John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to the conference report to accompany S.1438, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002. I am disappointed that the conference agreement did not include some key legislative provisions that I had sponsored in the Senate during the course of the normal legislative process which would have begun to transform the military as requested by the President. Some of the provisions in this bill that I find objectionable are provisions that: delay base realignment and closure, BRAC, authority until 2005, codify the anti-trade domestic source restrictions of the Berry amendment, and continue the unfair personnel policy which financially hurts disabled military retirees by reducing their earned military retirement. This is a broken promise to military retirees and their families, year after year. These are also the reasons why I did not sign the final conference agreement. With respect to concurrent receipt, clearly, retirees who have incurred significant disabilities over the course of a military career deserve better than how they are treated today. Many such service members are compelled to forfeit their full-retired pay under current rules. I have stated before on the Senate floor, and I am compelled to reiterate now, retirement pay and disability pay are two distinct types of pay. Retirement pay is for service rendered through 20 years of military service. Disability pay is for physical or mental pain or suffering that occurs during and as a result of military service. In this case, members with decades of military service receive the same compensation as similarly disabled members who served only a few years, with no recognition at all for their more extended, careers of service to our country. This is patently unfair and more must be done to correct this problem. I would also like to highlight that this year's defense authorization bill contained $1.3 billion in unrequested add-ons to the defense budget that will rob our military of vital funding on priority issues. While this year's total is less than in previous years, and is far less than the $4.5 billion in the defense appropriations bill, it is still $1.3 billion too much. We need to, and can do, better. Over the past 6 years, Congress has increased the President's defense budgets by nearly $60 billion in order to address the military services' most important unfunded priorities. Still, it is sufficient to say that the military needs less money spent on pork and more money spent wisely to redress the serious problems caused by a decade of declining defense budgets. We also must reform the bureaucracy of the Pentagon, this bill does not. We did not even make significant improvements requested by the President and the Secretary of Defense when he presented his budget for fiscal year 2002. With the exception of minor changes, our defense establishment looks just as it did 50 years ago. We must continue to incorporate practices from the private sector-like restructuring, reforming, and streamlining to eliminate duplication and capitalize on cost savings. More effort must be made to reduce the continuing growth of headquarter staffs and to decentralize the Pentagon's labyrinth of bureaucratic fiefdoms to change its way of doing business with its bloated staffs and its outdated practices. In addition, more must be done to eliminate unnecessary and duplicative military contracts and military installations. Every U.S. military leader has testified regarding the critical need for further BRAC rounds. We can redirect at least $6.3 billion per year by eliminating excess defense infrastructure. There is another $2 billion per year that we can put to better purposes by privatizing or consolidating support and maintenance functions, something not considered in either body, and an additional $5 billion can be saved per year by eliminating ``Buy America'' restrictions that only undermine U.S. competitiveness overseas. Despite these compelling facts, the conference agreement on the contrary, includes several provisions that move demonstratively in the opposite direction. The conference agreement delays a base realignment and closure, BRAC, round until 2005. There is no good reason to delay BRAC. By doing so, too many servicemen and women will continue to live in old and dilapidated barracks and homes because we have too many bases. Although I would prefer to say that base closing is a new idea, it isn't. In 1970, the Blue Ribbon Defense Panel, ``Fithugh Commission'', made reference to ``consolidation of military activities at fewer installations would contribute to more efficient operations and would produce substantial savings.'' In 1983, the President's Private Sector Survey on Cost Control, ``Grace Commission'', made strong recommendations for military base closures. In 1997, the Quadrennial Defense Review, QDR, recommended that, even after four base closure rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995, the Armed Forces ``must shed excess infrastructure.'' Likewise, the 1997 Defense Reform Initiative, DRI, and the National Defense Panel, NDP, ``strongly urged Congress and the Department of Defense to move quickly to restore the base realignment and closure, BRAC, process.'' Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, former Secretaries Dick Cheney and William Cohen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, all the Service Chiefs, the Congressional Budget Office, and other respected defense experts have been consistent in their plea that the Pentagon be permitted to divest themselves of excess infrastructure beyond what was eliminated during the prior rounds of base closings. Through the end of 1998, the Pentagon had closed 97 major bases in the United States after four previous rounds of BRAC. Since then, it has closed none. Moreover, the savings from closing additional unneeded bases would be shifted to force modernization. The Department of Defense is obligated to maintain 23 percent excess capacity in infrastructure. When we actually look for the dollars to pay for the Unfunded Priority Lists as provided by the Service Chiefs, it is important to look to the billions of dollars that would be saved by base realignment and closure. Only 30 percent of the defense budget funds combat forces, while the remaining 70 percent is devoted to support functions such as bases. Continuing to squander precious dollars in this manner will make it impossible for us to adequately modernize our forces for the future. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have stated repeatedly that they desire more opportunities to streamline the military's infrastructure. Total BRAC savings realized from the four previous closure rounds exceed total costs to date. Department of Defense figures suggest previous base closures will save, after one-time closing costs, $15 billion through fiscal year 2001, $25 billion through fiscal year 2003 and $6.3 billion a year thereafter. Additional needed closures can save $20 billion by 2015, and $3 billion a year thereafter. Sooner or later these surplus bases will be closed anyway. The sooner the issue is addressed, the greater will be the savings that will ultimately go toward defense modernization and greater pay raises for service members. Delaying the BRAC process, as we have done in this Conference Report, only harms force modernization and hurts the pocket book of service members, their families and military retirees. We can continue to maintain a military infrastructure that we do not need, or we can provide the necessary funds to ensure our military can fight and win future wars. Every dollar we spend on unnecessary bases precludes our military leaders from spending scarce resources on training our troops, keeping personnel quality of life at an appropriate level, maintaining force structure, replacing old weapons systems, and advancing our military technology. In my view, the Committee on Armed Services took a step backwards by codifying in Title 10 ``Buy America'' restrictions which divert necessary funds to ensure our military is properly equipped. Every dollar we spend on archaic procurement policies, like ``Buy America,'' is a dollar we cannot spend on training our troops, keeping personnel quality of life at an appropriate level, maintaining force structure, replacing old weapons systems, and advancing our military technology. It would be unconscionable not to examine the potential for savings from modifying congressionally-mandated protectionist procurement policy instead of codifying in Title 10 procurement legislation which obligates the Department of Defense to maintain wasteful spending. Secretary Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have stated repeatedly that they want more flexibility to reform the military's archaic acquisition practices. We need to give them that flexibility. I have spoken of this issue before in this Chamber and the potential impact of certain domestic source restrictions on bilateral trade relations with our allies. From a philosophical point of view, I oppose protectionist trade policy, not only because I believe free trade is an important means of improving relations among nations and a key to major U.S. economic growth, but also because I believe we must reform these practices in order to get more bang for our defense dollars. It is my sincere hope that next year the chairman and ranking member of the committee will hold hearings on this issue and start serious reform. It is important to point out that the Secretary of Defense and the President do not like, nor do they want this protectionist policy, codifying it as the chairman and ranking member have done, absent any hearings or consultation with members of the committee who have strong views on this matter shows disregard to an informed or proper committee process. We must end once and for all the anti-competitive, anti-free trade practices that encumber our Government, the military, and U.S. industry. Finally, I am disappointed that the conferees did not adopt legislation by Representative Heather Wilson, R-NM, that would rescind a congressionally-mandated provision added in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1992 over the strong objections of the civilian and military leadership and would return Second Lieutenants and Ensigns to regular commissions vice reserve commissions upon graduation from one of the Service Academies or certain ROTC scholarship programs. Service Academies have a unique opportunity and special responsibility to provide an environment that cultivates, indeed demands, the internalization of honor, loyalty, integrity, and moral courage, the qualities essential to developing leadership. The core of our officer commissioning program are the Service Academies, this is not to say that the ROTC, OCS, and other critical commissioning programs are not outstanding, they are, just look at our current military leadership: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Richard Myers, Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Vern Clark, and Marine Corps Commandant General Jim Jones. I believe returning to regular service commissions for Academy and certain ROTC junior officers will inspire a core of career-oriented officers for our military. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my belief in the importance of enacting meaningful improvements for active duty and Reserve service members. They risk their lives in Afghanistan and elsewhere to defend our shores and preserve democracy, and we cannot thank them enough for their service. But, we can and should pay them more, improve the benefits for their families, and support the Reserve Components in a manner similar to the active forces. Our service members past, present, and future need these improvements. We also cannot continue with this ``business as usual'' mind set. We must reform the Department of Defense and not fall prey to the special interest groups that attempt to warp our perspective and misdirect our spending. We owe so much more to our men and women in uniform who defend our country. They are our greatest resource, and I believe they are woefully under-represented. We must continue to do better. I ask unanimous consent that a list of items added to the defense authorization bill Conference Report by the Conference Committee be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

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

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

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator from Iowa yield for a request?

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we will have additional time, I am sure, after the cloture vote and perhaps I may even make a tabling motion, depending upon the parliamentary situation on this issue. But it is very simple. The amendment was an amendment slipped into the 2002 Agriculture appropriations bill as part of a managers' amendment. I still remember very clearly, it was in the evening. We were about to vote final passage. I said: Wait a minute; has anybody seen the managers' amendment? There was dead silence. There were maybe 50 or 60 Members here. So I said: We really should look at the managers' package. Everybody grumbled, so I relented. It turned out there were 35 amendments, 15 of them specific to members of the Appropriations Committee. One bans catfish, basically bans catfish from being imported into the United States of America, without debate, without discussion, without knowledge until the next day after the bill was passed. Again, the remarkable degeneration of the parliamentary system that is taking place as we address appropriations bills is remarkable. Think of it: 35 amendments, no one knowing what they are. We all voted aye. One of them fundamentally affected a trade agreement that had just been completed between the United States of America and Vietnam. This is happening all the time. We find amendments slipped in which affect national policy, which affect, in the case of the North American Free Trade Agreement, commerce as far as Mexican trucks are concerned. There was legitimate debate on both sides but--what? It was put into an appropriations bill. Time after time after time. This is another dramatic example of it. It is entertaining. We will get to talk about it a lot. But this is a provision, as I say, which was added without debate, discussion, or knowledge of the Members that basically calls catfish from this country catfish and catfish from any other part of the world not catfish. Remarkable. According to the Food and Drug Administration and the American Fisheries Society, the Pangasius species of catfish is imported from Vietnam and other countries as ``freshwater catfishes of Africa and southern Asia.'' Existing regulations required imported catfish to be labeled differently from catfish grown domestically so consumers can make informed choice about what they are eating. Yet the Agriculture appropriations language overturns these regulations by allowing only North American catfish growers to call their catfish ``catfish'' and prohibits catfish from any other country being labeled as such. Remarkable. This was commented on by several newspapers and magazines. Also, by the way, there was an advertising campaign mounted against catfish. According to the Far Eastern Economic Review, in its feature article on this issue: For a bunch of profit-starved fisherfolk, the U.S. Catfish lobby had deep enough pockets to wage a highly xenophobic advertising campaign against their Vietnamese competitors. This protectionist campaign against catfish imports has global repercussions. Peru has brought a case against the European Union and World Trade Organization because the Europeans have claimed exclusive rights to the use of the word ``sardine" for trade purposes. As a direct consequence of the passage of this restrictive catfish labeling language in the Agriculture appropriations bill, USTR has withdrawn its brief supporting the Peruvian position in the sardine case against the European Union because the catfish provision written into United States law makes the United States guilty of the same type of protectionist labeling scheme for which we have brought suit against the Europeans in the WTO. Sooner or later, we are going to have to stop legislating on appropriations bills. Sooner or later, we are going to have to stop giving away to special interests, and we are going to have to have campaign finance reform. I would be very interested in hearing the campaign contributions made by this catfish lobby in past and present political campaigns. We have to stop the kind of protectionism which will destroy free trade on which America's economy is built and maintained. We are seeing example after example and case after case of protectionism creeping in but not through open and honest debate. If the supporters of this amendment thought it was a good amendment, why couldn't we have brought it up and had open and honest debate and amendments? No. It was snuck in a managers' package, the most disgraceful practice--the most disgraceful is putting it in the conference report. That is the worst. The second worst is putting it in the so-called managers' package. Usually, it is late at night. I stray from the subject a bit, but if you think we have had fun, wait until you see the DOD appropriations bill. Wait until next Friday when everybody is going to want to get out of town because Christmas is coming and the last train is leaving. It is going to have more Christmas trees on it than the North Pole. It will be a remarkable document. But I intend to be here and make sure that at least the American people know what is in it. Putting an amendment that affects trade relations, trade agreements, and fundamental issues of free trade into a managers' package is the kind of conduct that causes the American people to lose confidence in their elected representatives. I don't mind open and honest debate. I wouldn't mind losing an open and honest debate. I do mind on the part of my constituents and the American people that this kind of amendment gets the attention it has received. I know it is almost time, according to the unanimous consent agreement, for the cloture vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Iowa probably knows, in the last 2 days I have been in the queue for an amendment. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons which are not worth going through now, I am still in the queue. I am afraid it might not be completed by 4. I know the Senator from Iowa allowed under unanimous consent other amendments whether they were germane or not. I am not sure if my amendment is germane or not. I believe it is, but I still ask he include that amendment in case it is not able to be considered until after 4 o'clock.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I ask that, following the Wyden-Brownback amendment, the McCain-Gramm amendment be considered.

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, is it the intention of the majority leader to return to consideration of the agriculture bill?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the McCain amendment be made in order after the last amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Are there amendments made in order following the disposition of the Johnson amendment?

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 1 minute as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank my colleagues for their indulgence.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleagues for their indulgence, and I appreciate them taking a moment to congratulate this wonderful group of Americans.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from Iowa. It is also important to mention my friend from Missouri whose team also played a wonderful series early on with the Diamondbacks, and I think helped them prepare for the World Series.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I recognize the presence today of our world champion Arizona Diamondbacks who are visiting with the President later this morning. We in Arizona are especially proud of them, as I know are all baseball fans across America who hate the Yankees as well. So I express, on behalf of myself, my colleague Senator Kyl, and the people of the State of Arizona, how pleased and proud we are of the Diamondbacks and the fact that the President will be greeting them later on; he has a very deep connection and affection for professional baseball. We are especially proud to have our Diamondbacks with us this morning to see our Capitol and know that all Americans, in a very difficult time in American history, were uplifted by the incredible series that was played by both teams; it diverted our attention and made us appreciate the greatness and strength of America.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, last week I had the privilege of introducing Adolfo Franco, the President's nominee to be Assistant Administrator for Latin America at the United States Agency for International Development, to the Committee on Foreign Relations. The President has made a wise choice for this important position, and I commend him for it. I also commend Mr. Franco to all of my colleagues as they consider their vote on his nomination, and I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record, my statement introducing Mr. Franco before the Committee.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, for many years I have spoken at length, both on and off of the Senate floor, about the need to curb pork barrel spending and reduce overall government waste. Around this time each year, I often engage in lengthy debates over the latest excesses in the appropriations bills, which, almost invariably, are stuffed to the gills with earmarks and pet projects. It was noted last week that H.R. 3338, this year's $317 billion Department of Defense Appropriations bill, was the most expensive appropriations bill to ever pass the United States Senate. Unlike some of my colleagues, I do not believe this is something for which we deserve praise. Bills like H.R. 3338, before it was modified due to the efforts of other Republican Senators who share my concern, are prime examples of how we are failing the American taxpayers who foot the bill for our excesses. Time and again, I have called my colleagues' attention to the harmful practice of earmarking, of putting parochial interests before national ones, and of funding projects in an ad hoc manner devoid of a unifying policy or goal. Last week, Secretary Rumsfeld, after briefing a group of Senators about the war effort, was asked what the Senate could do to help. One of several requests by the Secretary was that we in Senate stop funding projects the military did not ask for or need. As my colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, recounted last Friday night during debate on the DoD appropriations bill, the reaction to this statement was ``other than that, what can we do?" Today I offer an answer. It is premised on the recognition that part of the problem lies in the current structure of the Senate, which delegates to separate committees the functions of authorization and appropriating funds. Currently, there are no effective restrictions on funding projects that have not been considered by a single committee with technical expertise and broad policy perspective. I should mention that I do not necessarily think these are the authorizing committees. To help provide a unified, uniform policy basis for our spending of taxpayers' money, I am introducing a resolution today to reorganize the committees of the United States Senate with the hope of helping to eliminate spending on unauthorized and unconsidered pet projects. Under this Resolution most of the existing committees would be dissolved and reconstituted as policy, administrative, or leadership committees. The Resolution would merge the functions of the authorizing and appropriations committees by having members of the existing appropriations subcommittees serve with current members of the existing authorizing committee on newly created ``policy committees'' that correspond to the issues they currently cover. This resolution is not a new idea. It was introduced during four previous Congresses by one of our former colleagues, Nancy Kassebaum. I was a proud cosponsor of this legislation then, and I find it particularly timely now. This is a sound proposal for real reform, and I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting it.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, today, Senator Bayh and I are introducing legislation, the Call to Service Act of 2001, that will expand opportunities for Americans to serve our nation. Congressmen Ford of Tennessee and Congressman Osborne of Nebraska are offering companion legislation in the House, and I want to thank them for their strong, bipartisan leadership in the face of America's new challenge at home and overseas. All of us welcome the support of America's Promise, Teach for America, AmeriCorps Alums, City Year, the National Association of Service and Conservation Corps, the Naval Reserve Association, the Reserve Officers Association, the American Legion, and many other groups dedicated to service to our nation. Our legislation is not a Democratic or Republican initiative. Duty, honor, and country are values that transcend party or ideology. This is a uniquely American moment in which a crisis becomes an opportunity to harness our unity and channel is into what historian Stephen Ambrose describes as ``common-patriotism.'' In the aftermath of September 11, the American people have demonstrated, through their courage and generosity, that they are prepared to meet the challenge that confronts our Nation. Yet, our fellow citizens ask how they can do more for their country. That is why we should act to provide more opportunities for public service. Forty years ago, at the height of the cold war, President John F. Kennedy issued his famous call for service, ``Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country.'' His clarion challenge inspired millions of Americans to enter into public service. President Kennedy created both the civilian Peace Corps and the Green Berets as avenues to serve. Now, we are confronted with a new challenge. In this battle against terror, there are both foreign and domestic fronts. The heroic sacrifices of the New York City firefighters and police have truly moved the public. Thousands of men and women in uniform are now in harms way to defend our liberty and freedom. The American people are also ready to serve at home. Walk down any street and you will see a blizzard of American flags. Over a billion dollars have been contributed to the victims of the terrorist attacks. We should seize this moment and issue a new call to service. There will be many tasks ahead, both new and old. On the home front, there are new security and civil defense needs. The military will also require new recruits to confront the challenges abroad and within our borders. And, of course, there are many other ongoing service opportunities ranging from combating illiteracy to helping children and our elderly. A major component of our legislation would be to expand AmeriCorps. Since it was created, more than 200,000 Americans have served one-to- two year stints in AmeriCorps, tutoring children, building low-income housing or helping flood-ravaged communities. AmeriCorps achievements are impressive: thousands of homes constructed; hundreds of thousands of seniors assisted to live independently in their own homes; millions of children taught, tutored, and mentored. The program receives broad bipartisan support, with 49 of the Nation's 50 Governors signing a letter last year urging Congress to support AmeriCorps. But for all its concrete achievements, AmeriCorps has a fundamental flaw: In its seven years of existence it has barely stirred the Nation's imagination. Two out of every three Americans say that they have never heard of the program. We seek not only to expand the program, but also make certain that it has national objectives. We also charge the program with the task of assembling a plan to assist the new needs in the area of Homeland Defense. We must also ask our Nation's colleges to step up to the plate and more aggressively promote service. Currently, only a small fraction of college work-study funds are devoted to community service, far less than what Congress originally intended when it passed the Higher Education Act of 1965. Our legislation requires universities to being truly complying with the intent of the act to promote student involvement in community activities. We should also be concerned by the growing gap between our nation's military and civilian cultures. While the volunteer military has been successful, fewer Americans know first-hand the sacrifices and contributions of their fellow citizens who serve in uniform. There are also many civil defense needs that must be met to defend our Nation against terrorists