John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we are seeking a UC, which I expect to get sometime relatively soon--at least I hope so. If not, we will have just had a good discussion. But I think we are fairly near to making sure that it is agreeable to all Senators. In the meantime, the Senator from Virginia is missing a very important hearing that concerns some China issues. I would like to have him recognized at this time since he has to leave the floor. The issue is a short-term extension of 60 days of the FAA authorization, with two amendments. We are awaiting approval from the other side of the aisle before we proceed. I yield the floor so that the Senator from Virginia can speak.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, finally, I look forward to bringing forward the complete reauthorization bill to the Senate as soon as possible for debate. It is very similar to the FAA reauthorization bill that passed the Senate last year by a vote of 92 to 1. I am confident we will be able to move it soon after the Easter/Passover recess. Mr. President, we are committed to getting this done. I will not reopen the debate with Senator Robb, as I mentioned. But it was a Federal law that caused a situation where, according to the Department of Transportation, the General Accounting Office, and every other outside organization in this Nation that has observed this situation, they all agree that in the present situation, where the perimeter rule is in place and the slot rule is in place, there is a decrease in competition and higher air fares. That is indisputable. That is indisputable: higher air fares, less competition. We have had a tremendous increase in complaints by people from all over the country about the air service in America today. Many of those complaints are a direct result of a lack of competition, because the one thing we know, no matter where a service is provided, in what area of the public sector, if there is not competition, there is a commensurate decrease of service. That happens to prevail whether it be selling hamburgers or whether it be department stores or whether it be public transportation or the cable industry or any other. And when we have the deplorable conditions which have provoked an outcry all over America, which has then motivated Senator Hollings, Senator Wyden and me, with almost unanimous agreement from the entire Commerce Committee, to introduce a bill called the Passengers Protection Act, then it is clear there is something badly wrong with the service that is provided in America today. You can trace it back to lack of competition. When you are the only game in town, you can give about whatever service you want to give. That is the case at National Airport, because there is no fear that there will be additional flights to compete with those that are flying out of National Airport. So I believe very strongly we need to lift this congressionally approved perimeter rule. I will say, without referring to anything that has happened in the past, it is more than coincidental that it happens to reach the western edge of the runway at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport. But I will not go into that debate and discussion at this time. 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 rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, to complete the unanimous-consent agreement, I ask consent that following the disposition of the amendment, that the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action or debate. I finally ask consent that following that vote, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 15, H.R. 99, and all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 643, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof, and the bill be read a third time and passed.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the vote take place at 4:15.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time, and I yield the remainder of Senator Hollings' time.

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I start out by extending my appreciation and praise to the Senator from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, who has done an incredible job on this legislation. He has, for years, advocated a capability of this Nation to defend itself against missile attack. Without his dedication and hard work we would not be here today. The Senator from Mississippi has performed a signal service, not only for the people of Mississippi but the people of this Nation, including all 50 States rather than just 48. I thank him for the marvelous job he has done. I also think it is worthy of note that the persuasiveness of his arguments have caused the administration to significantly shift their position on this very important issue. So, again, my congratulations to the Senator from Mississippi and my sincere appreciation. Mr. President, the question of whether to deploy defenses against ballistic missiles has been a contentious and unresolved issue for over 40 years. As a result, Americans today are vulnerable to destruction by a missile attack on our soil. The bill before us today, the National Missile Defense Act of 1999, resolves this national policy debate by calling for the deployment of an effective missile defense system when technologically possible to protect our citizens from the threat of a ballistic missile attack on the U.S. Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen announced in January that the Clinton Administration, after years of discounting the existence of a missile threat to the U.S., will now support and provide the necessary funding for development and deployment of a ballistic missile defense system. On the surface, this appears to be one of the President's more propitious policy reversals. Yet, the Clinton Administration threatened to veto this bill, which establishes in law the missile defense policy the Administration now claims to support. While I am pleased that the Administration has lifted its veto threat, I question the interpretation of the passage of yesterday's amendment that reportedly provided the basis for this latest reversal of position. The United States should proceed with deployment of a missile defense system irrespective of whether Russia agrees to reduce its nuclear force levels in accordance with the START II agreement. How many times do we have to point out that the requirement for missile defenses is predicated upon a much broader threat that the Administration apparently still doesn't fully comprehend. Mr. President, since its inauguration, the Clinton Administration has demonstrated an approach to national defense that can only be described as disengaged and minimalist. Administration officials have sought not to maximize our military strength within reasonable fiscal constraints, but to find ways to minimize defense spending at the expense of military capability and readiness, and in so doing, they have endangered our future security. Our late colleague and a man I greatly admired, Senator John Tower, stressed time and again that the size and composition of our Armed Forces, and thus the amount of our budgetary resources that are devoted to defense, must be determined by the level and nature of the threat. The Clinton Administration's long-standing opposition to missile defenses, as well as its continued refusal to provide adequate levels of defense spending, are the complete antithesis of Senator Tower's sound advice. Consequently, our nation is vulnerable right now to the threat of an accidental or unauthorized missile launch from Russia or China, and will be vulnerable to additional threats in the near future from North Korea and other rogue nations implacably hostile to America and governed by unpredictable leaders. Mr. President, one of the principal reasons for our country's vulnerability to ballistic missile attack is not lack of money or technology. It is the 1972 ABM Treaty. In the 1960s, at the height of the Cold War, then-Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara developed the theory of Mutual Assured Destruction as a means of deterring nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. This concept relied on the assumption that, so long as both the U.S. and the Soviet Union were confident of their ability to retaliate against each other with assurance of enormous destruction, nuclear war would be averted and there would be no incentive to build more offensive nuclear weapons. The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was an essential component of this ``balance of terror'' concept. It prohibits the deployment of effective defensive systems which were perceived as undermining the concept of mutually assured destruction. In effect, the ABM Treaty was designed to keep the citizenry of both the U.S. and the former Soviet Union equally vulnerable to destruction in a nuclear exchange. The ten years following ratification of