John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I yield the remainder of my time after Senator Domenici speaks, or after anyone else who wants to speak on this amendment.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to provide a couple of brief anecdotes which are sometimes disturbing. In a July 20, 1999, piece in the Washington Post entitled ``Feeling the Pinch of A Military Salary; For Some Families Pay Doesn't Cover The Basics,'' it starts out by describing: On a muggy Saturday at Quantico Marine Corps Base, about two dozen Marines and family members quietly poked through piles of discarded furniture, clothing, and household goods in what has become a weekly ritual at the big Northern Virginia installation. At 8 a.m., the patch of lawn was covered with beds, tables, dressers, and desks. Within 45 minutes, almost all the furniture was gone. The price was right--Everything was free. The items had been gathered by volunteers who go ``trashin'' every Tuesday, scouring garbage left at curbs on the base. Every Saturday, they give away what they collect to needy, eager Marine families. ``We're talking about the basics of life here, and they don't have it,'' said Lisa Joles, a Marine wife who created the Volunteer Network 2 years ago. ``Sometimes, they don't have a thing. I didn't know how large the problem was until I got to Quantico.'' One result is that members of the military routinely work second jobs, often without permission from superiors, military officials acknowledged. Enlisted men and women sell goods at Potomac Mills, flip hamburgers at fast food restaurants, do construction work, and deliver packages for UPS. ``It seems like everybody who has been here a while has a part-time job,'' said Marine Lance Corporal Robert Hayes, who has a second job as a mover. ``You really don't have enough money to make it to the next paycheck otherwise.'' Several evenings each week, as soon as he finishes duty at Quantico, Lance Corporal Harry Schein darts off base, picks up his 14-month-old son from day care and drops him off with the boy's mother. Then he drives up I-95 to Arlington and joins a group of Marines who moonlight moving office furniture until about 11 p.m. On Saturdays and Sundays, he works from 4 p.m. until midnight as a security guard in Alexandria. The stories go on and on. About a year ago, there was a piece on 20/ 20 shown out at Camp Pendleton. Enlisted men and women and their families were lining up for cartons of food. We have a lot of retention problems in the military and we have a lot of recruiting problems. These, I know, are going to be well ventilated by the Armed Services Committee as time goes on. In my earlier years, it would have been hard for me to comprehend these kinds of conditions prevailing among the men and women in the military, particularly in the All Volunteer Force. Mr. President, I ask for a recorded vote on this amendment, and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the managers, Senator Domenici and Senator Reid. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield, yes, he is doing exactly what I had in mind. I appreciate very much his long-term commitment on this issue. It is long overdue. We should fix it. I share his dissatisfaction with the Department of Defense in its responsibility towards these young men and women. I thank the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. McCAIN. I understand that the pending amendment has been set aside.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to remove thousands of our servicemembers from the food stamp rolls. The Remove Servicemembers from Food Stamps Act of 2000 provides junior enlisted servicemembers who are eligible for food stamps in the pay grade E-1 through E-5 an additional allowance of $180 a month. A not-yet-published Department of Defense report estimates that 6,300 servicemembers receive food stamps, while the General Accounting Office and Congressional Research Service place this number at around 13,500. Regardless of this disparity, the fact that just one servicemember is on food stamps is a national disgrace. This bill will end the ``food stamp Army'' once and for all. This legislative proposal is estimated to cost only $6 million annually. Interestingly, the Congressional Budget Office determined that it would represent an overall savings to taxpayers since it would save the Department of Agriculture more than $6 million by removing servicemembers from the food stamp rolls for good. Last year, this legislation was included in S. 4, the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Relief Act of 1999. Although the Senate approved this legislation as part of S. 4, I was greatly disappointed when food stamp relief was rejected by conferees from the House of Representatives despite the strong support of Admiral Jay Johnson, the Chief of Naval Operations, and General Jim Jones, the Commandant of the Marine Corps. With over 13,500 military families on food stamps, and possibly thousands more eligible for the program, I cannot understand the Congress' refusal to rectify this problem in last year's National Defense Authorization Act. It is outrageous that Admirals and Generals received a 17 percent pay raise last year while our enlisted families continue to line up for free food and furniture. Last year, we poured hundreds of millions of dollars into programs the military did not request, like the C-130J. We spent $375 million as a down payment on a $1.5 billion amphibious assault ship that the Navy did not want and that the Secretary of Defense said diverts dollars from higher priority programs. We added $5.1 million to build a gymnasium at the Naval Post-Graduate School and $15 million to build a Reserve Center in Oregon--neither was in the President's budget request or identified by the Joint Chiefs as a priority item. It is difficult to reconcile how Congress could waste $7.4 billion on pork barrel spending in the defense budget, while we ignore the basic needs of our military families. I have been open to all suggestions for solutions to this problem and am willing to work toward a bipartisan plan that would satisfy the administration, Congress, and the Department of Defense. Sadly, politics, not military necessity, remains the rule, not the exception. It is unconscionable that the men and women who are willing to sacrifice their lives for their country have to rely on food stamps to make ends meet, and it is an abrogation of our responsibilities as Senators to let this reality go on without some sort of legislative remedy. I will not stand by and watch as our military is permitted to erode to the breaking point due to the President's lack of foresight and the Congress' lack of compassion. These military men and women on food stamps--our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines--are the very same Americans that the President and Congress have sent into harm's way in recent years in Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, and East Timor. They deserve our continuing respect, our unwavering support, and a living wage. The legislation is supported by every enlisted association or organization that specifically supports enlisted servicemember issues in the Military Coalition and in the National Military/Veterans Alliance. Associations include the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Non- Commissioned Officers Association, the American Legion, the Retired Enlisted Association, the National Association for Uniformed Services, the Fleet Reserve Association, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the U.S. Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers Association, the Disabled American Veterans, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the U.S., and the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to act swiftly. It is a step in the right direction toward improving the lives of our servicemembers and their families who are struggling to feed their families. There is no reason not to pass this bill immediately. We have waited too long already. We must end the days of a ``food stamp Army'' once and for all. Our military personnel and their families deserve better. Mr. President, 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 a bill to remove thousands of our servicemembers from the food stamp rolls. The Remove Servicemembers from Food Stamps Act of 2000 provides junior enlisted servicemembers who are eligible for food stamps in the pay grade E-1 through E-5 an additional allowance of $180 a month. A not-yet-published Department of Defense report estimates that 6,300 servicemembers receive food stamps, while the General Accounting Office and Congressional Research Service place this number at around 13,500. Regardless of this disparity, the fact that just one servicemember is on food stamps is a national disgrace. This bill will end the ``food stamp Army'' once and for all. This legislative proposal is estimated to cost only $6 million annually. Interestingly, the Congressional Budget Office determined that it would represent an overall savings to taxpayers since it would save the Department of Agriculture more than $6 million by removing servicemembers from the food stamp rolls for good. Last year, this legislation was included in S. 4, the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Relief Act of 1999. Although the Senate approved this legislation as part of S. 4, I was greatly disappointed when food stamp relief was rejected by conferees from the House of Representatives despite the strong support of Admiral Jay Johnson, the Chief of Naval Operations, and General Jim Jones, the Commandant of the Marine Corps. With over 13,500 military families on food stamps, and possibly thousands more eligible for the program, I cannot understand the Congress' refusal to rectify this problem in last year's National Defense Authorization Act. It is outrageous that Admirals and Generals received a 17 percent pay raise last year while our enlisted families continue to line up for free food and furniture. Last year, we poured hundreds of millions of dollars into programs the military did not request, like the C-130J. We spent $375 million as a down payment on a $1.5 billion amphibious assault ship that the Navy did not want and that the Secretary of Defense said diverts dollars from higher priority programs. We added $5.1 million to build a gymnasium at the Naval Post-Graduate School and $15 million to build a Reserve Center in Oregon--neither was in the President's budget request or identified by the Joint Chiefs as a priority item. It is difficult to reconcile how Congress could waste $7.4 billion on pork barrel spending in the defense budget, while we ignore the basic needs of our military families. I have been open to all suggestions for solutions to this problem and am willing to work toward a bipartisan plan that would satisfy the administration, Congress, and the Department of Defense. Sadly, politics, not military necessity, remains the rule, not the exception. It is unconscionable that the men and women who are willing to sacrifice their lives for their country have to rely on food stamps to make ends meet, and it is an abrogation of our responsibilities as Senators to let this reality go on without some sort of legislative remedy. I will not stand by and watch as our military is permitted to erode to the breaking point due to the President's lack of foresight and the Congress' lack of compassion. These military men and women on food stamps--our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines--are the very same Americans that the President and Congress have sent into harm's way in recent years in Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, and East Timor. They deserve our continuing respect, our unwavering support, and a living wage. The legislation is supported by every enlisted association or organization that specifically supports enlisted servicemember issues in the Military Coalition and in the National Military/Veterans Alliance. Associations include the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Non- Commissioned Officers Association, the American Legion, the Retired Enlisted Association, the National Association for Uniformed Services, the Fleet Reserve Association, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the U.S. Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers Association, the Disabled American Veterans, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the U.S., and the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to act swiftly. It is a step in the right direction toward improving the lives of our servicemembers and their families who are struggling to feed their families. There is no reason not to pass this bill immediately. We have waited too long already. We must end the days of a ``food stamp Army'' once and for all. Our military personnel and their families deserve better. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senate Joint Resolution 14. It is with great honor and reverence that I speak in support of this resolution, a bipartisan constitutional amendment to permit Congress to enact legislation prohibiting the physical desecration of the American flag. Let me explain my support by recalling the sacrifice for flag and country of a prisoner of war I had the honor of serving with. I spent 5\1/2\ years at the Hanoi Hilton. In the early years of our imprisonment, the North Vietnamese kept us in solitary confinement of two or three to a cell. In 1971, the North Vietnamese moved us from these conditions of isolation into large rooms with as many as 30 to 40 men to a room. This was, as you can imagine, a wonderful change. And it was a direct result of the efforts of millions of Americans, led by people like Ross Perot, and Nancy and Ronald Reagan, on behalf of a few hundred POW's, 10,000 miles from home. One of the men who moved into my cell was Mike Christian. Mike came from Selma, Alabama. He didn't wear a pair of shoes until he was 13 years old. At 17, he enlisted in the U.S. Navy. He later earned a commission. He became a Naval aviator, and was shot down and captured in 1967. Mike had a keen and deep appreciation for the opportunities this country--and our military--provide for people who want to work and want to succeed. The uniforms we wore in prison consisted of a blue short-sleeved shirt trousers that looked like pajamas and rubber sandals that were made out of automobile tires. As part of the change in treatment, the Vietnamese allowed some prisoners to receive packages from home. In some of these packages were handkerchiefs, scarves and other items of clothing. Mike got himself a piece of white cloth and a piece of red cloth and fashioned himself a bamboo needle. Over a period of a couple of months, he sewed the American flag on the inside of his shirt. Every afternoon, before we had a bowl of soup, we would hang Mike's shirt on the wall of our cell, and say the Pledge of Allegiance. I know that saying the Pledge of Allegiance may not seem the most important or meaningful part of our day now. But I can assure you that--for those men in that stark prison cell--it was indeed the most important and meaningful event of our day. One day, the Vietnamese searched our cell and discovered Mike's shirt with the flag sewn inside, and removed it. That evening they returned, opened the door of the cell, called for Mike Christian to come out, closed the door of the cell, and for the benefit of all of us, beat Mike Christian severely. Then they opened the door of the cell and threw him back inside. He was not in good shape. We tried to comfort and take care of him as well as we could. The cell in which we lived had a concrete slab in the middle on which we slept. Four naked light bulbs hung in each corner of the room. After things quieted down, I went to lie down to go to sleep. As I did, I happened to look in the corner of the room. Sitting there beneath that dim light bulb, with a piece of white cloth, a piece of red cloth, another shirt and his bamboo needle, was my friend Mike Christian, sitting there, with his eyes almost shut from his beating, making another American flag. He was not making that flag because it made Mike Christian feel better. He was making that flag because he knew how important it was for us to be able to pledge our allegiance to our flag and our country. I believe we have an inviolable duty to protect the right of free speech--one of our most precious inalienable rights and the linchpin of a healthy democracy. I do not believe, however, that guaranteeing respect for our national symbol by prohibiting ``acts'' of desecration impinges on political ``speech.'' As long as citizens are free to speak out on any matter and from whatever point of view they wish, as our forefathers intended, it does not seem burdensome to me that we accord some modicum of respect to the symbol of those precious freedoms for which so many of our countrymen have laid down their lives. Some view these efforts to protect the flag as political demagoguery or empty symbolism. I see the issue differently. The flag represents each and every one of us, regardless of race, religion or political diversity. Tolerating desecration of the flag is silent acquiescence to the degeneration of the broader values which sustain us as a free and democratic nation--the ramifications of which are far more profound than mere symbolism. For these reasons, I support this constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration. I voted for such language in previous Congresses, but unfortunately, we have always fallen short of the 67 affirmative votes necessary for approval. Whenever we send our young men and women into harm's way, we must remember that these same men and women have taken a solemn oath which this flag symbolizes. Let us honor their commitment and honor our great nation. I urge my colleagues to support the flag protection amendment.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I commend the managers of this bill and all those who worked hard to forge this agreement to help address the continuing crisis facing American farmers. However, I regret that I cannot vote for this legislation, S. 2251, the Risk Management for the 21st Century Act. Over the last 2 years, the Congress was forced to spend more than $15 billion of taxpayer dollars in emergency disaster assistance to farmers. Proponents of this bill claim that if S. 2251 is enacted, the need to pass ad hoc emergency farm relief would be avoided. However, even with passage of this bill, these same proponents are not willing to voice their opposition to further emergency spending should Congress be forced to consider additional relief measures for farmers. This bill, at a cost of $6 billion, is more of an expanded federal subsidy for crop coverage, rather than thorough and necessary reform of the larger problems stemming from our nation's farm policies. It has become clear that the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill failed to alleviate the heavy reliance by the farming community on federally subsidized programs and financial assistance. However, instead of turning back the clock and increasing subsidies, we should be working for responsible reform of farm policies. That is why I voted in favor of Senator Wellstone's amendment which calls for broader reform. Even with the expanded coverage and more affordable insurance premiums for farmers called for in this bill, Congress does not have the assurance that other problems, such as fluctuations in the market or limited trade opportunities, will not create additional burdens on farmers requiring another costly congressional budgetary response. Mr. President, this bill also includes provisions that appear capricious and unnecessarily bureaucratic. Five new regional centers will be established at a price tag of $30 million, and new pilot programs are authorized to develop and market risk management tools. I support efforts to evaluate innovative risk management options or to ensure that farmers understand changes to insurance coverage and options. But why should we spend taxpayer money on new information centers when this information is already available and accessible through local USDA offices? And, the private sector is in no way prohibited from exploring opportunities to develop and market new products to manage risk. Mr. President, I agree with the fundamental principle of this bill, that farmers need to have risk management tools to allow them to prepare for, and deal with, crop losses and disaster-related problems. However, I am not convinced that this bill will do much more than increase taxpayer burdens and only partially solve a much bigger problem facing our nation's farmers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be placed in the Record immediately following passage of S. 2251.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, most Americans are shocked and appalled when they discover that older Americans are penalized for working. Americans should never be penalized or discouraged from working. Yet that is exactly what the Social Security earnings test does. The earnings test punishes Americans between the ages of 65 and 70 who want to remain productive after they reach retirement age and are eligible to receive Social Security benefits. The Earnings Test mandates that, for every $3 earned by a retiree over the earnings limit, the retiree loses $1 in Social Security benefits. This is clearly age discrimination, and it is very wrong. Due to this cap on earnings, our senior citizens, many of whom exist on fixed, low incomes, are burdened with a 33.3 percent tax on their earned income. When this is combined with Federal, State, local and other Social Security taxes, it amounts to an outrageous 55 to 65 percent tax bite. In 1996, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Senior Citizens Right to Work Act. This legislation took a step in the right direction by gradually increasing the $11,250 earnings limit to $30,000 by the year 2002. This year, the earnings limit is $17,000. But an individual who is struggling to make ends meet with just their Social Security benefits plus $17,000 a year in earned income should not be faced with an effective marginal tax rate that exceeds 55 percent. The Social Security Earnings Test is a relic of the Great Depression, designed to move older people out of the workforce and create jobs for younger workers. Today's booming economy, with the lowest unemployment rate in three decades, can support full employment for both young and old. In addition, experts are predicting a labor shortage as the ``baby boom'' generation ages, with our elderly population growing much faster than the number of younger workers entering the workforce. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, ``retaining older workers is a priority in labor intensive industries, and will become even more critical by the year 2000.'' The Social Security Earnings Test is counter- productive because it discourages these willing, diligent older Americans from staying in the workforce. Our senior citizens can continue to make valuable contributions to our economy. Often, their knowledge and experience compliments or exceeds that of younger employees. Tens of millions of Americans are over the age of 65, and together they have over a billion years of cumulative work experience. More importantly, many of the older Americans penalized by the Earnings Test need to work in order to cover their basic expenses, including food, housing, and medicine. Many seniors do not have significant savings or a private pension. For this reason, low-income workers are particularly hard-hit by the Earnings Test. In fact, wealthy seniors, who have lucrative investments, stocks, and substantial savings, are not affected by the earnings limit. Their supplemental ``unearned'' income is not subject to the earnings threshold. Finally, let me stress that repealing the burdensome and unfair Earnings Test will not further jeopardize the solvency of the Social Security Trust Funds. Those who claim otherwise are engaging in cruel scare tactics. The Social Security benefits working seniors lose due to the Earnings Test penalty are benefits they earned by contributing to the system throughout their working years. In fact, studies indicate that repealing the Earnings Test would actually result in a net increase of $140 million in federal revenues because more seniors would be earning wages and paying taxes, including payroll taxes that would go into the Social Security Trust Fund. Repealing the Earnings Test is very important to the financial security of many of our nation's seniors. But let me take this opportunity to remind my colleagues of the very precarious financial condition of the entire Social Security system and the urgent need for a serious, bipartisan effort to reform and revitalize this cornerstone of many Americans' retirement planning. My colleagues must recognize that repealing this onerous tax on our nation's senior citizens is an important step toward a fairer, flatter, simpler tax code. The 44,000-page Code is a cornucopia of favors for special interests and a chamber of horrors for average Americans. It penalizes people for getting married and for wanting to pass along the fruits of their labors to their children. It is overly complex and burdensome. We should act now to eliminate the loopholes and subsidies for corporations and special interests. We should act now to eliminate the onerous marriage penalty, reduce estate and gift taxes, and encourage families to save and invest for their future priorities, such as college and health care needs. We should begin the march toward a fairer, flatter tax system by expanding the 15 percent tax bracket to allow more Americans to pay taxes at the lowest rate. Combined with the repeal of the Social Security Earnings Test, these and other changes to the tax code would provide much-needed tax relief to those who need it most--our nation's low- and middle-income senior citizens and families. The only way to achieve real reform of the Social Security system is to work together in a bipartisan manner. I am speaking specifically of the leadership of the Senator from New York, Mr. Moynihan. I can think of no greater gift to the American people than to act on this issue before Senator Moynihan leaves this body. It's time to abandon the irresponsible game of playing partisan politics with Social Security. Democrats will have to stop using the issue to scare seniors into voting against Republicans. Republicans will have to resist using Social Security revenues to finance tax cuts. And both parties must stop raiding the Trust Funds to waste retirement dollars on more government spending. We must face up to our responsibilities, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as elected representatives of the American people with a common obligation to protect their interests. We have an obligation to ensure that Social Security benefits are paid as promised, without putting an unfair burden on today's workers. Experts agree that the only way to save Social Security without cutting benefits or raising payroll taxes is to allow every American to invest a portion of their Social Security savings in private, higher-yielding accounts. I believe a good start would be to let each person invest about 20 percent of what they pay in payroll taxes in a personal retirement account. These personal accounts would be controlled by the individual, and the individual would be able to monitor the growth of their investment. An added benefit is that each account would be a ``personal lockbox'' that could no longer be used by Congress for pork- barrel projects. In the near term, there is a cost to moving funds out of the Trust Funds into these private accounts, and we must set aside the funds necessary to pay promised benefits while the personal accounts of workers are maturing. Simply locking up the Social Security surplus that comes from payroll taxes--a considerable accomplishment in and of itself--is not enough to save Social Security. We will need between $5 and $7 trillion in additional funding over the next 50 years to keep the current system running. I believe we must start now by reserving 62 percent of the non-Social Security budget surplus to shore up the Trust Funds while we begin to implement a plan for personal retirement accounts. By passing this important legislation to repeal the Social Security Earnings Test, we have the opportunity to restore to our nation's seniors the right to work without penalty to ensure their financial security. But this is just the first step. We must work together to develop fair and effective reforms that will preserve and protect the Social Security system for current and future retirees, while allowing all Americans, particularly low- and middle-income individuals, the opportunity to share in the great prosperity that our nation enjoys today. I thank the Senator from Delaware for his leadership. I especially thank the Senator from New York for his courageous leadership in suggesting a viable and important way to save Social Security, along with the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Kerrey. I tell the Senator from New York that I talked about it during this entire campaign. It resonates, people want it, and we ought to enact it. I thank the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Roth for his leadership and stewardship of this important legislation. Obviously, I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of this much needed legislation to eliminate the unfair and discriminatory Social Security earnings test. For over a decade, I and a few staunch supporters have been fighting to eliminate the earnings test that penalizes senior citizens who want or need to work. We began our battle in 1989 and have offered legislation in each of the last six Congresses to repeal the earnings test. In the beginning, we had only a few allies, notable amongst which was the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, which has been at the forefront of this effort, as have my dear friends John Kyl and Mike DeWine. I am pleased now that so many Members from both sides of the aisle, as well as President Clinton, understand that senior citizens have a right to work without being penalized for doing so. With this recent groundswell of support, we can finally eliminate this penalty on our Nation's hard-working senior citizens. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare in support of this legislation be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like, if the Senator from New York will allow me, 1 more minute.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from New York that all over in this campaign I talked about the leadership of Senator Moynihan of New York, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, and their proposals, which met with some derision in some quarters. But the fact is, when you consult the experts, they will tell you this is really the only way we can allow people to invest their retirement funds in a personal savings account over which they then will have control. But we need to get money into the fund in order to allow them to do that. I think the Senator from New York has made an enormous contribution. I hope we can join together in a bipartisan fashion and enact that proposal. It may not be a perfect proposal; there may be some changes that need to be made on it; but the heart of it is the solution to the Social Security crisis, which we all know is coming beginning in the year 2014. I thank my colleague from New York. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, Washington, DC, March 20, 2000. Hon. John McCain, Russell Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator McCain: On behalf of its millions of members and supporters, The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare thanks you for your leadership on earnings limit repeal. We are truly grateful for your committed efforts on behalf of senior Americans. Senator McCain, I remember when we began the battle to eliminate the unfair Social Security earnings limit more than a decade ago. At that time, we had just a few allies in Congress. You immediately recognized the inherent unfairness of punishing seniors who, either out of necessity or choice, continued to work after reaching the normal retirement age. We are quite pleased to see so many members of Congress now willing to fight for seniors' freedom to work. With this newfound support, the egregious earnings test will likely be eliminated for those who have attained normal retirement age. The members of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare are delighted that passage of earnings limit repeal now seems imminent. Thank you again, Senator McCain, for your determined efforts and tenacious commitment. Without your hard work over the years, I doubt that we would be facing victory on this important issue. Sincerely, Martha A. McSteen, President.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today to extend the moratorium on Internet taxes through 2006. This will ensure that Internet commerce remains free from burdensome, anticonsumer taxation while we discuss a fair and equitable tax structure for our new economy. This bill simply extends the law passed by Congress and signed by the President in October 1998. The 1998 legislation imposed a moratorium and provided for a commission to report to Congress. While the Commission has not yet reported its recommendations, it is clear from published reports of their deliberations and from interviews with their members that a clear consensus is not imminent. More discussions and more time is necessary to arrive at a fair conclusion. Although I feel strongly that in the end a permanent moratorium is the best policy, which is why I introduced legislation to impose a permanent ban on Internet taxes, I also have become convinced that we need more time to determine how state and local governments will be affected. We need to consider whether the macroeconomic benefits of the new economy will outweigh the potential losses in direct revenues, how to ensure a level playing field for all venues of commerce, and how to simplify the overwhelming morass of tax rules, regulations and paperwork so that opportunities for new or small businesses are not lost in complex and archaic bureaucracy. The compromises being discussed by the Commission are a good start to the debate, but more time is necessary to pursue these and other possible options. It is becoming increasingly clear that the answer to taxation of the internet must affect taxation of other commerce media, such as catalog sales, as well. We need to reexamine the level of services which the public wants to be provided by government and determine how to provide necessary revenue to accomplish the people's will. We need to ensure that taxation is not simply imposed to increase government bureaucracy. Recent studies indicate that state and local governments will not suffer during this interim period. A June 1999 report by the well-known and respected auditing and business consulting firm or Ernst & Young concludes that total sales and use taxes not collected by state and local governments from Internet e-commerce transactions in 1998 amounted to only ``one-tenth of one percent of total state and local sales and use tax collections.'' Another May 1999 analysis of Internet commerce transactions through 2003 by Austan Goolsvee and Jonathan Zittrain, published in the National Tax Journal, predicts ``even with a 70 percent rate of growth in retail e-commerce transactions, a revenue loss of less than 2 percent of sales tax revenue.'' There are multiple reasons for this very marginal impact on state and local revenues. First, most of the e-commerce transactions are wither business-to-business transactions, or for services, such as financial services and travel, which are exempt from sales and use taxes in most states. Ernst & Young estimated only 13 percent of the total e-commerce sales transactions were of a type which would be subject to sales and use taxes if conducted in person. Second, as pointed out by Austan Goolsbee and Jonathan Zittrain, the Internet