John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as Co-Chair of the Senate Republican Task Force on Hispanic Affairs, I am pleased to note Hispanic Heritage month which began on September 15. During the month, we will focus on the vibrant Hispanic community that has made tremendous contributions to our nation and to my state of Arizona for many generations. Projected to soon be the country's largest minority, this colorful and proud community is incredibly rich in culture and diverse in backgrounds. All too often, the various groups that make up ``Hispanics'' are lumped together and some forget the dynamic differences between Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, or Salvadorans and Chileans, for example. But when Hispanics come together--tied by social and cultural similarities--they form a powerful group to whom we must listen. Much has been said lately about the Hispanics' burgeoning economic and political power. This group's contribution to the economy is significant. Their buying power has increased at an annual rate of 5.5 percent, far out-distancing inflation. This has resulted in an explosion of Hispanic advertising dollars. According to Hispanic Business Magazine, from 1997 to 1998, ad budgets targeting the Hispanic market jumped 21 percent to $1.71 billion. And study after study indicate that Hispanic businesses are the fastest growing segment of the small business community. Politically, Hispanics are becoming a great force. They are voting in ever-larger numbers, projected as high as 5.5 million in the 2000 elections, up from 4.2 million in 1992. Currently, however, only one in every 20 votes is cast by a Hispanic, even though one in nine Americans is Hispanic. Unfortunately, low voter turnout, because of political cynicism, is a trend that is not only affecting the Hispanic community. It is important that the political voice of Hispanics is not drowned out by money from special interests. When I look down the list of soft money donors to both political parties, I see corporate giants; I see large labor unions; I see the Fortune 500. I don't see the name of my friend Victor Flores, who started a small bakery in the town of Guadalupe, Arizona, and labored hard for years to feed the community and support his family. I don't see Victor's name or, frankly, the majority of Americans who deserve the attention, access and priority representation that only a select few can afford under today's corrupt campaign finance system. I will continue to fight for campaign finance reform, because without it, we will not achieve the other reforms that have a direct bearing on better quality of life for Hispanic Americans and all who make up the great American tapestry. In today's global economy, education is essential for success. If the Hispanic high school dropout rate remains stubbornly high, resulting in a lack of needed job skills for the 21st century, income gaps will grow and our poverty rates will rise. This is bad for America. We must work harder on these issues. Knowledge of English is as important as education in order to succeed. However, I will consistently oppose positions that are divisive, such as ``English-Only'' laws. There is no need to abandon the language of your birth to learn the language of your future. Hispanics should use and cherish both. Finally, I wish to recognize the outstanding contributions Americans of Hispanic descent have made to our national defense. In 1997, I was pleased to successfully co-sponsor legislation to grant a Federal charter to the American G.I. Forum, the largest association of Hispanic veterans in the United States. I remain terribly proud that our Armed Forces, in which I was privileged to serve many years ago, today reflect the composition of American society better than any other institution. Hispanic Americans have sacrificed enormously to secure the liberties many of us take for granted today; their service honors all of us. Hispanic Americans are honest, hard working patriots, who want and deserve the equal opportunity that is our nation's promise. Hispanics have distinguished themselves in every walk of life. This month, let's recognize their contributions that exemplify the American Dream.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, unfortunately I will not be present when the Senate votes on the amendment offered by Senators Gorton, Bryan, and Feinstein. The amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that it should not recede to the House position of prohibiting the Department of Transportation from preparing, proposing or promulgating any regulation regarding Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for vehicles. As my colleagues know, I have been and will continue to be a proponent of the CAFE program. The fuel conservation goals embodied in the original CAFE standards are still important. However, I would not support the amendment offered today. CAFE is an extremely complex issue. It involves a delicate balance between environmental, safety and economic concerns. CAFE standards need and deserve the full attention of the Congress. The structure of the CAFE statute appears to no longer make sense in light of the current auto market. For example, the statute draws a distinction between non-passenger vehicles, essentially light trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs), and passenger vehicles. The statute establishes a default standard for passenger vehicles and allows the Department of Transportation to adjust the level up or down based upon certain criteria. The statute does not establish a standard for light trucks. Instead, the agency sets the standard at its discretion based upon criteria in the statute. One of the reasons for the distinction was the size of the non-passenger vehicle market. At the time the CAFE was enacted, light trucks and SUVs represented approximately 15 percent of the market. Now, they are approximately 50 percent of the market. In some states like my home state of Arizona they represent more than 54 percent of new car sales. I question the wisdom of allowing an agency sole discretion over the fuel economy standards of 50 percent of the auto market without any guidance from Congress. In 1992, the National Research Council conducted what is considered to be the most comprehensive study of the CAFE program. In the executive summary of that report, the study committee made the following statement ``[I]n this committee's view, the determination of the practically achievable levels of fuel economy is appropriately the domain of the political process, not this committee.'' The Committee rightly concluded that many of the issues surrounding CAFE involve tradeoffs that are public policy decisions, not a simple scientific conclusion. It is my intent to follow this advice and bring this debate back to Congress to determine how we should approach fuel economy standards as we enter the new millennium. As chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, it is my intention to hold hearings on CAFE early next year to examine this structure. Over the next few weeks, I will contact the Department of Transportation, the General Accounting Office, environmental groups, the major automobile manufacturers and the highway safety groups to solicit their views and begin the process of examining the statute. Some of my colleagues argue that we should allow the Department of Transportation to move forward on a parallel track with the legislative process. I disagree with this argument for two reasons. First, the rule making process will further polarize and distract all of the parties on a specific proposal before consideration is complete on substantive changes to the law. Second, should a legislative solution be crafted, the agency, as well as interested members of the public will have wasted time and resources developing and responding to a standard, which will never be implemented. Mr. President, I look forward to holding hearings on this matter and, I look forward to the participation of my colleagues on both sides of this issue as we move forward.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will make federal radio and television ownership rules Y2K compatible. When Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 almost four years ago, we recognized that the forty-year-old rules restricting broadcast station ownership were badly outdated and in need of change. They reflected a mass media industry made up of radio stations, TV stations, and newspapers--and that's all. None of the dominant new multichannel media like cable TV, satellite TV, or the Internet figured in, because they didn't exist. But they exist now, and they have transformed the way Americans get their news, information, and entertainment. As more and more people turn to cable channels and the Internet as their preferred means of electronic communications, the audience and revenues of the big TV networks have plummeted, and the number and circulation of daily newspapers have spiraled downward. The days when Huntley, Brinkley and Cronkite on the air, and the Times, the Post, and the Tribune at the breakfast table dominated our perspectives on the issues are forever gone. In their place are CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, and the innumerable web sites available on the Internet. Even more important, Americans today are no longer just passive recipients of the news and views doled out by a handful of powerful TV networks and daily newspapers. Today, thanks to the Internet, anyone on line can pose questions and exchange perspectives with anyone else on line. In other words, the days when network news and big-city newspaper editors were the dominant opinionmakers are long over. But the restrictive ownership rules that were a product of that time aren't over. Like so many federal regulations, they live on, despite the fact that they're as out-of-date as Alice Kramden's ice box. The proliferation of alternative sources of electronic news, information and entertainment hasn't just made the old ownership rules useless--it's actually made them harmful. Faced with daunting competition from these new media, broadcasters, and especially newspaper owners, must have the opportunity to realize the increased operating economy and efficiency that liberalized ownership rules make possible. If we do not allow this to happen, we place the future of these older media in even greater doubt in today's hypercompetitive market. Congress recognized all this when it directed the FCC to review all its broadcast ownership rules every two years. Although the Commission recently overhauled some of these rules, it left two others intact--the national network ownership limit and the ban on owning a daily newspaper and a broadcast station in the same market. That's not consistent with what Congress told the Commission to do, and it isn't fair. We told the Commission to reexamine all the rules precisely because all the rules, not just some of the rules, have been rendered counterproductive by the changes that have taken place in the electronic mass media marketplace. In fact, the rule that's arguably the most hopelessly anachronistic is the newspaper/broadcast cross- ownership ban--yet the FCC shows