the ABM Treaty, however, witnessed the greatest expansion of Soviet offensive strategic nuclear forces in history, destroying the basic premise of the MAD doctrine, and the ABM Treaty as well. Yet, the Treaty's proponents cling to it with an almost theological reverence. It was President Reagan who finally called into question the wisdom of continuing to deprive ourselves of missile defenses in the face of overwhelming evidence that the Soviet Union was pursuing the capability of launching a debilitating strike against the U.S. His March 1983 speech set the stage for the first serious discussion of defensive systems in over a decade. If his vision of a global system was technologically and financially unrealistic, his dream of protecting the American public from the threat of foreign missiles was prescient, and the Strategic Defense Initiative--the butt of many a joke by arms control theorists--was instrumental in bringing down the Soviet Union without firing a shot. Since work began in earnest in the Reagan Administration to develop missile defenses for our nation, the threat has changed. The end of the Cold War and the emergent threat of ballistic missile proliferation have fundamentally altered the approach this country must take to the issue of missile defenses. In fact, the imperative to deploy effective systems is greater now because of the unpredictability of the potential threats. Throughout the Bush Administration, as our overall defense strategy and budget were being adjusted to reflect the changes in the world, so too was our plan for ballistic missile defenses revised to address the changed threat. Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration has retained allegiance to the outmoded ABM Treaty and, over the years, has significantly cut the funding and restricted the objectives of the ballistic missile defense program. Remember, back in 1994, when the President evoked considerable laughter from his audience at a campaign rally when he said: Here's what they [the Republicans] promise . . . we're going to increase defense and we're going to bring back Star Wars. And then we're going to balance the budget. The Clinton Administration's attitude for the past six years has been to ridicule efforts to develop and deploy a system to effectively defend our nation against a ballistic missile strike. The result has been a significant and dangerous delay in ending the ``terror'' of a nuclear strike. Now, the President has belatedly agreed, at least rhetorically, to the agenda he formerly ridiculed. While I applaud the President's words, I remain more than mildly skeptical about his true commitment to protecting our nation from the clear threat of missile attack. The President's budget proposal, which was submitted to the Congress on February 1, proves skeptics correct. While the President was pledging more funding for development of a national missile defense system on one hand, his other hand was taking $250 million out of the program to pay for the Wye River Agreement. At the same time, the Administration decided to push back the deployment date for missile defenses from 2003 to 2005, with no justifiable reason for doing so. If the President is truly getting serious about missile defense, why would he show us the money, and then snatch it back and slip the deployment date two additional years beyond its already much-delayed timetable? Another indication of the Administration's disingenuous embrace of missile defenses are the qualifications attached to its support in two areas: questions about the nature of the threat, and continued deference to the restrictions of the ABM Treaty. No fewer than 30 times over the last several years, President Clinton has gone before the public and boasted that, thanks to his policies, the American people, for the first time since the dawn of the Cold War, can go to sleep at night without the threat of missiles targeted against their country. Clearly, the Administration has been existing in a virtual state of denial about the expanding and diverse threat of ballistic missiles. I urge the President to take another look at the report of the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, known as the Rumsfeld Commission. It is a completely nonpartisan and very sobering look at the threats we face. The Commission concluded that the threat is here now, and that traditional methods of determining the nature and scale of the threat need to be examined. The Rumsfeld Commission's meticulous examination of the growing threat to the U.S. of ballistic missiles, with its emphasis on the difficulties inherent in determining when serious threats will appear and the tendency of such threats to materialize sooner than anticipated, should have shaken the White House out of its fatuous complacency. Apparently, that is not the case. A recent article in Inside the Pentagon pointed out that, even after the Rumsfeld Commission report was released in July 1998, the Administration predicted the absence of a rogue nation threat, excepting North Korea, before 2010. And in a February 3 letter to the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the President's National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, wrote that, prior to a decision to deploy a national missile defense system, ``the President and his senior advisers will need to confirm whether the rogue state ballistic missile threat to the United States has developed as quickly as we now expect. . . .'' Apparently North Korea's launch last August of an intercontinental ballistic missile over Japan, Iran's ongoing efforts with Russian assistance to develop such a missile, and Iraq's continuing efforts in that regard do not constitute a threat. Equally disturbing is the Administration's view of the ABM Treaty. In his February 3 letter, Mr. Berger reiterated that ``the ABM Treaty remains a cornerstone of strategic stability''--a reminder that we are dealing with an Administration that is imbued with an unquestioned adherence to an outdated treaty. While I am mindful of arguments that deployment of national missile defenses may be perceived by some nations as a potentially hostile act, theories of nuclear deterrence that were of questionable value during the Cold War clearly do not apply today or in the foreseeable future and should not be permitted to stand in the way of going forward. If the Administration supports deployment of an effective national missile defense system, it cannot remain wedded to the ABM Treaty. Make no mistake, the ABM Treaty was intended to and does preclude our ability to deploy nation-wide missile defenses. Construction of a missile defense facility at the one treaty-permissible site cannot be expanded for national coverage without violating the terms of the treaty. While the original 1972 treaty permitted each country two sites, it stipulated that they had to be deployed so as to preclude even regional coverage. Deploying a national missile defense system, therefore, requires either unilateral abrogation of the ABM Treaty or an expeditiously negotiated revision of it. As the treaty clearly prohibits us from providing for the common defense--our most fundamental constitutional responsibility--I urge the Administration to proceed without delay to achieve the needed changes to the treaty, or move for its abrogation. Questionable in its utility even at the time it was negotiated, the ABM Treaty was signed with a totalitarian regime that no longer exists and which violated the treaty at every opportunity. Its day is past. If Russia will not agree to negotiate changes to the treaty that will permit deployment of national missile defenses, then we must exercise our authority to withdraw from the treaty to protect our national interests. Mr. President, let me take a moment to talk about the larger problem, of which the Administration's refusal to recognize the clear threat posed by proliferating ballistic missile development is but one aspect. I have long been critical of many aspects of the Clinton Administration's national security policies. This is an Administration that has never been comfortable with the conduct of foreign policy, and so has little grasp of the role of military force in guaranteeing our place in world affairs. Both our policies and the force structure needed to support them seem to be decided in this Administration on the basis of what we can afford after taking care of all other priorities, instead of what is necessary to protect our interests. We can honestly debate the merits of the numerous contingencies to which the Administration has deployed military force, but no one can deny that the combination of over 10 years of declining defense budgets and longer and more frequent force deployments has stretched the Services perilously close to the breaking point. What is at risk, without exaggeration, are the lives of our military personnel and the security of the United States. After