is a ``trade creator''--that is, many transactions which occur through e-commerce would not take place at all without the internet. Third, the Internet does not divert sales only from brick and mortar retailers, but also from mail order catalogs. Those sales are also subject to sales and use tax only where a nexus, a physical presence, in the taxing state. We are currently seeing a continued rise in state and local revenues. Many states are currently debating how to refund money to their citizens, whether to cut sales taxes or income taxes. Thus, this moratorium should not negatively impact their ability to provide services during the interim. It is important to look at the full picture here. The Internet is filled with web sites of small businesses which are expanding in ways which would never have before been economically feasible. For example, a small store in a small town which has historically had a limited market for its good now has a website that allows it to market and sell to people all over the country--all over the world. It increases its business and needs to hire more employees, and pays taxes on its increased revenues. The states and local governments benefits, not only from the additional taxes paid on the revenues, but in the economic benefits of additional jobs. The potential burden of complying with tax regulations and the paperwork involved under current law for as many as 7,500 estimated taxing units in this country would ovrwhelm many businesses, especially small businesses. An example in the March 13, 2000 edition of Interactive Week is instructive. ``If you're a raw peanut, five states would require that sales taxes are paid on your purchase. If you're roasted, 11 states charge a sales tax. Add some honey to that roasting, and now 21 states say you're taxable. Get drenched in caramel and mixed with caramel-coated popcorn and suddenly you're a snack, and 31 states will call the tax man.'' While I hope that the debate will conclude with a decision to leave the Internet as a ``tax-free-zone,'' I believe that it is important to continue the discussion and to move all stakeholders toward a consensus. This temporary extension of the moratorium already approved by Congress and the President will allow us to do that. This is a good compromise which will serve as a catalyst for consideration of the broader tax policy issues which need to enter into this discussion to ensure a fair and equitable tax system in this country. I intend to move this bill through committee expeditiously and look forward to debating it on the Senate floor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today to extend the moratorium on Internet taxes through 2006. This will ensure that Internet commerce remains free from burdensome, anticonsumer taxation while we discuss a fair and equitable tax structure for our new economy. This bill simply extends the law passed by Congress and signed by the President in October 1998. The 1998 legislation imposed a moratorium and provided for a commission to report to Congress. While the Commission has not yet reported its recommendations, it is clear from published reports of their deliberations and from interviews with their members that a clear consensus is not imminent. More discussions and more time is necessary to arrive at a fair conclusion. Although I feel strongly that in the end a permanent moratorium is the best policy, which is why I introduced legislation to impose a permanent ban on Internet taxes, I also have become convinced that we need more time to determine how state and local governments will be affected. We need to consider whether the macroeconomic benefits of the new economy will outweigh the potential losses in direct revenues, how to ensure a level playing field for all venues of commerce, and how to simplify the overwhelming morass of tax rules, regulations and paperwork so that opportunities for new or small businesses are not lost in complex and archaic bureaucracy. The compromises being discussed by the Commission are a good start to the debate, but more time is necessary to pursue these and other possible options. It is becoming increasingly clear that the answer to taxation of the internet must affect taxation of other commerce media, such as catalog sales, as well. We need to reexamine the level of services which the public wants to be provided by government and determine how to provide necessary revenue to accomplish the people's will. We need to ensure that taxation is not simply imposed to increase government bureaucracy. Recent studies indicate that state and local governments will not suffer during this interim period. A June 1999 report by the well-known and respected auditing and business consulting firm or Ernst & Young concludes that total sales and use taxes not collected by state and local governments from Internet e-commerce transactions in 1998 amounted to only ``one-tenth of one percent of total state and local sales and use tax collections.'' Another May 1999 analysis of Internet commerce transactions through 2003 by Austan Goolsvee and Jonathan Zittrain, published in the National Tax Journal, predicts ``even with a 70 percent rate of growth in retail e-commerce transactions, a revenue loss of less than 2 percent of sales tax revenue.'' There are multiple reasons for this very marginal impact on state and local revenues. First, most of the e-commerce transactions are wither business-to-business transactions, or for services, such as financial services and travel, which are exempt from sales and use taxes in most states. Ernst & Young estimated only 13 percent of the total e-commerce sales transactions were of a type which would be subject to sales and use taxes if conducted in person. Second, as pointed out by Austan Goolsbee and Jonathan Zittrain, the Internet is a ``trade creator''--that is, many transactions which occur through e-commerce would not take place at all without the internet. Third, the Internet does not divert sales only from brick and mortar retailers, but also from mail order catalogs. Those sales are also subject to sales and use tax only where a nexus, a physical presence, in the taxing state. We are currently seeing a continued rise in state and local revenues. Many states are currently debating how to refund money to their citizens, whether to cut sales taxes or income taxes. Thus, this moratorium should not negatively impact their ability to provide services during the interim. It is important to look at the full picture here. The Internet is filled with web sites of small businesses which are expanding in ways which would never have before been economically feasible. For example, a small store in a small town which has historically had a limited market for its good now has a website that allows it to market and sell to people all over the country--all over the world. It increases its business and needs to hire more employees, and pays taxes on its increased revenues. The states and local governments benefits, not only from the additional taxes paid on the revenues, but in the economic benefits of additional jobs. The potential burden of complying with tax regulations and the paperwork involved under current law for as many as 7,500 estimated taxing units in this country would ovrwhelm many businesses, especially small businesses. An example in the March 13, 2000 edition of Interactive Week is instructive. ``If you're a raw peanut, five states would require that sales taxes are paid on your purchase. If you're roasted, 11 states charge a sales tax. Add some honey to that roasting, and now 21 states say you're taxable. Get drenched in caramel and mixed with caramel-coated popcorn and suddenly you're a snack, and 31 states will call the tax man.'' While I hope that the debate will conclude with a decision to leave the Internet as a ``tax-free-zone,'' I believe that it is important to continue the discussion and to move all stakeholders toward a consensus. This temporary extension of the moratorium already approved by Congress and the President will allow us to do that. This is a good compromise which will serve as a catalyst for consideration of the broader tax policy issues which need to enter into this discussion to ensure a fair and equitable tax system in this country. I intend to move this bill through committee expeditiously and look forward to debating it on the Senate floor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California for her kind remarks. I appreciate, obviously, the time that I was able to spend in her great State. I hope she appreciates the economic input that our campaign made, and I hope I can get some rebate from the numerous campaign commercials we purchased in her State. I thank her for the hospitality shown to me by all of the citizens of the State of California.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this Friday marks the first anniversary of NATO's air campaign to drive Serbian forces out of Kosovo. I want to speak briefly this morning about the current situation that, regrettably, remains, in the words of the respected newsmagazine, The Economist, ``a mess.'' Reports over the weekend that General Reinhardt, the KFOR commander, believes that peacekeeping troops will likely need to remain in Kosovo for ten years or more have, I am sure, given my colleagues more than just cause to worry over the wisdom of our continued involvement there. That is more than understandable, given the divisions among NATO peacekeepers, and our allies' frustrating reluctance to meet their commitments to the international police force in Kosovo; considering the U.N.'s predictable difficulty in rebuilding something approaching normal civilian live where ethnic hatreds are as deep-seated as ever; and considering that the malevolent Mr. Milosevic continues to make trouble whenever and wherever he can. Surely, the United States needs to be much more forceful with some of our allies who assume that the United States will always compensate for the deficiencies of their resolve and accept a greatly disproportionate share of the burden of stabilizing the Balkans. Most importantly, we must insist, and I emphasize that verb, that we have the full support of our peacekeeping partners in opposing Serbian efforts to foment further violence in Mitrovica and elsewhere. One of our allies sometimes appears to act, in defiance of the facts on the ground and the dictates of conscience, as a protector of Serb aggressors. Our other allies in KFOR should help us persuade our badly mistaken friend that such an attitude is a terrible impediment to KFOR's success. This does not mean that the United States must end or threaten to end in the near term our participation in KFOR. Despite the unacceptable circumstances of the weak and endangered peace in Kosovo, it is infinitely preferable to the widespread atrocities committed during the course of Serbian aggression, atrocities that would surely reoccur were NATO to fail in our current mission. But our partners in peace can be persuaded by strong American leadership that the American people will not tolerate indefinitely Europe's inadequate commitment to peace and stability in their own backyard. Mr. President, I do not mean to overlook or minimize in my discussion the challenges to peace created by ethnic Albanian extremists. We must be resolute in opposition to any threats wherever they occur. But it is a grave mistake to forget that nearly all the violence and instability afflicting the Balkans over the last decade originated in the unspeakable inhumanity of Belgrade's aggressors. The problems in the Balkans are, for the most part, attributable to the Serbian regime, led by an indicted war criminal who continues to hold onto power despite overwhelming public sentiment against him. At any time, he can be expected to foment conflict in Kosovo, Montenegro, or in Bosnia. That the domestic opposition to him has been divided and anemic does not detract from the legitimacy of those who seek his removal from power. In every respect, his is the rogue regime that constitutes the greatest threat to regional peace, just