no sign of budging on it. Mr. President, this bill corrects this situation. With respect to the national TV ownership limits, it follows the approach Congress used in the 1996 Telecommunications Act by raising the national audience reach limitation from 35 to 50 percent, and allows the FCC to raise it further if the public interest warrants it. It eliminates the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban, but would allow the FCC to reimpose it if the Commission can do so by January 1, based on the extensive record that has been pending before them for over three years. Mr. President, there are lots of policy cobwebs that have kept these rules in place despite the permanent and unmistakable changes the electronic media market has undergone. Some of them spring from the notion that broadcasting, as a free rider on the public's multibillion- dollar spectrum, can and should be subject to regulation over and above that of other media. Others are stubbornly ingrained notions of how powerful the TV networks and newspapers are. Still others--the least worthy--are scars left over from what particular newspapers have had to say on their editorial pages. Nobody is less sympathetic than I am to the fact that broadcasters, unlike other users of the public's spectrum, pay nothing for the privilege. But subjecting them to anachronistic, even counterproductive, rules isn't a substitute for lost spectrum revenues. And remembrances of things past, whether they be the long-gone days of network TV hegemony or old stories in the local newspaper, are no way to deal with the problems of the present. Uncle Miltie TV ownership rules don't work in a Chris rock media market. Let's face that fact, shed our outdated notions, and finish the job the FCC didn't 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 legislation that will make federal radio and television ownership rules Y2K compatible. When Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 almost four years ago, we recognized that the forty-year-old rules restricting broadcast station ownership were badly outdated and in need of change. They reflected a mass media industry made up of radio stations, TV stations, and newspapers--and that's all. None of the dominant new multichannel media like cable TV, satellite TV, or the Internet figured in, because they didn't exist. But they exist now, and they have transformed the way Americans get their news, information, and entertainment. As more and more people turn to cable channels and the Internet as their preferred means of electronic communications, the audience and revenues of the big TV networks have plummeted, and the number and circulation of daily newspapers have spiraled downward. The days when Huntley, Brinkley and Cronkite on the air, and the Times, the Post, and the Tribune at the breakfast table dominated our perspectives on the issues are forever gone. In their place are CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, and the innumerable web sites available on the Internet. Even more important, Americans today are no longer just passive recipients of the news and views doled out by a handful of powerful TV networks and daily newspapers. Today, thanks to the Internet, anyone on line can pose questions and exchange perspectives with anyone else on line. In other words, the days when network news and big-city newspaper editors were the dominant opinionmakers are long over. But the restrictive ownership rules that were a product of that time aren't over. Like so many federal regulations, they live on, despite the fact that they're as out-of-date as Alice Kramden's ice box. The proliferation of alternative sources of electronic news, information and entertainment hasn't just made the old ownership rules useless--it's actually made them harmful. Faced with daunting competition from these new media, broadcasters, and especially newspaper owners, must have the opportunity to realize the increased operating economy and efficiency that liberalized ownership rules make possible. If we do not allow this to happen, we place the future of these older media in even greater doubt in today's hypercompetitive market. Congress recognized all this when it directed the FCC to review all its broadcast ownership rules every two years. Although the Commission recently overhauled some of these rules, it left two others intact--the national network ownership limit and the ban on owning a daily newspaper and a broadcast station in the same market. That's not consistent with what Congress told the Commission to do, and it isn't fair. We told the Commission to reexamine all the rules precisely because all the rules, not just some of the rules, have been rendered counterproductive by the changes that have taken place in the electronic mass media marketplace. In fact, the rule that's arguably the most hopelessly anachronistic is the newspaper/broadcast cross- ownership ban--yet the FCC shows no sign of budging on it. Mr. President, this bill corrects this situation. With respect to the national TV ownership limits, it follows the approach Congress used in the 1996 Telecommunications Act by raising the national audience reach limitation from 35 to 50 percent, and allows the FCC to raise it further if the public interest warrants it. It eliminates the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban, but would allow the FCC to reimpose it if the Commission can do so by January 1, based on the extensive record that has been pending before them for over three years. Mr. President, there are lots of policy cobwebs that have kept these rules in place despite the permanent and unmistakable changes the electronic media market has undergone. Some of them spring from the notion that broadcasting, as a free rider on the public's multibillion- dollar spectrum, can and should be subject to regulation over and above that of other media. Others are stubbornly ingrained notions of how powerful the TV networks and newspapers are. Still others--the least worthy--are scars left over from what particular newspapers have had to say on their editorial pages. Nobody is less sympathetic than I am to the fact that broadcasters, unlike other users of the public's spectrum, pay nothing for the privilege. But subjecting them to anachronistic, even counterproductive, rules isn't a substitute for lost spectrum revenues. And remembrances of things past, whether they be the long-gone days of network TV hegemony or old stories in the local newspaper, are no way to deal with the problems of the present. Uncle Miltie TV ownership rules don't work in a Chris rock media market. Let's face that fact, shed our outdated notions, and finish the job the FCC didn't Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Interior Appropriations bill funds critical programs that are vital to the protection of our nation's land and natural resources and supports federal programs for Native Americans, as well as several energy and agriculture programs. I commend the managers of this bill for their efforts to keep spending in this bill within budget limitations as required by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Unfortunately, I can still find in this bill and the committee report approximately $216 million in low- priority, unauthorized or unrequested spending that has not been considered in the normal merit-based review process. In the usual fashion of appropriations bills and reports, little explanation is provided as to the merit or national priority of various projects receiving earmarks. We are left to imagine the reasons that certain projects, such the Bruneau Hot Springs Snail Conservation Committee or goose-related crop depredation projects in Washington and Oregon, are deserving of a $500,000 earmark each. I am sure these projects are significant to the communities that would benefit from these directed funds. But we are unfairly singling out projects of parochial interest, rather than evaluating other more equally deserving projects that could be more significant to the protection of our land, forest or energy resources nationwide. Not only do we undermine the value of our legislative process by this type of arbitrary spending, we betray the confidence of the American people who rely on our fair and equitable judgement to fund those projects of greatest need and priority. Instead, we reward their faith by choosing to provide $1 million of taxpayer funds to rehabilitate a bathhouse at Hot Springs National Park in Arkansas. I question the necessity of fixing up a public bathhouse when federal school facilities for Indian children are in a deplorable state of disrepair and ill maintenance. In a similar fashion, $1 million is earmarked to support the Olympic Tree Program being developed by the Salt Lake Olympic committee. While our country takes great pride in hosting the international Olympics events, I find it difficult to fathom why we would expect the American people to accept the expenditure of a million dollars for this purely aesthetic purpose. This bill also continues a disturbing trend of including legislative riders that, if enacted, will make substantive changes to current law and regulations. By using the appropriations process as a policy hammer, we are circumventing a fair and deliberative legislative review of the need for such changes. We also shortchange the interested public by eliminating their opportunity for input and participation. I have heard from many interested parties who decry the inclusion of riders that will extend grazing permits without completion of due environmental analyses and a provision that overturns an administrative legal opinion regarding the amount of land that can be used for mining claims. I know that these are important issues in my state of Arizona, yet I am precluded from fully representing the interests of my constituents when legislative riders such as these are attached to an appropriations measure that must be passed within a very short timeframe with little to no opportunity to make changes. Just yesterday, the Senate voted to restore Rule XVI which makes floor amendments of a policy nature out of order on an appropriations bill. I supported restoration of this Rule. Ironically, this Rule only applies to floor amendments. I believe very strongly that it should be applied to committee actions where a small minority of the Senate can act to include legislative riders on an appropriations bill without even consulting the relevant authorizing committees. I believe the Rule should be expanded to cover committee actions. Mr. President, ensuring the protection of our nation's resources and meeting federal trust obligations to Native Americans are among our most important duties. With this type of shameful waste of taxpayer dollars and inappropriate legislative mandates on an appropriations measure, we are betraying our responsibility to spend the taxpayers' dollars responsibly and enact laws and policies that reflect the best interests of all Americans, rather than the special interests of a few. Unfortunately, due to its length, this list of $216 million of earmarks and objectionable provisions in S. 1292, and its accompanying Senate report, cannot be printed in the Record. However, the list will be available on my Senate webpage.