years of denying the obvious, in the face of compelling testimony before Congress from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Administration has finally begun to concede that we have serious readiness problems in our Armed Forces. Those of us who have been criticized for sounding alarm bells about military readiness now have the empty satisfaction of seeing the Administration admit there is more to maintaining a strong defense than their history of falsely promising to do so. After six years of short-changing the Armed Forces, the President proposed adding money to the defense budget--another stunning policy reversal--for readiness, modernization, and even national missile defense. Once again, though, his rhetoric far exceeds his actions. Last fall, the President asked for $1 billion in immediate, emergency funding to redress readiness problems--a mere drop in the bucket compared to what the Service Chiefs said was required. Congress added another $8 billion, but then wasted most of that on pork-barrel spending. The result--a band-aid solution to a serious readiness crisis. The same minimal approach is reflected in the President's budget submission for Fiscal Year 2000. After promising a budget increase of $12.6 billion, the President only asked for $4.1 billion in his budget request, and most of that will be needed to pay for ongoing contingencies in Bosnia and southwest Asia and desperately needed military pay raises and benefits. The rest of the so-called increase comes from ``smoke and mirrors'', like anticipated lower inflation and fuel costs, cuts in previously funded programs, and an economically unsound incremental funding plan for military construction projects. And even if everything works as planned, the Administration budget short-changes the military next year and every year thereafter. There is a pattern here, Mr. President, of promising everything and delivering very little. Whether it's protecting our citizens from a ballistic missile attack, or maintaining modern, prepared armed forces, this President seems incapable of following through on his commitments. Mr. President, I am uncomfortable with a conclusion that the President does not care about the common defense. I must assume, instead, that he simply fails to understand the imperative of establishing policies and providing needed resources to protect our nation's interests and our citizens. The National Missile Defense Act of 1999 establishes a national policy that we must protect Americans from a clear and present danger-- the threat of ballistic missile attack. The President was correct to withdraw his veto threat and join with the Congress to put in place both the policy and the resources that will make our citizens safe. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, ``It was my duty.'' So did my friend and colleague Bob Kerrey recently respond to a question by CBS' Bob Schieffer, who had asked my friend why he did it--why he led his elite SEAL team up a 350-foot sheer cliff and then down into the waiting enemy's camp, suffering life-threatening injuries in the process but effectively commanding his team throughout their successful mission. For then-Lieutenant Kerrey, his duty was his honor, and his country's cause was his highest calling. That a young man from the plains of Nebraska showed ``conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty'' in Vietnam, as his Medal of Honor citation recalls, reminds us that exceptional heroism can spring from the humblest of roots. It was his duty, Bob says. Near the very beginning of the assault on the Viet Cong camp, a grenade exploded at his feet, injuring him terribly and threatening the success of the mission. In similar circumstances, many men, incapacitated and bleeding, might have given up. Not Bob. His sense of duty did not allow it. His sense of duty compelled him to fight on, despite the trauma of sustaining multiple injuries, including one that would take his leg, and despite the chaos of battle, which has undone other good men who have found themselves in less dire circumstances. Bob's courageous leadership won that battle on a Vietnamese island in Nha Trang Bay thirty years ago. ``I don't remember doing anything especially heroic,'' says the plain-spoken Nebraskan. Although I do not know the men Bob commanded on that fateful day, I do know that their testimonial to his selfless heroism ensured that history recorded my friend's sacrifice. That record, in the form of Bob's Medal of Honor citation, has surely inspired countless Americans in uniform over the past thirty years. As my colleagues know, it is with reverence and awe that uniformed service members and veterans speak of America's Medal of Honor recipients. They are, indeed, the heroes' heroes. I myself am privileged to have served in the United States Navy, as did my father and grandfather before me. They would tell you, as I do today, how honored we all should be to know a man like Bob Kerrey, a man whose fighting spirit earned him the nation's highest award for exceptional military service above and beyond the call of duty. I am deeply honored to serve in the Senate with Bob. Ironically, he would be the first to tell you that he felt little calling for public service when he came home from Vietnam. For he came home not only with a broken body, but with an understandable resentment about the war, and toward those politicians in Washington who conducted it. Bob's faith in our Nation and the values she embodies was reaffirmed by his military service. ``It's a great country that will fight for other people's freedom,'' he says. But his faith in his Government was shaken, as was that of many Americans, after the divisive experience of Vietnam. What restored Bob's faith in his Government? By his reckoning, it was the Philadelphia Naval Hospital where he spent months in surgery and therapy. As Bob has said, the fact that our Government would build and fund a hospital for people like him--anonymous people who had never contributed to a politician's campaign--and provide the medical care they needed, simply because they were wounded Americans, was inspirational. So were the medical staff and volunteers who helped heal his wounds. Faith renewed, Bob went on to become Governor of Nebraska and a U.S. Senator. His independent leadership on some of the toughest issues we face today, including Social Security, education, and tax reform, demonstrates that this man, who gave so much for his country in military service, makes an important contribution to America's governance in peacetime. In the words of Bob's Medal of Honor citation: Lt. (j.g.) Kerrey's courageous and inspiring leadership, valiant fighting spirit, and tenacious devotion to duty in the face of almost overwhelming opposition sustain and enhance the finest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service. That leadership and sense of duty continues to motivate his public service today. Bob's contribution to America's governance may grow. Although he will sit out next year's Presidential race, he may be a contender in the future. In the meantime, I am honored and privileged to work with him in the Senate. Thank you for your valued service, Bob. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for S. 280, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999, which would free all fifty states from many of the costly and burdensome federal regulations which are imposed on them by the federal government. These unnecessary regulations prevent their schools from providing innovative and effective academic opportunities for millions of young Americans. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this measure which would expand the current Ed-Flex program to all fifty states. 