John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, have we determined a time yet as to when this vote will take place?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It instructs the Secretary of the Senate to properly engross and deliver S. 27, the campaign finance legislation that was passed 43 days ago by this Senate, to the House of Representatives without any intervening delay. I am sure that few people in this body knew that the bill they voted for--or against, for that matter--was never sent to the other body. Why is this so? Unfortunately, I don't have an answer. I do know that it is not what we teach our children. We give out a book here, a very interesting book, one that schoolchildren all over America, I hope, know. Some do, but I wish all of them did. In that book, on page 41, it says: When a bill originates in the Senate, this process is reversed. When the Senate passes a bill that originated in the Senate, it is sent to the House for consideration. There is another booklet, ``Our American Government,'' the 2000 edition. ``What are the stages of a bill in Congress?'' It goes through the various stages: (6) Passage by the House after votes to confirm the amendments that were adopted in Committee of the Whole; (7) Transmittal to the Senate, by message; (8) Consideration and passage by the Senate--usually after referral to and reporting from a Senate committee--and after a debate and amendment on the Senate floor; (9) Transmission from the Senate back to the House, with or without Senate amendments to the bill. Those are documents that indicate it is the normal procedure. I note that this is not business as usual. In fact, arbitrarily holding this bill in the Senate after being passed is not the usual practice. I will read from a chart prepared by my staff which shows that the normal expected practice is to send legislation to the other body in a much more timely fashion. Thirteen bills originating in the Senate have passed the Senate during the 107th Congress. Of those bills, 11 were sent in an average of 5.18 days. The two remaining bills, S. 27, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001, and S. 143, Competitive Market Supervision Act of 2001, were passed on April 5, 2001, and March 22, 2001, respectively. Neither has been referred to the House of Representatives. The holding of this bill is arbitrary and unfair. A sound majority of Senators has passed the campaign finance reform bill. This is not only bad for the Senate but bad for this great country. The minority in this body has a great deal of rights. But the Senate also recognizes in its rule that once a majority reaches a certain threshold, it can prevail and move forward. What we are seeing here is a minority of one stopping the will of this body. As I said, there is no good rationale for this action. The staff of this body, including the Secretary of the Senate, serve the entire Senate. I repeat: The Secretary of the Senate serves the entire Senate, not just one Senator. They are not tools of one individual. They serve all 100 duly elected Senators. These good people should be allowed to perform their duties with due process. This amendment should not require much discussion or debate. It should be adopted and the Secretary of the Senate should immediately take the actions the resolutions direct. That is what is right, and that is what is fair. I urge my colleagues, those who support campaign finance reform and those who do not, to join me in seeing that the will of the majority and basic fairness prevail. I want to talk for a second about this practice being allowed to continue. I speak, I hope, for Members on both sides of the aisle. If the majority prevails in the Senate on a piece of legislation and that legislation is not sent over to the other body, then this could lead to a very, very, very unsound and unfair process that could deprive the majority of the Senate of their rights. A bill passed in the other body is sent over here for our consideration and placed on the calendar. Then it is up to the majority leader and/or the minority leader, depending on who has the votes, as to whether to consider that legislation. The same thing is true of legislation that originates in the Senate. As I say, I could go back many years. It is roughly an average of 4 days between the passage of legislation through this body and its transmittal to the other body. We have now gone 43 days, and the majority leader of the Senate has stated publicly that he has no intention at any time of sending the legislation to the other body for their consideration. One can speculate--and I will not--on the reasons why this legislation is not being transmitted to the other body as is our custom. I say to my colleagues in all seriousness, if this practice is condoned, watch out if you prevail and it is against the majority leader's wishes for that bill to be sent over to the other body. By not sending this and every piece of legislation passed by the Senate over to the other body, we may be beginning a very dangerous precedent. I am very aware that this amendment is not relevant to the education bill, although obviously, as I mentioned, we educate our children in ways that we may have to at least amend in this book. I hope we don't have to. But I want to assure my colleagues, as soon as this bill is transmitted to the other body, I will be the first to stand up and ask unanimous consent to withdraw this from the legislation because I don't want to encumber the education bill with this issue. But when I see, after the long, hard struggle that I have been through, along now with a majority of the Senate, to achieve a legislative result and see that legislative result stymied at least temporarily in a procedural fashion, as far as I can see an unprecedented fashion, then I have to seek whatever vehicle I can to express what I hope is the majority will of the Senate. I hope we can get this issue behind us. I strongly believe it has more importance than even the campaign finance reform bill itself, if this practice is allowed to become a precedent, what is being done with this legislation. I might add, it was about 3 weeks ago that by accident I found out that it was not going to be sent over to the other body. I was not even notified that this legislation was not going to be sent over. Once we did discover it, then I went to the majority leader. I asked on numerous occasions if he would send this bill over. The majority leader, yesterday morning, stated that under no circumstances would he do so. I have no alternative than to move to get the sense of the Senate on this issue and then, if that doesn't succeed, then we will have to obviously use what other parliamentary options we have. After a long and fair and, in many ways, illuminating and elevating debate on this issue and having a result achieved, and then to have it not even sent over to the other body, is a great disservice. I hope it will be rectified as soon as possible. I ask for the yeas and nays at a time determined by the leaders.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside to call up amendment No. 477, which was previously filed. I send it to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleagues in introducing this important legislation to reauthorize the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP. Our bill will provide a higher level of federal reimbursement to states and localities across America whose budgets are disproportionately affected by the costs associated with illegal immigration. The premise of our bill, and of current law governing this type of federal reimbursement to the states, is that controlling illegal immigration is principally the responsibility of the federal government, not the states. Local jurisdictions in many areas of our country, and especially along the southwest border, are burdened by the excessive costs of incarcerating criminal illegal aliens and providing emergency medical care to illegal immigrants. In a typical year, the federal government reimburses states and localities for less than 40 percent of these costs. Regrettably, the Bush Administration's proposed FY 2002 budget would slash SCAAP funding by 50 percent from its current, already- insufficient level of $575 million. The National Governors' Association and the National Association of Counties, whose members deal with the problem of illegal immigration on a daily basis, believe we should increase, not cut, funding for this program, and I agree. SCAAP money flows to all 50 states and 350 local governments, with more applying for this assistance every year. Rather than forcing local residents to subsidize local jails and hospitals because of our government's failure to adequately reimburse them for illegal alien incarceration and medical costs, I hope we will take responsibility as a nation for protecting our borders and covering the contingencies that arise at the local level when we fail to do so. The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program