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I proudly join my colleagues as a founding member of this newly created Senate Wilderness and Public Lands Caucus. I congratulate my friend, Senator Feingold, for his bold spirit and commitment to the active protection of our public lands. I accepted Senator Feingold's invitation to participate in this new Caucus because we share a responsibility to protect the natural resources that sustain our world and grace the quality of our lives. On this day, we commemorate the success of the 1964 Wilderness Act with a renewed commitment to responsible preservation. More than 35 years since the Act's passage, Americans can more readily cherish and enjoy pristine lands in their natural state, unencumbered by growth and development. An important goal of this new Caucus is the desire to improve our process for making important land management decisions impacting our public lands. Developing consensus policy for public lands protection is of particular necessity and importance for western states. In Arizona, more than 80 percent of lands are held in public ownership, with 4.5 million acres designated as wilderness. Arizonans enjoy wilderness in such places as the Superstition Mountains, Cabeza Prieta, Baboquivari Peak and the Red Rock Secret Mountain. Many more difficult land management decisions will require our thoughtful consideration. For example, the state of Arizona has grappled for more than ten years over the question of wilderness suitability for the state's largest national park, the Grand Canyon National Park. Arizonans are still engaged in deliberations of this important decision, as well as determining appropriate land management decisions for other areas in our state. Each of us is well aware that public land management is divisive and, if not carefully developed, can usually result in unfair games of give-and- take between land-users and conservationists. A fine balance between competing users has proved to be possible, and it is this balance toward which we must strive. I am joining with my colleagues in this Caucus because I believe that any decisions we make in the Congress for public land policy should heed the spirit of bipartisanship, promote the ethics of stewardship and multiple use, and protect individual rights. In general, we must ensure that all viewpoints on land-use issues are given fair opportunity to be heard. We should find our inspiration in the example of a hero of mine, and a statesman of the highest virtue, Mo Udall, whose grace and wisdom should inspire every American. Mo once taught a freshman Congressman from the other side of the aisle a valuable lesson. He reached across party lines to enlist me in the effort to tackle environmental problems in our home state. Mo's faith in the pursuit of cooperation and consensus enabled us to enact landmark legislation placing 3.5 million acres of pristine Arizona lands into the Wilderness Preservation System. Contrary to the predictions of naysayers and competing political interests, Mo Udall brought the Arizona congressional delegation together with broad support from the public. This was no simple task, but it worked, and Mo Udall demonstrated to his colleagues and constituents a successful formula for bringing together people of good faith and different perspectives to achieve a common purpose. This new Caucus gives us an opportunity to uphold our commitment to responsible preservation while protecting the rights of all Americans for public use of lands. I encourage our colleagues, of all minds on this issue, to join in the Caucus so that our recommendations and discussions can be fully representative of all interested parties.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to draw my colleagues' attention to a program that, I think, deserves to be commended. It is called ``Fight for Your Rights: Take a Stand Against Violence.'' The purpose of the program is to give our nation's youth information and advice on how to cope with the epidemic of violence that is taking so many of their own. The Departments of Justice, and Education are participants in the campaign, but what I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to is the role of MTV music television and the Recording Industry Association of America. The most basic and profound responsibility that our culture--any culture--has, is raising its children. We are failing that responsibility, and the extent of our failure is being measured in the deaths, and injuries of our kids in the school yard and on the streets of our neighborhoods and communities. Our children are killing each other, and they are killing themselves. Primary responsibility lies with the family. As a country, we are not parenting our children. We are not adequately involving ourselves in our children's lives, the friends they hang out with, what they do with their time, the problems they are struggling with. This is our job, our paramount responsibility, and most unfortunately, we are failing. We must get our priorities straight, and that means putting our kids first. But, parents need help. This is an extraordinarily complex problem. However, at its core, is a collapse of the value shaping institutions of our society. Our public schools are restricted from teaching basic morals and values. Stresses on families, the most basic value building institution in our society, the demands of two income households, and the breakdown of the traditional family structure are undermining our ability to raise decent and moral children. The marginalizing of the critical role of religion, of churches and synagogues, in our modern society contributions to a youth culture devoid of moral responsibility and accountability. All of these factors conspire to disconnect our children from humanity, and are turning some of them into killers. Our homes and our families--our children's minds, are being flooded by a tide of violence. This dehumanizing violence pervades our society: our movies depict graphic violence; our children are taught to kill and maim by interactive video games; the Internet, which holds such tremendous potential in so many ways, is tragically used by some to communicate unimaginable hatred, images and descriptions of violence, and ``how-to'' manuals on everything from bomb construction to drugs. With the pressures of this modern society, the emphasis on technology, the demand for performance, the fast pace of events, our children seem to be increasingly isolated from family and peers. If we are to turn this tide of youth violence, we must examine all of these factors together. We must develop a comprehensive understanding of how these factors interrelate to produce a child capable of the shocking violence unfolding in our streets and school yards. I have repeatedly joined various of my colleagues in efforts to call the entertainment industry to task for creating and marketing violent products to children. Most recently, I joined in many of my distinguished colleagues, prominent Americans, and concerned citizens in an ``Appeal to Hollywood,'' asking the leaders of the entertainment industry to adopt a voluntary code of conduct exercising restraint from marking violence and smut to our nation's youth. I have also introduced legislation requiring the Surgeon General to complete a comprehensive study to determine the effect of media violence on children. I joined Senator Lieberman in calling for a special Youth Violence Study Commission that will study all of the various complex factors that conspire to generate such youth violence as we have recently witnessed. Earlier this year, I also introduced the Youth Violence Prevention Act, which targeted the various illegal ways by which our nation's children are gaining access to guns. As I have stated, this is a complex problem, and we must press the issue on all fronts. For this reason, I wish to commend the efforts of MTV and the Recording Industry Association of America. The electronic media dominate much of our children's lives. They are the first generation of Americans to grow up entirely in a digital age. Much of what they see through the media is good. Some of it is both irresponsible and dangerous. The ``Take a Stand Against Violence'' campaign represents the positive potential of the television and music industry. It is a positive campaign that engages the various factors that contribute to youth violence, and most important, it does so in a language that young people understand. As I believe the entertainment industry should be held responsible when they peddle violence and smut to America's youth, I equally believe that the industry should be given credit for the many positive things they do. The epidemic of youth violence in our Nation is a complex challenge. It will only be solved if we all work together. Again, I urge all Americans to get involved in their kids' lives. Ask questions, listen to their fears and concerns, their hopes and their dreams. Again, I think we should commend entertainment industry leaders when they take positive steps to curb the tide of youth violence. In particular, I want to commend MTV and the Recording Industry of America for the ``Take a Stand Against Violence'' campaign. It represents a very positive step, and should serve as an example for others in the entertainment field. Mr. President, I ask that a summary of this program be inserted into the Record following my statement.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the National Marine Sanctuaries Amendments Act of 1999. I want to thank Senator Snowe for sponsoring this legislation. This bill will help guide the use of the our marine environment into the next century. Again, I wish to thank Senator Snowe for her leadership in this area. The 12 existing national marine sanctuaries protect our marine resources while facilitating ``compatible'' public and private uses of the ocean. The National Marine Sanctuaries Program reflects a responsible balance between conservation and multiple uses, such as commercial fishing and recreational activities. In addition, the national sanctuaries provide for important research, outreach, and educational activities involving unique marine assets. To date, the sanctuary program has been unable to reach its full potential due to a lack of funding. This bill will make existing sanctuaries fully operational for the first time in the history of the program. The bill we are introducing today authorizes $30 million in FY 2000 and incrementally increases the annual authorization by $2 million a year to $38 million in FY 2004. The bill will also allow for the completion of basic tasks which have been neglected in the past at sanctuaries, such as a review of each sanctuary management plan and habitat characterizations. The research and educational opportunities provided by this legislation are quite promising and will allow our children and future generations to learn to value our ocean resources. The bill also provides for the implementation of meaningful enforcement plans and allows sanctuaries to partner with states or other entities to enhance enforcement efforts. Furthermore, interference with an enforcement agent could result in a criminal penalty. Mr. President, this is a strong bill that enjoys bipartisan support on the Commerce Committee. With this legislation, Senator Snowe and I envision a reasonable balance between conservation and the compatible multiple uses of our ocean resources in marine sanctuaries. I look forward to moving this bill in the near future and request the support of my colleagues.