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. The most exciting aspect of this bill is that it brings teaching back to our classrooms and frees our schools from excessive filing, correlating, faxing and shuffling of paper. It would allow schools like Barbara Bush Elementary School in Mesa, Arizona to focus on helping children learn essentials like reading and using a computer. It would allow Barbara Bush Elementary School to focus on teaching its students rather than wasting its valuable educational resources for filing, typing, refiling, and faxing paper to the bureaucrats in Washington, DC. It is important to note that all states which obtain an Ed-Flex waiver must adhere to basic Federal principles, including the protection of civil rights, educational equity and academic accountability. Like many Americans, I have grave concerns about the current condition of our nation's education system. If a report card on our educational system were sent home today, it would be full of unsatisfactory and incomplete marks. In fact, it would be full of ``D's'' and ``F's.'' These abominable grades demonstrate our failure to meet the needs of our nation's students in kindergarten through twelfth grade. Our failure is clearly visible throughout the educational system. One prominent display of our nation's failure is seen in the results of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Over forty countries participated in the 1996 study which tested science and mathematical abilities of students in the fourth, eighth and twelfth grades. Tragically, our students scored lower than students in other countries. According to this study, our twelfth graders scored near the bottom, placing 19th out of 21 nations in math and 16th in science, while scoring at the absolute bottom in physics. Meanwhile, 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 in our children's academic performance in order to remain a viable force in the world economy. We can also see our failure when we look at the Federal Government's efforts to combat illiteracy. We spend over $8 billion a year on programs to eradicate illiteracy across the country. Yet, we have not seen any significant improvement in literacy in any segment of our population. Today, more than 40 million Americans cannot read a menu, instructions, medicine labels or a newspaper. And, tragically, four out of ten children in third grade cannot read. Another clear sign of our failure is displayed by the inadequate preparation of many students when they exit the system. The number of college freshmen 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 courses when they start college. Equally dismal is a Wall Street Journal report that two-thirds of job applicants for a division of the Ford Motor Company ``fail a test in which they are asked to add fractions.'' 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 am also disturbed by the disproportionate amount of federal education dollars which actually reach our students and schools. It is deplorable that the vast majority of federal education funds do not reach our school districts, schools and children. In 1995, the Department of Education spent $33 billion for education and only 13.1 percent of that reached the local education agencies. It is unacceptable that less than 13 percent of the funds directly reached the individuals schools and their students. My home state of Arizona receives approximately $420 million each year in federal education funding. These funds account for seven percent of Arizona's education budget, yet it takes almost half of the staff at the State Department of Education to administer the numerous rules and regulations which accompany the federal dollars. This means that half of the Arizona Department of Education staff is busy working on Federal paperwork rather than developing improved curriculum, helping teachers with professional development skills and working to improve the quality of education for Arizona children. This is a sad commentary on the current structure of our educational system. Much of the Federal Government's involvement in education is highly bureaucratic, overly regulatory, and actually impedes our children's learning. Clearly, we need to be more innovative in our approach to educating our children. We need to focus on providing parents, teachers, and local communities with the flexibility, freedom, and, yes, the financial support to address the unique educational needs of their children and the children in their communities. This is precisely what the Ed-Flex program does. It removes the obstacles for innovative, productive and successful educational initiatives in our classrooms and frees our schools from the choking grip of federal bureaucrats. Mr. President, it is absolutely crucial, as we debate this and other proposals to reform our educational system, that we not lose sight of the fact that our paramount goal must be to increase the academic knowledge and skills of our nation's students. Our children are our future, and if we neglect their educational needs, we threaten that future. I am gravely concerned that goal is sometimes lost in the very spirited and often emotional debate on education policies and responsibilities. Instead, this should be a debate about how best to ensure that young Americans will be able to compete globally in the future. I believe the key to academic excellence is broadening educational opportunities and providing families and communities both the responsibility and the resources to choose the best course for their students. Ed-Flex is an important step in our journey to improve our nation's education system and better prepare our children so that each of them has much more than their individual dreams of becoming an astronaut, fire fighter or pilot. The bill is an important step towards ensuring that our children not only dream but have the capacity to make their dreams a reality. This is what education is all about--providing an endless realm of possibilities through knowledge. But it is just the first of many steps which we need to make to ensure that the best interests of our children, our future are being realized. I look forward to working with my colleagues as we continue this journey towards a strong and successful educational system.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Morris King Udall, former United States Representative from Arizona, and extending the condolences of the Congress on his death. An anonymous poet wrote that, ``virtue is a man's monument.'' Undoubtedly, the wise poet had in mind a soul the likes of Morris King Udall, a man of monumental virtue. Mo Udall was an extraordinary human being who lived an extraordinary life. Of humble beginnings, the son of St. Johns, Arizona rose to become one of the most influential and beloved legislators in the history of our Republic. We are thankful for the gift of his company. We remember his brave journey. And we celebrate a remarkable life well-lived. For over 30 years, Mo Udall graced our national and political life with his sweet humility, gentle kindness and legendary wit. A man of keen vision and great heart, he exemplified all that is good and decent about public service. Mo Udall was what we all want our leaders to be. He was a powerful man who cared not about power for its own sake, but saw it as an opportunity--a sacred responsibility to do good as he saw it--to champion noble causes. His many important successes are written in the laws of our nation. His legacy endures in the halls of the Congress, with men and women whom he humbled and instructed with his example. It endures among Native Americans whose welfare and progress he made his great purpose. And, it endures in the American parks and wildlands he fought to protect with his vision and his guiding ethic of environmental stewardship. It is fitting that the easternmost point of the United States, in the Virgin Islands, and the westernmost point, in Guam are both named Udall Point. The sun will never set on the legacy of Mo Udall. Carl Albert, former speaker of the House, said that Mo had written one of the most remarkable legislative records of all time. And he was right. But Mo Udall will not be remembered simply for his prolific legislative achievements or the landmarks that bear his name. His most extraordinary monument is the virtue with which he lived his life and served his country. He fought the good fight in a touch arena, while remaining a man of unsurpassed integrity, boundless compassion and unfailing good humor. He knew glorious victories and bitter defeats, serene contentment and profound suffering. Through it all, he remained a humble man of uncommon decency whose example offers a stark contrast to the meanness, pettiness and pride that soil too much of our political culture. Mo was never known to be moved by flattery, puffed by tribute, or impressed by his own success. He knew that a man is only as great as the cause he serves--a cause that should be greater than himself. Now did we ever know Mo to be discouraged in defeat. Through injury, illness, disappointment and, from time to time, failure, he was a fighter. His humble perspective was as wise as it was delightful to observe. He leavened his wisdom with his legendary wit. Mo employed humor not simply to entertain, which he did like no other, but as a subtle and benevolent instrument to calm troubled waters, to instruct the unknowing, to humble the arrogant, and to inspire us all to be better and to do better. Most often he was the target of his own barbs. He loved to tell the story about his campaign visit to a local barbershop where he announced his run for the presidency, and, as Mo told it, the barber answered. ``We know. We were just laughing about that.'' Most certainly an apocryphal story, but typical of Mo to tell it on himself. Mo once said, ``the best political humor, however sharp or pointed, has a little love behind it. It's the spirit of the humor that counts * * * over the years it has served me when nothing else could.'' It has served us well too. While most remembrances of Mo focus on his grace, humor, and environmental leadership, perhaps understated is what he did for Native Americans. When very few cared enough. Mo Udall toiled in an often fruitless and thankless vineyard on Indian issues. Moved by their desperate poverty and duty bound to honor the dignity of the first Americans and the solemn commitments made to them, Mo took up their just cause. He didn't do it for praise or recognition, he did it because it was the right thing to do. That was all the motivation and thanks he needed, and it characterized so aptly the benevolence of his political life. How proud Mo must be that a new generation of Udalls have entered Congress. May their careers, like Mo's, light the way to more enlightened and civil public discourse. The Navajo say ``May you walk in beauty.'' All his days, Mo Udall walked in beauty and he shared his beauty generously with us all. He is gone now, and we will miss him. May we find cheer in the echoes of Mo Udall, the little boy from St. John's who became a giant, touching us one more time with those words we always loved to hear, ``I'm reminded of a story * * *.'' May each of us--may our country--forever find cheer, instruction and inspiration in his story. A story of monumental virtue. The remarkable story of Morris K. Udall. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 2 of Senate Rule XXVI, I ask to have printed in the Record the rules of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for the 106th Congress adopted by the committee on January 20, 1999. The Rules follow: Rules of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (Adopted by the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on January 20, 1999.) i. meetings of the committee 1. The regular meeting dates of the Committee shall be the first and third Tuesdays of each month. Additional meetings may be called by the Chairman as he may deem necessary or pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 3 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate. 2. Meetings of the Committee, or any subcommittee, including meetings to conduct hearings, shall be open to the public, except that a meeting or series of meetings by the Committee, or any subcommittee, on the same subject for a period of no more than 14 calendar days may be closed to the public on a motion made and seconded to go into closed session to discuss only whether the matters enumerated in subparagraphs (A) through (F) would require the meeting to be closed followed immediately by a record vote in open session by a majority of the members of the Committee, or any subcommittee, when it is determined that the matters to be discussed or the testimony to be taken at such meeting or meetings-- (A) will disclose matters necessary to be kept secret in the interests of national defense or the confidential conduct of the foreign relations of the United States; (B) will relate solely to matters of Committee staff personnel or internal staff management or procedure; (C) will tend to charge an individual with crime or misconduct, to disgrace or injure the professional standing of an individual, or otherwise to expose an individual to public contempt or obloquy, or will represent a clearly unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual; (D) will disclose the identity of any informer or law enforcement agent or will disclose any information relating to the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense that is required to be kept secret in the interests of effective law enforcement; (E) will disclose information relating to the trade secrets of financial or commercial information pertaining specifically to a given person if-- (1) an Act of Congress requires the information to be kept confidential by Government officers and employees; or (2) the information has been obtained by the Government on a confidential basis, other than through an application by such person for a specific Government financial or other benefit, and is required to be kept secret in order to prevent undue injury to the competitive position of such person; or (F) may divulge matters required to be kept confidential under other provisions of law or Government regulations. 3. Each witness who is to appear before the Committee or any subcommittee shall file with the Committee, at least 24 hours in advance of the hearing, a written statement of his testimony in as many copies as the Chairman of the Committee or Subcommittee prescribes. 4. Field hearings of the full Committee, and any subcommittee thereof, shall be scheduled only when authorized by the Chairman and ranking minority member of the full Committee. ii. quorums 1. Eleven members shall constitute a quorum for official action of the Committee when reporting a bill, resolution or nomination. Proxies shall not be counted in making a quorum. 2. Seven members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of all business as may be considered by the Committee, except for the reporting of a bill, resolution or nomination. Proxies shall not be counted in making a quorum. 3. For the purpose of taking sworn testimony a quorum of the Committee and each subcommittee thereof, now or hereafter appointed, shall consist of one Senator. iii. proxies When a record vote is taken in the Committee on any bill, resolution, amendment, or any other question, a majority of the members being present, a member who is unable to attend the meeting may submit his vote by proxy, in writing or by telephone, or through personal instructions. iv. broadcasting of hearings Public hearings of the full Committee, or any subcommittee thereof, shall be televised or broadcast only when authorized by the Chairman and the ranking minority member of the full Committee. v. subcommittees 1. Any member of the Committee may sit with any subcommittee during its hearings or any other meeting but shall not have the authority to vote on any matter before the subcommittee unless he is a Member of such subcommittee. 2. Subcommittees shall be considered de novo whenever there is a change in the chairmanship, and seniority on the particular subcommittee shall not necessarily apply. vi. consideration of bills and resolutions It shall not be in order during a meeting of the Committee to move to proceed to the consideration of any bill or resolution unless the bill or resolution has been filed with the Clerk of the Committee not less than 48 hours in advance of the Committee meeting, in as many copies as the Chairman of the Committee prescribes. This rule may be waived with the concurrence of the Chairman and the Ranking Member.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation with my dear friend Senator John Kerry which would protect every American's fundamental right to vote. Our bill, ``Improving Accessibility to Voting for Disabled and Elderly Americans'' will ensure that every citizen who wants to vote will be able to vote despite physical disabilities. The McCain-Kerry bill would strengthen and redefined the existing law, ``Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped.'' As many of my colleagues know, Congress implemented this law in 1984 in an attempt to ensure that all Americans has access to voter registration and polling places. At the time this was quite a progressive initiative since it was 15 years prior to the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act which as since helped opened the door for millions of disabled Americans in many aspects of their lives. As a Member of the House of Representatives, I proudly supported the original 1984 law and was confident that it would eliminate the barriers facing millions of disabled and elderly citizens when they exercise their basic right to vote. Unfortunately, it did not. While it was a step in the right direction it has not completely eradicated inaccessible polling facilities. According to the most recent Federal Election Commission report, which relies on self-reporting by local election officials during the 1992 election, there were at least 19,500 inaccessible polling places. This is not including 9,500 polling places which did not file reports. And since this information is based on self-reporting I am afraid that the actual number of inaccessible polling places may be much higher. It is deplorable that millions of disabled and elderly voters are not voting because they are faced with too many obstacles, including inaccessible polling places and ballots which are not accessible to blind or visually impaired voters. I find it particularly disconcerning that many of our nation's disabled veterans, the very men and women who have sacrificed so much for our country, are unable to cast their vote because of polling facilities which are not accessible. This is simply wrong. The right to vote is the heat and soul of our democracy, and we must work together to eliminate barriers preventing millions from participating in our democracy. As America works together for our journey into the new millennium we must ensure that our Democracy continues to include everyone and address the unique needs of each citizen. I am concerned about voter turnout in the last election cycle, 1998 was the lowest since 1942-- only 36 percent of eligible voters participated. It is difficult to have representation of the people by the people if the majority of people are not participating. I find this lack of participation quite disturbing, particularly as our Nation prepares to enter the next century facing a multitude of important issues. What is even more disturbing is the number of citizens who wanted to participate in our election process but were unable to because of inaccessible polling facilities. This is why I am committed to working with Senator Kerry to get this bill passed so that every citizen, particularly the men and women who pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to preserve and protect our Nation, can participate in the voting process. I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will work with us to enact this important piece of legislation this year so that all Americans can exercise their right to vote with dignity and respect. This legislation is supported by the Paralyzed Veterans of America, American Foundation for the Blind, New Hampshire Disabilities Rights Center, New Hampshire Developmental Disabilities Council, Granite State Independent Living Foundation, and National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems. I would like to thank each of them for their commitment to protecting the rights of disabled and elderly Americans. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record. There being no objection the test of the bill was to be printed in

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I introduce the Urban Homestead act, a bill designed to reform the way in which the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) disposes of unoccupied and substandard housing stock. In summary, the Urban Homestead Act would require HUD, every six months, to publish in the National Register a complete listing of all single, and multi-family housing stock that has been in the Department's inventory for at least six months. Further, HUD is required to publish a complete listing of all substandard housing stock in the same manner. Locally based community development corporations would then be allowed to petition HUD for possession of these properties. HUD would be required to transfer the properties to the CDC free of cost. There are few more obnoxious examples of government inefficiency and ineffectiveness than that of HUD's inability to address the housing needs of low-income families. HUD is notorious for its bloated bureaucracy and malfeasance in administering our nations public housing assistance programs. Nowhere is this ineptitude more glaringly obvious than in HUD's disposition of housing stock. In our nation's inner cities, there are thousands of quiet heroes, struggling against and conquering near-insurmountable obstacles in efforts to revitalize their communities. They are winning the battle one house, one street, one neighborhood at a time. These organizations are as unique as the communities and neighborhoods in which they work their magic. It is their ability to adapt to the local demands of their neighborhoods which is the key to their success. However, one challenge which is the same, regardless of what community they are operating in, is the vacant house. These abandoned houses play host to all types of criminal activity. They are crack houses, centers of gang activities, and prostitution. You name it. The abandoned house has become a symbol of urban blight. I ask my colleagues, who do you think is to blame for this outrage? A slum lord, or an absentee owner, perhaps a greedy land speculator? In some instances, this may be the case. But a principal culprit responsible for kneecapping the efforts of these neighborhood heroes is non-other-than the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Many of these homes are the product of FHA foreclosures. They are the product of lax lending habits and pathetic administration of the HUD property disposition program. Well, Mr. President, it is my intention to put HUD out of the slumlord business. The legislation I introduce today sends a very simple message to HUD. They have six months to get a property on the market and sold. If they fail to get the job done, they're going to have to turn the property over to a CDC and they'll get the job done for them. By channeling these properties into the hands of CDCs providing home ownership opportunities to low-income families, we will be accomplishing several important objectives. First, we will be placing a valuable resource into the hands of not-for-profits who may otherwise lack the capital resources to purchase the housing stock. Secondly, we get the property back in circulation. In doing so, it ceases to be a center for criminal activity and a symbol of blight. Finally, and most important, these organizations will use this housing stock to do what HUD has failed to accomplish. They will provide low-income families a piece of the American dream--a chance at home ownership. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I introduce the Urban Homestead act, a bill designed to reform the way in which the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) disposes of unoccupied and substandard housing stock. In summary, the Urban Homestead Act would require HUD, every six months, to publish in the National Register a complete listing of all single, and multi-family housing stock that has been in the Department's inventory for at least six months. Further, HUD is required to publish a complete listing of all substandard housing stock in the same manner. Locally based community development corporations would then be allowed to petition HUD for possession of these properties. HUD would be required to transfer the properties to the CDC free of cost. There are few more obnoxious examples of government inefficiency and ineffectiveness than that of HUD's inability to address the housing needs of low-income families. HUD is notorious for its bloated bureaucracy and malfeasance in administering our nations public housing assistance programs. Nowhere is this ineptitude more glaringly obvious than in HUD's disposition of housing stock. In our nation's inner cities, there are thousands of quiet heroes, struggling against and conquering near-insurmountable obstacles in efforts to revitalize their communities. They are winning the battle one house, one street, one neighborhood at a time. These organizations are as unique as the communities and neighborhoods in which they work their magic. It is their ability to adapt to the local demands of their neighborhoods which is the key to their success. However, one challenge which is the same, regardless of what community they are operating in, is the vacant house. These abandoned houses play host to all types of criminal activity. They are crack houses, centers of gang activities, and prostitution. You name it. The abandoned house has become a symbol of urban blight. I ask my colleagues, who do you think is to blame for this outrage? A slum lord, or an absentee owner, perhaps a greedy land speculator? In some instances, this may be the case. But a principal culprit responsible for kneecapping the efforts of these neighborhood heroes is non-other-than the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Many of these homes are the product of FHA foreclosures. They are the product of lax lending habits and pathetic administration of the HUD property disposition program. Well, Mr. President, it is my intention to put HUD out of the slumlord business. The legislation I introduce today sends a very simple message to HUD. They have six months to get a property on the market and sold. If they fail to get the job done, they're going to have to turn the property over to a CDC and they'll get the job done for them. By channeling these properties into the hands of CDCs providing home ownership opportunities to low-income families, we will be accomplishing several important objectives. First, we will be placing a valuable resource into the hands of not-for-profits who may otherwise lack the capital resources to purchase the housing stock. Secondly, we get the property back in circulation. In doing so, it ceases to be a center for criminal activity and a symbol of blight. Finally, and most important, these organizations will use this housing stock to do what HUD has failed to accomplish. They will provide low-income families a piece of the American dream--a chance at home ownership. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the chairman.

Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield, I do want to help him in getting these amendments narrowed down. It is time, I tell all my colleagues, to move forward.