attacks and having a shorter-term enlistment option will help provide the manpower to defend the security of our Nation. An October 15 article in the Los Angeles Times described ``the sheer size of the task of protecting targets'' within our borders. And a recent Newsweek cover story, ``Protecting America: What Must Be Done,'' cited a long list of potential terrorist targets, including nuclear power plants, seaports, dams, chemical plants, airports, water supplies, and government buildings across the United States. To bolster our preparedness against terrorist attack, our legislation allows that Defense Department to create a new short-term enlistment to encouraging more young Americans to serve in the military. This new 18- 18-18-enlistment option would provide an $18,000 post-service award for 18-months of active duty and 18 months of reserve duty. Our legislation also significantly improves the benefits of the Montgomery GI bill by doubling the annual education benefit from $7,800 to $15,600 and by encouraging service-members to participate in the program through the elimination of the current 10-year requirement from use of the GI Bill educational benefits. Our legislation also ensures maximum accessibility to colleges and high schools by military service recruiters. We close loopholes in current recruiting access statutes, especially where colleges may be allowing access but not providing, in the spirit of the law, full access to recruiters in terms of both information they require and reasonable physical presence. Finally, our legislation establishes a 9-member Commission on Military Recruitment and National Service to be appointed by the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State to examine such things as ways to shrink the civilian-military gap and develop ways to bring in a larger, broader pool of recruits. As a country, we should strive to make national service a rite of passage for young Americans. Not only will our Nation benefit, but those whose serve will find their lives transformed. They will be able to glimpse the glory of serving a cause greater than their self- interest. They will come to know both the obligations and rewards of active citizenship. Over the past few years, we have celebrated the achievements of the Greatest Generation. Now a new generation is confronted with a challenge to defend our great nation. Let us seize the moment and provide Americans with the opportunity to serve our great nation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, late Friday night the Senate agreed to an amendment to the Department of Defense appropriations bill related to Amtrak. The amendment bars the use of Federal funds or revenues generated by Amtrak for preparation by Amtrak of a liquidation plan, until Congress has reauthorized Amtrak. This amendment does not, however, affect in any way the obligation of the Amtrak Reform Council to prepare and submit to Congress a plan to restructure Amtrak. Nor does it affect in any way the existing law with respect to Congressional review of the restructuring plan, and the requirement, if a restructuring proposal is not approved, for Congressional consideration of a liquidation disapproval resolution. Given Amtrak's dire financial situation, as identified by the ARC, the GAO, and the DOT Inspector General, Congress must take action early next session to provide for a restructured and rationalized passenger rail system.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, today, Senator Bayh and I are introducing legislation, the Call to Service Act of 2001, that will expand opportunities for Americans to serve our nation. Congressmen Ford of Tennessee and Congressman Osborne of Nebraska are offering companion legislation in the House, and I want to thank them for their strong, bipartisan leadership in the face of America's new challenge at home and overseas. All of us welcome the support of America's Promise, Teach for America, AmeriCorps Alums, City Year, the National Association of Service and Conservation Corps, the Naval Reserve Association, the Reserve Officers Association, the American Legion, and many other groups dedicated to service to our nation. Our legislation is not a Democratic or Republican initiative. Duty, honor, and country are values that transcend party or ideology. This is a uniquely American moment in which a crisis becomes an opportunity to harness our unity and channel is into what historian Stephen Ambrose describes as ``common-patriotism.'' In the aftermath of September 11, the American people have demonstrated, through their courage and generosity, that they are prepared to meet the challenge that confronts our Nation. Yet, our fellow citizens ask how they can do more for their country. That is why we should act to provide more opportunities for public service. Forty years ago, at the height of the cold war, President John F. Kennedy issued his famous call for service, ``Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country.'' His clarion challenge inspired millions of Americans to enter into public service. President Kennedy created both the civilian Peace Corps and the Green Berets as avenues to serve. Now, we are confronted with a new challenge. In this battle against terror, there are both foreign and domestic fronts. The heroic sacrifices of the New York City firefighters and police have truly moved the public. Thousands of men and women in uniform are now in harms way to defend our liberty and freedom. The American people are also ready to serve at home. Walk down any street and you will see a blizzard of American flags. Over a billion dollars have been contributed to the victims of the terrorist attacks. We should seize this moment and issue a new call to service. There will be many tasks ahead, both new and old. On the home front, there are new security and civil defense needs. The military will also require new recruits to confront the challenges abroad and within our borders. And, of course, there are many other ongoing service opportunities ranging from combating illiteracy to helping children and our elderly. A major component of our legislation would be to expand AmeriCorps. Since it was created, more than 200,000 Americans have served one-to- two year stints in AmeriCorps, tutoring children, building low-income housing or helping flood-ravaged communities. AmeriCorps achievements are impressive: thousands of homes constructed; hundreds of thousands of seniors assisted to live independently in their own homes; millions of children taught, tutored, and mentored. The program receives broad bipartisan support, with 49 of the Nation's 50 Governors signing a letter last year urging Congress to support AmeriCorps. But for all its concrete achievements, AmeriCorps has a fundamental flaw: In its seven years of existence it has barely stirred the Nation's imagination. Two out of every three Americans say that they have never heard of the program. We seek not only to expand the program, but also make certain that it has national objectives. We also charge the program with the task of assembling a plan to assist the new needs in the area of Homeland Defense. We must also ask our Nation's colleges to step up to the plate and more aggressively promote service. Currently, only a small fraction of college work-study funds are devoted to community service, far less than what Congress originally intended when it passed the Higher Education Act of 1965. Our legislation requires universities to being truly complying with the intent of the act to promote student involvement in community activities. We should also be concerned by the growing gap between our nation's military and civilian cultures. While the volunteer military has been successful, fewer Americans know first-hand the sacrifices and contributions of their fellow citizens who serve in uniform. There are also many civil defense needs that must be met to defend our Nation against terrorists attacks and having a shorter-term enlistment option will help provide the manpower to defend the security of our Nation. An October 15 article in the Los Angeles Times described ``the sheer size of the task of protecting targets'' within our borders. And a recent Newsweek cover story, ``Protecting America: What Must Be Done,'' cited a long list of potential terrorist targets, including nuclear power plants, seaports, dams, chemical plants, airports, water supplies, and government buildings across the United States. To bolster our preparedness against terrorist attack, our legislation allows that Defense Department to create a new short-term enlistment to encouraging more young Americans to serve in the military. This new 18- 18-18-enlistment option would provide an $18,000 post-service award for 18-months of active duty and 18 months of reserve duty. Our legislation also significantly improves the benefits of the Montgomery GI bill by doubling the annual education benefit from $7,800 to $15,600 and by encouraging service-members to participate in the program through the elimination of the current 10-year requirement from use of the GI Bill educational benefits. Our legislation also ensures maximum accessibility to colleges and high schools by military service recruiters. We close loopholes in current recruiting access statutes, especially where colleges may be allowing access but not providing, in the spirit of the law, full access to recruiters in terms of both information they require and reasonable physical presence. Finally, our legislation establishes a 9-member Commission on Military Recruitment and National Service to be appointed by the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State to examine such things as ways to shrink the civilian-military gap and develop ways to bring in a larger, broader pool of recruits. As a country, we should strive to make national service a rite of passage for young Americans. Not only will our Nation benefit, but those whose serve will find their lives transformed. They will be able to glimpse the glory of serving a cause greater than their self- interest. They will come to know both the obligations and rewards of active citizenship. Over the past few years, we have celebrated the achievements of the Greatest Generation. Now a new generation is confronted with a challenge to defend our great nation. Let us seize the moment and provide Americans with the opportunity to serve our great nation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Absolutely.

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator is right; only he may have left out another aspect of it. We have to spend an additional $1.2 billion in military construction to build new hangars for these aircraft because existing hangars for our existing fleet, which does need upgrading--and they have requested repair and upgrading of our existing fleet--is also an additional cost. I would like to mention to my friend from Texas that once the 10 years is over, Boeing gets the aircraft back.