John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this agriculture appropriations bill provides annual funding for our nation's farmers, producers and the agency supporting our agricultural industry, the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The chairman and his colleagues on the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee deserve much credit for their work on this bill, which ensures funding for fundamental programs to support agricultural, rural development and nutrition programs. Unfortunately, the process by which appropriators continue to add wasteful and unnecessary spending to this important funding measure is unacceptable. Each year, I am amazed by arbitrary fashion in which the appropriations committees choose to allocate the strict federal dollars that we should reserve for important and necessary federal programs. At the expense of our American taxpayers, this bill and its accompanying report are riddled with unrequested, low-priority earmarks, representing $170 million in additional spending. The agriculture appropriations bill is a haven for members to tack on unrequested and unauthorized funding for special interest projects, particularly in sections of the accompanying Senate report dealing with the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. For example, 114 out of a total 118 projects funded under the section for special research grants are either unrequested or received additional funding above the budget request. Over 90 projects under the Agriculture Research Service were targeted for termination by the administration, yet a majority of these projects continue to receive funding in this bill. These actions lead me to ask a fundamental question. What is the purpose of conducting a formal budget process when the Appropriations Committee exhibits such carte blanche authority to fund projects which have not been considered in our established authorization and funding process? I review all of the annual appropriations bills, yet I have rarely seen such flagrant examples of egregious spending as those included in this bill. In the Senate report, the appropriations committee state their commitment to only fund priority projects, yet earmarks are approved for such projects as $300,000 for cereal rust research in St. Paul, MN. No information is provided for members to determine what kind of project deals with ``cereal rust'' and why this project deserves a specific earmark of nearly a third of a million dollars. Other earmarks include $500,000 for swine waste management in North Carolina, $100,000 to reduce damages and manage populations of fish- eating birds which prey on farm-raised cattle in the Mid-south area, and an increase of $452,000 to support the sterile fly release in San Joaquin Valley. It is incredible to me, and no doubt to the American people, that we speak of fiscal responsibility and budget constraints in one manner, and yet act in a diametrically opposite manner wasting enormous amounts of funding for projects that appear to have little relationship to improving the agricultural economy. Some projects may be meritorious, such as potato research and weed control, but are these problems specific only to certain states like Washington and North Dakota? Enough to receive not only an earmark, but an increase above the requested levels? I am certain that my constituents in Arizona can attest to the need for funding to monitor certain crops and deal with problems of weed control, yet they are unable to compete for funding to address these issues when decisions are based more on parochial interests rather than national priority. This bill goes beyond the traditional earmarking process by selecting particular sites across the country to receive additional spending for extra staff and personnel. Why are these facilities receiving direct funding for additional staff at a time when each agency is required to abide by the mandate of the Government Performance and Results Act to operate more efficiently with less bureaucracy? Even if these positions are critical, why are they not prioritized in the normal administrative process? In various parts of the bill and report, the committee includes express language which all but provides direct earmarks for certain projects and grantees and effectively intervenes in what is supposed to be a competitive grant process outside the realm of political influences. For example, in the Senate report, language is included which states the committee's expectation that the Administration give full consideration to an application for funds to construct a new facility for the St. Paul Island Health Clinic in Alaska and other language which urges the Administration to consider applications from the State of Alabama for projects benefitting Montgomery, State Farmer's Market and other farmers in the State. We are invested with the responsibility to fully consider and debate the appropriate expenditure of federal funds. I commend Senator Cochran, chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations, for his floor statement in which he stated that the committee sought to apply funding in a ``reasonable and thoughtful way.'' Unfortunately, the pork in this bill and report prove that the Appropriations Committee is still unable to curb its appetite for unnecessary and wasteful spending. I have compiled a list of objectionable provisions, totalling $170 million, to S. 1233 and its accompanying Senate report, which, due to its length, cannot be printed in the Record. The list of objectionable provisions will be available on my Senate web page.