as Saddam Hussein does in the Persian Gulf and Kim Jong Il does in the Korean Peninsula. The Senate's passage last November by unanimous consent of the Serbian Democratization Act was an illustration of the extent of Congress' commitment to democratic change in Serbia as the necessary condition to lasting stability in the region. We should never forget that, for all the long and sad history of conflict in the Balkans, it was only when dictatorial regimes sought to exploit ethnic divisions did conflict overwhelm peace. The recent election of a liberal government in Croatia has greatly benefited the situation in Bosnia. Only through similar change in Serbia will a lasting peace begin in Yugoslavia. United States policy in the Balkans, and in Yugoslavia in particular, must be focused on affecting the democratic transformation of Serbia that the Serbian people themselves desire. Final passage of the Serbian Democratization Act will be an important step in the right direction. In the meantime, there must be no lifting of the sanctions on Serbia, and no repetition in Montenegro of what occurred in Kosovo--vague and unbelieved threats to prevent the kind of ethnic cleansing we are now spending billions of dollars to reverse. In the days ahead, Mr. President, I hope to work again with my colleagues and with the administration to help focus United States policy on achieving the goals in the Balkans that are important to protecting both America's interests and values in Europe. Finally, on a personal note, if I may, Mr. President, as has probably been noted occasionally, I have been absent from the Senate for some time. I will not burden my colleagues with a full discussion of how I spent my time away and what I learned from the experience. Nor do I think the floor of the U.S. Senate is the proper place to discuss in detail my personal feelings or political plans. However, Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about the great privilege we all share, the privilege of serving the greatest nation in history. I have enjoyed that privilege since I was 17 years old, and I consider myself fortunate beyond measure to have done so. This country and her causes are a blessing to mankind, and they honor all of us who work to make America an even better place, and America's example a greater influence on human history. I felt that way before I ran for President, and I feel that way today. And although I have lost my bid to be President, I will never lose my appreciation for the honor of serving America in any capacity, and for the good will and confidence of the people of Arizona who allow me to serve in the U.S. Senate, a body that has seen the honorable service of so many more distinguished Americans than the flawed man who addresses you now. I have nothing but gratitude to the American people for the privilege of serving them and for their consideration of my candidacy for President. I have incurred a debt to them that I doubt I can ever fully repay. But I intend to do what I can, working with my congressional colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to help bring about the changes to the practices and institutions of our democracy that they want and deserve. These reforms, Mr. President, are not ends in themselves. They are means to a much more important end. They are intended to sustain America's pride in the way we govern ourselves, and in the end to remind us all, those of us lucky enough to serve and those who elect us, what a special thing it is to be an American. I was reminded of that every single day of this campaign by Americans, those who supported me and those who did not, who wanted little for themselves individually, but simply for our country to remain, what she's always been, ``the last, best hope of earth.'' I will never forget it.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to submit along with Senators Hagel, DeWine, and Thompson a resolution to designate the month of May as National Military Appreciation Month. As my colleagues may recall, I had sponsored a resolution earlier in the year, cosponsored by 61 senators, designating May 1999 as National Military Appreciation Month. That resolution, S. Res. 33, passed by a vote of 93-0 on March 30. Subsequent to passage of S. Res. 33, I introduced S. 1419, which would have made that designation permanent by amending Title 36 of the U.S. Code. To date, S. 1419 has 66 cosponsors. Because of the failure of S. 1419 to pass, I have agreed to submit a revised resolution designating May National Military Appreciation Month for the next five years, and requesting the President issue a proclamation calling for the American people and interested groups to observe such months with appropriate ceremonies and activities. It is my hope that this new resolution will receive the Senate's favorable consideration. The introduction of an All-Volunteer Army was an outgrowth of the disenchantment many Americans felt in the wake of the Vietnam War. The end of conscription and the transition to the All-Volunteer concept has been criticized by some for not adequately reflecting socioeconomic divisions without our country. In point of fact, however, with the requisite attention and care, it produced the finest armed forces in history. How far we had come since the tumultuous times of the 1970s when military readiness descended to abysmal levels was evident for all the world to see in the overwhelming victory over Iraqi forces during Operation Desert Storm. But that success has been taken for granted too long. Over 15 years of declining military budgets, combined with record high levels of deployments, have stretched the military to precarious levels. The end of conscription had another, more far-reaching and subtle implication: it diminished the percentage of the public, including its elected officials, with military experience. This is not a criticism of those who did not serve; on the contrary, as a strong supporter of the All-Volunteer Army, I remain committed to its survival and success. This gradual diminishment in the shared experience of having served in uniform, however, makes it increasingly important that the public reflect every year on the enormous role their armed forces have on preserving freedom. As thousands of American soldiers serve increasingly hazardous duty in Kosovo, while others continue to serve in Bosnia as well as on the demilitarized zone in Korea and around the world, it is imperative that our men and women in uniform know of the strong continuing support of their country for their dedication and service to this country. Whether we individually agree with each and every deployment or not, we have learned to separate our support for the armed forces from our differences over the policies that sent them into harm's way. Dedicating one month every year to express our appreciation for the armed forces, the same month in which we recognize Victory in Europe Day, Military Spouse Day, Armed Forces Day, and, most importantly, Memorial Day, is an appropriate measure that I hope will have the support of all my colleagues in Congress. Mr. President, I generally take a somewhat dim view of celebratory resolutions. But those who fought on the battlefields of Lexington, Gettysburg, Normandy, in the Ardennes and on Okinawa, in Hue and at Khe Sanh, in the deserts of the Persian Gulf and the dusty streets of Mogadishu, in the skies over Kosovo and who stand a lonely vigil on the DMZ, must not be forgotten. Too much blood has been spilled in defense of liberty. We owe to those who perished and those who survived, to devote one month out of the year to reflect on the sacrifices of those who have worn their nation's uniform throughout its history. Mr. President, I request that the attached correspondence in support of S. 1419 from the Military Coalition be made a part of the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and say farewell to an outstanding Naval Officer and fellow Arizona citizen, Lieutenant Michael Sullivan, who has served with distinction for the past eighteen months in the Navy's Office of Legislative Affairs. It is a privilege for me to recognize his many outstanding achievements and to commend him for the superb service he has provided to the U.S. Senate and to our great Nation as a whole. Lieutenant Sullivan is a graduate of my alma mater, the United States Naval Academy. I had the great honor of addressing his class at his graduation in May 1993. Similar to myself, academic honors had eluded him but the standards at the Naval Academy are such that simply surviving the four years reflects great credit upon his ability and dedication. When it was his turn to walk across the stage, he shook my hand and exclaimed, ``Go Navy and Go Arizona!'' I shared in his enthusiasm and we embraced in a bear hug as I handed him his diploma. Lieutenant Sullivan proceeded to Surface Warfare Officer School in Newport, Rhode Island, before reporting to the U.S.S. Fife (DD-991) which was forward deployed to the U.S. Seventh Fleet in Yokosuka, Japan. On Fife be served as the Auxiliaries Officer and Fire Control/ Strike Missile Systems Officer. Following that arduous tour, he reported to the U.S.S. Antietam (CG-54) as the Combat Information Systems Officer. Among his notable accomplishments, he distinguished himself in 1997 by being named a Commander, Naval Surface Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet Junior Officer Shiphandler of the Year. In July 1998, Lieutenant Sullivan joined the Navy's Senate Liaison team and helped the Senate ensure that our Navy remained the best trained, best equipped, and best prepared Naval force in the world. Mr. President, Lieutenant Sullivan represents the very best of America's most precious resource--her youth. With being a commissioned officer come responsibilities so immense and so important that the lives of all Americans and the welfare of much of the world will be directly affected by how well they discharge them. I have every confidence that Lieutenant Sullivan will continue to acquit himself with distinction. As he now departs for the next of many more tours at sea, I call upon my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to wish him fair winds and following seas.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Affordable Education Act is an important step toward returning to parents and communities the resources and responsibility to provide for their children's education, and expanding educational opportunities for millions of Americans of all ages. As an original cosponsor of S. 14, the ``Education Savings Account and School Excellence Act'', portions of which are contained in this bill, I am strongly committed to strengthening and expanding education savings accounts for American families. Families should be encouraged and given incentives to save more of their money for their children's college education, but also to set aside money to meet the unique needs of the children throughout their school years. The Affordable Education Act expands the existing tax-preferred Education Savings Accounts, which allow families to save for college expenses, to include elementary and secondary educational costs. The bill also allows corporations and other entities, in addition to individuals, to contribute to a child's ESA. Under this bill, money saved in ESAs could be withdrawn tax-free to pay for a child's educational expenses from kindergarten through high school, not just college. Expanded ESA's could be used to hire a tutor for a child who is struggling with math, or foreign language lessons to help a child become bilingual or multilingual. ESA savings could be used to purchase a home computer or give a child with dyslexia access to a special education teacher. Expanded ESA's will help parents address their children's unique needs and concerns, and encourage their particular abilities. Expanded ESA's can help ensure each child is prepared to succeed in higher education or employment. This bill also contains several important initiatives to provide greater access to higher education. It supports employer initiatives