Mr. McCAIN. I have not had a chance to examine it, but I would like to do it.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of S. 4, the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights. Since Desert Storm I have been extremely concerned that our military has been losing the cutting edge and their ability to respond to crises or to maintain our superiority throughout the world. We have all watched as our Armed Forces became increasingly unable to retain their most qualified warfighters, fell short of their recruiting goals, and suffered severe morale problems across mission areas of each service. We heard repeatedly from the Department of Defense that they ``could do more with less'', until last September when the service chiefs came to us and confessed a very bleak picture indeed. Even as our military has been downsized to a more streamlined force, the Administration has deployed our servicemembers more and more into harm's way. With 6,700 troops still in Bosnia, two years after the original deadline for their withdrawal, we are preparing the ground for the deployment of 4,000 additional soldiers and Marines into Kosovo. And make no mistake, Kosovo is a considerably more complicated situation than existed in Bosnia. The United States does not support the Kosovar Albanian goal of independence, and so recognizes the right of Serbia to maintain control of its territory. At the same time, the brutality and utter ruthlessness with which President Milosevic has and continues to prosecute his campaign against the Albanian population of Kosovo demands the international community take steps to compel a termination of his actions. Slobodan Milosevic represents the personification of a kind of tyranny we had hoped we had seen the last of with the death of Stalin, yet which continues to appear in places like Uganda, Cambodia, and, in the 1990s, Yugoslavia. He must be curtailed through forceful persuasion, not only because objective morality dictates we do so, but because the Kosovar Albanians deserve to know that the more recalcitrant party to the talks and the overwhelmingly greater threat to human rights will be held accountable for his actions. Toward that end, the President has made a commitment to dispatch U.S. forces to Kosovo. It is with great reluctance that I will not oppose that deployment, as the risks to U.S. national interests should the fighting in Kosovo spread beyond its confines could be substantial, involving our Greek and Turkish allies and other countries threatened with internal dissension. But my support is qualified upon a series of measures that have yet to emerge as part of the Clinton Administration's overall approach to foreign policy and the role of force in support of that policy. Prior to the deployment, there must be a clearly established set of criteria for determining the nature and duration of the operation. There should be an exit strategy for how to withdraw those forces upon the completion of a mission understood by our military commanders in the field as well as by the American public here at home, or to extract them should fighting on the scale of that witnessed over the past year resume. Under no circumstances should U.S. forces be sent into Kosovo without clearly articulated rules of engagement. Peacekeeping missions are fraught with uncertainties regarding the identity of combatants within civilian populations. Our military personnel must know that they have authority to respond to threats with the requisite degree of force, and without having to go through the kind of bureaucratic and political nightmare that characterized the war in neighboring Bosnia-Herzegovina. There must be no dual-key arrangement. If this is a NATO operation, then NATO alone should dictate when force is used to compel the parties to comply with their obligations. Neither the so-called Contact Group nor the United Nations should be permitted to insert itself into operational aspects of the mission. If these conditions are met, up front, then I will support the deployment, albeit reluctantly. And, finally, the Administration should take one other step it has been historically reluctant to take: it should indicate how it intends to pay for the operation. It should not, as it has done in the past, provide vague references to future supplemental appropriations bills and then draw the funds from existing, dedicated accounts. It should, even before the deployment begins, work with Congress to provide the requisite funds without depleting operations and maintenance and missile defense accounts. Skepticism, in this regard, is warranted. A historically high rate of deployments combined with a major reduction in overall force structure has caused readiness problems in the military that threaten our ability to respond to future contingencies in which vital interests are at stake. The Administration ignored this problem for six years, and its fiscal year 2000 budget submission is excessively replete with budget gimmickry that makes me question its commitment to correct near and long-term readiness problems. Before I leave the issue of Kosovo, let me just state that the events that just took place in France are certainly not the United States' finest hour in diplomacy. The President of the United States said that if two--not one but two--deadlines were reached that the United States would act militarily. They allowed those to pass. Somehow now a period of 3 weeks is supposed to take place while Kosovar Albanians consult with one another to decide whether or not they will abide by certain provisions of a proposed, as yet unseen peace agreement. Mr. President, the United States squandered a lot of credibility during this period of time, and there were a broad variety of reasons why that happened, including allowing the conduct of these negotiations to be supervised by others rather than the United States. But fundamentally there was a misunderstanding of the problem--a misunderstanding of the motivation of the participants, and very frankly there has been a commensurate erosion of U.S. credibility during this entire series of negotiations. I do not know how it is going to come out, but I think the prospects of further bloodletting have been increased as a result of these negotiations rather than the stated goal of them being decreased. It is the growth of those problems that brings us to where we are today; that bring us to consideration of the legislation before the Senate. Mr. President, this bipartisan bill contains a package of benefits for the Armed Forces that would go a very long way to fixing the readiness problems facing all the services. It combines overall pay increases with retirement incentives, exciting new savings plans, and educational benefits. It addresses the issue of service members on food stamps. It is focused and balanced, and directly answers the most pressing needs as stated by the service chiefs and service secretaries. Military pay, by almost all accounts, has fallen considerably behind civilian pay. Arguments can be made as to the precise pay differential, and at which pay grades and mission ares it is greatest, but there is no credible argument as to whether we need to address the pay gap. This is accomplished by the bill's proposed pay raise of 4.8 percent next year and raises based on the employment cost index plus half a percent thereafter. The tables that define military base pays for all ranks are archaic and badly in need of reform. Middle leadership positions for both enlisted and officers have to be rewarding. Few service members actually see themselves becoming the Master Sergeant of the Army or the Chief of Naval Operations. Many, however, do aspire to the rank of Army Lieutenant Colonel or Navy Senior Chief. Our legislation proposes a sweeping reform of the pay tables, rewarding service and promotion without over-compensating very senior officers. The reduced retirement plan implemented in 1986, known as Redux, is a major morale issue with service members. Although no one has retired under this plan, it is a constant reminder that military service is under-appreciated. Even if a service member is not affected by this plan, it is a morale issue because many of his peers and subordinates are. Repealing REDUX across the board is expensive, which is why our legislation gives the service member the choice of switching to the pre-REDUX plan or remaining with REDUX and taking a $30,000 bonus, which can in turn be rolled tax-free into the thrift savings plan. Many service members would choose this alternative in response to the needs of their family in the near term. Our bill also offers service members an opportunity to save for their future. The new thrift savings plan established in this bill allows members to put aside up to 5 percent of their pay and all special bonuses, tax free, in a plan that does require them to serve a full career of 20 years to earn that ``nest egg''. Each service is given the discretion of matching these funds up to the full 5 percent. The legislation also increases the monthly educational benefit of the GI Bill, allows lump sum payments up-front for school tuition, and cancels the servicemember's obligation to contribute the $1200 required to receive full benefits. Most importantly, it allows the transfer of these benefits to immediate family members, a proposal that will be welcomed with open arms by servicemembers struggling to put children through college. Lastly, S. 4 includes a provision for a special subsistence allowance that will take almost 10,000 service members off food stamps. This benefit will help the most junior and most needy of our hard-working enlisted troops. It will remove the stigma of food stamps from the military family and it will do so fairly, without aggravating pay discrepancies, and in an honorable manner. Mr. President, much has been said about this bill that is flat wrong. S. 4, as reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee, is not significantly more expensive than the Administration's proposal, and, in fact, may well be cheaper depending on the number of service members who choose to remain on the reduced retirement plan and take the $30,000 bonus. Seemingly subtle differences between S. 4 and the Administration's proposal are not lost on our bright young fighting men and women. S. 4 offers half a percent higher pay raise next