or 2,000 hours in the F/A- 18. VFA-201's squadron aviators provided leadership to the air wing in strike planning, flight execution and carrier operations. Their day and night time boarding rates and landing grades have exceeded all other Carrier Air Wing 8's squadrons. While these are only two of the deployments that have taken place in recent years, they highlight the ever-increasing role of reservists in defending America's security interests around the world, and mark a radical departure from the past. The figures are quite staggering when considered in total. Today, nearly 60,000 reservists and National Guardsmen, including volunteers, are deployed under three Presidential callup orders for Bosnia, Kosovo, and Southwest Asia. For Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom over 275,000 men and women from the National Guard and the Reserves have been mobilized. During each of the past 5 years, Reserve and National Guard service members have performed between 12 and 13.5 million duty days in support of the active force. These numbers are a direct contrast to 1990, when 1 million duty days were performed at a time when there were 25 percent more reservists. Reservists also currently make up more than half of the airlift crews and 85 percent of the sealift personnel that are needed to move troops and equipment in either wartime or peacetime operations. In addition, reserve medical and construction battalions and other specialists are critical to a wide range of operations. National Guard and Reserve service members are performing many vital tasks: from direct involvement in military operations to liberate Iraq in the air, on the ground, and on the sea; to guarding nuclear power plants in the United States; to providing support to the War on Terrorism through guarding, interrogating, and providing medical service to al-Qaida detainees; to rebuilding schools in hurricane- stricken Honduras and fighting fires in our western states; from overseeing civil affairs in Bosnia, to augmenting aircraft carriers short on active duty sailors with critical skilled enlisted ratings during at-sea exercises as well as periods of deployment. I believe that the civilian and uniformed leadership of our Armed Forces and the Congress must recognize this involvement, and at a minimum provide equality in benefits for Reserve Component service members when they put on the uniform and perform their weekend drills or other critical training evolutions. Reservists, on duty, who resemble their active duty counterparts during training evolutions and are deployed at times around the world, should be treated equally when the administration and Congress provide for quality of life benefits. I hope that all my colleagues will support these bills as a small expression of support and willingness to provide not just equality in quality of life benefits for our National guardsmen and reservists but support to all our men and women--our treasure--who are sacrificing so much for our nation, our freedoms and the freedom of the Iraqi people.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important piece of legislation, which will have a tremendous impact on the lives of blind people throughout the country. In 1996, with the passage of the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act, Congress broke the historic 20-year link between blind people and senior citizens in regards to the Social Security earnings. Previously, that linkage to earnings limits helped many blind people become self-sufficient and productive members of society. The Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act raised the earnings limit for seniors, without giving blind people the same opportunity. My intent when I sponsored that legislation was not to break the link between blind people and the senior population. Since then, I have worked with a bipartisan group of senators, in the spirit of fairness, to ensure that the blind population receives a raise in earnings limits, similar to that afforded to seniors under the 1996 Act. We must not continue policies which discourage blind individuals from working and contributing to our nation. I believe we should provide blind people with the opportunity to be productive and ``make it'' on their own. Today I am joined by my good friend Senator Dodd, and a bipartisan group of senators, in introducing the Blind Empowerment Act of 2003. This bill is similar in purpose to the Blind Person's Earnings Equity Act, which I sponsored in previous Congresses. Over a five year period of time, the Blind Empowerment Act raises the earnings exemption for blind persons to afford them with greater flexibility to achieve their professional and personal goals, without sacrificing Social Security benefits. The earnings test treatment of our blind and senior populations historically has been identical. From 1977, blind persons and senior citizens shared the identical earnings exemption threshold under Title II of the Social Security Act. The earnings limit for the blind is currently $1,330 a month for fiscal year (FY) 2003, had the link not been broken in the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act, it would be $2,560 today. Senior citizens are now given unlimited opportunity to increase their earnings without losing a portion of their Social Security benefits. The blind, however, have been left behind. The Social Security earnings test imposes as great a work disincentive for blind people as it once did for senior citizens. In fact, the earnings test probably provides a greater aggregate disincentive for blind individuals because many blind beneficiaries are of working age and are capable of valuable and productive work. Blindness is often associated with adverse social and economic consequences. Many blind individuals who desperately want to work encounter enormous obstacles to achieve sustained employment or any employment at all. They take great pride in being able to work and contribute to society. By linking the blind with seniors in 1977, Congress provided a great deal of hope and an incentive for blind people to enter the work force. By not allowing blind individuals the opportunity to increase their earnings, as we have for senior citizens, we are now taking that hope away from them. Blind people are likely to respond favorably to an increase in the earnings test by working more, which will increase their tax payments and purchasing power allowing the blind to make a greater contribution to the general economy. In addition, encouraging blind individuals to work and allowing them to work more without being penalized would bring additional revenue into the Social Security trust funds as well as the federal Treasury. I hope that this Congress will finally address issues regarding the overall structure of the Social Security system and work towards solutions that will strengthen the system for seniors of today and tomorrow without placing an unfair burden on working Americans. It is absolutely crucial that we include raising the earnings test for blind individuals as a part of any Social Security bill we enact this year. I urge each of my colleagues to join me in sponsoring the Blind Empowerment Act of 2003, to restore fair and equitable treatment for our blind citizens and to give the blind community increased financial independence. Our Nation would be better served if we restore hope for the blind and provide them with the freedom, opportunities and fairness afforded to our Nation's seniors. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Blind Empowerment Act of 2003 be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important piece of legislation, which will have a tremendous impact on the lives of blind people throughout the country. In 1996, with the passage of the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act, Congress broke the historic 20-year link between blind people and senior citizens in regards to the Social Security earnings. Previously, that linkage to earnings limits helped many blind people become self-sufficient and productive members of society. The Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act raised the earnings limit for seniors, without giving blind people the same opportunity. My intent when I sponsored that legislation was not to break the link between blind people and the senior population. Since then, I have worked with a bipartisan group of senators, in the spirit of fairness, to ensure that the blind population receives a raise in earnings limits, similar to that afforded to seniors under the 1996 Act. We must not continue policies which discourage blind individuals from working and contributing to our nation. I believe we should provide blind people with the opportunity to be productive and ``make it'' on their own. Today I am joined by my good friend Senator Dodd, and a bipartisan group of senators, in introducing the Blind Empowerment Act of 2003. This bill is similar in purpose to the Blind Person's Earnings Equity Act, which I sponsored in previous Congresses. Over a five year period of time, the Blind Empowerment Act raises the earnings exemption for blind persons to afford them with greater flexibility to achieve their professional and personal goals, without sacrificing Social Security benefits. The earnings test treatment of our blind and senior populations historically has been identical. From 1977, blind persons and senior citizens shared the identical earnings exemption threshold under Title II of the Social Security Act. The earnings limit for the blind is currently $1,330 a month for fiscal year (FY) 2003, had the link not been broken in the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act, it would be $2,560 today. Senior citizens are now given unlimited opportunity to increase their earnings without losing a portion of their Social Security benefits. The blind, however, have been left behind. The Social Security earnings test imposes as great a work disincentive for blind people as it once did for senior citizens. In fact, the earnings test probably provides a greater aggregate disincentive for blind individuals because many blind beneficiaries are of working age and are capable of valuable and productive work. Blindness is often associated with adverse social and economic consequences. Many blind individuals who desperately want to work encounter enormous obstacles to achieve sustained employment or any employment at all. They take great pride in being able to work and contribute to society. By linking the blind with seniors in 1977, Congress provided a great deal of hope and an incentive for blind people to enter the work force. By not allowing blind individuals the opportunity to increase their earnings, as we have for senior citizens, we are now taking that hope away from them. Blind people are likely to respond favorably to an increase in the earnings test by working more, which will increase their tax payments and purchasing power allowing the blind to make a greater contribution to the general economy. In addition, encouraging blind individuals to work and allowing them to work more without being penalized would bring additional revenue into the Social Security trust funds as well as the federal Treasury. I hope that this Congress will finally address issues regarding the overall structure of the Social Security system and work towards solutions that will strengthen the system for seniors of today and tomorrow without placing an unfair burden on working Americans. It is absolutely crucial that we include raising the earnings test for blind individuals as a part of any Social Security bill we enact this year. I urge each of my colleagues to join me in sponsoring the Blind Empowerment Act of 2003, to restore fair and equitable treatment for our blind citizens and to give the blind community increased financial independence. Our Nation would be better served if we restore hope for the blind and provide them with the freedom, opportunities and fairness afforded to our Nation's seniors. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Blind Empowerment Act of 2003 be printed in the Record.