offering educational assistance to their employees by extending the tax exclusion for employer-paid undergraduate tuition and expanding the tax exclusion to also cover graduate-level courses. The bill helps make college more affordable by allowing private institutions to establish qualified pre-paid college tuition plans and allows certain tax-free withdrawals from qualified State tuition plans. Unfortunately, expansion of ESA's and the other provisions noted above are only temporary in the bill before the Senate. Because these programs are important tools for families struggling to pay for the children's college and other educational expenses, I believe these initiatives should be made permanent. Another important aspect of the bill is the new tax exclusion of certain amounts received from the National Health Corps and Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship programs. Those who receive these scholarships will go on to provide medical and dental services in our nation's under-served areas as well as in military service. The bill also authorizes the tax-exempt financing rules for school construction. Local communities can determine how to best use their educational resources--whether hiring new teachers, providing additional classroom services, or constructing new schools. This bill gives communities a financial break if they choose to use some of their resources for new school construction, making it possible to accomplish more with limited resources. Finally, I note with approval that the bill contains several provisions to close existing tax loopholes for special interests in order to balance the costs of these important education initiatives. I would encourage the Senate to consider adding several more of these inequitable tax loopholes to the bill in order to make permanent the expanded ESA's and other important education incentives in this bill. Again, I reiterate my strong support for this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it. More important, I urge the President to consider the importance of this legislation for expanding the educational opportunities of all Americans, and I urge him to sign this bill when it reaches his desk.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to express the need to support responsible, significant, military health care reform. I commend the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee and Republican leadership for making enactment of military health care reform a top priority in the Senate. Our nation's military health care delivery system cries out for strong, meaningful reform. The military health care delivery system is facing some very unique challenges. One of the critical challenges is how best to reconfigure the military health care delivery system so that it might continue to meet its military readiness and peace-time obligations at a time of continuous change for our base and force structure. In the process of deciding how to proceed, I met with and heard from many military family members, veterans and military retirees from around the country. I was inundated with suggestions for reform. In every meeting and every letter, I encountered retired service men and women who have problems with every aspect of the military medical care system--with long waiting periods, with access to the right kind of care, with access to needed pharmaceutical drugs, and with the broken promise of lifetime health care for military retirees and their spouses. I heard these concerns expressed as I have traveled across the United States over the past several months. My distinguished colleagues, the Republican Leader, Senator Lott, Armed Services Committee Chairman, Senator Warner, and Ranking Member, Senator Levin, introduced a bill that also addresses the military health care system. The bill is S.2087, the ``Military Health Care Improvements Act of 2000.'' I applaud my colleagues in rising to this challenge, and I am pleased to see that portions of legislation I introduced last month were included in their bill. However, I can not cosponsor this legislation because it does not do enough to reform the military health care delivery system for our veterans, especially our oldest veterans, retirees, and survivors. I have several concerns with the legislation introduced yesterday. One of the areas of greatest concern among military retirees and their families is the ``broken promise'' of lifetime medical care, especially for those over-age 65. S. 2087 fails to meet what I think is the most important requirement, the restoration of the broken promise of free lifetime medical care promised to retirees and their families who entered the service prior to June 7, 1956. The major veteran service organizations share my view that the number one priority is to take care of these older military retirees and their spouses who were promised lifetime medical care benefits. I was proud to be an original cosponsor of S.2003 that restores the broken promise given to retirees who entered the service prior to June 7, 1956. I pledge to work with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Armed Services to fully restore the broken promise to our over-65 military retirees and their families. In addition, there are some significant differences between S. 2013, the ``Honoring Health Care Commitments to Service Members Past and Present Act of 2000'' that I introduced in January with Senators Coverdell, Robb, Hagel, Jeffords and Bingaman, and the health care bill being introduced yesterday. My legislation would help repair the ``broken promise'' given to Medicare-eligible military retirees and their families by restoring their access to military health care that was taken away when they turned 65. Additionally, S. 2013 offers health care options to retirees and would provide additional benefits to active duty servicemembers and their families. The hallmark of this legislation is that it offers several new choices to retirees and their families in their health care delivery services. S. 2013 was drafted with the help of The Military Coalition and The National Military and Veteran's Alliance. The Military Coalition has strongly endorsed S. 2013, stating, ``We applaud your leadership in introducing comprehensive legislation aimed at correcting serious inequities in the military health care benefit.'' While S. 2087 promotes enrollment expansion in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program (FEHBP) demonstration for Medicare eligible beneficiaries, it caps the enrollment levels to just 66,000 personnel. This would preclude world-wide or even nation-wide enrollment, a feature offered in my bill. Additionally, S. 2087 expands TRICARE Senior Prime sites to only the major medical centers, not nation-wide like my bill. This would exclude hundreds of thousands of our retired servicemembers, only addressing the needs of Medicare-eligible retirees and their spouses who happen to live near a small number of hospitals. Finally, S. 2087 only has a mail-order option for pharmacy requirements of our Medicare-eligible retirees and their families and requires a $150 deductible. My bill offers both a mail order and a retail pharmacy option. The mail order option only helps Medicare- eligible retirees who require long-term medication like blood pressure bills. However, if the retiree or spouse needs medication in a timely manner, it makes sense for them to be able to drive or walk to their local pharmacy and have their prescription filled. The bill I have offered allows for this option, The one introduced by my colleagues yesterday does not. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues for their efforts to address many of these important military health care challenges. Not lost on any of us is the urgent need to address the over-age 65 issue since there are reportedly 4,000 World War II, Korean and Vietnam War-era military retirees dying every month. It is imperative that as changes are made to our nation's military force and continue to be made in the future with regard to base structure, that Congress not only stay focused on bringing health care costs under control, but that steps be taken to retain the health care coverage so critical to our nation's active duty personnel, their families, retirees, and survivors. While the world situation necessitates a modified force and base structure transformed for the new millennium, it should not carry with it an abandonment of the responsibility that our nation has to assist those who have served our country to obtain access to the health care services they need. Make no mistake, retiree health care is a readiness issue, as well. Today's servicemembers are acutely aware of retirees' disenfranchisement from military health coverage, and exit surveys cite this issue with increasing frequency as one of the factors in members' decisions to leave service. In fact, a recent GAO study found that ``access to medical and dental care in retirement'' was a significant source of dissatisfaction among active duty officers in retention- critical specialties. I pledge to work closely with the Armed Services Committee, my respected colleagues from the committee, and from both sides of the aisle who have cosponsored my bill, as well as groups like the Military Coalition and the National Military Veterans Alliance, to work out our differences and not abandon the health care coverage needs of our nation's military retirees, their families, and survivors. We must pass comprehensive military health care reform to fulfill our broken promise to our military retirees while bolstering retention and readiness among today's servicemembers by assuring them that retention promises will be fulfilled once their active service is over. Mr. President, this year will be, in the words of the Joint Chiefs, the year of health care reform. Whether my legislation, S. 2013--fully supported by the major veteran service organizations representing over 9 million members--is successful or not will depend on several factors: Congress' ability to realize real health care reform and provide the necessary resources, the Pentagon's ability to work with private industry to control costs on pharmaceuticals and health insurance plans, and the military retirees who utilize the system coming together and galvanizing support for the future of military health care. We can not abandon the ``greatest generation'' who are responsible for the successes and riches we currently enjoy in this great country.