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to authorize a three-year nationwide school choice demonstration program targeted at children from economically disadvantaged families. The program would expand educational opportunities for low-income children by providing parents and students the freedom to choose the best school for their unique academic needs, while encouraging schools to be creative and responsive to the needs of all students. This legislation is identical to the school choice amendment which I offered on July 30, 1999 to S.1429, the Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999. I am gravely disappointed that the Senate failed to pass this amendment as a part of the Taxpayer Refund Act. However, I am committed to seeing it implemented before Congress adjourns this year and will be working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP) to ensure that this measure is implemented before Congress adjourns, perhaps as a part of the legislation reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This bill authorizes $1.8 billion annually for fiscal years 2001 through 2003 to be used to provide school choice vouchers to economically disadvantaged children through the nation. The funds would be divided among the states based upon the number of children they have enrolled in public schools. Then, each state would conduct a lottery among low-income children who attend the public schools with the lowest academic performance in their state. Each child selected in the lottery would receive $2,000 per year for three years to be used to pay tuition at any school of their choice in the state, including private or religious schools. The money could also be used to pay for transportation to the school or supplementary educational services to meet the unique needs of the individual student. In total, this bill authorizes $5.4 billion for the three-year school choice demonstration program, as well as a GAO evaluation of the program upon its completion. The cost of this important test of school vouchers is fully offset by eliminating more than $5.4 billion in unnecessary and inequitable corporate tax loopholes which benefits the ethanol, sugar, gas and oil industries. First, the legislation eliminates tax credits for ethanol producers, eliminating a $1.5 billion subsidy. Ethanol is an inefficient, expensive fuel that has not lived up to claims that it would reduce reliance on foreign oil or reduce impact on the environment. It takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the amount of energy that a gallon of ethanol contains. Ethanol tax credits are simply a subsidy for corn producers, and the amendment ends the taxpayers' support for this outdated program. Second, the bill eliminates three subsidies enjoyed by the oil and gas industry, totaling $3.9 billion. It phases out oil and gas industry's special right to fully deduct capital costs for drilling, exploration and development; eliminates the 15 percent tax credit for recovering oil using particular methods; and ends special right of oil and gas property owners to claim unlimited passive losses under income and alternative minimum tax provisions. Subsidizing the cost of domestic production has not been shown to have reduced reliance on foreign oil or directly contributed to more efficient resource use or domestic productivity. This bill would end these special tax treatments. Finally, this measure eliminates the special loan program for sugar producers and processors, worth $390 million. The federal government is burdened with an unnecessary and unprofitable loan program for bug sugar producers and enforcing mandated import quotas on foreign sugar. Sugar price supports also force consumers to pay $1.4 billion every year in artificially inflated sugar prices. This bill simply eliminates the taxpayer-funded loan program in 2003 and immediately requires repayment of existing loans in case, rather than sugar. These tax benefits and subsidies were originally intended to serve a limited purpose during times of economic recession and hardship in the 1970's. Our economy has long since recovered and I believe that these subsidies have outlived its purpose. The sunset of these programs will end these corporate welfare programs and return any remaining benefit back to our Nation's children. Mr. President, we all know that one of the most important issues facing our nation is the education of our children. Providing a solid, quality education for each and every child in our nation is a critical component in their quest for personal success and fulfillment. A solid education for our children also plays a pivotal role in the success of our nation; economically, intellectually, civically and morally. We must strive to develop and implement initiatives which strengthen and improve our education system thereby ensuring that our children are provided with the essential academic tools for succeeding professionally, economically and personally. I am sure we all agree that increasing the academic performance and skills of all our nation's students must be the paramount goal of any education reform we implement. School vouchers are a viable method of allowing all American children access to high quality schools, including private and religious schools. Every parent should be able to obtain the highest quality education for their children, not just the wealthy. Tuition vouchers would finally provide low-income children trapped in mediocre, or worse, schools the same educational choices as children of economic privilege. Some of my colleagues may argue that vouchers would divert money away from our nation's public schools and instead of instilling competition into our school systems we should be pouring more and more money into poor performing public schools. I respectfully disagree. While I support strengthening financial support for education in our nation, the solution to what ails our system is not simply pouring more and more money into it. Currently our Nation spends significantly more money than most countries and yet our students scored lower than their peers from almost all of the forty countries which participated in the last Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) test. Students in countries which are struggling economically, socially and politically, such as Russia, outscored U.S. children in math and scored far above them in advanced math and physics. Clearly, we must make significant changes beyond simply pouring more money into the current structure in order to improve our children's academic performance in order to remain a viable force in the world economy. It is shameful that we are failing to provide many of our children with adequate training and quality academic preparation for the real world. The number of college freshman who require remedial courses in reading, writing and mathematics when they begin their higher education is unacceptably high. In fact, presently, more than 30 percent of entering freshman need to enroll in one or more remedial course when they start college. It does not bode well for our future economy if the majority of workers are not prepared with the basic skills to engage in a competitive global marketplace. I concede that school vouchers are not the magic bullet for eradicating all that is wrong with our current educational system, but they are an important opportunity for providing improved academic opportunities for all children, not just the wealthy. Examination of the limited voucher programs scattered around our country reveal high levels of parent and student satisfaction, an increase in parental involvement, and a definite improvement in attendance and discipline at the participating schools. Vouchers encourage public and private schools, communities and parents to all work together to raise the level of education for all students. Through this bill, we have the opportunity to replicate these important attributes throughout all our nation's communities. Thomas Jefferson said, ``The purpose of education is to create young citizens with knowing heads and loving hearts.'' If we fail to give our children the education they need to nurture their heads and hearts, then we threaten their futures and the future of our nation. Each of us is responsible for ensuring that our children have both the love in their hearts and the knowledge in their heads to not only dream, but to make their dreams a reality. The time has come for us to finally conduct a national demonstration of school choice to determine the benefits or perhaps disadvantages of providing educational choices to all students, not just those who are fortunate enough to be born into a wealthy family. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and put the needs of America's school children ahead of the financial gluttony of big business. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I am pleased to introduce the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. This measure is designed to remedy certain weaknesses regarding the Federal motor carrier safety program as identified by the Department of Transportation's Inspector General (DOT IG) in April 1999. The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act also contains several new initiatives intended to advance safety on our nation's roads and highways. The bill would establish a separate Motor Carrier Safety Administration within the DOT. That agency would be responsible for carrying out the Federal motor carrier safety enforcement and regulatory responsibilities currently held by the Federal Highway Administration. It would be headed by an Administrator, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. To guard against increasing the already bloated Federal bureaucracy, the bill would cap employment and funding at the levels currently endorsed by the Administration for motor carrier safety activities. This legislation also recognizes the significant differences between truck operations and passenger carrying operations and accordingly, would call for a separate division within the new agency to ensure commercial bus safety. Aside from organizational issues, the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act would require the Department to implement all the IG's recently issued truck safety recommendations. DOT has indicated it will act on some of the recommendations, but it has failed to articulate a definitive action plan to implement all of the IG's recommendations. We should not risk the consequences of ignoring the IG's recommendations and this bill would require action to eliminate the identified safety gaps at DOT. In addition, it would authorize additional funding as requested by the Administration to address safety shortcomings. It also includes a number of items to address truck safety and enforcement, including provisions to strengthen the Commercial Drivers License Program, to improve data collection activities and to promote the accurate exchange of driver information among the states. I want to take a moment to share with my colleagues how I reached the decision to develop this measure. In the last Congress, a comprehensive package of motor carrier and highway safety provisions was enacted as part the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). This package was developed over a two-year period. Throughout the 105th Congress, the primary impediment faced by the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation when crafting our highway safety legislation was an insufficient allocation of contract authority from the highway trust fund. Despite this serious constraint, the Committee did succeed in raising the authorizations for motor carrier and highway safety programs. At the same time, the Committee also succeeded in incorporating into TEA-21 almost every safety initiative brought to the Committee's attention. Several months after TEA-21 was signed into law, I asked the IG to assess a proposal to move the then Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) form the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The proposal was being advanced by the Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation who was, and is, concerned about OMC's effectiveness in overseeing the safety of our nation's truck and bus industries, concerns I share overall. The proposal, originally contained in an appropriations bill, was eliminated when it was brought to the House Floor. Consequently, I was surprised to learn of its resurrection as a line item in early drafts of the conference report on the Omnibus Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999. I remind my colleagues that the transfer had never been included in any House or Senate-passed legislation, nor had any of the authorizing Committees of jurisdiction ever been asked to consider it at all in the 105th Congress. Rather than enact measures that have surface appeal, it is the responsibility of the Congress to ascertain whether the proposals would be effective. I felt it very important that we first determine whether NHTSA was the most appropriate entity to oversee truck safety before requiring it to take on such critical yet unfamiliar responsibilities. That is why I asked for the IG's counsel. I chaired a hearing in April at which the IG released his report and offered several ways to improve motor carrier safety. The IG's report does not endorse transferring the responsibilities to NHTSA. While this and several options were discussed, the IG stressed that the greatest problem impeding the effectiveness of the Office of Motor Carriers was a fundamental lack of leadership as currently structured. I repeat, the IG found that leadership was the greatest gap hindering truck safety advancements. One way to raise the visibility of truck safety and bring leadership to motor carrier safety issues is to create an entity that has motor carrier safety as its sole purpose. Given that we have agencies responsible for air, rail, and highway safety, it seems within reason to provide similar treatment in this modal area, particularly given the many identified problems stemming from a lack of attention within its current structure. Further, creating a direct link with the Office of the Secretary would guarantee that motor carrier safety share holders, including owners, operators, drivers, safety advocates and even government employees, would not be forced to vie for an agency's attention, forced to compete against highway construction and other interests as is currently the case. As we have regrettably learned, the scales of safety and highway construction are not balanced and we need to take action to alter this inequity. Other legislative proposals have been offered in recent days. I assure my colleagues that I am willing to review those measures and listen to other suggestions to improve this legislation. In the many meetings and hearings that have been held to discuss options to enhance highway safety, it became very clear that all motor carrier stake holders share a common goal. We want to improve truck and bus safety, decrease highway accidents, and reduce accident fatalities. I look forward to working with my colleagues, the Administration, highway safety groups, safety enforcement officials, and truck and motor coach representatives to achieve a realistic and effective safety bill. To attempt to do less would be an abrogation of our responsibility.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the National Marine Sanctuaries Amendments Act of 1999. I want to thank Senator Snowe for sponsoring this legislation. This bill will help guide the use of the our marine environment into the next century. Again, I wish to thank Senator Snowe for her leadership in this area. The 12 existing national marine sanctuaries protect our marine resources while facilitating ``compatible'' public and private uses of the ocean. The National Marine Sanctuaries Program reflects a responsible balance between conservation and multiple uses, such as commercial fishing and recreational activities. In addition, the national sanctuaries provide for important research, outreach, and educational activities involving unique marine assets. To date, the sanctuary program has been unable to reach its full potential due to a lack of funding. This bill will make existing sanctuaries fully operational for the first time in the history of the program. The bill we are introducing today authorizes $30 million in FY 2000 and incrementally increases the annual authorization by $2 million a year to $38 million in FY 2004. The bill will also allow for the completion of basic tasks which have been neglected in the past at sanctuaries, such as a review of each sanctuary management plan and habitat characterizations. The research and educational opportunities provided by this legislation are quite promising and will allow our children and future generations to learn to value our ocean resources. The bill also provides for the implementation of meaningful enforcement plans and allows sanctuaries to partner with states or other entities to enhance enforcement efforts. Furthermore, interference with an enforcement agent could result in a criminal penalty. Mr. President, this is a strong bill that enjoys bipartisan support on the Commerce Committee. With this legislation, Senator Snowe and I envision a reasonable balance between conservation and the compatible multiple uses of our ocean resources in marine sanctuaries. I look forward to moving this bill in the near future and request the support of my colleagues.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to authorize a three-year nationwide school choice demonstration program targeted at children from economically disadvantaged families. The program would expand educational opportunities for low-income children by providing parents and students the freedom to choose the best school for their unique academic needs, while encouraging schools to be creative and responsive to the needs of all students. This legislation is identical to the school choice amendment which I offered on July 30, 1999 to S.1429, the Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999. I am gravely disappointed that the Senate failed to pass this amendment as a part of the Taxpayer Refund Act. However, I am committed to seeing it implemented before Congress adjourns this year and will be working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP) to ensure that this measure is implemented before Congress adjourns, perhaps as a part of the legislation reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This bill authorizes $1.8 billion annually for fiscal years 2001 through 2003 to be used to provide school choice vouchers to economically disadvantaged children through the nation. The funds would be divided among the states based upon the number of children they have enrolled in public schools. Then, each state would conduct a lottery among low-income children who attend the public schools with the lowest academic performance in their state. Each child selected in the lottery would receive $2,000 per year for three years to be used to pay tuition at any school of their choice in the state, including private or religious schools. The money could also be used to pay for transportation to the school or supplementary educational services to meet the unique needs of the individual student. In total, this bill authorizes $5.4 billion for the three-year school choice demonstration program, as well as a GAO evaluation of the program upon its completion. The cost of this important test of school vouchers is fully offset by eliminating more than $5.4 billion in unnecessary and inequitable corporate tax loopholes which benefits the ethanol, sugar, gas and oil industries. First, the legislation eliminates tax credits for ethanol producers, eliminating a $1.5 billion subsidy. Ethanol is an inefficient, expensive fuel that has not lived up to claims that it would reduce reliance on foreign oil or reduce impact on the environment. It takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the amount of energy that a gallon of ethanol contains. Ethanol tax credits are simply a subsidy for corn producers, and the amendment ends the taxpayers' support for this outdated program. Second, the bill eliminates three subsidies enjoyed by the oil and gas industry, totaling $3.9 billion. It phases out oil and gas industry's special right to fully deduct capital costs for drilling, exploration and development; eliminates the 15 percent tax credit for recovering oil using particular methods; and ends special right of oil and gas property owners to claim unlimited passive losses under income and alternative minimum tax provisions. Subsidizing the cost of domestic production has not been shown to have reduced reliance on foreign oil or directly contributed to more efficient resource use or domestic productivity. This bill would end these special tax treatments. Finally, this measure eliminates the special loan program for sugar producers and processors, worth $390 million. The federal government is burdened with an unnecessary and unprofitable loan program for bug sugar producers and enforcing mandated import quotas on foreign sugar. Sugar price supports also force consumers to pay $1.4 billion every year in artificially inflated sugar prices. This bill simply eliminates the taxpayer-funded loan program in 2003 and immediately requires repayment of existing loans in case, rather than sugar. These tax benefits and subsidies were originally intended to serve a limited purpose during times of economic recession and hardship in the 1970's. Our economy has long since recovered and I believe that these subsidies have outlived its purpose. The sunset of these programs will end these corporate welfare programs and return any remaining benefit back to our Nation's children. Mr. President, we all know that one of the most important issues facing our nation is the education of our children. Providing a solid, quality education for each and every child in our nation is a critical component in their quest for personal success and fulfillment. A solid education for our children also plays a pivotal role in the success of our nation; economically, intellectually, civically and morally. We must strive to develop and implement initiatives which strengthen and improve our education system thereby ensuring that our children are provided with the essential academic tools for succeeding professionally, economically and personally. I am sure we all agree that increasing the academic performance and skills of all our nation's students must be the paramount goal of any education reform we implement. School vouchers are a viable method of allowing all American children access to high quality schools, including private and religious schools. Every parent should be able to obtain the highest quality education for their children, not just the wealthy. Tuition vouchers would finally provide low-income children trapped in mediocre, or worse, schools the same educational choices as children of economic privilege. Some of my colleagues may argue that vouchers would divert money away from our nation's public schools and instead of instilling competition into our school systems we should be pouring more and more money into poor performing public schools. I respectfully disagree. While I support strengthening financial support for education in our nation, the solution to what ails our system is not simply pouring more and more money into it. Currently our Nation spends significantly more money than most countries and yet our students scored lower than their peers from almost all of the forty countries which participated in the last Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) test. Students in countries which are struggling economically, socially and politically, such as Russia, outscored U.S. children in math and scored far above them in advanced math and physics. Clearly, we must make significant changes beyond simply pouring more money into the current structure in order to improve our children's academic performance in order to remain a viable force in the world economy. It is shameful that we are failing to provide many of our children with adequate training and quality academic preparation for the real world. The number of college freshman who require remedial courses in reading, writing and mathematics when they begin their higher education is unacceptably high. In fact, presently, more than 30 percent of entering freshman need to enroll in one or more remedial course when they start college. It does not bode well for our future economy if the majority of workers are not prepared with the basic skills to engage in a competitive global marketplace. I concede that school vouchers are not the magic bullet for eradicating all that is wrong with our current educational system, but they are an important opportunity for providing improved academic opportunities for all children, not just the wealthy. Examination of the limited voucher programs scattered around our country reveal high levels of parent and student satisfaction, an increase in parental involvement, and a definite improvement in attendance and discipline at the participating schools. Vouchers encourage public and private schools, communities and parents to all work together to raise the level of education for all students. Through this bill, we have the opportunity to replicate these important attributes throughout all our nation's communities. Thomas Jefferson said, ``The purpose of education is to create young citizens with knowing heads and loving hearts.'' If we fail to give our children the education they need to nurture their heads and hearts, then we threaten their futures and the future of our nation. Each of us is responsible for ensuring that our children have both the love in their hearts and the knowledge in their heads to not only dream, but to make their dreams a reality. The time has come for us to finally conduct a national demonstration of school choice to determine the benefits or perhaps disadvantages of providing educational choices to all students, not just those who are fortunate enough to be born into a wealthy family. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and put the needs of America's school children ahead of the financial gluttony of big business. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. I am pleased to introduce the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. This measure is designed to remedy certain weaknesses regarding the Federal motor carrier safety program as identified by the Department of Transportation's Inspector General (DOT IG) in April 1999. The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act also contains several new initiatives intended to advance safety on our nation's roads and highways. The bill would establish a separate Motor Carrier Safety Administration within the DOT. That agency would be responsible for carrying out the Federal motor carrier safety enforcement and regulatory responsibilities currently held by the Federal Highway Administration. It would be headed by an Administrator, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. To guard against increasing the already bloated Federal bureaucracy, the bill would cap employment and funding at the levels currently endorsed by the Administration for motor carrier safety activities. This legislation also recognizes the significant differences between truck operations and passenger carrying operations and accordingly, would call for a separate division within the new agency to ensure commercial bus safety. Aside from organizational issues, the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act would require the Department to implement all the IG's recently issued truck safety recommendations. DOT has indicated it will act on some of the recommendations, but it has failed to articulate a definitive action plan to implement all of the IG's recommendations. We should not risk the consequences of ignoring the IG's recommendations and this bill would require action to eliminate the identified safety gaps at DOT. In addition, it would authorize additional funding as requested by the Administration to address safety shortcomings. It also includes a number of items to address truck safety and enforcement, including provisions to strengthen the Commercial Drivers License Program, to improve data collection activities and to promote the accurate exchange of driver information among the states. I want to take a moment to share with my colleagues how I reached the decision to develop this measure. In the last Congress, a comprehensive package of motor carrier and highway safety provisions was enacted as part the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). This package was developed over a two-year period. Throughout the 105th Congress, the primary impediment faced by the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation when crafting our highway safety legislation was an insufficient allocation of contract authority from the highway trust fund. Despite this serious constraint, the Committee did succeed in raising the authorizations for motor carrier and highway safety programs. At the same time, the Committee also succeeded in incorporating into TEA-21 almost every safety initiative brought to the Committee's attention. Several months after TEA-21 was signed into law, I asked the IG to assess a proposal to move the then Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) form the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The proposal was being advanced by the Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation who was, and is, concerned about OMC's effectiveness in overseeing the safety of our nation's truck and bus industries, concerns I share overall. The proposal, originally contained in an appropriations bill, was eliminated when it was brought to the House Floor. Consequently, I was surprised to learn of its resurrection as a line item in early drafts of the conference report on the Omnibus Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999. I remind my colleagues that the transfer had never been included in any House or Senate-passed legislation, nor had any of the authorizing Committees of jurisdiction ever been asked to consider it at all in the 105th Congress. Rather than enact measures that have surface appeal, it is the responsibility of the Congress to ascertain whether the proposals would be effective. I felt it very important that we first determine whether NHTSA was the most appropriate entity to oversee truck safety before requiring it to take on such critical yet unfamiliar responsibilities. That is why I asked for the IG's counsel. I chaired a hearing in April at which the IG released his report and offered several ways to improve motor carrier safety. The IG's report does not endorse transferring the responsibilities to NHTSA. While this and several options were discussed, the IG stressed that the greatest problem impeding the effectiveness of the Office of Motor Carriers was a fundamental lack of leadership as currently structured. I repeat, the IG found that leadership was the greatest gap hindering truck safety advancements. One way to raise the visibility of truck safety and bring leadership to motor carrier safety issues is to create an entity that has motor carrier safety as its sole purpose. Given that we have agencies responsible for air, rail, and highway safety, it seems within reason to provide similar treatment in this modal area, particularly given the many identified problems stemming from a lack of attention within its current structure. Further, creating a direct link with the Office of the Secretary would guarantee that motor carrier safety share holders, including owners, operators, drivers, safety advocates and even government employees, would not be forced to vie for an agency's attention, forced to compete against highway construction and other interests as is currently the case. As we have regrettably learned, the scales of safety and highway construction are not balanced and we need to take action to alter this inequity. Other legislative proposals have been offered in recent days. I assure my colleagues that I am willing to review those measures and listen to other suggestions to improve this legislation. In the many meetings and hearings that have been held to discuss options to enhance highway safety, it became very clear that all motor carrier stake holders share a common goal. We want to improve truck and bus safety, decrease highway accidents, and reduce accident fatalities. I look forward to working with my colleagues, the Administration, highway safety groups, safety enforcement officials, and truck and motor coach representatives to achieve a realistic and effective safety bill. To attempt to do less would be an abrogation of our responsibility.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will offer an amendment to H.R. 2466, the FY 2000 Interior Appropriations bill, to authorize the Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation to establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia to honor all disabled American veterans. This legislation is not controversial, costs nothing, and deserves immediate consideration and passage. As a Nation, we owe a debt of gratitude to all Americans who have worn their country's uniform in the defense of her core ideals and interests. We honor their service with holidays, like Veterans Day and Memorial Day, and with memorials, including the Vietnam Wall and the Iwo Jima Memorial. But nowhere in Washington can be found a material tribute to those veterans whose physical or psychological well-being was forever lost to a sniper's bullet, a landmine, a mortar round, or the pure terror of modern warfare. To these individuals, we owe a measure of devotion beyond that accorded those who served honorably but without permanent damage to limb or spirit. For these individuals, a memorial in Washington, D.C. would stand as testament to the sum of their sacrifices, and as proof that the country they served values their contribution to its cause. We cannot restore the health of those Americans who incurred a disability as a result of their military service. It is within our power, however, to authorize a memorial that would clearly signal the Nation's gratitude to all whose disabilities serve as a living reminder of the toll war takes on its victims. Under the terms of this legislation, the Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation would be solely responsible for raising the necessary funding. Our amendment explicitly requires that no Federal funds be used to pay any expense for the memorial's establishment. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senators Daschle, Coverdell, Cleland, and Kerrey in support of this legislation. America's disabled veterans, of whom Senator Cleland himself is one of our most distinguished, deserve a lasting tribute to their sacrifice. They honored us with their service; let us honor them with our support today.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the American people want us to save Social Security. They want us to fix Medicare. They want us to give them more control over their children's education. They want us to cut back the size of the bloated Federal bureaucracy and pay down the debt. Those are the clearly stated priorities of the people we represent, those whose interests we are pledged to protect. The Congress has tried to do something about the impending insolvency of the Social Security system, but we have been blocked by the President's disingenuous statements about the kind of lockbox legislation he could support. The President rejected the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that was created to provide a basis for preventing the bankruptcy of Medicare. The President has put politics ahead of the needs of the people, but, unfortunately, so have we. The American people want, need, and deserve tax relief. They want us to reform and simplify our overly burdensome 44,000-page Tax Code that unfairly benefits special interests and overtaxes American families. Yet, here we are debating the merits, or not, of an $800 billion tax relief bill that we know for a fact the President will veto. Mr. President, let's be honest and acknowledge what's going on here. This bill is going nowhere. When it comes back to the Congress after the President's vetoes it, we should be prepared to set aside pure politics, and instead focus on producing results that benefit the American people. Mr. President, there are some very good provisions in this bill that help American taxpayers keep more of their hard-earned money. But most of these very important tax provisions for average Americans are put off for the future, while many of the perks for big business and special interests take effect immediately. This bill delays meaningful tax relief for the average taxpayer until 2001 or later, yet it complicates the tax system with a raft of new and renewed exemptions, exceptions, and carve-outs for special interests that go into effect immediately. Just under $6 billion of the entire $792 billion in tax relief in this bill is effective next year. Just 77 of the 180 provisions in this bill provide any tax relief at all in the year 2000. More than 80 percent of the tax cuts are delayed until 2005 or later. And after phasing in the most important provisions over a 10-year period, the whole tax cut package sunsets after 2009, when we would presumably revert to the burdensome and overly complex tax system with which we are struggling today. I firmly believe we should repeal, once and for all, the disgraceful tax penalty that punishes couples who want to get married. This bill does provide relief from the onerous marriage penalty, but these important provisions do not even begin to take effect until 2001 and then they are phased in over a period of four or five years. Income tax rate reductions don't start to phase in until 2001, and then only the lowest bracket sees a half-percent rate cut, while other rate cuts are delayed until 2005. In fact, according to an informal estimate I was given, an American family making $65,000 per year would get just $47 in tax cuts based on the income tax rate reductions in this bill in 2002. We should also slash the death tax that prevents a father or a mother from leaving the hard-earned fruits of their labor to their children. There is absolutely no relief from the onerous death taxes in 2000. Estate tax reductions would be phased-in over a 9-year period until completely eliminated in 2009, but then this entire tax cut package would terminate and the death tax would be fully reinstated. At the same time, poultry farmers get an immediate tax break, totaling $30 million over 10 years, to convert chicken manure into electricity. Small seaplane operators don't have to collect tickets taxes, starting immediately, giving them a break of $11 million. Manufacturers of fishing tackle boxes get an immediate excise tax break, so that they can more competitively price their tackle boxes to compete with the tool box industry. And the people who make and sell arrows for hunting fish and game get an immediate cut in their taxes. Why are we giving a big break to chicken farmers when American families get not a dime in tax relief? Why don't people flying on seaplanes have to pay ticket taxes like people flying on other commuter planes? What compelling reason is there to give fishing tackle box manufacturers a tax break, while family-owned businesses get no relief from the confiscatory death taxes for quite some time? Many of the other provisions in this bill that provide tax relief for education, health care, and other issues important to American families are implemented gradually or simply delayed for several years. Likewise, some of the provisions that benefit small businesses and tax- exempt organizations do not take effect for a number of years. Yet most of the provisions that give even more tax breaks to the oil and gas industry, financial services companies, high tech industry, insurance companies, and defense industry take effect early. The priorities in this bill are seriously skewed in the wrong direction. In addition, this bill does nothing to fundamentally reform our unfair and overly complex tax code. For years, and this bill is no exception, we have compounded the tax code's complexity and put tax loopholes for special interests ahead of tax relief for working families. The result is a tax code that is a bewildering 44,000 page catalogue of favors for a privileged few and a chamber of horrors for the rest of America--except perhaps the accountants and lawyers. The special interest set-asides and carve-outs in this bill merely exacerbate the complexity of the tax code. This bill adds new loopholes, new schemes, new ideas to keep lawyers and accountants busy. It is not right to pay back special interests ahead of American families. It is not fair to give more tax incentives and exemptions and cuts to big business, when individual taxpayers get no relief. If this bill had any chance of becoming law, perhaps it would have been prioritized somewhat differently. Mr. President, this tax bill is based on the premise that we will have nearly $3 trillion in the federal budget surplus over the next 10 years. Let's look at the priorities for those surplus funds. Our first priority must be to lock up the Social Security Trust Funds to prevent Presidential or Congressional raids on workers' retirement funds to pay for so-called ``emergency'' spending or new big government programs. Most Americans don't share the view that dubious pork-barrel projects, such as millions of dollars in assistance to reindeer ranchers and maple sugar producers, should be treated as emergencies to be paid for with Social Security, but that is exactly what Congress did earlier this year. That leaves nearly $1 trillion in non-Social Security revenue surpluses. I believe a healthy portion of the projected non-Social Security surplus should be returned to the American people in the form of tax cuts. I also believe we have a responsibility to balance the need for tax relief with other pressing national priorities. After locking up the Social Security surpluses, I would dedicate 62 percent of the remaining $1 trillion in non-Social Security surplus revenues, or about $620 billion, to shore up the Social Security Trust Funds, extending the solvency of the Social Security system until at least the middle of the next century. The President promised to save Social Security, but he failed to include this proposal anywhere in his budget submission. In fact, he has since proposed or supported spending billions of dollars from the surplus on other government programs, depleting the funds needed to ensure retirement benefits are paid as promised. I would also reserve 10 percent of the non-Social Security surplus to protect the Medicare system, and use 5 percent to begin paying down our $5.6 trillion national debt. With the remaining $230 billion in surplus revenues, plus about $300 billion raised by closing inequitable corporate tax loopholes and ending unnecessary spending subsidies, I believe we could provide meaningful tax relief that benefits Americans and fuels the economy. The bill before the Senate includes provisions that are similar to some of the proposals I would include in such a plan, which are targeted toward lower- and middle-income Americans, family farmers, small businessmen and women, and families. I believe we should expand the 15% tax bracket to allow 17 million Americans to pay taxes at the lowest rate, and this bill reflects a similar focus. The bill also increases the income threshold for tax- deferred contributions to IRAs, although delayed, and very gradually increases the amount that employees can contribute each year to employer-sponsored retirement plans. We should make these increases effective immediately to encourage more Americans to save now for their retirement. And this bill takes several steps to provide meaningful tax relief for American families by at least starting to eliminate the onerous marriage penalty and provide relief from confiscatory estate taxes. What the bill before the Senate does not do is provide much-needed incentives for saving. Restoring to every American the tax exemption for the first $200 in interest and dividend income would go a long way toward reversing the abysmal