year, no cost-of-living allowance caps, the opportunity for individual thrift svings plans, exciting educational benefits, and a special subsistence allowance that will help those most needy junior military families who today must use food stamps to make ends meet. I must admit that I have great concern about the potential for ``Christmas tree'' amendments on this bill that inflate its costs well beyond what has been requested by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and what is clearly necessary to restore morals and personnel readiness. However, I am hopeful that any excessive or irrelevant provisions added during floor debate will be fairly addressed in confrerence with the House. Mr. President, our bill will have profound and immediate positive effects on morale and retention. In fact, I have heard from several service members over the last month who are deferring their decision to leave their service based on what we do here in Congress. They will not wait forever. Mr. President our military personnel need and deserve our immediate attention on this critical issue. These are the men and women who defend our nation day and night, 365 days a year, at home and overseas. They need our support and our appreciation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to work for a streamlined process that will expeditiously take the benefits of S. 4 to our fighting men and women. I especially thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Warner, who decided last year that this had to be our highest priority. He is keenly aware of the problems of morale and retention that affect our men and women in the military, which was so graphically demonstrated last year when the Joint Chiefs came over. Have no doubt, have no doubt, that the men and women in the military are watching what we do. I have already heard, as others have heard, this may be delayed; that the administration wants to delay it; some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want it delayed; some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle are saying it is too expensive; we should not move forward with it. Mr. President, what is more outrageous than having 11,000 enlisted families whom we are asking to defend this Nation existing on food stamps? That is an outrage and an insult to all of us as Americans. Don't we care enough about these young men and women that we are willing to do what we can to get them off food stamps, and do it quickly? Aren't we aware that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff came over and testified before the Armed Services Committee and said the reason we are not keeping these good men and women, the No. 1 reason, is because of the retirement system? I read editorials in the Washington Post--I think the chairman said there are two--that this is a bad idea; it affects the retirement system. What in the world does the Washington Post know? I challenge the editorial writer of the Washington Post to go out to any of these ships, any of these Army units, any Marine or Air Force base, and ask them why they are not staying in; ask them why their morale is at a low that we have not seen since the 1970s; ask them why their subordinates and their peers are not remaining in the military. They will tell the editorial writers and the skeptics who oppose this legislation, just as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did last September, that is the No. 1 issue. You can run all the computer studies, you can run all these numbers you want, you can say this doesn't really matter, but, Mr. President, it does matter to them. It does matter to them. Ask any of them. And that is what we are trying to face here. Yes, I want to join my friend, the chairman, in my concern about so much being added to this bill. A lot of these are very good things that are being added with these amendments, and I am sure they will play well with certain constituencies. But I want to tell my colleagues, I have every confidence that when we go to conference we are going to strip a lot out of this, because we cannot have this thing overloaded to the point where it falls of its own weight. The priorities we have are restoring the morale and retaining the men and women in the military. I would argue that almost any amendment on this bill which does not directly apply to that objective perhaps should be taken up another day, in the normal course of the authorization bill which we will probably bring to the floor sometime this coming summer. In the meantime, we cannot wait. We cannot wait. I received a letter yesterday from a naval officer who said: If this legislation is passed, then I and many of my colleagues will not make the decision that many of us had already made, and that is to leave the military. This is an important issue. We are about to send our young men and women into harm's way again in Kosovo, whether the majority of my colleagues happen to agree with that decision or not. Are we supposed to send them immediately into harm's way and tell them, well, we will have to wait on this issue of giving you a decent pay and allowance and a decent retirement system, at least in your view that is badly needed, or are we going to address those problems immediately? I won't go into it further, but there are times when I am reminded of the old Kipling poem about, ``It's Tommy this, an' Tommy that,'' but when the drums begin to roll, it is, ``Mr. Thompson, if you please.'' I urge my colleagues to allow us to move forward as rapidly as possible with this legislation. Let's narrow down the amendments. Let's move forward with this, with the assurance to all of our colleagues that many of their worthy amendments should be addressed in a proper process. I thank the chairman, Senator Warner, again, along with Senator Levin, but especially Senator Warner whose experience and knowledge of men and women in the service is unequaled by any in this body, including his dedicated service to our Nation in the military, albeit it was in the Spanish-American War. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. It was my understanding that Senator Coverdell would like to do that.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Coverdell's sense-of-the-Senate amendment to S. 4, the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights expressing support for legislation to provide a two-month interest- and penalty-free extension to file Federal taxes for U.S. military personnel who are on duty abroad. I recently supported this concept as an original cosponsor of S. 308, the Uniformed Services Filing Fairness Act, which provided a two-month interest- and penalty-free extension to file Federal taxes for U.S. military personnel who are on duty abroad. This simple fix to an isolated section of our overly complex tax code is very straightforward and would only cost $2 million over 5 years. Current Treasury regulations allow military personnel to file Federal tax forms on June 15 rather than April 15. However, filers who elect to use this exception are still subject to interest and penalties during that two-month grace period. S. 308 codifies the existing Treasury regulations and adds a waiver of the interest and penalties that could be charged during the two- month grace period against military personnel who elect to take the filing exception. Military personnel serving their country overseas are often isolated from the resources necessary to prepare their tax returns. The Internal Revenue Service and the Department of the Treasury recognized this reality and provided our Nation's military personnel with a much-needed two-month grace period to file their taxes. However, it is inconsistent to grant a grace period for filers, and then penalize those who take it. These brave men and women have not committed any wrongdoing; all they are doing is serving their country. Travel to remove regions is inherent to military service. In 1998 alone, the United States had approximately 37,000 men and women deployed to the Persian Gulf region, preparing to go into combat, if so ordered. There were also 8,000 American troops deployed in Bosnia, and another 70,000 U.S. military personnel deployed in support of other commitments worldwide. That is a total of 108,000 women and men deployed outside of the United States, away from their primary home, protecting and furthering the freedoms we Americans hold so dear. We cannot afford to discourage military service by penalizing military personnel with interest and penalties merely because the unique characteristics of their job makes it difficult to file their taxes on time. Military service entails sacrifice, such as long periods of time away from friends and family and the constant threat of mobilization into hostile territory. We must not use the tax code to heap additional burdens upon our women and men in uniform. S. 308 will restore equity and consistency to this tax provision, and, at the same time, provide a small measure of tax relief to our men and women in the military. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Coverdell, and myself to support this much-needed sense of the Senate amendment to S. 4, and to work to enact S. 308.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senior Senator from Washington state, Slade Gorton, and I have committed to working on legislation to address liability issues arising out of Y2K problems. To this end, I introduced S. 96. As Senator Gorton and I agreed before the bill was filed, we have been listening to concerns and views of the varied constituencies interested in limiting wasteful litigation and encouraging prevention and timely remediation of Y2K problems. I am very pleased that today we are offering into the record a revised working draft for additional input and discussion.

Mr. McCAIN. I intend to mark up Y2K liability legislation in the Commerce Committee next week so that it can be considered by the full Senate as soon as possible. If the bill is to serve the needs for which it is designed, it must be passed expeditiously. We cannot have the intended effect of encouraging businesses to be proactive in preventing Y2K failures if we delay action on this bill until later in the session. This bill addresses an immediate need, and the Senate must act on it accordingly. I ask unanimous consent that the draft measure be printed in the Congressional Record.