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Whether they are willing to kick in and fix it is one thing, but I think any environmental organization would attest to the fact that the increase of a half million acres of sugar growing around the Everglades has done significant damage to the Everglades. I am glad they are being forced to pay for part of the cleanup since they are clearly a great part of the problem. I also think it is wrong when one family gets $35 million in subsidies--35 million of taxpayer dollars. I think it is wrong. I think most Americans think it is wrong, too. I do not expect to win this amendment, but some day we are going to realize that by subsidizing big producers, whether they be for sugar or anything else, the American people will grow a little weary of this kind of expenditure of their taxpayer dollars and demand we change. I yield back my remaining time. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am always entertained by this debate, especially by my friend. I understand the argument of my friends on the other side of the aisle because they have a philosophy concerning big government and government has the answer to our problems and we should subsidize industries and also practice protectionism. I understand that. It is a little harder for me to understand the philosophy on this side of the aisle, which is supposed to be less government, less regulation, fewer subsidies, lower taxes, and looking out for the individual. The combination of import restrictions, guaranteed prices, and subsidized loans keep the prices artificially high. There is no objective economist in America who will disagree with that. There will be people in the sugar growing industry and those who represent States where sugar is grown, but that is a fact. It transfers about $1.5 billion a year from consumers to a handful of large sugar growers. Almost half the benefits from the sugar program go to little more than 1 percent of growers. The high prices act as a tax on food, and it hits hardest at poor families who typically spend a large fraction of their budget on food and other necessities. If this proposal passes, according to any objective economist, including our much respected Heritage Foundation and others, the sugar price could fall 20 cents for a 5-pound bag. The advocates justify their subsidies as needed to counter foreign subsidized imports and protect the jobs of domestic workers. Neither argument withstands scrutiny. There are ample rules to prevent foreign countries from dumping Government-subsidized sugar in the U.S. markets. Also, by propping up raw sugar prices, the program has driven half the U.S. sugar refiners out of business or out of the country, taking the jobs with them. Mr. President, I am sorry to see the Senator from Florida defend the sugar growers because everybody knows, and any environmental organization will agree, that what has happened in the Everglades has caused enormous damage. I ask unanimous consent for 60 more seconds.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment by removing part (b) of this amendment. That has to do with the marketing assessment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if it is agreeable with the distinguished managers on both sides, I offer a unanimous consent agreement for 1 hour equally divided, 30 minutes on either side.

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

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as I travel around the country, I see the devastation caused by the ongoing drought in many sections of the country. Crops are stunted and dying, fields are dusty, streams and lakes are drying up. Many farmers are still reeling from the effects of last year's Asian economic crisis. Clearly, some form of assistance is needed to prevent the demise of more of America's family farms, and I support efforts to provide needed government aid to farmers and their families. Both pending proposals specify that aid to farmers is to be considered emergency spending, which is not counted against the budget caps. Mr. President, again, I recognize the dire circumstances that have many Americans in the agriculture industry facing economic ruin. However, already this year, the Senate has approved appropriations bills containing $7.9 billion in wasteful and unnecessary spending. Surely, among these billions of dollars, there are at least a few programs that we could all agree are lower priority than desperately needed aid for America's farmers. My colleagues should be aware that every dollar spent above the budget caps is a dollar that comes from the budget surplus. This year, the only surplus is in the Social Security accounts, so this farm aid will be paid for by further exacerbating the impending financial crisis in the Social Security Trust Funds. And every dollar that is spent on future emergencies comes from the surplus we just promised last week to return to the American people in the form of tax relief. It is the same surplus that we have to use to shore up Social Security and Medicare, and begin to pay down the national debt. Unfortunately, though, it seems to be easier to slap on an emergency designation, rather than try to find lower priority spending cuts as offsets. Once again, Mr. President, Congress is taking its usual opportunistic approach to any disaster or emergency--adding billions of dollars in non-emergency spending and policy proposals to the emergency farm aid proposals. The competing amendments pending before the Senate contain provisions that provide special, targeted relief to certain sectors of the agricultural community. For example, in addition to the billions of dollars of assistance payments for which all farmers would be eligible: Both proposals single out peanut producers for special direct payments to partially compensate them for low prices and increasing production costs. The Republican proposal also provides $50 million to be used to assist fruit and vegetable producers, at the Secretary of Agriculture's discretion. Both proposals give