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, last November, I spoke on the floor of the Senate about the severe deficiencies in our nation's military health care delivery system. We, as a nation, face a very critical challenge in determining how best to reconfigure the military health care delivery system so that it can continue to meet its military readiness and peace-time obligations during this period of ongoing change in our base and force structure. This is a challenge that has concerned me for some time. As I have been working on this matter and deciding how best to proceed, I have met with, and heard from, many military family members, veterans, and military retirees from around the country. And, in that process, I have been inundated with suggestions for reform. During every meeting and in every letter, I have heard from retired service men and women about so many problems with all aspects of the military medical care system-- including long waiting periods, access to the right kind of care, access to needed pharmaceutical drugs, and especially the ``broken promise'' of free lifetime health care for military retirees and their spouses. I have also personally heard such concerns repeatedly expressed as I have traveled extensively throughout the United States over the past several months. I have found that a primary concern among military retirees and their families is the ``broken promise'' of lifetime medical care. In this vein, retiree health care is a readiness issue. Today's service members are acutely aware of retirees' disenfranchisement from military health care coverage, and exit surveys cite this issue with increasing frequency as one of the factors in members' decisions to leave the service. In fact, a recent General Accounting Office study found that poor ``access to medical and dental care in retirement'' was among the top five elements of dissatisfaction among active duty officers in retention-critical specialties. Failure to keep health care commitments is hurting service recruiting efforts, as well. Traditionally, retirees have been the services' most effective recruiters, and their children and those of family friends have been more likely to serve. Unfortunately, increasing numbers of retirees who have seen the government renege on its ``lifetime health care'' promises have become more reluctant to recommend service careers to their family members and friends. Restoring retirees' confidence in their health care coverage could go a long way in restoring this invaluable recruiting resource. Certainly, the high cost of providing quality health care has contributed to Congress' failure to implement meaningful reform in the past. Yet, even though Congress has increased the President's defense budget requests in recent years to attempt to meet the military's future needs, it simultaneously has squandered billions each year on projects the military did not request and does not need. Last year alone, Congress appropriated over $6 billion for wasteful, unrequested, and low-priority projects that would have no positive effect on preparing our military for future challenges, and would address this military health care quandary. Congress also continues to refuse to close military bases that are not essential to our security, permitting politics to outweigh military readiness, at a cost to the taxpayer of nearly $7 billion each year. If Congress would allow the Pentagon to privatize or consolidate depot and base maintenance activities, savings of $2 billion each year could be achieved. In addition, Congress refuses to eliminate anti-competitive ``Buy American'' restrictions, which could save almost $5.5 billion annually on defense contracts. These common sense reforms together would free up nearly $20 billion per year, which could be used to begin correcting our readiness shortfalls and, significantly, provide a quality health care delivery system for our older military retirees, once and for all. I must add that there are other wasteful funding efforts that are particularly disgraceful. While Congress wastes taxpayer money on obsolete infrastructure, unneeded weapon systems, and projects that have no meaningful value to our Armed Forces, it simultaneously refuses to adequately pay the nearly 12,000 enlisted military personnel who are forced to subsist on food stamps. We must work to improve our treatment of all the honored military personnel serving our nation. initial steps on the road to reform Last October, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the other Joint Chiefs testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the state of the military. During that hearing, they universally declared the year 2000 to be the year of military health care reform. The rush to implement military health care reform, as evidenced by a plethora of well-intentioned legislation introduced by Congress and to be proposed by the Administration, and the evaluation of current health care delivery pilot projects must be balanced with the need to provide uninterrupted critical health care to the over-65 military retirees and their families, as well as, recognize the need to provide free health care to those Medicare eligible retirees who entered military service before June 7, 1956. Their concern about losing even the minimal health care they received from the time of retirement until age 65 increases dramatically as they turn 65. If this is to be the year of military health care, a key part of this effort must entail reassuring these older retirees that the Department of Defense will no longer deny or ignore their legitimate health care needs. By doing so, Congress also will be taking an essential step in reassuring today's servicemembers that the government does, in fact, keep its recruiting and retention promises concerning health care and other career service benefits. The legislation that I am proposing is the next step in my effort to lead Congress down the road to meaningful reform of our nation's military health care delivery system. This measure adopts positive ideas already based in other legislation, but offers an essential element that other plans do not--that is, choice. My legislation would offer the military retiree and his family a choice of several health care delivery plans. Having the choice to decide which health care plan works well is important for two reasons: to ensure control of overall health care reform costs and to reflect the reality that each retiree's needs can be very different. Some military retirees live near military installations and could use military health care if they had access to it. Others who live far from installations might be satisfied, for example, with the addition of a relatively low-cost prescription drug benefit. Still others, however, might desperately need full-coverage insurance such as the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). The plan would accommodate these different requirements. This health care reform plan also would be portable and less dependent on any specific military hospital system, particularly if further rounds of base closures occur. Specific Elements of the Plan For Medicare-eligible military retirees, this legislation authorizes the following options: Option 1: Establishes a nationwide mail-order pharmacy service and community-based pharmacy network to serve the prescription drug needs of over-age 65 military retired members, their spouses and survivors of the military community; this provision would expand the Base Realignment and Closure (mail-order and TRICARE retail) pharmacy benefit nationwide to all Medicare-eligible uniformed services beneficiaries beginning October 1, 2000. Option 2: Allows Medicare-eligible retirees to enroll in the Medicare subvention benefit and expands TRICARE Senior Prime nationwide beginning October 1, 2000. Option 3: Allows Medicare-eligible retirees to enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and would expand FEHBP benefits worldwide effective with the fall 2000 open enrollment period and coverge beginning January 1, 2001. This legislation includes a critical ``Sense of the Senate'' instruction: That urgent priority should be given to the enactment of legislation (such as S. 2003/H.R. 2966) that provides health care coverage at no cost for Medicare-eligible military retirees who first entered the service before June 7, 1956, and their dependents. Such legislation also should have priority consideration by the Senate committee with jurisdiction over the bill and the measure should receive expedited consideration by the full Senate, immediately after it has been reported out of committee to the Senate. This legislation proposes to make essential improvements to the military health delivery system for active duty servicemembers and their families, including: Elimination of copayments and deductibles for all active duty family members enrolled in TRICARE Prime; this is a great quality of life improvement for our military personnel and their families, especially our enlisted families; and Extension of TRICARE Prime Remote coverage free of charge to the families of 80,000 active duty members living more than 50 miles from a military medical treatment facility (i.e., recruiters, ROTC instructors, reserve center and National Guard active duty personnel, and others similarly situated), who are unable to participate in TRICARE Prime. This measure proposes other significant administrative improvements to the military medical delivery system, including: Promotes efficiency in the military health care system by combining the various uniformed services health care delivery systems for Medicare-eligibles under a common delivery program, TRICARE Senior Prime, just as the same systems for younger beneficiaries have been combined under TRICARE Prime; Establishes an account within the Treasury called the Uniformed Services Retirees Health Care Account that helps fund the added cost of this new benefit for age-65 uniformed services retirees; under this concept, savings from efficiencies (such as moving to electronic vs. paper claims processing) could be devoted to fulfilling health care obligations to older retirees; Authorizes the Secretary of Defense to enter into contracts with private industry for the purpose of recovering overpayments to civilian health care providers under TRICARE program; these services may include audits and other services deemed necessary by the Secretary of Defense; Directs the Secretary of Defense to enhance and simplify the TRICARE health program through administrative efficiencies and the use of the Internet relating to marketing, beneficiary enrollment, beneficiary and provider education, claims processing, scheduling of appointments and other services, as deemed appropriate by the Secretary, to enhance the military health delivery system; and Directs the Secretary of Defense to design and issue a national enrollment card for the TRICARE health program that shall serve as an enrollment card for participation in the TRICARE program nationwide; the enrollment card is designed to facilitate the ready portability of benefits under TRICARE nationwide. conclusion The federal government must not fail our nation's military retirees, their families, and survivors in ensuring the continuation of adequate health care coverage in their late years. I believe the steps I have outlined today, which have earned the overwhelming endorsement of The Military Coalition and The Military And Veterans' Alliance, representing 9 million members, start us down the road to comprehensive reform of the military health care system. Such an effort has not been seen in decades, and would fulfill our obligation to our military retirees and bolster retention and readiness among today's servicemembers. Mr. President, I concur with the Joint Chiefs that this truly is the year of military health care reform. The success of the legislation that I am introducing today will depend significantly on Congress' ability to produce real military health care reform and provide the necessary resources in a timely manner. In addition, it will be important that the Pentagon, private industry, and the military retirees and active duty servicemembers who utilize the system can work together and galvanize support for a solid military health care system for the long term. Mr. President, I ask that letters from The Military Coalition, The Military And Veterans Alliance, the Air Force Association (AFA), the National Association For Uniformed Services (NAUS), and Colonel George ``Bud'' Day, USAF, Ret. (a Medal of Honor recipient and who is very active in military and veterans' issues) in support of this comprehensive military health care reform plan be placed in the Record, immediately following my remarks. In addition, I ask that the bill be printed in the Record as well as the letters from the military and veterans' associations. The material follows:

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, last November, I spoke on the floor of the Senate about the severe deficiencies in our nation's military health care delivery system. We, as a nation, face a very critical challenge in determining how best to reconfigure the military health care delivery system so that it can continue to meet its military readiness and peace-time obligations during this period of ongoing change in our base and force structure. This is a challenge that has concerned me for some time. As I have been working on this matter and deciding how best to proceed, I have met with, and heard from, many military family members, veterans, and military retirees from around the country. And, in that process, I have been inundated with suggestions for reform. During every meeting and in every letter, I have heard from retired service men and women about so many problems with all aspects of the military medical care system-- including long waiting periods, access to the right kind of care, access to needed pharmaceutical drugs, and especially the ``broken promise'' of free lifetime health care for military retirees and their spouses. I have also personally heard such concerns repeatedly expressed as I have traveled extensively throughout the United States over the past several months. I have found that a primary concern among military retirees and their families is the ``broken promise'' of lifetime medical care. In this vein, retiree health care is a readiness issue. Today's service members are acutely aware of retirees' disenfranchisement from military health care coverage, and exit surveys cite this issue with increasing frequency as one of the factors in members' decisions to leave the service. In fact, a recent General Accounting Office study found that poor ``access to medical and dental care in retirement'' was among the top five elements of dissatisfaction among active duty officers in retention-critical specialties. Failure to keep health care commitments is hurting service recruiting efforts, as well. Traditionally, retirees have been the services' most effective recruiters, and their children and those of family friends have been more likely to serve. Unfortunately, increasing numbers of retirees who have seen the government renege on its ``lifetime health care'' promises have become more reluctant to recommend service careers to their family members and friends. Restoring retirees' confidence in their health care coverage could go a long way in restoring this invaluable recruiting resource. Certainly, the high cost of providing quality health care has contributed to Congress' failure to implement meaningful reform in the past. Yet, even though Congress has increased the President's defense budget requests in recent years to attempt to meet the military's future needs, it simultaneously has squandered billions each year on projects the military did not request and does not need. Last year alone, Congress appropriated over $6 billion for wasteful, unrequested, and low-priority projects that would have no positive effect on preparing our military for future challenges, and would address this military health care quandary. Congress also continues to refuse to close military bases that are not essential to our security, permitting politics to outweigh military readiness, at a cost to the taxpayer of nearly $7 billion each year. If Congress would allow the Pentagon to privatize or consolidate depot and base maintenance activities, savings of $2 billion each year could be achieved. In addition, Congress refuses to eliminate anti-competitive ``Buy American'' restrictions, which could save almost $5.5 billion annually on defense contracts. These common sense reforms together would free up nearly $20 billion per year, which could be used to begin correcting our readiness shortfalls and, significantly, provide a quality health care delivery system for our older military retirees, once and for all. I must add that there are other wasteful funding efforts that are particularly disgraceful. While Congress wastes taxpayer money on obsolete infrastructure, unneeded weapon systems, and projects that have no meaningful value to our Armed Forces, it simultaneously refuses to adequately pay the nearly 12,000 enlisted military personnel who are forced to subsist on food stamps. We must work to improve our treatment of all the honored military personnel serving our nation. initial steps on the road to reform Last October, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the other Joint Chiefs testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the state of the military. During that hearing, they universally declared the year 2000 to be the year of military health care reform. The rush to implement military health care reform, as evidenced by a plethora of well-intentioned legislation introduced by Congress and to be proposed by the Administration, and the evaluation of current health care delivery pilot projects must be balanced with the need to provide uninterrupted critical health care to the over-65 military retirees and their families, as well as, recognize the need to provide free health care to those Medicare eligible retirees who entered military service before June 7, 1956. Their concern about losing even the minimal health care they received from the time of retirement until age 65 increases dramatically as they turn 65. If this is to be the year of military health care, a key part of this effort must entail reassuring these older retirees that the Department of Defense will no longer deny or ignore their legitimate health care needs. By doing so, Congress also will be taking an essential step in reassuring today's servicemembers that the government does, in fact, keep its recruiting and retention promises concerning health care and other career service benefits. The legislation that I am proposing is the next step in my effort to lead Congress down the road to meaningful reform of our nation's military health care delivery system. This measure adopts positive ideas already based in other legislation, but offers an essential element that other plans do not--that is, choice. My legislation would offer the military retiree and his family a choice of several health care delivery plans. Having the choice to decide which health care plan works well is important for two reasons: to ensure control of overall health care reform costs and to reflect the reality that each retiree's needs can be very different. Some military retirees live near military installations and could use military health care if they had access to it. Others who live far from installations might be satisfied, for example, with the addition of a relatively low-cost prescription drug benefit. Still others, however, might desperately need full-coverage insurance such as the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). The plan would accommodate these different requirements. This health care reform plan also would be portable and less dependent on any specific military hospital system, particularly if further rounds of base closures occur. Specific Elements of the Plan For Medicare-eligible military retirees, this legislation authorizes the following options: Option 1: Establishes a nationwide mail-order pharmacy service and community-based pharmacy network to serve the prescription drug needs of over-age 65 military retired members, their spouses and survivors of the military community; this provision would expand the Base Realignment and Closure (mail-order and TRICARE retail) pharmacy benefit nationwide to all Medicare-eligible uniformed services beneficiaries beginning October 1, 2000. Option 2: Allows Medicare-eligible retirees to enroll in the Medicare subvention benefit and expands TRICARE Senior Prime nationwide beginning October 1, 2000. Option 3: Allows Medicare-eligible retirees to enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and would expand FEHBP benefits worldwide effective with the fall 2000 open enrollment period and coverge beginning January 1, 2001. This legislation includes a critical ``Sense of the Senate'' instruction: That urgent priority should be given to the enactment of legislation (such as S. 2003/H.R. 2966) that provides health care coverage at no cost for Medicare-eligible military retirees who first entered the service before June 7, 1956, and their dependents. Such legislation also should have priority consideration by the Senate committee with jurisdiction over the bill and the measure should receive expedited consideration by the full Senate, immediately after it has been reported out of committee to the Senate. This legislation proposes to make essential improvements to the military health delivery system for active duty servicemembers and their families, including: Elimination of copayments and deductibles for all active duty family members enrolled in TRICARE Prime; this is a great quality of life improvement for our military personnel and their families, especially our enlisted families; and Extension of TRICARE Prime Remote coverage free of charge to the families of 80,000 active duty members living more than 50 miles from a military medical treatment facility (i.e., recruiters, ROTC instructors, reserve center and National Guard active duty personnel, and others similarly situated), who are unable to participate in TRICARE Prime. This measure proposes other significant administrative improvements to the military medical delivery system, including: Promotes efficiency in the military health care system by combining the various uniformed services health care delivery systems for Medicare-eligibles under a common delivery program, TRICARE Senior Prime, just as the same systems for younger beneficiaries have been combined under TRICARE Prime; Establishes an account within the Treasury called the Uniformed Services Retirees Health Care Account that helps fund the added cost of this new benefit for age-65 uniformed services retirees; under this concept, savings from efficiencies (such as moving to electronic vs. paper claims processing) could be devoted to fulfilling health care obligations to older retirees; Authorizes the Secretary of Defense to enter into contracts with private industry for the purpose of recovering overpayments to civilian health care providers under TRICARE program; these services may include audits and other services deemed necessary by the Secretary of Defense; Directs the Secretary of Defense to enhance and simplify the TRICARE health program through administrative efficiencies and the use of the Internet relating to marketing, beneficiary enrollment, beneficiary and provider education, claims processing, scheduling of appointments and other services, as deemed appropriate by the Secretary, to enhance the military health delivery system; and Directs the Secretary of Defense to design and issue a national enrollment card for the TRICARE health program that shall serve as an enrollment card for participation in the TRICARE program nationwide; the enrollment card is designed to facilitate the ready portability of benefits under TRICARE nationwide. conclusion The federal government must not fail our nation's military retirees, their families, and survivors in ensuring the continuation of adequate health care coverage in their late years. I believe the steps I have outlined today, which have earned the overwhelming endorsement of The Military Coalition and The Military And Veterans' Alliance, representing 9 million members, start us down the road to comprehensive reform of the military health care system. Such an effort has not been seen in decades, and would fulfill our obligation to our military retirees and bolster retention and readiness among today's servicemembers. Mr. President, I concur with the Joint Chiefs that this truly is the year of military health care reform. The success of the legislation that I am introducing today will depend significantly on Congress' ability to produce real military health care reform and provide the necessary resources in a timely manner. In addition, it will be important that the Pentagon, private industry, and the military retirees and active duty servicemembers who utilize the system can work together and galvanize support for a solid military health care system for the long term. Mr. President, I ask that letters from The Military Coalition, The Military And Veterans Alliance, the Air Force Association (AFA), the National Association For Uniformed Services (NAUS), and Colonel George ``Bud'' Day, USAF, Ret. (a Medal of Honor recipient and who is very active in military and veterans' issues) in support of this comprehensive military health care reform plan be placed in the Record, immediately following my remarks. In addition, I ask that the bill be printed in the Record as well as the letters from the military and veterans' associations. The material follows: