John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to mark an historic day for our Nation's military, and specifically the reserves. Yesterday, the U.S. Senate honorably carried out its constitutional duty by approving the Presidential nominations of Reserve Service Chiefs to the rank of three-star. Last year's National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, H.R. 4205, required the service secretaries to increase the rank of the Chief of the Navy Reserve, Commander of the Marine Forces Reserve, Chief of the Army Reserve, Chief of the Air Force Reserve, Director of the Army National Guard, and the Director of the Air National Guard to Vice Admiral or Lieutenant General. This mandate was very significant to me and many of my colleagues, as well as those who serve in our reserve forces. Earlier this year, I was greatly honored to be recognized by the Reserve Officers Association in receiving their highest honor--the Minute Man of the Year Award. The Reserve Officers Association, particularly Rear Admiral Stephen G. Yusem USNR (Retired), deserves great credit for its efforts in working with Congress to ensure that this well-deserved change in promotion authority for the Reserve Chiefs became a reality. It is especially important to me because of the significant changes I have observed in our Total Force, active duty and Reserve Components since the late-1980s to early-1990s when Senator Glenn chaired the Personnel Subcommittee on the Committee on Armed Services and I was the ranking member on the subcommittee. Back then, reservists were truly weekend warriors. That, however, is not the case now--they are much more than that. Today, reservists work considerably more than weekends, and are as critical a part of the fabric of our National Military Strategy as active duty servicemembers. The all-volunteer military has largely been a success in our country. However, an unfortunate bi-product has been the increasing chasm between those Americans who have served in the armed services and those who have not. Twenty years ago, scores of elected officials in Washington were veterans. Today, the number of Senators and Congressmen who have worn the uniform of the armed services has rapidly declined. This military-civilian gap, as some have characterized it, is a troubling reality that we must seek to bridge. It is increasingly difficult for many of our fellow citizens to truly appreciate the sacrifices of those who serve in any capacity. That is another reason that the reserves are so important for our national life. Our reserve servicemembers not only protect our liberty, but also serve as the indispensable link to those Americans in civilian life not ordinarily touched in their daily lives by the sacrifice, honor and privilege of military service. The roles and missions of the Reserve Components have changed over the past several years, as the active duty force has evolved from the downsizing of our military forces during the last decade. 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 is that 75 percent of the 4,000 U.S. Army soldiers on the ground will be Army Reserve and Guard soldiers from 17 states--not just headquarters' staff, but operational units as well. This is just one of many such deployments that have taken place in recent years, but it highlights the ever-increasing role of reservists in defending America's security interests around the world, and marks a radical departure from the past. The figures are quite staggering when considered in total. Today, reservists and National Guardsmen are deployed under three presidential call-up orders for Bosnia, Kosovo and Southwest Asia. For Bosnia, more than 21,000 U.S. reservists have been called involuntarily since 1995, with another 14,000 having served in a voluntary capacity. For Kosovo, more than 7,100 have been called involuntarily, and these have been joined by more than 4,000 volunteers. For Southwest Asia, 2,800 have been called and some 11,000 have volunteered. During each of the past five years, Reserve and National Guard servicemembers 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 just one million duty days were performed, yet 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 needed to move troops and equipment in either wartime or peacetime operations. In addition, reserve medical and construction battalions, as well as other specialists, are critical to a wide range of operations. Consequently, efforts by the reserve components to move beyond a traditional wartime backup role and to provide peacetime support to active units are desirable. The Naval Reserve and Air Force Reserve components have made particularly impressive progress in this direction. Reservists are performing many vital tasks, from patrolling the no- fly zones in skies above Iraq 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 servicemembers when they put on the uniform and perform their weekend drills as well as all other critical training evolutions. Quality of life is not just an active duty obligation that Congress must provide. 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 am pleased to pay homage to the many wonderful reserve servicemen and women who serve in our armed forces, and in some small measure thank them for their dedicated service to our country by recognizing the confirmation by the U.S. Senate of the Reserve Service Chiefs to three-star rank. Congratulations to Vice Admiral John B. Totushek, Chief of the Naval Reserve; Lieutenant General Dennis M. McCarthy, Commander of the Marine Forces Reserve; Lieutenant General Thomas J. Plewes, Chief of the Army Reserve; Lieutenant General James E. Sherrard, III, Chief of the Air Force Reserve; and, Lieutenant General Roger C. Schultz, Director of the Army National Guard. I am confident that our Reserve Component forces will continue to flourish under your leadership. All of you have already demonstrated that the key to your strength as leaders is in supporting the servicemen and women who work very hard in our military. I trust in your willingness and ability to uphold the honor of our country. Congratulations on your continued sacrifice and service to our Nation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2001. Charged with maintaining our national defense and the safety of our citizens, the Coast Guard is a multi- mission agency. The Coast Guard is a branch of the U.S. Armed Forces, but it is also a unique instrument of national security, responsible for search and rescue services and maritime law enforcement. Daily operations include drug interdiction, environmental protection, marine inspection, licensing, port safety and security, aids to navigation, waterways