savings rate in this country. Most important, the bill does not eliminate immediately the Social Security earnings test. This tax unfairly penalizes senior citizens who choose to, or in many cases, have to work by taking away $1 of their Social Security benefits for every $3 they earn. There is no justifiable reason to force seniors with decades of knowledge and expertise out of the workforce by imposing such a punitive tax. And in our modern society, when many seniors have to work to survive, we should not keep this Depression-era relic in law. This is the kind of package that I believe could form the basis of a tax cut bill that properly balances national priorities and provides fair tax relief to average Americans and their families without further complicating our tax code. It would be a better step in the right direction toward economically sound and equitable tax relief and provide incentives to undertake real reform of our tax system. Mr. President, I will vote for the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act because I believe it reflects a commitment to provide relief from a system that taxes your salary, your investments, your property, your expenses, your marriage, and your death. We must send a message to the American people and to the President that we must repeal the onerous marriage penalty and estate taxes that burden America's families. This bill is not acceptable to me. Special interests get the biggest breaks, and they get them right away. All the American families get are the leftovers. My problem with this bill is not with the size of the tax cuts, but who benefits. However, its passage and subsequent veto represent our only hope for meaningful tax relief for those working families who need it most. If this bill were to die today, so would the possibility of achieving meaningful tax relief this year. By passing this bill and forcing the President to address tax issues, I believe we hold open the possibility of entering into negotiations between the Administration and the Congress to provide meaningful tax relief for the benefit of all Americans. The sad reality is that this bill will not give a single American family even one extra dollar in their pockets, because it will be vetoed as soon as it arrives at the White House. But after this bill is vetoed by the President, our responsibility to the people we represent must be to work to address their priorities. We must save Social Security, fix the Medicare system, and return to the people more control over their lives and the lives of their children and families. At the same time, we can start to work on crafting a meaningful tax relief bill that truly benefits the American people--a tax bill that even President Clinton could not refuse to sign into law. That is what the American people want and need.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. It is the elimination of the sugar quota.

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

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be in order after the disposal of the Roberts amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, after the disposal of the Roberts amendment, it is my understanding that there would then be room for amendments; is that correct? I ask the parliamentary situation after the disposal of the Roberts amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I think we have to go back and forth.

Mr. McCAIN. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask to be recognized for as much time as I may use.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have offered this amendment for myself, Senator Gregg--I am sure Senator Feinstein--that will prohibit the Agriculture Department from using Federal funding for administering the various and sundry programs that benefit the sugar industry. This amendment is carefully tailored by just cutting off funds so that it is not in violation of rule XVI. The amendment is to send a strong signal to my colleagues that it is time to end the heavily subsidized sugar program. The Federal Government is burdened with an unnecessary and unprofitable loan program for big sugar producers and enforcing mandated import quotas on foreign sugar. The sugar program has long since outlived its purpose. It was originally enacted in the Depression era to aid our flailing economy. As our economy resurged, the need for sugar subsidies diminished. Congress recognized this by eliminating the program in 1974, but proponents of the sugar program were able to resurrect it in 1981 proving again that in this city nothing is ever effectively killed if it is subsidized to special interests. Efforts were made to abolish the program once again in the 1996 farm bill, but defenders of the sugar program kept it alive and even extended it. The sugar program is a system of Federally-subsidized loans, import restrictions and protective price supports that equates to little more than corporate welfare. The present program restricts foreign competition and ensures a high domestic price for sugar far in excess of world prices. The Agriculture Department also guarantees loans for sugar processors and producers that may not be fully repaid in dollars back to the Government. The current law allows loan borrowers to pledge sugar as collateral to satisfy repayment obligations. Several independent reviews of the sugar program have demonstrated that the biggest economic burden of this program falls on the American taxpayers. The Heritage Foundation stated that ``the sugar program is big government and corporate welfare at its worst.'' Given the big government and corporate welfare we have in this town, that is a pretty impressive statement. The Coalition for Sugar Reform, counting among its members such groups as the National Audubon Society and Citizens Against Government Waste, and others, has touted this program as burdensome and unfair to the consumer. These groups are leaders in advocating for reform and eventual elimination of this costly subsidy. The continuing existence of the sugar program has resulted in U.S. consumers paying three times the current world price for sugar and sugar-contained products. The General Accounting Office estimates that sugar price supports force American consumers to pay $1.4 billion every year in artificially inflated sugar prices. Mandatory price quotas keep the price of American-grown sugar at roughly 22 cents a pound compared to 6 cents a pound for sugar grown in other parts of the world. This is truly outrageous. Defenders of the sugar program support these inflated consumer prices by claiming that the sugar program is critical to the viability of our domestic sugar industry. Reports have shown that we are hurting our viability as a domestic sugar industry by continuing this program because America's farmers cannot compete with foreign markets and are forced to close sugar refineries. Since this program has been in effect, 12 of the 22 U.S. sugar refineries have been forced to close, eliminating thousands of jobs. In the February 1998 Reader's Digest, there is a story about the Nation's largest candy-cane manufacturer opening a plant in Jamaica in order to stay competitive with foreign companies. Sugar prices in Jamaica are as much as 50 percent cheaper than in the U.S. Yet, the sugar program continues to reap benefits for a small sector of the sugar economy. Only by political clout has this corporate welfare program survived. A close examination of this program reveals that its true benefits are only realized by big sugar tycoons. Less than one percent of the Nation's sugar growers gobble up 58 percent of the program benefits. These are not small family farmers. In a recent year, 33 cane sugar growers obtained more than $1 million each from this Government boondoggle. In fact, one grower received $65 million. The average consumer is not aware that food products, like candy, cereal or ice cream, are subject to a higher price dictated by the Federal Government--and it is a price that is likely to be twice as high because of sugar price supports. Not too many average grocery shoppers realize they are paying at least 10 cents more per pound of sugar because of these costly sugar mandates. We cannot ask American consumers to continue to pay more for sugar than the rest of the world. This richly sweet program for big sugar producers has a sour aftertaste for average citizens and our Nation's economy. What I am proposing, because of rule XVI, is simply a one-year halt to the sugar program. The American consumers would be held harmless for one year to give us time to undertake a long overdue debate on legislation to reform and phase out the sugar program. This amendment retains the sugar industry's responsibility to pay a miniscule assessment on domestic sugar, although I would be glad to eliminate that. I do not think that is a very important aspect of this amendment. With all the benefits received by the sugar industry, this relatively small assessment is supposed to be the sugar industry's sole contribution to reducing annual budget deficits. Last year, this assessment generated $37.8 million in revenues. With all that the Federal Government and the American consumers have spent over the years to support this inflated sugar program, this modest return of revenues to the treasury is certainly warranted, although I would be glad to eliminate it. I believe we should end the subsidies to the sugar industry and eliminate the sugar program that is unfair to consumers. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and bring fairness back to our American consumers. Mr. President, in the New York Times of Monday, July 14, 1997, they talked about: . . . $1.5 billion a year from consumers to a handful of large sugar growers. Almost half of the benefits from the sugar program go to little more than 1 percent of growers. . . . There is a second, powerful reason to eliminate sugar subsidies. They breed excessive production of sugar cane in environmentally sensitive areas. In the Florida Everglades, about a half-million acres of wetlands have been converted to sugar cane production. Excessive sugar cane production has interrupted water flows and contaminated the Everglades with polluted agricultural run-off. When I argue for campaign finance reform, I refer to a well-known family in Florida that has realized the American dream, the Fanjul brothers. Alfonso Fanjul is the chairman and chief executive officer of Flo-Sun, a prominent Democrat who cochaired President Clinton's 1992 Florida campaign. Jose ``Pepe'' Fanjul, is a prominent Republican who served on the campaign finance committee of 1996 GOP Presidential candidate Bob Dole. He also is vice chairman of the National Republican Party's finance committee. They are major--major--givers of soft money, major contributors. I will include in the Record that during the 1995-1996 election cycle, members of the Fanjul family contributed $774,500 to Federal campaigns. It is an excellent investment. In return, a grateful Congress maintains a sugar price support program worth approximately $65 million annually to the Fanjuls. That is a pretty good investment; and they are getting a great return on it. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.