the Secretary of Agriculture broad authority to provide some kinds of assistance to livestock and dairy producers, the only difference being the amount of money set aside for this unspecified relief. The Democrats set aside $750 million, the Republicans $325 million. Both proposals set up more restrictive import quotas and new price supports for cotton producers. Both proposals provide $328 million in direct aid for tobacco farmers. The Republican proposal also specifically targets $475 million for direct payments to oilseed producers, most of which is to be paid to soybean producers. The Democrat proposal, which is about $3 billion more expensive than the Republican proposal, expands to address non-agricultural disaster- related requirements, such as wetlands and watershed restoration and conservation, short-term land diversion programs, and flood prevention projects. It also establishes a new $500 million disaster reserve account, in anticipation of future disasters, I assume. But the proposal then adds a number of very narrowly targeted provisions and provisions wholly unrelated to the purposes of aiding economically distressed farmers, including: --$40 million for salaries and expenses of the Farm Service Agency, apparently to administer $100 million in new loan funds; --$100 million for rural economic development; --$50 million for a new revolving loan program for farmer- owned cooperatives; --$4 million to implement a new mandatory price reporting program for livestock; --$8 million for a new product labeling system for imported meat; --$1 million for rapid response teams to enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act; and finally, --$15 million for a Northeast multispecies fishery. These provisions have no place in a bill to provide emergency assistance to America's farmers. There is an established process for dealing with spending and policy matters that are not emergencies. It is the normal authorization and appropriations process, where each program or policy can be assessed as part of a merit-based review. Many of the provisions I have listed above may very well be meritorious and deserving of support and funding, but the process we are following here today does not provide an appropriate forum for assessing their relative merit compared to the many other important programs for which non-emergency dollars should be made available. I think even some of the potential recipients of these non-emergency programs would agree that they should be considered in the normal appropriations and authorization processes. There is one special interest provision of the Republican proposal that I would like to discuss further and that I intend to address directly in an amendment later in the debate. The Republican proposal gives the already heavily subsidized sugar industry one more perk-- relief from paying a minuscule assessment of just 25 cents on each 100 pounds of sugar. This tiny tax raised just $37.8 million last year, and was supposed to be the sugar industry's sole contribution to reducing annual budget deficits. Thanks to their successful lobbying, for the next three years, big sugar will not have to pay this assessment if the federal government has a budget surplus. While the assessment was initially imposed to help reduce annual budget deficits, which fortunately have been eliminated as a result of the Balanced Budget Act, what about the $5.6 trillion national debt? This little bit of targeted tax relief for big sugar comes on top of a $130 million per year government-subsidized loan program for sugar producers, and price supports that cost American consumers over $1.4 billion a year in higher sugar prices at the store. The sponsors of the proposal make no claim that this provision is in any way related to a disaster or drought-related economic crisis in the sugar industry that would merit its inclusion in this emergency farm aid bill. Its inclusion simply adds one more perk to the already broad array of special subsidies for big sugar companies. I intend to offer an amendment later during the debate on this bill to terminate taxpayer support of the sugar industry. If the Republican farm aid proposal is adopted, as I expect it will be, I will include in my amendment a proposal to strike this newly created perk for big sugar. Mr. President, I am going to support the more modest Republican proposal, regardless of the outcome of my amendment to eliminate the inequitable and unnecessary sugar subsidies. But I do so only because of the real economic hardship faced by many of our nation's farmers and their families. I abhor the continuing practice of attaching pork-barrel spending to any and every bill that comes before the Senate, especially when real disasters are cynically exploited to designate pork as emergency spending. This kind of fiscal irresponsibility undermines the balanced budget and hinders debt reduction efforts, exacerbates the need to preserve and protect Social Security and Medicare, and threatens efforts to provide meaningful tax relief to American families. Once again, I can only hope that the final farm aid proposal will be targeted only at those in need--America's farmers. I urge the conferees on this legislation to eliminate the provisions that solely benefit special interests who have once again managed to turn needed emergency relief into opportunism. I also urge the conferees to seek offsets for the additional spending in this bill, to avoid again dipping into the Social Security surplus and putting our balanced budget at risk.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to co-sponsor legislation with my colleagues, Senators Daschle and Inouye, to amend the Social Security Act and extend eligibility for Indian tribes to fully implement, like states, the Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Act. This important legislation will finally allow Indian children living in tribal areas to have the same access to services of the Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Program enjoyed by other children nationwide. The purpose of the Title IV-E program is to ensure that children receive adequate care when placed in foster care and adoption programs. The Title IV-E program operates as an open-ended entitlement program for eligible state governments with approved plans. State governments receive funding for foster care maintenance payments to cover food, shelter, clothing, school supplies, and liability insurance for income- eligible children placed in foster homes by state courts, and for related administrative and training costs. While Congress intended that the Title IV-E program should benefit all eligible children, Indian children who are under the jurisdiction of their tribal court are not eligible. When enacted, the Title IV-E law did not properly consider that Indian tribal governments retain sole jurisdiction over the domestic affairs of their own tribal members, particularly Indian children. State administrators have attempted to meet the intended goals of these programs by extending their efforts to Indian country. However, administrative and jurisdictional hurdles make it nearly impossible to provide these services. As a result, Indian children in need of foster care and child support are not accorded the same level of service as other children nationwide. Tribal governments, who are legally responsible for Indian children in foster care, are not entitled to federal reimbursement for children placed in foster care by a tribal court, unless the tribe, as a public agency, enters into a cooperative agreement with the state. A cooperative agreement may not sound all that difficult, but in reality, such an agreement can prove impossible. Rather than providing incentives, current law more often discourages states from entering into agreements with tribes. For example, a state is accountable for tribal compliance with Title IV-E requirements. If a tribe cannot fulfill a matching requirement, the state must assume the costs on behalf of the tribe in order to retain federal funds. It is entirely possible that states could lose their Title IV-E funds if tribal records were out of compliance. State-tribal relations are not always productive, particularly when disputes arise over issues unrelated to child welfare. Providing this direct eligibility for tribal governments, with the same accountability and enforcement requirements, will resolve such problems. State agencies have indicated that direct participation by the tribes would help address an overburden of casework and preclude tension over jurisdictional issues. I want to make clear that enactment of this legislation will in no way supplant or discourage State-tribal agreements. Existing agreements will be honored, while allowing Indian tribes to directly access needed resources for further protection for income-eligible Indian children. I also want to comment briefly on efforts made by the Administration to implement a limited pilot program to provide direct authority to tribes to administer the Title IV-E and Title IV-B programs. The 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act authorized up to ten demonstration programs. Five demonstration programs have been approved by the Administration to meet the needs of Indian children. I applaud the initiative, but this limited approval will not extend to any other tribe who may choose to administer their own programs and the needs of many Indian children will still be unmet. I sincerely hope the Administration would seek to include five more tribes as participants in the demonstration program. We sought to include similar eligibility provisions in the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, but were unsuccessful in finding the necessary off-sets to pay for this program. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that this legislation would cost $236 million over a five-year period, which generally amounts to less than one percent of total Federal Title IV-E expenditures. While this legislation does not currently include any identified off-sets to pay for adding tribal eligibility for this entitlement program, I have assurances from Senators Daschle and Inouye that the inclusion of off-sets, prior to final passage, will in no way affect the Social Security Trust Fund or increase the federal debt. We have pledged to work together to find necessary and agreeable off-sets for this program. Mr. President, enactment of this legislation will bring an end to the disparate treatment of eligible Indian children under Title IV-E programs. I urge my colleagues to correct this unfair oversight and make the benefits of the Title IV-E entitlement program available for all children as intended.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to co-sponsor legislation with my colleagues, Senators Daschle and Inouye, to amend the Social Security Act and extend eligibility for Indian tribes to fully implement, like states, the Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Act. This important legislation will finally allow Indian children living in tribal areas to have the same access to services of the Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Program enjoyed by other children nationwide. The purpose of the Title IV-E program is to ensure that children receive adequate care when placed in foster care and adoption programs. The Title IV-E program operates as an open-ended entitlement program for eligible state governments with approved plans. State governments receive funding for foster care maintenance payments to cover food, shelter, clothing, school supplies, and liability insurance for income- eligible children placed in foster homes by state courts, and for related administrative and training costs. While Congress intended that the Title IV-E program should benefit all eligible children, Indian children who are under the jurisdiction of their tribal court are not eligible. When enacted, the Title IV-E law did not properly consider that Indian tribal governments retain sole jurisdiction over the domestic affairs of their own tribal members, particularly Indian children. State administrators have attempted to meet the intended goals of these programs by extending their efforts to Indian country. However, administrative and jurisdictional hurdles make it nearly impossible to provide these services. As a result, Indian children in need of foster care and child support are not accorded the same level of service as other children nationwide. Tribal governments, who are legally responsible for Indian children in foster care, are not entitled to federal reimbursement for children placed in foster care by a tribal court, unless the tribe, as a public agency, enters into a cooperative agreement with the state. A cooperative agreement may not sound all that difficult, but in reality, such an agreement can prove impossible. Rather than providing incentives, current law more often discourages states from entering into agreements with tribes. For example, a state is accountable for tribal compliance with Title IV-E requirements. If a tribe cannot fulfill a matching requirement, the state must assume the costs on behalf of the tribe in order to retain federal funds. It is entirely possible that states could lose their Title IV-E funds if tribal records were out of compliance. State-tribal relations are not always productive, particularly when disputes arise over issues unrelated to child welfare. Providing this direct eligibility for tribal governments, with the same accountability and enforcement requirements, will resolve such problems. State agencies have indicated that direct participation by the tribes would help address an overburden of casework and preclude tension over jurisdictional issues. I want to make clear that enactment of this legislation will in no way supplant or discourage State-tribal agreements. Existing agreements will be honored, while allowing Indian tribes to directly access needed resources for further protection for income-eligible Indian children. I also want to comment briefly on efforts made by the Administration to implement a limited pilot program to provide direct authority to tribes to administer the Title IV-E and Title IV-B programs. The 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act authorized up to ten demonstration programs. Five demonstration programs have been approved by the Administration to meet the needs of Indian children. I applaud the initiative, but this limited approval will not extend to any other tribe who may choose to administer their own programs and the needs of many Indian children will still be unmet. I sincerely hope the Administration would seek to include five more tribes as participants in the demonstration program. We sought to include similar eligibility provisions in the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, but were unsuccessful in finding the necessary off-sets to pay for this program. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that this legislation would cost $236 million over a five-year period, which generally amounts to less than one percent of total Federal Title IV-E expenditures. While this legislation does not currently include any identified off-sets to pay for adding tribal eligibility for this entitlement program, I have assurances from Senators Daschle and Inouye that the inclusion of off-sets, prior to final passage, will in no way affect the Social Security Trust Fund or increase the federal debt. We have pledged to work together to find necessary and agreeable off-sets for this program. Mr. President, enactment of this legislation will bring an end to the disparate treatment of eligible Indian children under Title IV-E programs. I urge my colleagues to correct this unfair oversight and make the benefits of the Title IV-E entitlement program available for all children as intended.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1397 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as one who has advocated tax relief and reform for American families throughout my 17 years in Congress, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999. Americans want, need, and deserve tax relief. The government takes too much of the American people's earnings to fund the bloated bureaucracy in Washington. The notion that the government knows better than families how to spend their money is absurd. Americans should be able to keep much more of their hard-earned money to use and invest for themselves and their family's future. Not only do Americans want and need tax relief, they also deserve fundamental reform of 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. No one can possibly believe it's fair to tax your salary, your investments, your property, your expenses, your marriage, and your death. Taxes claim nearly 40 percent of the average taxpayer's income. This is simply not right. This bill takes several steps toward relieving that excessive tax burden, and I congratulate the Chairman and his colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee for their hard work in crafting this bill for the Senate's consideration. There are many good provisions in this bill, and I intend to support it in the hope that a conference agreement can be reached that provides meaningful tax relief and that the President will sign into law. However, I am concerned that the majority of the tax relief proposed in this bill will not be available to taxpayers for several years. The bill also excludes other very good ideas but includes several provisions that are clearly intended to benefit special interests. I hope the amendment process, limited though it is by the Senate's arcane rules for dealing with reconciliation measures, will improve it before we are asked to vote on final passage. Mr. President, the latest reports project a nearly $3 trillion federal budget surplus over the next 10 years. About two-thirds of the projected surplus comes from Social Security payroll taxes that are deposited in the Social Security Trust Funds, and must be kept away from spendthrift politicians to ensure that Social Security benefits are paid as promised. 