management, and boating safety. Recently the Coast Guard has been forced to reduce its services and cut its operations as a result of funding shortfalls. Earlier this year, for the second year in a row, the Coast Guard reduced its non- emergency operations by over 10 percent due to a shortfall in operating appropriations. Mr. President, the Coast Guard and the American people deserve better, and the bill I am proud to cosponsor today authorizes funding at levels which would restore the Coast Guard to the full operational level. Additionally, the bill provides necessary funding for cutter and aircraft maintenance including the elimination of the existing spare parts shortage. This bill provides the funding necessary to maintain the level of service and the quality of performance that the United States has come to expect from the Coast Guard. I commend the men and women of the Coast Guard for their honorable and courageous service to this country. The bill authorizes $4.63 billion in FY 2000, $4.83 billion in 2001, and $5.22 billion in FY 2002. One critical goal of this bill is to provide parity with the Department of Defense on certain personnel matters. We should ensure that the men and women serving in the Coast Guard are not adversely affected because the Coast Guard does not fall under the DOD umbrella. This bill provides parity with DOD for military pay and housing allowance increases, Coast Guard membership on the USO Board of Governors, and compensation for isolated duty. In today's strong economy, the Armed Services are seeing an exodus of experienced officers and enlisted personnel. Additional funding in this bill provides for recruiting and retention initiatives, to ensure that the Coast Guard retains the most qualified young Americans. In addition, it addresses the current shortage of qualified pilots and authorizes the Coast Guard to send more students to flight school. New programs will offer financial assistance to bring college students into the Service and bring retired officers back on active duty to fill temporary experience gaps. The Coast Guard is the lead federal agency in maritime drug interdiction. Therefore, they are often our nation's first line of defense in the war on drugs. This bill authorizes the Coast Guard to acquire and operate up to seven ex-Navy patrol boats, thereby expanding the Coast Guard's critical presence in the Caribbean, a major drug trafficking area. With the vast majority of the drugs smuggled into the United States on the water, the Coast Guard must remain well equipped to prevent drugs from reaching our schools and streets. I was gratified to learn that just a few weeks ago, the Coast Guard made the largest single maritime cocaine seizure in history; more than 13 tons of illegal drugs bound for U.S. streets are instead bound for an incinerator. Environmental protection, including oil-spill cleanup, is an invaluable service provided by the Coast Guard. Under current law, the Coast Guard has access to a permanent annual appropriation of $50 million, distributed by the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, to carry out emergency oil spill response needs. Over the past few years, the fund has spent an average of $42 to $50 million per year, without the occurrence of a major oil spill. Clearly these funds would not be adequate to respond to a large spill. For instance, a spill the size of the Exxon Valdez could easily deplete the annual appropriated funds in two to three weeks. This bill authorizes the Coast Guard to borrow up to an additional $100 million, per incident, from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, for emergency spill responses. In such cases, it also requires the Coast Guard to notify Congress of amounts borrowed within thirty days and repay such amounts once payment is collected from the responsible party. The 1999 President's Interagency Task Force on U.S. Coast Guard Roles and Missions reported ``The Coast Guard provides the United States a broad spectrum of vital services that will be increasingly important in the decades ahead.'' It further found that ``the nation must take action soon to modernize and recapitalize Coast Guard forces, if the Service is to remain Semper Paratus--Always Ready.'' Mr. President, that modernization is just beginning and I am proud to support the Administration's request for $338 million in Fiscal Year 2002 to fund the Integrated Deepwater System project. The bill I am cosponsoring today authorizes full funding for the first year of this multi-year project to replace more than 115 old ships and 165 aircraft that will soon reach their service lives. I support the Coast Guard's groundbreaking procurement process that stresses life cycle cost efficiency and not just lowest procurement cost. This bill represents a thorough set of improvements which will make the Coast Guard more effective, improve the quality of life of its personnel, and facilitate their daily operations. I would like to thank Senators Snowe and Kerry for their bipartisan leadership on Coast Guard issues, as well as my fellow co-sponsors Senators Hollings, Breaux, Lott, Murkowski, and DeWine for their longstanding support of the Coast Guard.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2001. Charged with maintaining our national defense and the safety of our citizens, the Coast Guard is a multi- mission agency. The Coast Guard is a branch of the U.S. Armed Forces, but it is also a unique instrument of national security, responsible for search and rescue services and maritime law enforcement. Daily operations include drug interdiction, environmental protection, marine inspection, licensing, port safety and security, aids to navigation, waterways management, and boating safety. Recently the Coast Guard has been forced to reduce its services and cut its operations as a result of funding shortfalls. Earlier this year, for the second year in a row, the Coast Guard reduced its non- emergency operations by over 10 percent due to a shortfall in operating appropriations. Mr. President, the Coast Guard and the American people deserve better, and the bill I am proud to cosponsor today authorizes funding at levels which would restore the Coast Guard to the full operational level. Additionally, the bill provides necessary funding for cutter and aircraft maintenance including the elimination of the existing spare parts shortage. This bill provides the funding necessary to maintain the level of service and the quality of performance that the United States has come to expect from the Coast Guard. I commend the men and women of the Coast Guard for their honorable and courageous service to this country. The bill authorizes $4.63 billion in FY 2000, $4.83 billion in 2001, and $5.22 billion in FY 2002. One critical goal of this bill is to provide parity with the Department of Defense on certain personnel matters. We should ensure that the men and women serving in the Coast Guard are not adversely affected because the Coast Guard does not fall under the DOD umbrella. This bill provides parity with DOD for military pay and housing allowance increases, Coast Guard membership on the USO Board of Governors, and compensation for isolated duty. In today's strong economy, the Armed Services are seeing an exodus of experienced officers and enlisted personnel. Additional funding in this bill provides for recruiting and retention initiatives, to ensure that the Coast Guard retains the most qualified young Americans. In addition, it addresses the current shortage of qualified pilots and authorizes the Coast Guard to send more students to flight school. New programs will offer financial assistance to bring college students into the Service and bring retired officers back on active duty to fill temporary experience gaps. The Coast Guard is the lead federal agency in maritime drug interdiction. Therefore, they are often our nation's first line of defense in the war on drugs. This bill authorizes the Coast Guard to acquire and operate up to seven ex-Navy patrol boats, thereby expanding the Coast Guard's critical presence in the Caribbean, a major drug trafficking area. With the vast majority of the drugs smuggled into the United States on the water, the Coast Guard must remain well equipped to prevent drugs from reaching our schools and streets. I was gratified to learn that just a few weeks ago, the Coast Guard made the largest single maritime cocaine seizure in history; more than 13 tons of illegal drugs bound for U.S. streets are instead bound for an incinerator. Environmental protection, including oil-spill cleanup, is an invaluable service provided by the Coast Guard. Under current law, the Coast Guard has access to a permanent annual appropriation of $50 million, distributed by the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, to carry out emergency oil spill response needs. Over the past few years, the fund has spent an average of $42 to $50 million per year, without the occurrence of a major oil spill. Clearly these funds would not be adequate to respond to a large spill. For instance, a spill the size of the Exxon Valdez could easily deplete the annual appropriated funds in two to three weeks. This bill authorizes the Coast Guard to borrow up to an additional $100 million, per incident, from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, for emergency spill responses. In such cases, it also requires the Coast Guard to notify Congress of amounts borrowed within thirty days and repay such amounts once payment is collected from the responsible party. The 1999 President's Interagency Task Force on U.S. Coast Guard Roles and Missions reported ``The Coast Guard provides the United States a broad spectrum of vital services that will be increasingly important in the decades ahead.'' It further found that ``the nation must take action soon to modernize and recapitalize Coast Guard forces, if the Service is to remain Semper Paratus--Always Ready.'' Mr. President, that modernization is just beginning and I am proud to support the Administration's request for $338 million in Fiscal Year 2002 to fund the Integrated Deepwater System project. The bill I am cosponsoring today authorizes full funding for the first year of this multi-year project to replace more than 115 old ships and 165 aircraft that will soon reach their service lives. I support the Coast Guard's groundbreaking procurement process that stresses life cycle cost efficiency and not just lowest procurement cost. This bill represents a thorough set of improvements which will make the Coast Guard more effective, improve the quality of life of its personnel, and facilitate their daily operations. I would like to thank Senators Snowe and Kerry for their bipartisan leadership on Coast Guard issues, as well as my fellow co-sponsors Senators Hollings, Breaux, Lott, Murkowski, and DeWine for their longstanding support of the Coast Guard.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I commend Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus for their dedication and hard work in completing this Reconciliation bill. During the debate on the tax reconciliation bill, I have had serious reservations about some of the priorities contained in this bill. First, after years of neglect, our military forces need to be significantly strengthened and it won't be cheap. But in the wake of large tax cuts, non-defense spending initiatives, and uncertain surplus projections, we cannot be sure how much money will remain to fund such defense priorities as National Missile Defense, force modernization, spare parts, flight hours, overdue facility maintenance, training programs, and the care of our service members. As of yet, we have not received from the Administration a request for defense spending increases. I hope their request, when it comes, is adequate to meet the needs of our national security, which, as I observed, are many and serious. If that request is not adequate to our needs, I will fight as hard as I can to increase it. With the adoption of the Reconciliation bill both the Administration and Congress are going to have to make some very hard choices to find the resources to fund our national defense priorities. There's no way around it. We cannot take money from the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds, so that means we will have to cut other spending programs or adjust the tax cuts to support our military forces. Those are very hard choices, indeed, and we don't like to make hard choices in Congress very often. But, Mr. President, we are going to have to make them because our first duty, is and always will be the nation's security, and the defense of American interests and values in the world. And those members who believe we have been derelict in our duty lately, will have to take our case to the public, inform them of the hard choices before us and urge them to urge us to do the right and necessary thing, even if it requires us to take on a few sacred cows around here. Mr. President, while I hoped for even more tax relief to middle income Americans, I do want to commend Senate Grassley for moving in that direction by insisting that the top rate should be cut to only 36 percent. I wish we could have made even greater progress by increasing the 15 percent bracket to include more middle class taxpayers. But the Senate has decided otherwise, and, recognizing what progress has been made by Senator Grassley, I will not register my disappointment by voting against the bill. Neither do I wish to vote against the President's first, important success in the Senate. But I do want to make clear my firm opposition to any increases in benefits to the top tax rate payers at the expense of the majority of Americans who are in much greater need of tax relief. Should further reductions in the top tax rates be made in conference, I will vote against the conference report without hesitation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will authorize the Secretary of Interior to develop and implement a bonding program to help finance capital improvement projects at the Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona. For the past few years, I have worked on legislation to implement a national parks bonding program to benefit the National Parks system by proposing a unique public-private partnership mechanism to finance capital improvements through bond revenues. This legislation has received substantial support by many of the organizations working with the National Parks system. The legislation I am introducing today is similar to the National Parks Capital Improvements Act of 2001, but it specifically authorizes a park-specific bonding program for the Grand Canyon National Park in my home state of Arizona. This park-specific proposal is similar to actions taken back in the late 1980's to legislate a solution to the air traffic and noise pollution problems affecting the Grand Canyon National Park caused by overflights over the canyon. Congress enacted legislation to require specific measures to mitigate air traffic through the National Parks Overflights Act. Once a framework for the Grand Canyon National Park was established, it became clear that broader legislation was necessary to address similar overflights issues to promote safety and quiet in the entire national parks system. Much in the same way, I am proposing to allow the Secretary of Interior to utilize the bonding mechanism at the Grand Canyon National Park, in partnership with a supporting organization. Bonding has worked well in other governmental sectors to leverage additional financing for local projects where federal or state resources are not otherwise sufficient or available. This bonding legislation, as well as the broader national parks bonding bill, would allow the Grand Canyon National Park to utilize up to $2 of its existing fee structure to dedicate to securing bonds to finance capital improvement projects. For example, based on current visitation rates at the Grand Canyon, a $2 surcharge would enable us to raise $100 million from a bond issue amortized over 20 years. That is a significant amount of money which could be used to accomplish many critical park projects. With approximately 1.2 million acres to protect, this type of financial tool would go far to help redress the backlog of needed repairs, maintenance and other approved projects at the Grand Canyon National Park. I remain committed to broader legislation to implement a park-wide bonding program. However, I am proposing that we should also consider testing this innovative approach by authorizing its use to help protect one of the nation's largest and most magnificent parks, the Grand Canyon. I ask unanimous consent to print the text of this bill in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I think we have been through some very excellent debate and discussion and votes. I urge all my colleagues to recognize it is now time for us to move on. We can vote well into the night or tomorrow or into the weekend, but I think we all recognize that with a sufficient number of votes now, the issues are pretty well decided. I hope we can bring this issue to closure and get back to the education bill. We have fought a good fight here, those of us who have some differing views or different positions, but it is time to move on.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will authorize the Secretary of Interior to develop and implement a bonding program to help finance capital improvement projects at the Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona. For the past few years, I have worked on legislation to implement a national parks bonding program to benefit the National Parks system by proposing a unique public-private partnership mechanism to finance capital improvements through bond revenues. This legislation has received substantial support by many of the organizations working with the National Parks system. The legislation I am introducing today is similar to the National Parks Capital Improvements Act of 2001, but it specifically authorizes a park-specific bonding program for the Grand Canyon National Park in my home state of Arizona. This park-specific proposal is similar to actions taken back in the late 1980's to legislate a solution to the air traffic and noise pollution problems affecting the Grand Canyon National Park caused by overflights over the canyon. Congress enacted legislation to require specific measures to mitigate air traffic through the National Parks Overflights Act. Once a framework for the Grand Canyon National Park was established, it became clear that broader legislation was necessary to address similar overflights issues to promote safety and quiet in the entire national parks system. Much in the same way, I am proposing to allow the Secretary of Interior to utilize the bonding mechanism at the Grand Canyon National Park, in partnership with a supporting organization. Bonding has worked well in other governmental sectors to leverage additional financing for local projects where federal or state resources are not otherwise sufficient or available. This bonding legislation, as well as the broader national parks bonding bill, would allow the Grand Canyon National Park to utilize up to $2 of its existing fee structure to dedicate to securing bonds to finance capital improvement projects. For example, based on current visitation rates at the Grand Canyon, a $2 surcharge would enable us to raise $100 million from a bond issue amortized over 20 years. That is a significant amount of money which could be used to accomplish many critical park projects. With approximately 1.2 million acres to protect, this type of financial tool would go far to help redress the backlog of needed repairs, maintenance and other approved projects at the Grand Canyon National Park. I remain committed to broader legislation to implement a park-wide bonding program. However, I am proposing that we should also consider testing this innovative approach by authorizing its use to help protect one of the nation's largest and most magnificent parks, the Grand Canyon. I ask unanimous consent to print the text of this bill in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, without knowing what the administration intends to spend on our national defense, it is difficult for me to support the Budget Reconciliation bill. In the wake of large tax cuts, non-defense spending initiatives, and uncertain surplus projections, we cannot be sure how much money will remain to fund such defense priorities as National Missile Defense, force modernization, spare parts, flight hours, overdue facility maintenance, training programs, and the care of our service members. My motion would ensure that those funds needed for these critical defense priorities are available, especially in light of an article from today's Defense Week, which I will include in the Record, that suggests the so-called reserve fund for defense may be much smaller than predicted for the next ten years. Mr. President, we have the world's finest military, but that is principally because of the fine people in the military who continue to do more with less. Our ability to field credible front-line forces is due to the efforts of our servicemembers, as we live off of the remnants of the Reagan military buildup. That may be difficult to admit, unless you have reviewed the list of aircraft, ships, artillery, and tanks in our current weapons inventory, and recognized the extent of this problem. Anyone who dismisses our military forces' serious readiness problems, concerns with morale and personnel retention, and deficiencies in everything from spare parts to training, is either willfully uninformed or just not ready to face reality. Highly skilled service men and women, who have made ours the best fighting force the world, have been leaving in droves--unlikely to be replaced in the near future. The reason for deciding to leave the service is simple; if one is overworked, underpaid, and away from home more and more often, why stay? Potential recruits say why join? Failure to fully and quickly address our readiness problem will be more damaging to both the near and long-term health of our all-volunteer force than we can imagine. The cure for our defense decline will be neither quick nor cheap. We should not only shore up the services' immediate needs, but also should address the modernization and personnel problems caused by years of chronic under-funding. The administration must take several important steps: propose realistic budget requests; specifically budget for ongoing contingency operations; provide adequately for modernization; ensure equipment and base operations maintenance is adequately funded; and resolve the wide pay and benefits disparity between the military and civilian sector. In turn, civilian and uniformed leadership must be willing to break from service parochialism and institutional affinities for ``cold war'' legacy weapons systems and funding priorities. Recently, I voted in favor of the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2002 in the interest of moving the budget process forward. But I did so in the hope that the Reconciliation bill would address many of the reservations I had about the priorities and assumptions contained in the resolution. My chief concern was that the Reconciliation bill should explicitly provide sufficient resources for our national security. Our military services have been neglected for too many years. But with appropriate increases and money freed up from eliminating waste and inefficiency in the defense budget, we can make progress toward restoring the morale and readiness of our Armed Forces. Currently, the administration is conducting a defense review. My motion would ensure that the reconciliation bill before us provides not only the resources for these overdue reforms, but also funds to substantially strengthen air, sea, and land forces in the near term. Today in Defense Week there is a very interesting article entitled ``Federal Spending Blueprint Limits Defense Dollars'': Congress has set aside so much of the $5.6 trillion budget surplus--for a tax cut, Social Security, Medicare and more-- that just $12 billion in outlays is left for fiscal 2002 spending increases across the federal government, according to officials and documents. . . . The annual budget reserve figures have not been previously disclosed. They demonstrate the limits within which military programs must compete against other priorities. These constraints are tighter than is widely known. While a chorus of voices have advocated increasing the Pentagon budget by up to $100 billion a year, the new figures show how difficult even a fraction of that increase will be to attain. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article from Defense Week be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. I asked the Office of Management and Budget Director to send me information as to how much we were going to spend on defense both this year and in the next 10 years. No answer. There has not been even an estimate as to what the supplemental will be. We are about to enact one of the most massive tax cuts in history, and we do not have any idea how much money is going to be devoted to defense spending and how much is going to be left over for it. I believe the American people and Members of this body have a right to know that answer. This motion basically says that we should wait, as far as the top tiers are concerned, until we find out how much money is going to be spent on defense. It instructs the Budget Committee to come up with the information that is necessary for us to make these decisions in the overall context of other spending but most importantly defense spending. I campaigned all across this country telling service men and women that help was on the way. So far not one penny of help has been on the way. So far we have not had a supplemental appropriations bill to meet the pressing, compelling needs just to keep our planes flying, our ships at sea, and our men and women in the military. We do not have the supplemental. We have no estimate of what our defense spending needs are going to be for the next 10 years. According to recent information, including from Defense Week, there will be very little. I urge the adoption of the motion to commit with instructions. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. McCAIN. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Could I say to my friend, my understanding is that Senator Conrad wanted to speak on this motion to commit, so I want to reserve 2 minutes of my time remaining for Senator Conrad, if he wants to speak. If not, I will yield it back.

Mr. McCAIN. What is the point? What is the problem? I reserve the 2 minutes.

Mr. McCAIN. I have an amendment and motion to recommit. Will you give me 7 minutes?

Mr. McCAIN. On behalf of Senator Grassley and his capable staff, who will take the responsibility if this is wrong, I yield back the remaining time on this side.

Mr. McCAIN. I have to temporarily object because Senator Grassley would have to be asked. I would like to go ahead with my amendment. He will be back shortly.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk numbered 660. I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the principle that guides my judgement of a tax reconciliation bill is tax relief for those who need it the most--lower- and middle-income working families. I am in favor of a tax cut, but a responsible one that provides significant tax relief for lower- and middle-income families. And I commend Senator Grassley for moving in that direction. But I am concerned that debt will overwhelm many American households. That is why tax relief should be targeted to middle-income Americans. The more fortunate among us have less concern about debt. It is the parents struggling to make ends meet who are most in need of tax relief. I had expressed hope that when the reconciliation bill was reported out of the Senate Finance Committee, the tax cuts outlined would provide more tax relief to working, middle-income Americans. However, I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6 percent to 36 percent thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers. This amendment would, instead, cut the top tax rate for the wealthiest individuals from 39.6 percent to 38.6 percent and devote the resulting savings that would have gone to this group to lower- and middle-income taxpayers by increasing the number of individuals who pay the 15 percent tax rate. When it is finally phased in, this amendment could place millions of taxpayers now in the 28 percent tax bracket into the 15 percent tax bracket. This amendment targets tax relief to the individuals who feel the tax squeeze the most: lower- and middle- income taxpayers. Under this amendment, unmarried individuals can make nearly $30,000 and married individuals can make $50,000, and still be in the 15 percent tax bracket. Mr. President, this is a modest amendment. I would have preferred that we be able to have a larger increase in the number of taxpayers in the 15 percent bracket, but given the constraints of the modest savings from cutting the top rate by only 1 percent, this will have to do for now. But it is an important first step towards further reform. I support this amendment because it helps ordinary middle-class families who are struggling to make ends meet and it promotes future economic prosperity by increasing the amount of money taxpayers have available for their own saving and investment. We must provide American families with relief from the excessive rate of taxation that saps job growth and robs them of the opportunity to provide for their needs and save for the future. This amendment would deliver tax relief to more middle-class taxpayers by increasing the number of individuals who pay the 15 percent tax rate. This amendment results in millions of taxpayers being able to keep more of the money they earn. This extra income will allow individuals to save and invest more. Increased savings and investment are key to sustaining our current economic growth. In sum, the measure is a win for individuals, and a win for America as a whole. Therefore, Mr. President, on behalf of the millions of Americans in need of relief from over-taxation, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. This amendment targets tax relief to the individuals who feel the tax squeeze the most: lower and middle-income taxpayers. Under this amendment, unmarried individuals can make nearly $30,000 and married individuals can earn up to $50,000 and still be in the 15-percent tax bracket. Motion to Commit Now, Mr. President, I send a motion to commit with instructions on behalf of myself, Senator Conrad, and Senator Levin to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, this amendment would cut the top tax rate for the wealthiest individuals from 39.6 percent to 38.6 percent and devote the resulting savings that would have gone to this group to lower and middle-income taxpayers by increasing the number of individuals who pay the 15-percent tax rate. When it is finally phased in, this amendment will place millions of taxpayers now in the 28- percent tax bracket into the 15-percent tax bracket. Under this amendment, unmarried individuals can make nearly $30,000 and married individuals can make $50,000 and still be in the 15-percent tax bracket. I urge its adoption and yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the intention of this amendment is to commit until we can find out exactly what our expenditures are going to be for national defense. Recent articles and information clearly indicate that there will be very little, if any, left over for a supplemental for any funding that I personally campaigned that the men and women of the armed services would receive for a national defense system. I don't expect to win on this, but I can assure you that with this tax cut going through as it is, with all of the additional spending that I have observed over the last few years, which I see no change in whatsoever, we will not have enough money to defend this Nation's vital national security interests. We are embarked on an unusual and dangerous course of action, a massive tax cut without any indication or evidence whatsoever of how much we are going to need to spend to defend this Nation. I urge great caution as we embark on this enterprise because it may be a very expensive price to pay. I will take a voice vote on this amendment.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, as a cosponsor to the National Boxing Safety Act of 2001. Because professional boxing is the only major sport in the United States that is not governed by a strong, centralized association or league to enforce uniform rules and practices, there is no consistent level of state regulation overseeing the practices of those participating in the industry. As the scandals, controversies, and unethical practices continue to persist, the need for a centralized governing body to regulate the sport has become evident. While I have certain differences with the legislation, I look forward to working with Senator Reid to address these, and together work toward passage of this bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to finally close what has become known as the ``gun show loophole'' and provide more resources to prosecute violations of gun laws. This bill, ``The Gun Show Loophole Closing and Gun Law Enforcement Act of 2001,'' stops criminals from evading a background check while respecting the rights of individuals who enjoy attending and purchasing firearms at public gun show events and helps puts criminals who use guns behind bars. I am pleased to have as cosponsors Senators Lieberman, Schumer, DeWine, and Carper. Since the Brady law went into effect, Federal law requires anyone buying a gun at a gun store to undergo a background check, but the law does not apply to private individuals selling guns, such as at gun shows. At gun shows, both licensed and unlicensed gun sellers offer guns for sale. At tables operated by licensed dealers, buyers must go through a background check; at tables operated by private sellers federal law requires no background check, and 32 states do not require such checks either. Criminals and gun traffickers have figured this out. Gun shows are the second leading source of illegal guns recovered in gun trafficking investigations. According to a recent report by Americans for Gun Safety, ``the states that do not require background checks at gun shows are flooding the rest of the nation with crime guns.'' While 95 percent of buyers are cleared within two hours, the 5 percent who are not are 20 times more likely to be a prohibited purchaser. Background checks are an essential part of keeping guns from criminals and other prohibited individuals. This gun show bill will require background checks at each of the 4,500 gun shows that occur every year. It does so in a way that is balanced and protects the rights of those who enjoy gun shows. It is the first gun safety legislation that is genuinely bipartisan and it is the only bill that creates real incentives for states to improve their criminal history records in order to make the National Instant Check System, NICS, faster and more accurate. And this bill contains no provisions that are designed to hurt legitimate gun show business. This bill eliminates the confusing definition of previous bills and defines a gun show as any event where at least 75 guns are available for sale. This bill corrects a flaw in previous bills and excludes from background checks the sale of a gun either from the seller's home or to an immediate family member. The sticking point in previous failed gun show bills was over the maximum time allowed to complete a background check: 3 business days, which is current law for licensed dealers, or a shorter time due to the transience of gun shows. This bill creates an innovative compromise. For the first three years after the bill becomes law, it extends current law to gun shows: 3 business days. But after three years, states may apply for a waiver from the U.S. Attorney General to reduce the maximum wait to conclude a background check for sales between unlicensed individuals at gun shows to 24 hours, but only when that state has automated its records may a waiver be granted so that a shortened time period won't allow criminals and other illegal buyers to get guns. It creates accountability so that states can only receive this waiver when at least 95 percent of their disqualifying records dating back 30 years are computerized. During the first three years, three business days is the maximum time it can take to run a check for unlicensed sellers. If, after those three business days the buyer has not been denied, he or she can purchase the gun. It is not a waiting period; if you clear the system, you immediately get your gun. If, after three years, a state has sufficiently computerized their records, 24 hours is the new maximum time it can take to run a check for unlicensed sellers. Background checks do not hurt gun show business in any way. For example, Pennsylvania currently requires background checks for all gun sales and hosts the second most gun shows in the Nation, hundreds every year. And unlike previous bills, this bill creates no new onerous reporting requirements for gun sales at gun shows but requires only the same paperwork required for gun sales from a licensed gun store. This bill will reduce crime by providing for tougher enforcement of current gun laws. This bill adds new ATF agents and gun crime prosecutors, expands Project Exile, calls for more resources for gun tracing and more research into new ``smart gun" technologies, and provides much needed money for states to automate their records. Recently, the States of Oregon and Colorado overwhelmingly passed statewide referenda closing the gun show loophole. I wholeheartedly supported those efforts. Given the overwhelming support that the people of these two states provided to closing the gun show loophole, I think it is time that we have a national requirement for background checks for all sales at gun shows. In the end, it will require parity between gun stores and gun shows, help stop criminals from getting guns on the black market, reduce the interstate trafficking of guns, and will not harm gun show operators. I do not view my stance on the gun show loophole as inconsistent with my twenty-year long Congressional voting record on gun-related issues. I will always be a strong defender of law-abiding Americans' Second Amendment rights, but with rights, come responsibilities. And we have a responsibility to help keep guns out of the hands of criminals while protecting the rights of honest, law-abiding citizens. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to finally close what has become known as the ``gun show loophole'' and provide more resources to prosecute violations of gun laws. This bill, ``The Gun Show Loophole Closing and Gun Law Enforcement Act of 2001,'' stops criminals from evading a background check while respecting the rights of individuals who enjoy attending and purchasing firearms at public gun show events and helps puts criminals who use guns behind bars. I am pleased to have as cosponsors Senators Lieberman, Schumer, DeWine, and Carper. Since the Brady law went into effect, Federal law requires anyone buying a gun at a gun store to undergo a background check, but the law does not apply to private individuals selling guns, such as at gun shows. At gun shows, both licensed and unlicensed gun sellers offer guns for sale. At tables operated by licensed dealers, buyers must go through a background check; at tables operated by private sellers federal law requires no background check, and 32 states do not require such checks either. Criminals and gun traffickers have figured this out. Gun shows are the second leading source of illegal guns recovered in gun trafficking investigations. According to a recent report by Americans for Gun Safety, ``the states that do not require background checks at gun shows are flooding the rest of the nation with crime guns.'' While 95 percent of buyers are cleared within two hours, the 5 percent who are not are 20 times more likely to be a prohibited purchaser. Background checks are an essential part of keeping guns from criminals and other prohibited individuals. This gun show bill will require background checks at each of the 4,500 gun shows that occur every year. It does so in a way that is balanced and protects the rights of those who enjoy gun shows. It is the first gun safety legislation that is genuinely bipartisan and it is the only bill that creates real incentives for states to improve their criminal history records in order to make the National Instant Check System, NICS, faster and more accurate. And this bill contains no provisions that are designed to hurt legitimate gun show business. This bill eliminates the confusing definition of previous bills and defines a gun show as any event where at least 75 guns are available for sale. This bill corrects a flaw in previous bills and excludes from background checks the sale of a gun either from the seller's home or to an immediate family member. The sticking point in previous failed gun show bills was over the maximum time allowed to complete a background check: 3 business days, which is current law for licensed dealers, or a shorter time due to the transience of gun shows. This bill creates an innovative compromise. For the first three years after the bill becomes law, it extends current law to gun shows: 3 business days. But after three years, states may apply for a waiver from the U.S. Attorney General to reduce the maximum wait to conclude a background check for sales between unlicensed individuals at gun shows to 24 hours, but only when that state has automated its records may a waiver be granted so that a shortened time period won't allow criminals and other illegal buyers to get guns. It creates accountability so that states can only receive this waiver when at least 95 percent of their disqualifying records dating back 30 years are computerized. During the first three years, three business days is the maximum time it can take to run a check for unlicensed sellers. If, after those three business days the buyer has not been denied, he or she can purchase the gun. It is not a waiting period; if you clear the system, you immediately get your gun. If, after three years, a state has sufficiently computerized their records, 24 hours is the new maximum time it can take to run a check for unlicensed sellers. Background checks do not hurt gun show business in any way. For example, Pennsylvania currently requires background checks for all gun sales and hosts the second most gun shows in the Nation, hundreds every year. And unlike previous bills, this bill creates no new onerous reporting requirements for gun sales at gun shows but requires only the same paperwork required for gun sales from a licensed gun store. This bill will reduce crime by providing for tougher enforcement of current gun laws. This bill adds new ATF agents and gun crime prosecutors, expands Project Exile, calls for more resources for gun tracing and more research into new ``smart gun" technologies, and provides much needed money for states to automate their records. Recently, the States of Oregon and Colorado overwhelmingly passed statewide referenda closing the gun show loophole. I wholeheartedly supported those efforts. Given the overwhelming support that the people of these two states provided to closing the gun show loophole, I think it is time that we have a national requirement for background checks for all sales at gun shows. In the end, it will require parity between gun stores and gun shows, help stop criminals from getting guns on the black market, reduce the interstate trafficking of guns, and will not harm gun show operators. I do not view my stance on the gun show loophole as inconsistent with my twenty-year long Congressional voting record on gun-related issues. I will always be a strong defender of law-abiding Americans' Second Amendment rights, but with rights, come responsibilities. And we have a responsibility to help keep guns out of the hands of criminals while protecting the rights of honest, law-abiding citizens. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.