is an important expression of our government's commitment to border control, and to the quality of life of Americans who suffer the costs of illegal immigration. I thank my colleagues for considering the merits of our bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleagues in introducing this important legislation to reauthorize the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP. Our bill will provide a higher level of federal reimbursement to states and localities across America whose budgets are disproportionately affected by the costs associated with illegal immigration. The premise of our bill, and of current law governing this type of federal reimbursement to the states, is that controlling illegal immigration is principally the responsibility of the federal government, not the states. Local jurisdictions in many areas of our country, and especially along the southwest border, are burdened by the excessive costs of incarcerating criminal illegal aliens and providing emergency medical care to illegal immigrants. In a typical year, the federal government reimburses states and localities for less than 40 percent of these costs. Regrettably, the Bush Administration's proposed FY 2002 budget would slash SCAAP funding by 50 percent from its current, already- insufficient level of $575 million. The National Governors' Association and the National Association of Counties, whose members deal with the problem of illegal immigration on a daily basis, believe we should increase, not cut, funding for this program, and I agree. SCAAP money flows to all 50 states and 350 local governments, with more applying for this assistance every year. Rather than forcing local residents to subsidize local jails and hospitals because of our government's failure to adequately reimburse them for illegal alien incarceration and medical costs, I hope we will take responsibility as a nation for protecting our borders and covering the contingencies that arise at the local level when we fail to do so. The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program is an important expression of our government's commitment to border control, and to the quality of life of Americans who suffer the costs of illegal immigration. I thank my colleagues for considering the merits of our bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce my strong support for President Bush's selection of John P. Walters as the next Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. John will bring two decades of drug policy experience in the non- profit sector and in government to his mission as the nation's drug czar. His passionate commitment to improving the quality of our society by decreasing drug use through effective drug education, treatment, and interdiction programs has already touched the lives of many Americans. I trust that the Bush Administration will give him the resources and authority his position requires as a sign of its determination to cut drug use in America and provide the moral leadership essential to this task. Many of John's advocates will note his impressive record of public service in the fields of drug interdiction, treatment, and education. John distinguished himself during the first Bush Administration as Deputy Director for Supply Reduction, Chief of Staff and National Security Director, and Acting Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. During the Administration of President Reagan, John served as Chief of Staff and Counselor to the Secretary of Education, as well as Assistant to the Secretary, the Secretary's Representative to the National Drug Policy Board, and the Secretary's Representative to the Domestic Policy Council's Health Policy Working Group. But John's work outside of government is equally admirable. John is currently serving as President of the Philanthropy Roundtable, a national association of charitable donors who are doing great work in our communities. He was previously President of the New Citizenship Project, an organization created to promote greater civic participation in our national life. John also served on the Council on Crime in America, a bipartisan commission on violent crime co-chaired by former Drug Czar Bill Bennett and former Attorney General Griffin Bell. In 1988, John created the Madison Center, a non-profit organization dedicated to early childhood education and drug abuse prevention. From 1982 to 1985, he served as Acting Assistant Director and Program Officer in the Division of Education Programs at the National Endowment of the Humanities. I am confident John will bring strong leadership to our efforts to cut drug use. Not so long ago, Nancy Reagan taught our young people to ``Just Say No'' to drugs. That was just one demonstration of committed leadership at the national level. What Nancy Reagan started was followed up by engaged national leadership, including Drug Czar Bill Bennett, who used the bully pulpit to change attitudes, and in the process helped rescue much of a generation. Drug use declined by more than a third in the wake of the Reagan-Bush effort, and teen drug use, the pipeline to future addiction, dropped even faster. In fact, drug use in America has declined by 45 percent since 1985. Drug prevention, education, and interdiction can make a tangible difference in the supply and use of drugs in this country. Moral leadership is critical. Unfortunately, the overall decline in drug use obscures a rise in drug consumption of 15 percent during the last seven years and a near doubling of teen drug use over the past 8 years. John Walters' emphasis on targeting both drug supply and demand through effective drug treatment programs, and his laudable call for cultural leadership in fending off illegal narcotics' assault on our blessed youth, will help reverse years of drift in our counter-drug policies. I hope he can also play a useful role in refining our drug interdiction strategy in the Andean region and reforming a drug certification law that does more to hinder than help our drug reduction efforts overseas. I look forward to John's leadership on these issues, backed by the personal support of the President, and commend his speedy confirmation to my colleagues.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to introduce this resolution to commemorate the National Science Foundation, (NSF)'s, fifty years of public service. I am joined in this resolution by Senator Hollings, Senator Allen, Senator Breaux, Senator Bond, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Jeffords, Senator Mikulski, Senator Leiberman, and Senator Kennedy. In addition, I would like to thank my colleague, Representative Nick Smith, for his leadership on this issue. The NSF has played a crucial role in developing and maintaining the United States economic and scientific leadership, and it deserves the gratitude of the American people for its groundbreaking work. Since its creation in 1950, the National Science Foundation has conducted ``cutting-edge'' research. More than half of the U.S. Nobel Laureates in physics, chemistry, and economics have had their research supported by NSF. The National Solar Observatory, and other NSF- sponsored programs, are finding new discoveries about the Sun, the planets, and other galaxies in our universe. The NSF also runs programs that study life here on Earth. The NSF Antarctic station, that has recently been in the news, studies the West Antarctic Ice Shelf to understand changes in global climate change. The recent news report on the Antarctic Station further highlights the risk, sacrifice, and dedication that many of our scientists and engineers take on a daily basis in our scientific research pursuits. A NSF-sponsored Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research studies new construction techniques to prevent death and destruction from earthquakes. The NSF Plant Genome Project is mapping a model plant, the Arabidopsis thaliana, to find ways to develop crops resistant to insects, disease, and harsh environmental conditions. Most important, NSF plays an important role in working with America's schools to teach children math and science and train the scientists and engineers that are necessary to maintaining America's technological leadership. It is important to point out that NSF-sponsored research continues to play an important role in every day American life. Research sponsored by NSF developed Magnetic Resonance Imaging, (MRI), artificial skin, and other medical breakthroughs that have saved the lives of millions of Americans. NSF research also developed the Doppler radar, which is used every day to warn Americans of impending hazardous weather. In addition, the NSF played a major role in developing the Internet, web browsers, and fiber optics, which have revolutionized our economy and culture. The NSF also helped to develop the American Sign Language Dictionary. Currently, the NSF is pursuing a number of new research initiatives, including nanotechnology and information technology. These new endeavors promise to foster new discoveries throughout the 21st century. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this resolution to express our gratitude and support for this major American research institution.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to join my colleagues, Senator Lieberman, Senator Burns, Senator Bingaman, Senator Fitzgerald, Senator Daschle, Senator Carper, Senator Durbin, Senator Johnson, Senator Kerry, Senator Leahy, and Senator Levin today in introducing the E-Government Act of 2001. I believe that this bill will play an important role in making the federal government more responsive to our citizens. Currently, it can be very challenging for most Americans to find the information they need about their government. For example, if someone was looking for information on an issue pertaining to international trade, he or she would have to look at the web sites of the Department of Commerce, United States Trade Representative, International Trade Commission, possibly the Department of State or Agriculture, and a myriad of House and Senate Committees to find the information they seek. This process will undoubtedly frustrate the average American, and reinforce feelings of a remote, confusing government. Today, less than one percent of current interactions between government and citizens are online. There is clearly need for improvement. This legislation will help create a coordinated government electronic policy. By establishing a Federal Chief Information Officer to operate within the Office of Management and Budget, the federal government will use staff and resources more effectively to promote e-government and address the nation's other pressing information policy issues. In addition, the bill establishes an Interagency Information Technology Fund to break down existing bureaucratic barriers, and set up a ``one- stop shopping'' portal that will make it easier for the public to access information. Finally, the bill will task the Office of Personnel Management to respond to the shortage of skilled Information Technology professionals in the federal government. This bill is not simple, and I realize that some issues it raises must still be resolved. I believe that the Administration and relevant Congressional oversight committees must be involved in this process. I know that my colleague, the Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee, Senator Thompson, will examine this issue, and I would like to work with him to resolve any issues that he, or any other Member, may have with this legislation. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is important that we seriously examine how to use the Internet and other electronic commerce processes to make the federal government more open to public scrutiny.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to join my colleagues, Senator Lieberman, Senator Burns, Senator Bingaman, Senator Fitzgerald, Senator Daschle, Senator Carper, Senator Durbin, Senator Johnson, Senator Kerry, Senator Leahy, and Senator Levin today in introducing the E-Government Act of 2001. I believe that this bill will play an important role in making the federal government more responsive to our citizens. Currently, it can be very challenging for most Americans to find the information they need about their government. For example, if someone was looking for information on an issue pertaining to international trade, he or she would have to look at the web sites of the Department of Commerce, United States Trade Representative, International Trade Commission, possibly the Department of State or Agriculture, and a myriad of House and Senate Committees to find the information they seek. This process will undoubtedly frustrate the average American, and reinforce feelings of a remote, confusing government. Today, less than one percent of current interactions between government and citizens are online. There is clearly need for improvement. This legislation will help create a coordinated government electronic policy. By establishing a Federal Chief Information Officer to operate within the Office of Management and Budget, the federal government will use staff and resources more effectively to promote e-government and address the nation's other pressing information policy issues. In addition, the bill establishes an Interagency Information Technology Fund to break down existing bureaucratic barriers, and set up a ``one- stop shopping'' portal that will make it easier for the public to access information. Finally, the bill will task the Office of Personnel Management to respond to the shortage of skilled Information Technology professionals in the federal government. This bill is not simple, and I realize that some issues it raises must still be resolved. I believe that the Administration and relevant Congressional oversight committees must be involved in this process. I know that my colleague, the Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee, Senator Thompson, will examine this issue, and I would like to work with him to resolve any issues that he, or any other Member, may have with this legislation. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is important that we seriously examine how to use the Internet and other electronic commerce processes to make the federal government more open to public scrutiny.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. So my further question is, If sensitive technology which affects American national security was transferred to China, to Iraq, and perhaps other countries, are we going in the right direction with this legislation or are we going in the opposite direction of loosening these controls, according to this legislation?

Mr. McCAIN. If there is no doubt in the Senator's mind, and I think it has been clearly established in several cases--I think one was the case of Loral where the Chinese missile technology was increased through the transfer of technology--I am curious, if it is a severe problem, and obviously our relations with China have not improved recently, to say the least, our sanctions efforts against Iraq have been eroded by the disappearance or dramatic reduction in the coalition that imposed sanctions on Iraq, yet we are now trying to pass legislation in very short order that reduces these controls that inhibit our ability to examine these systems and their export to these countries. Finally, could I ask the Senator, how much involvement have the sponsors of this legislation allowed the Senator from Tennessee and my colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, and Senator Shelby? Have they tried to involve you in negotiations, conversations, or amendments?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I join Senators Thompson, Shelby, Kyl, and other members in objecting to the rushed consideration of the Export Administration Act of 2001. This legislation, which governs the exports of sensitive technology to overseas buyers, has critical ramifications for American national security. Republicans in Congress rightly raised grave concerns over the Clinton Administration's export control policies, which had the appearance of being linked to campaign donations, and which we know improperly enhanced Chinese and Iraqi military capabilities. This Republican Congress, and our Republican Administration, must ensure that our national security controls on sensitive exports prevent powerful technology from falling into the hands of those who would do America harm. This bill does not yet meet that threshold. Since the beginning of this year, six Senators, including Senator Kyl and the Chairmen of the Armed Services, Foreign Relations, Intelligence, Governmental Affairs, and Commerce Committees, have sought and continue to hope to work with the sponsors of this bill, and with the Bush Administration, to ensure that S. 149 strikes the proper balance between our country's commercial and national security concerns. I will save my specific, technical concerns about this legislation for the full floor debate on this measure, whenever it should occur. At this time, let me say that the bill's restrictions on presidential authority to regulate national-security related exports, the enhanced role given the Secretary of Commerce in the national security decision- making process, and the liberalization of exports of all goods, however dangerous to U.S. security interests, that may be otherwise available for sale in the United States or overseas pose problems that need to be resolved before the Senate can properly address this legislation. As Chairman of the Commerce Committee, and as a strong supporter of free trade, it comes as no surprise to me that American businesses dominate world markets and have propelled the Information Age. Unlike businesses, however, we in this body have responsibility not only for the prosperity of this country, but also for its security in an uncertain and hostile world. Let's be clear, far less than 1 percent of total U.S. exports fall under the jurisdiction of the EAA. Within that small proportion of exports that are sensitive, we have an obligation to ensure that these goods are appropriately controlled so that the peace and prosperity we enjoy are not threatened. Have no doubt, our enemies, be they foreign nations or terrorist groups, have no qualms whatsoever with buying dual-use American products and putting them to military use. In this time of peace, let us work to sustain the dynamism of our economy while safeguarding our people by striking the right balance between the commercial and national security provisions in this bill. We have much work to do. That is why I join my distinguished colleagues in objecting to consideration of this measure until we have had the chance to prepare amendments and continue our work with the Administration to improve the bill.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. McCAIN. Is there any doubt in the Senator's mind that over the past 8 years of the previous administration--is there any doubt in his mind that sensitive technology that affects American national security was transferred to China, Iraq, and other nations?

Mr. McCAIN. May I ask a final question--and I would like to state I agree with Senator Thompson. This is a very serious issue. It brings into question the influence of big money and big business in American politics. But would the legislation that we are discussing have facilitated the ability of the Chinese to acquire that technology and transfer it to Iraq or would it have been made more difficult?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will vote for the budget resolution for fiscal year 2002 in the interest of moving the budget process forward. My vote for the resolution should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the budget package. Indeed, I have some serious reservations about the priorities and assumptions contained in this resolution. At this point in the process, we do not know the details of a final budget. Rather, the Senate is only voting on a blueprint, not a completed budget document. I have a statement of principles that I believe should be reflected in the final budget proposal. I believe that these five principles reflect the Main Street economic realities that Americans talk about at their dinner tables. My first principle is that the budget must provide sufficient resources for our national security. We have a solemn obligation to provide enough resources for those American military personnel who have volunteered to risk their lives to defend the rest of us. For too many years, the Clinton Administration neglected the people who volunteered for military service. 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 undertaking an extensive review of our defense needs and necessary reforms. I want to make certain that the budget provides the resources for these overdue reforms, but also recognize that in the near term our air, sea, and land forces need to be substantially strengthened. That is why I supported the amendment by Senator Landrieu to substantially increase our defense budget over the next ten years. The second principle that will guide my judgement of a final budget 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 much needed tax relief for lower and middle-income families. I agree with the President that consumer debt is a massive problem for working Americans. If there is an economic downturn, 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 hope that when the reconciliation bills are reported out of the Senate Finance Committee, the tax cuts outlined will also address the pressing issues such as the child tax credit, reduction of the marriage tax penalty, payroll tax reform to lighten the burden of this tax on hard-working Americans, and estate tax reform that will take into account the effect such reform will have on our robust charitable community. For this and other reasons, I support a $5 million cap with regard to the estate tax cut. In this tax debate, we should avoid class war rhetoric, but a final budget plan should reflect Main Street realities. The Senate Finance Committee should firmly resist granting tax relief that benefits the special interests and K Street lobbyists at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers. That kind of tax relief I would never support. Third, the budget must provide for future obligations in Social Security and Medicare. Reforms are urgently needed in both programs, but we must have the resources to pay for them. For the first time in history, economic projections show a surplus of $3.1 trillion over the next ten years, exclusive of the surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund. At the same time, we know that the Social Securities system is projected to be bankrupt by about 2037 and Medicare will be broke around 2023, leaving millions of elderly Americans without the promised benefits they need to live comfortably in their retirement years. I am concerned that this budget resolution uses none of the surplus to shore up Social Security, does not use enough to shore up Medicare, and does not provide the resources needed to support reforms of these entitlement programs that will ensure their long-term solvency. My fourth principle is paying down as much of the national debt as possible. On Main Street, Americans believe it is conservative common sense to meet your financial obligations. Lower federal debt means lower interest rates on consumer loans, especially lower mortgage payments so people will have more money to spend or save. I applaud the resolution's goal of reducing the level of debt held by the public by nearly $2.4 trillion from a level of $3.2 trillion today to $818 billion in 2011. But I believe that we should use even more of the non-Social Security surplus in the early years to reduce the federal debt burden on future generations, given these surplus projections in the out years could be significantly off. My fifth principle is restraining spending, which Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan warns could ``resurrect the deficits of the past.'' Many of the specific funding assumptions in the resolution are laudable, but I have identified tens of billions of dollars of port- barrel spending in annual appropriations bills over the past several years--earmarks that never went through a merit-review process. Because of the compelling need to deal with the problems in Social Security and Medicare, we should look within the budget to eliminate waste in order to fund higher priority requirements, rather than spend the entire surplus on more government. I am pleased to note that the resolution includes a provision to ensure Congress complies with the revenue and spending levels in the resolution to limit budgetary gimmicks such as a new scoring rule that prevents the use of advanced appropriations to circumvent spending limits. I also fully support President Bush's intention to eliminate funding for earmarks in his first budget. While I am concerned that this budget resolution rests on uncertain surplus projections that will surely be affected by a changing domestic and world economic environment, this is just a resolution, not a final budget. In the coming weeks and months, I look forward to working with the Administration and my colleagues for a budget that reflects the principles that I outlined today. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Budget Committee for conducting the debate in a civilized and constructive manner. The reconciliation bill that results from this budget blueprint should provide for necessary defense increases, tax relief for the American taxpayer, adequate funding for Social Security or Medicare reform, significant debt reduction, and spending restraint.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to authorize a three-year nationwide school choice demonstration program targeted at children from economically disadvantaged families. The program would expand educational opportunities for low-income children by providing parents and students the freedom to choose the best school for their unique academic needs, while encouraging schools to be creative and responsive to the needs of all students. This bill authorizes $1.8 billion annually for fiscal years 2002 through 2004 to be used to provide school choice vouchers to economically disadvantaged children through the nation. The funds would be divided among the states based upon the number of children they have enrolled in public schools. Then, each state would conduct a lottery among low-income children who attend the public schools with the lowest academic performance in their state. Each child selected in the lottery would receive $2,000 per year for three years to be used to pay tuition at any school of their choice in the state, including private or religious schools. The money could also be used to pay for transportation to the school or supplementary educational services to meet the unique needs of the individual student. In total, this bill authorizes $5.4 billion for the three-year school choice demonstration program, as well as a GAO evaluation of the program upon its completion. The cost of this important test of school vouchers is fully offset by eliminating more than $5.4 billion in unnecessary pork and inequitable corporate tax loopholes. Mr. President, we all know that one of the most important issues facing our nation is the education of our children. Providing a solid, quality education for each and every child in our nation is a critical component in their quest for personal success and fulfillment. A solid education for our children also plays a pivotal role in the success of our nation; economically, intellectually, civically and morally. We must strive to develop and implement initiatives which strengthen and improve our education system thereby ensuring that our children are provided with the essential academic tools for succeeding professionally, economically and personally. I am sure we all agree that increasing the academic performance and skills of all our nation's students must be the paramount goal of any education reform we implement. School vouchers are a viable method of allowing all American children access to high quality schools, including private and religious schools. Every parent should be able to obtain the highest quality education for their children, not just the wealthy. Tuition vouchers would finally provide low-income children trapped in mediocre, or worse, schools the same educational choices as children of economic privilege. Some of my colleagues may argue that vouchers would divert money away from our nation's public schools and instead of instilling competition into our school systems we should be pouring more and more money into poor performing public schools. I respectfully disagree. While I support strengthening financial support for education in our nation, the solution to what ails our system is not simply pouring more and more money into it. Currently our nation spends significantly more money that most countries and yet our students scored lower than their peers from almost all of the forty countries which participated in the last Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) test. Students in countries which are struggling economically, socially and politically, such as Russia, outscored U.S. children in math and scored far above them in advanced math and physics. Clearly, we must make significant change beyond simply pouring more money into the current structure in order to improve our children's academic performance in order to maintain a viable force in the world economy. It is shameful that we are failing to provide many of our children with adequate training and quality academic preparation for the real world. The number of college freshman who require remedial courses in reading, writing and mathematics when they begin their higher education is unacceptably high. In fact, presently, more than 30 percent of entering freshman need to enroll in one of more remedial course when they start college. It does not bode well for our future economy if the majority of workers are not prepared with the basic skills to engage in a competitive global marketplace. I concede that school vouchers are not the magic bullet for eradicating all that is wrong with our current educational system, but they are an important opportunity for providing improved academic opportunities for all children, not just the wealthy. Examination of the limited voucher programs scattered around our country reveal high levels of parent and student satisfaction, an increase in parental involvement, and a definite improvement in attendance and discipline at the participating schools. Vouchers encourage public schools, communities and parents to all work together to raise the level of education for all students. Through this bill, we have the opportunity to replicate these important attributes throughout all or nation's communities. Thomas Jefferson said, ``The purpose of education is to create young citizens with knowing heads and loving hearts.'' If we fail to give our children the education they need to nuture their heads and hearts, then we threaten their futures and the future of our nation. Each of us is responsible for ensuring that our children have both the love in their hearts and the knowledge in their heads to not only dream, but to make their dreams a reality. The time has come for us to finally conduct a national demonstration of school choice to determine the benefits or perhaps disadvantages of providing educational choices to all students, not just those who are fortunate enough to be born into a wealthy family. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and put the needs of America's school children ahead of pork barrel projects and tax loopholes benefitting only special interests and big business. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to authorize a three-year nationwide school choice demonstration program targeted at children from economically disadvantaged families. The program would expand educational opportunities for low-income children by providing parents and students the freedom to choose the best school for their unique academic needs, while encouraging schools to be creative and responsive to the needs of all students. This bill authorizes $1.8 billion annually for fiscal years 2002 through 2004 to be used to provide school choice vouchers to economically disadvantaged children through the nation. The funds would be divided among the states based upon the number of children they have enrolled in public schools. Then, each state would conduct a lottery among low-income children who attend the public schools with the lowest academic performance in their state. Each child selected in the lottery would receive $2,000 per year for three years to be used to pay tuition at any school of their choice in the state, including private or religious schools. The money could also be used to pay for transportation to the school or supplementary educational services to meet the unique needs of the individual student. In total, this bill authorizes $5.4 billion for the three-year school choice demonstration program, as well as a GAO evaluation of the program upon its completion. The cost of this important test of school vouchers is fully offset by eliminating more than $5.4 billion in unnecessary pork and inequitable corporate tax loopholes. Mr. President, we all know that one of the most important issues facing our nation is the education of our children. Providing a solid, quality education for each and every child in our nation is a critical component in their quest for personal success and fulfillment. A solid education for our children also plays a pivotal role in the success of our nation; economically, intellectually, civically and morally. We must strive to develop and implement initiatives which strengthen and improve our education system thereby ensuring that our children are provided with the essential academic tools for succeeding professionally, economically and personally. I am sure we all agree that increasing the academic performance and skills of all our nation's students must be the paramount goal of any education reform we implement. School vouchers are a viable method of allowing all American children access to high quality schools, including private and religious schools. Every parent should be able to obtain the highest quality education for their children, not just the wealthy. Tuition vouchers would finally provide low-income children trapped in mediocre, or worse, schools the same educational choices as children of economic privilege. Some of my colleagues may argue that vouchers would divert money away from our nation's public schools and instead of instilling competition into our school systems we should be pouring more and more money into poor performing public schools. I respectfully disagree. While I support strengthening financial support for education in our nation, the solution to what ails our system is not simply pouring more and more money into it. Currently our nation spends significantly more money that most countries and yet our students scored lower than their peers from almost all of the forty countries which participated in the last Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) test. Students in countries which are struggling economically, socially and politically, such as Russia, outscored U.S. children in math and scored far above them in advanced math and physics. Clearly, we must make significant change beyond simply pouring more money into the current structure in order to improve our children's academic performance in order to maintain a viable force in the world economy. It is shameful that we are failing to provide many of our children with adequate training and quality academic preparation for the real world. The number of college freshman who require remedial courses in reading, writing and mathematics when they begin their higher education is unacceptably high. In fact, presently, more than 30 percent of entering freshman need to enroll in one of more remedial course when they start college. It does not bode well for our future economy if the majority of workers are not prepared with the basic skills to engage in a competitive global marketplace. I concede that school vouchers are not the magic bullet for eradicating all that is wrong with our current educational system, but they are an important opportunity for providing improved academic opportunities for all children, not just the wealthy. Examination of the limited voucher programs scattered around our country reveal high levels of parent and student satisfaction, an increase in parental involvement, and a definite improvement in attendance and discipline at the participating schools. Vouchers encourage public schools, communities and parents to all work together to raise the level of education for all students. Through this bill, we have the opportunity to replicate these important attributes throughout all or nation's communities. Thomas Jefferson said, ``The purpose of education is to create young citizens with knowing heads and loving hearts.'' If we fail to give our children the education they need to nuture their heads and hearts, then we threaten their futures and the future of our nation. Each of us is responsible for ensuring that our children have both the love in their hearts and the knowledge in their heads to not only dream, but to make their dreams a reality. The time has come for us to finally conduct a national demonstration of school choice to determine the benefits or perhaps disadvantages of providing educational choices to all students, not just those who are fortunate enough to be born into a wealthy family. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and put the needs of America's school children ahead of pork barrel projects and tax loopholes benefitting only special interests and big business. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am joined by my colleagues, Senators Brownback and Jeffords, today in introducing the Amateur Sports Integrity Act. This bill does two things: it amends the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act to make it illegal to gamble on Olympic, college, and high school sports, and it authorizes appropriations for the National Institute of Standards and Technology to fund the detection and prevention of athletic performance-enhancing drugs. This bill implements a recommendation made by the congressionally created National Gambling Impact Study Commission. In the summary of its comprehensive report to Congress dated June 1999, the Commission noted that ``There is growing concern regarding increasing levels of sports wagering by adolescents in high school and by young adults on college campuses. A 1996 study sponsored by the National Collegiate Athletic Association found that of the over 200 student athletes surveyed in Division I basketball and football programs, 25.5 percent admitted betting on college sports events while in school.'' In its report, the NGISC recommended that betting on collegiate and amateur athletic events that is currently legal be banned altogether. The bill that we are introducing today does just that. Just as the use of performance enhancing drugs threatens the integrity of amateur sports, so does gambling. Betting on amateur athletics invites public speculation as to their legitimacy and transforms student athletes into objects to be bet upon. Adding unwarranted pressure from corrupting influences to the pressures that these intensely competitive young people already feel is unacceptable. Congress must act to close the loophole that currently allows one state to serve as a national clearinghouse for betting on our youth. Let me make one thing clear: Although the Amateur Sports Integrity Act bans legal gambling on amateur athletics, I expect that it also will reduce a substantial amount of illegal gambling as well. The relationship between legal and illegal gambling was addressed by the NGISC, which observed that ``legal sports wagering--especially the publication in the media of Las Vegas and offshore-generated point spreads fuels a much larger amount of illegal sports wagering.'' I won't pretend, however, that closing the one-state loophole on legal gambling on amateur sports will put an end to illegal gambling on these athletes and competitions. For this reason, I say to my colleagues who are backing a bill that has the support of the gaming industry and that provides additional resources to combat illegal gambling--I agree with the intent of your legislation and appreciate your recognition that gambling on amateur athletics is a problem that must be addressed at the federal level. That bill, however, while perhaps acceptable as a complement, is not acceptable as an alternative to the Amateur Sports Integrity Act. Mr. President, in its report the NGISC recommended that all students should be warned of the dangers of gambling, from the time they are in elementary school to when they finish college. As the Commission concluded, the loophole that currently encourages gambling by, and on, these young people, should be closed. The bill we are introducing today codifies the NGISC recommendation, and further ensures the integrity of amateur sports by addressing athlete doping. I urge my colleagues to support its swift passage.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am joined by my colleagues, Senators Brownback and Jeffords, today in introducing the Amateur Sports Integrity Act. This bill does two things: it amends the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act to make it illegal to gamble on Olympic, college, and high school sports, and it authorizes appropriations for the National Institute of Standards and Technology to fund the detection and prevention of athletic performance-enhancing drugs. This bill implements a recommendation made by the congressionally created National Gambling Impact Study Commission. In the summary of its comprehensive report to Congress dated June 1999, the Commission noted that ``There is growing concern regarding increasing levels of sports wagering by adolescents in high school and by young adults on college campuses. A 1996 study sponsored by the National Collegiate Athletic Association found that of the over 200 student athletes surveyed in Division I basketball and football programs, 25.5 percent admitted betting on college sports events while in school.'' In its report, the NGISC recommended that betting on collegiate and amateur athletic events that is currently legal be banned altogether. The bill that we are introducing today does just that. Just as the use of performance enhancing drugs threatens the integrity of amateur sports, so does gambling. Betting on amateur athletics invites public speculation as to their legitimacy and transforms student athletes into objects to be bet upon. Adding unwarranted pressure from corrupting influences to the pressures that these intensely competitive young people already feel is unacceptable. Congress must act to close the loophole that currently allows one state to serve as a national clearinghouse for betting on our youth. Let me make one thing clear: Although the Amateur Sports Integrity Act bans legal gambling on amateur athletics, I expect that it also will reduce a substantial amount of illegal gambling as well. The relationship between legal and illegal gambling was addressed by the NGISC, which observed that ``legal sports wagering--especially the publication in the media of Las Vegas and offshore-generated point spreads fuels a much larger amount of illegal sports wagering.'' I won't pretend, however, that closing the one-state loophole on legal gambling on amateur sports will put an end to illegal gambling on these athletes and competitions. For this reason, I say to my colleagues who are backing a bill that has the support of the gaming industry and that provides additional resources to combat illegal gambling--I agree with the intent of your legislation and appreciate your recognition that gambling on amateur athletics is a problem that must be addressed at the federal level. That bill, however, while perhaps acceptable as a complement, is not acceptable as an alternative to the Amateur Sports Integrity Act. Mr. President, in its report the NGISC recommended that all students should be warned of the dangers of gambling, from the time they are in elementary school to when they finish college. As the Commission concluded, the loophole that currently encourages gambling by, and on, these young people, should be closed. The bill we are introducing today codifies the NGISC recommendation, and further ensures the integrity of amateur sports by addressing athlete doping. I urge my colleagues to support its swift passage.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, to move the budget process forward, I voted to support the Grassley amendment today to raise the levels of spending for agriculture programs in the budget resolution. Despite my favorable vote, I wish to express my deep concerns about the form and level of spending included in this amendment. The Grassley amendment will add an additional $63 billion in mandatory spending to agricultural programs over ten years, which is assumed to be paid from projected budget surpluses. This is above the amount proposed by my Republican colleagues on the budget committee. By designating the extra $63 billion as mandatory spending, much of this funding will be targeted toward farm subsidy programs. The needs of American family farmers are not being ignored. Congress is in the process of drafting a new Farm bill to reauthorize USDA programs, which many would view as the appropriate vehicle to tackle necessary reform and address farm crises. In the past few years, Congress has approved more than $20 billion in emergency farm aid for crop losses and disaster assistance. The agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001 was padded with $300 million in porkbarrel spending for towns, universities, research institutes and a myriad of other entities. This is already an exorbitant commitment by the American taxpayer. I believe it is fundamentally wrong that we are asking taxpayers to pay billions more, above already inflated levels of spending for farm programs and subsidies, particularly when the federal government is not meeting its current obligations for other designated mandatory spending programs such as education. For example, this budget resolution does not account for the federal government's responsibility to pay 40 percent of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, for special education. I believe many of my colleagues would agree that we should prioritize mandatory spending for existing responsibilities not being fulfilled without requiring the taxpayers to spend an additional $63 billion for farm programs that have already been more than compensated. After consultation with the leadership on this particular amendment, my colleagues stated that if Senator Grassley's amendment failed, many would be in the position of having to vote for the Johnson amendment, which would have raised mandatory spending on agriculture programs by $97 billion, as the only available alternative. Therefore, while I believe this to be irresponsible fiscal policy, I ultimately decided to vote in favor of the Grassley amendment to move the process forward on the budget resolution and to avoid even greater wasteful spending. I remind my colleagues, however, that we still have an important obligation to American taxpayers to ensure that any spending we approve through the annual appropriations process pursuant to this budget resolution is fair, fiscally responsible, and targeted at those truly in need.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I intend to vote for the amendment by Senators Landrieu, Carnahan, Conrad, Lieberman, Reed and Levin because I believe that providing for a strong national defense is our most serious obligation. Two years ago, President Clinton sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen that stated: ``Although we have done much to support readiness, more needs to be done.'' President Clinton made this statement in response to a briefing he had attended with Secretary Cohen, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Commanders-in-Chief of the military combat commands. I applauded President Clinton then for his reversal of 6 previous years of vastly underfunded defense budgets and for the reversal of the Service Chiefs in 1998, who confirmed many of the alarming readiness problems that had been identified in countless sources. The imperative for increasing military readiness and reforming our military is as strong today, as it was two years ago. Anyone who dismisses our serious readiness problems, our concerns with morale and personnel retention, and our deficiencies in everything from spare parts to training is either willfully uniformed or untruthful. What concerns me the most is that the highly skilled service men and women who have made our military the best fighting force the world has ever seen are leaving in droves, unlikely to be replaced in the near future. Their reason is obvious; they are overworked, underpaid, and away from home more and more often. Failure to fully and quickly address this facet of 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 neither be quick nor cheap. The proper solution should not only shore up the Services' immediate needs, but should also address the modernization and personnel problems caused by years of chronic under funding. The solution will be found by using a comprehensive approach in which the President, civilian and uniformed military leadership, as well as Congress, will be required to make tough choices and even tougher commitments. I further hope that we do not fall into the trap of comparing defense expenditures of the U.S. versus potential threat countries, because dollar to dollar comparisons are meaningless. Only the U.S. has the global responsibilities that come with being the lone superpower. Our foes can employ asymmetric forces against our weaknesses and achieve a disproportionate level of success. I was concerned that recently, the USS Kitty Hawk battle group, stationed in Japan, reported less-than-favorable readiness numbers, short some 1,000 sailors, at the same time that tensions have increased in the South China Sea. I hope we do not focus solely on the readiness of front-line forces, because the Army divisions that have good readiness numbers are being supported by units that have less-impressive ratings. We need a comprehensive remedy, not a shotgun approach. These support forces, some of them reserve component forces, have become the backbone of our fighting forces and need the most attention. This degradation of the ``tail'' that trains and supports the ``teeth'' of the U.S. military must be reversed. We have the world's finest military, but that is principally because the people in the military, primarily the young enlisted, our NCOs, petty officers, chiefs, Gunnies, and sergeants, continue to do more with less. Our ability to field credible front-line forces is due to the efforts of our service members, as we live off of the deteriorating remnants of the Reagan buildup. That is difficult to admit, until you review the list of aircraft, ships, artillery, and tanks in our current weapons inventory. The administration must take several steps: propose realistic budget requests; specifically budget for ongoing contingency operations; provide adequately for modernization; ensure equipment maintenance is adequately funded; resolve the wide pay and benefits disparity that precludes the Services from competing successfully for volunteers with the private sector; and demonstrate strong support for additional base closure rounds.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important piece of legislation which would have a tremendous impact on the lives of many blind people. This bill restores the 20-year link between blind people and senior citizens in regards to the Social Security earnings limit which has helped many blind people become self-sufficient and productive. When the Congress passed the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act in 1996, we unfortunately broke the longstanding linkage in the treatment of blind people and seniors under Social Security, which resulted in allowing the earnings limit to be raised for seniors only and did not give blind people the same opportunity to increase their earnings without penalizing their Social Security benefits. My intent when I sponsored the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act was not to break the link between blind people and the senior population. In 1996, time constraints and fiscal considerations forced me to focus solely on raising the unfair and burdensome earnings limit for seniors. I am pleased that H.R. 5, the Social Security Earnings Test Elimination bill, finally eliminated this unfair tax on earnings for seniors 65 to 69 years of age. This law is allowing millions of seniors to continue contributing to society as productive workers. Now we should work together in the spirit of fairness to ensure that this same opportunity is given to the blind population. We should provide blind people the opportunity to be productive and ``make it'' on their own. We should not continue policies which discourage these individuals from working and contributing to society. The bill I am introducing today is identical to one I sponsored in the last two Congresses. If we do not reinstate the link between the blind and the seniors, blind people will be restricted to earning $14,800 in the year 2002 in order to protect their Social Security benefits. There are very strong and convincing arguments in favor of reestablishing the link between these two groups and increasing the earnings limit for blind people. First, the earnings test treatment of our blind and senior populations has historically been identical. Since 1977, blind people and senior citizens have shared the identical earnings exemption threshold under Title II of the Social Security Act. Now, senior citizens will be given greater opportunity to increase their earnings without losing a portion of their Social Security benefits; the blind, however, will not have the same opportunity. The Social Security earnings test imposes a work disincentive for blind people. In fact, the earnings test probably provides a greater aggregate disincentive for blind individuals since many blind beneficiaries are of working age, 18-65, and are capable of productive work. Blindness is often associated with adverse social and economic consequences. It is often tremendously difficult for blind individuals to find sustained employment or any employment at all, but they do want to work. They take great pride in being able to work and becoming productive members of society. By linking the blind with seniors in 1977, Congress provided a great deal of hope and incentive for blind people in this country to enter the work force. Now, we are taking that hope away from them by not allowing them the same opportunity to increase their earnings as senior citizens. Blind people are likely to respond favorably to an increase in the earnings test by working more, which will increase their tax payments and their purchasing power and allow the blind to make a greater contribution to the general economy. In addition, encouraging the blind to work and allowing them to work more without being penalized would bring additional revenue into the Social Security trust funds as well as the Federal Treasury. In short, restoring the link between blind people and senior citizens for treatment of Social Security benefits would help many blind people become self-sufficient, productive members of society. I am pleased that this Congress will be focusing on the overall structure of the Social Security system and working together for solutions which would strengthen the system for seniors of today and tomorrow without placing an unfair burden on working Americans. It is absolutely crucial that we include raising the earnings test for blind individuals as a part of any Social Security bill we enact this year. I urge each of my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this important measure to restore fair and equitable treatment for our blind citizens and to give the blind community increased financial independence. Our nation would be better served if we restore equality for the blind and provide them with the same freedom, opportunities and fairness as our nation's seniors. 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 an important piece of legislation which would have a tremendous impact on the lives of many blind people. This bill restores the 20-year link between blind people and senior citizens in regards to the Social Security earnings limit which has helped many blind people become self-sufficient and productive. When the Congress passed the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act in 1996, we unfortunately broke the longstanding linkage in the treatment of blind people and seniors under Social Security, which resulted in allowing the earnings limit to be raised for seniors only and did not give blind people the same opportunity to increase their earnings without penalizing their Social Security benefits. My intent when I sponsored the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act was not to break the link between blind people and the senior population. In 1996, time constraints and fiscal considerations forced me to focus solely on raising the unfair and burdensome earnings limit for seniors. I am pleased that H.R. 5, the Social Security Earnings Test Elimination bill, finally eliminated this unfair tax on earnings for seniors 65 to 69 years of age. This law is allowing millions of seniors to continue contributing to society as productive workers. Now we should work together in the spirit of fairness to ensure that this same opportunity is given to the blind population. We should provide blind people the opportunity to be productive and ``make it'' on their own. We should not continue policies which discourage these individuals from working and contributing to society. The bill I am introducing today is identical to one I sponsored in the last two Congresses. If we do not reinstate the link between the blind and the seniors, blind people will be restricted to earning $14,800 in the year 2002 in order to protect their Social Security benefits. There are very strong and convincing arguments in favor of reestablishing the link between these two groups and increasing the earnings limit for blind people. First, the earnings test treatment of our blind and senior populations has historically been identical. Since 1977, blind people and senior citizens have shared the identical earnings exemption threshold under Title II of the Social Security Act. Now, senior citizens will be given greater opportunity to increase their earnings without losing a portion of their Social Security benefits; the blind, however, will not have the same opportunity. The Social Security earnings test imposes a work disincentive for blind people. In fact, the earnings test probably provides a greater aggregate disincentive for blind individuals since many blind beneficiaries are of working age, 18-65, and are capable of productive work. Blindness is often associated with adverse social and economic consequences. It is often tremendously difficult for blind individuals to find sustained employment or any employment at all, but they do want to work. They take great pride in being able to work and becoming productive members of society. By linking the blind with seniors in 1977, Congress provided a great deal of hope and incentive for blind people in this country to enter the work force. Now, we are taking that hope away from them by not allowing them the same opportunity to increase their earnings as senior citizens. Blind people are likely to respond favorably to an increase in the earnings test by working more, which will increase their tax payments and their purchasing power and allow the blind to make a greater contribution to the general economy. In addition, encouraging the blind to work and allowing them to work more without being penalized would bring additional revenue into the Social Security trust funds as well as the Federal Treasury. In short, restoring the link between blind people and senior citizens for treatment of Social Security benefits would help many blind people become self-sufficient, productive members of society. I am pleased that this Congress will be focusing on the overall structure of the Social Security system and working together for solutions which would strengthen the system for seniors of today and tomorrow without placing an unfair burden on working Americans. It is absolutely crucial that we include raising the earnings test for blind individuals as a part of any Social Security bill we enact this year. I urge each of my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this important measure to restore fair and equitable treatment for our blind citizens and to give the blind community increased financial independence. Our nation would be better served if we restore equality for the blind and provide them with the same freedom, opportunities and fairness as our nation's seniors. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, were I limited to thanking one individual, it would be Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, a man of great courage and conviction. His partnership in this effort is one of the greatest privileges I have ever had in public life. He is in every respect the better half of McCain-Feingold. I want him to know, Mr. President, that I will never forget it. I might also add that he is well served by his staff as I am by mine. Lastly, I thank every one of my colleagues, those who supported our bill and those who did not, particularly my friend Senator Hagel, for the good faith and fairmindedness that all have brought to this debate. I believe the events of the last 2 weeks have been a great credit to this body, and that is tribute to every Senator. Indeed, as we approach what I believe will be a successful outcome for the proponents of this legislation, I can say I have never been prouder to be a Member of the Senate. Because of my failings, I might not always show it, but I consider myself blessed to serve in the company of so many capable leaders of our fair country. I asked at the start of this debate for my colleagues to take a risk for America. In a few moments, I believe we will do just that. I will go to my grave deeply grateful for the honor of being part of it. I yield the floor.