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 their Social Security taxes, but that is what Congress did earlier this year. That leaves nearly $1 trillion in non-Social Security revenue surpluses. Now, the typical Washington response would be to spend the money on new government programs and bureaucracies. Let me state very clearly that I vehemently oppose the view that ``growing government'' should be a national priority. To the contrary, our goal should be to continue to shrink the size of the federal government, returning more power and money to the people. I firmly 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 would provide meaningful tax relief that benefits Americans and fuels the economy. My tax relief plan, which was filed as an amendment to this bill, provides slightly more than $500 billion in tax relief over 10 years, targeted toward lower- and middle-income Americans, family farmers and small businessmen, and families. The bill before the Senate includes provisions that are similar to some of the proposals included in my plan. The bill does provide relief from the marriage penalty and gift and estate taxes, but these important provisions do not take effect for several years. I believe we should repeal, once and for all, the disgraceful tax penalty that punishes couples who want to get married. 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. Why wait five or seven years to provide some relief from these onerous and unfair taxes? The bill properly targets the lowest 15 percent tax bracket for a one-percent rate reduction and provides for a gradual increase in the upper limit of the bracket. My plan would also expand this bracket to allow as many as 17 million more Americans to pay taxes at the lowest rate. The bill also increases the income threshold for tax-deferred contributions to IRAs, but not until 2008, 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. 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, we must eliminate immediately the Social Security earnings test. This tax unfairly penalizes senior citizens who choose to, or 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. 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. In fact, less than half of the 120 provisions in this bill provide any tax relief at all in the year 2000. Those tax cuts that do take effect immediately amount to just $5 billion of the nearly $800 billion total tax cuts in the bill. But look at some of the provisions that do take effect immediately: --A provision to extend the tax credit for electricity produced from wind and closed-loop biomass sources, and also extend the credit to electricity produced from poultry waste, which is defined to include rice hulls, wood shavings, straw, bedding, and other litter. This provision goes into effect immediately, and will cost $1.6 billion over 10 years. --A provision to exempt individuals with foreign addresses from paying the 7.5 percent air passenger ticket tax on frequent flier miles, leaving American passengers to pay for our over-burdened air traffic control system. The provision goes into effect on January 1, 2000, and will cost $238 million over 10 years. --A provision that exempts small seaplanes from paying ticket taxes. This provision goes into effect on December 31, 1999, and will cost $11 million over 10 years. --A provision to reduce the excise tax, from 12.4 percent to 11 percent, on component parts of arrows used for hunting fish and game that measure 18 inches overall or more in length. This provision takes effect immediately. How can we justify giving a $33 million tax break next year to companies producing electricity from chicken waste, when senior citizens have to forego some of their Social Security benefits if they must work to make ends meet. How can we justify writing off $15 million in revenue next year from people from other countries who fly to the U.S., when American families get absolutely no relief from the egregious marriage penalty until 2005? Mr. President, as I have said, there are many good provisions in this bill which reflect the hard work and difficult decisions that Chairman Roth and the Finance Committee faced. They have worked hard to do the best we can for the American people who need and deserve relief from excessive taxation and a burdensome tax code. I intend to vote for this bill, even though I know, as do my colleagues, that the President has pledged to veto both the Senate and House tax bills. Neither bill will ever become law, and the American people will never see a nickel's cut in their taxes, if the President has his way. That is the unfortunate reality that the conferees on this measure must recognize as they work to craft a meaningful tax relief bill that can be enacted and implemented for the benefit of the American people. I will vote for this bill to move the process along and send this bill to conference with the House. What will matter at the end is that we focus on crafting a bill that can become law so that the American taxpayers get the relief they deserve and need. I have put forward a plan, described briefly here, that I believe can be a starting point for meaningful and achievable tax cuts. I urge the conferees on this legislation to focus on a conference agreement that the President will sign and that will become law this year. That is what the American people want and need.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, my amendment would create a national three-year school choice demonstration for children from economically disadvantaged families and the cost of this is fully paid for by eliminating unnecessary corporate subsidies for the ethanol, oil, gas, and sugar industries. This demonstration would provide 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. Each eligible child would receive $2,000 each year for attending any school of their choice--including private or religious schools. In total, the amendment 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 benefit the ethanol, sugar, gas and oil industries. These tuition vouchers would help provide over 1 million low-income children trapped in poor performing schools the same educational choices as children of economic privilege. Providing educational choice to low-income children is an important step in ensuring all our children, not just wealthy children can make their dreams a reality. We can not afford to continue subsidizing the ethanol, sugar, oil and gas industries at a time when we are struggling to save Social Security and Medicare, provide much needed and deserved tax relief to American families and strengthening our investment in the health, security and education of our children--our future.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the point of order against amendment No. 1397, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1467. This bill will extend the Federal Aviation Administration's, FAA, Airport Improvement Program, AIP, for sixty days. It is critical that Congress complete the authorization for this program for this fiscal year. Otherwise, the FAA will be prohibited from issuing much-needed grants to airports in every state, regardless of whether or not funds have been appropriated. In fact, there are still nearly $300 million in appropriated funds for the current fiscal year that cannot be spent because AIP authority expires on August 6. If we do not act to reauthorize this program for at least the remainder of this fiscal year, we will cause harm to the transportation infrastructure of our country. AIP grants play a critical part in airport development. Without these grants, important safety, security, and capacity projects will be hampered throughout the country. Therefore, we must act swiftly. The safety of the traveling public depends upon the continued flow of AIP monies. For example, airports use these funds to install instrument landing systems, which help guide airplanes to safe landings when visibility is impaired. AIP funds are also used for airport safety projects related to runway approach lighting; aircraft deicing equipment; snow removal equipment; repair of damaged runways; rescue and firefighting equipment; and runway safety areas for aircraft that have trouble stopping after a landing. It is my understanding that AIP funds were used to construct an innovative ``arrestor bed'' at the end of a runway at New York's JFK Airport. A few months ago, that arrestor bed prevented a commuter plane from plunging into a bay. It was credited with saving lives on that flight. This bill will also extend the Aviation Insurance Program, which is commonly known as the War Risk Insurance Program. It provides insurance for commercial aircraft that are operating in high-risk areas, such as countries at war or on the verge of war. Commercial insurers will not usually provide coverage for such operations, which are often required to further U.S. foreign policy or national security objectives. For example, commercial airlines were needed to ferry troops and equipment to the Middle East for Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. If War Risk Insurance had not been available, our troops may not have been adequately supported. This extension will also give us more time to work on a more comprehensive aviation bill that is still desperately needed. We have been working hard to accommodate the concerns that many Senators have with respect to provisions in S. 82, the Air Transportation Improvement Act. I believe we can bring a bill to the floor that will require very little of the Senate's time. Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to support swift passage of this short-term extension of the AIP. If we fail to act, the FAA will not be able to address vital security and safety needs in every State in the Nation. We must reaffirm our commitment to providing the public with a safe and efficient air transportation system. This bill will help us meet that goal.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. That is why I asked for 5 minutes, so I can tell the Senator the nature of the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Not withdrawn, set aside.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it was made clear by the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Delaware that I will withdraw the amendment after speaking for 5 minutes on it, with the full understanding that there will be a vote on this at the proper time, as amendments are voted on probably tomorrow night.

Mr. McCAIN. I have 5 minutes. I want to use the 5 minutes to talk about it. The Senator from Delaware told me the time tomorrow will be taken up, so I asked to be given 5 minutes to talk tonight. In previous years, I have ended up in the position where at 2 a.m. I can speak for 1 minute and the other person can speak for 1 minute. At least now I have 5 minutes.

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

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.