John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the Veterans' Equal Access to Medicare Act, which would authorize a demonstration of Medicare subvention within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. Many of us supported similar legislation sponsored by Senator Jeffords and incorporated into the Senate version of the 1997 Budget Resolution. Unfortunately, this measure was removed by the conferees to the bill and did not become law. In the 105th Congress, separate legislation authorizing a test of Medicare subvention for veterans passed the House of Representatives but stalled in the Senate. The intervening period has only made more apparent the benefits of allowing Medicare-eligible veterans to use their Medicare entitlement for care at local VA medical facilities. The Veterans' Equal Access to Medicare Act would establish a three- year demonstration project at up to 10 sites around the country, including a site near a military medical facility closed under the Base Realignment and Closure process and a site in an area where the target population is predominantly rural. The VA would bill Medicare for Medicare-covered services provided to eligible veterans at these sites. Veterans' participation would be voluntary, and participants would make the same Medicare co-payments to the VA as at non-VA facilities. The legislation also contains important safeguards. The VA's Inspector General must certify the accounting and managerial capabilities of participating facilities; the VA must maintain its current level of effort to prevent cost shifting from the VA to the Medicare Trust Fund; the Comptroller General must audit the demonstration project annually to ensure that the Medicare Trust Fund does not incur any additional costs; and Medicare payments to the VA must be capped at $50 million annually. After three years, the Secretaries of Health and Human Services and Veterans Affairs would be required to submit recommendations to Congress on whether to extend or expand the project. By permitting the VA to collect and retain Medicare payments for health care provided to eligible veterans, our legislation would demonstrate subvention's ability to enhance access to the VA medical system for veterans and channel critical non-appropriated funding into the VA network without raising costs to the Medicare Trust Fund. But don't take my word for it. The Fiscal Year 2000 Independent Budget jointly proposed by AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars summarizes the virtues of VA Medicare subvention as follows: Medicare subvention will benefit veterans, taxpayers, and ultimately VA. It would give veterans who currently do not have access to VA health care the option of choosing the VA system. VA believes it can deliver care to Medicare beneficiaries at a discounted rate, which would save money for the Medicare Trust Fund and stretch taxpayer dollars. In other words, this is win-win legislation for all concerned parties. Veterans receive better access to quality health care; the VA benefits from an inflow of non-appropriated funding; and VA provides more efficient care than other Medicare providers, saving scarce resources in this era of balanced budgets. Military retirees, but not veterans, currently qualify for an ongoing Medicare subvention demonstration project authorized by Congress in 1997. In 1996, I had introduced legislation to authorize Medicare reimbursement to the Department of Defense for care provided to Medicare-eligible retirees and their families. Although the Senate included this provision in its version of the Fiscal Year 1997 Defense Appropriations bill, it was dropped in conference with the House. A year later, I supported the current Medicare subvention demonstration project for military retirees, which was included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. It is my hope that this project will demonstrate the potential for Medicare subvention to defray the escalating costs of the Military Health Service System, slow the depletion of the Medicare Trust Fund, and provide a more generous benefit to retired service members seeking the quality health care our government promised them. I do not need to remind my colleagues that we also promised medical benefits to veterans who served for fewer than 20 years and are not entitled to retirement benefits. That the Department of Veterans Affairs manages the largest health care network in the United States is testament to our continuing effort to make good on that promise. But the quantity of health care providers for veterans is not at issue today; rather, the quality of care is among the most pressing items on the agenda of America's veterans and their advocates. The veterans from whom I am honored to hear on my travels across the United States and in my Senate office frequently remind me that the VA health care system does not always offer them the quality of care they have clearly earned. Authorizing a test of Medicare subvention for veterans would hopefully demonstrate its ability to improve veterans' access to VA facilities and enhance the quality of service there. For this reason, the Department of Veterans Affairs supports a Medicare subvention demonstration. So do the major veterans' service organizations whose membership comprises the very individuals who would be affected by this legislation. I would also note that a majority of both houses of the 105th Congress voted in favor of legislation to authorize a Medicare subvention demonstration for veterans, even though the specific terms of that legislation differed somewhat. Mr. President, I wish to conclude my remarks by once again drawing from the wisdom of the veterans' service organizations' Independent Budget, which warns that Medicare subvention funding must be a supplement to, not a substitute for, an adequate VA appropriation. Veterans' care and benefits have been underfunded for years. Implementing a test of Medicare subvention for veterans is but one step in what must be a concerted campaign to honor the promises made to all who have answered their country's call through their military service. Let no one forget the sacrifices made by every veteran to secure our liberty in what has been, and remains, a very dangerous world.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the Veterans' Equal Access to Medicare Act, which would authorize a demonstration of Medicare subvention within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. Many of us supported similar legislation sponsored by Senator Jeffords and incorporated into the Senate version of the 1997 Budget Resolution. Unfortunately, this measure was removed by the conferees to the bill and did not become law. In the 105th Congress, separate legislation authorizing a test of Medicare subvention for veterans passed the House of Representatives but stalled in the Senate. The intervening period has only made more apparent the benefits of allowing Medicare-eligible veterans to use their Medicare entitlement for care at local VA medical facilities. The Veterans' Equal Access to Medicare Act would establish a three- year demonstration project at up to 10 sites around the country, including a site near a military medical facility closed under the Base Realignment and Closure process and a site in an area where the target population is predominantly rural. The VA would bill Medicare for Medicare-covered services provided to eligible veterans at these sites. Veterans' participation would be voluntary, and participants would make the same Medicare co-payments to the VA as at non-VA facilities. The legislation also contains important safeguards. The VA's Inspector General must certify the accounting and managerial capabilities of participating facilities; the VA must maintain its current level of effort to prevent cost shifting from the VA to the Medicare Trust Fund; the Comptroller General must audit the demonstration project annually to ensure that the Medicare Trust Fund does not incur any additional costs; and Medicare payments to the VA must be capped at $50 million annually. After three years, the Secretaries of Health and Human Services and Veterans Affairs would be required to submit recommendations to Congress on whether to extend or expand the project. By permitting the VA to collect and retain Medicare payments for health care provided to eligible veterans, our legislation would demonstrate subvention's ability to enhance access to the VA medical system for veterans and channel critical non-appropriated funding into the VA network without raising costs to the Medicare Trust Fund. But don't take my word for it. The Fiscal Year 2000 Independent Budget jointly proposed by AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars summarizes the virtues of VA Medicare subvention as follows: Medicare subvention will benefit veterans, taxpayers, and ultimately VA. It would give veterans who currently do not have access to VA health care the option of choosing the VA system. VA believes it can deliver care to Medicare beneficiaries at a discounted rate, which would save money for the Medicare Trust Fund and stretch taxpayer dollars. In other words, this is win-win legislation for all concerned parties. Veterans receive better access to quality health care; the VA benefits from an inflow of non-appropriated funding; and VA provides more efficient care than other Medicare providers, saving scarce resources in this era of balanced budgets. Military retirees, but not veterans, currently qualify for an ongoing Medicare subvention demonstration project authorized by Congress in 1997. In 1996, I had introduced legislation to authorize Medicare reimbursement to the Department of Defense for care provided to Medicare-eligible retirees and their families. Although the Senate included this provision in its version of the Fiscal Year 1997 Defense Appropriations bill, it was dropped in conference with the House. A year later, I supported the current Medicare subvention demonstration project for military retirees, which was included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. It is my hope that this project will demonstrate the potential for Medicare subvention to defray the escalating costs of the Military Health Service System, slow the depletion of the Medicare Trust Fund, and provide a more generous benefit to retired service members seeking the quality health care our government promised them. I do not need to remind my colleagues that we also promised medical benefits to veterans who served for fewer than 20 years and are not entitled to retirement benefits. That the Department of Veterans Affairs manages the largest health care network in the United States is testament to our continuing effort to make good on that promise. But the quantity of health care providers for veterans is not at issue today; rather, the quality of care is among the most pressing items on the agenda of America's veterans and their advocates. The veterans from whom I am honored to hear on my travels across the United States and in my Senate office frequently remind me that the VA health care system does not always offer them the quality of care they have clearly earned. Authorizing a test of Medicare subvention for veterans would hopefully demonstrate its ability to improve veterans' access to VA facilities and enhance the quality of service there. For this reason, the Department of Veterans Affairs supports a Medicare subvention demonstration. So do the major veterans' service organizations whose membership comprises the very individuals who would be affected by this legislation. I would also note that a majority of both houses of the 105th Congress voted in favor of legislation to authorize a Medicare subvention demonstration for veterans, even though the specific terms of that legislation differed somewhat. Mr. President, I wish to conclude my remarks by once again drawing from the wisdom of the veterans' service organizations' Independent Budget, which warns that Medicare subvention funding must be a supplement to, not a substitute for, an adequate VA appropriation. Veterans' care and benefits have been underfunded for years. Implementing a test of Medicare subvention for veterans is but one step in what must be a concerted campaign to honor the promises made to all who have answered their country's call through their military service. Let no one forget the sacrifices made by every veteran to secure our liberty in what has been, and remains, a very dangerous world.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I intend to vote to convict the President of the United States on both articles of impeachment. To say I do so with regret will sound trite to some, but I mean it sincerely. I deeply regret that this day has come to pass. I bear no animosity for the President. I take no partisan satisfaction from this matter. I don't lightly dismiss the public's clear opposition to conviction. And I am genuinely concerned that the institution of the Presidency not be harmed, either by the President's conduct, or by Congress' reaction to his conduct. Indeed, I take no satisfaction at all from this vote, with one exception--and an important exception it is--that by voting to convict I have been spared reproach by my conscience for shirking my duty. The Senate faces an awful choice, to be sure. But, to my mind, it is a clear choice. I am persuaded that the President has violated his oath of office by committing perjury and by obstructing justice, and that by so doing he has forfeited his office. As my colleagues across the aisle have so often reminded me, the country does not want the President removed. And, they ask, are we not, first and foremost, servants of the public will? Even if we believe the President to be guilty of the offenses charged, and even if we believe those offenses rise to the level of impeachment, should we risk the national trauma of forcing his removal against the clearly expressed desire of the vast majority of Americans that he should not be removed even if he is guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice? I considered that question very carefully, and I arrived at an answer by reversing the proposition. If a clear majority of the American people were to demand the conviction of the President, should I vote for his conviction even if I believed the President to be innocent of the offenses he is charged with? Of course not. Neither, then, should I let public opinion restrain me from voting to convict if I determine the President is guilty. But are these articles of impeachment of sufficient gravity to warrant removal or can we seek their redress by some other means short of removing the President from office? Some of those who argue for a lesser sanction, including the President's able counsel, contend that irrespective of the President's guilt or innocence, neither of the articles charge him with high crimes and misdemeanors. Nothing less than an assault on the integrity of our constitutional government rises to that level. The President's offenses were committed to cover up private not public misconduct. Therefore, if he thwarted justice he did so for the perfectly understandable and forgivable purpose of keeping hidden an embarrassing personal shortcoming that, were it discovered, would harm only his family and his reputation, but would not impair our system of government. This, too, is an appealing rationalization for acquittal. But it is just that, a rationalization. Nowhere in the Constitution or in the expressed views of our founders are crimes intended to conceal the President's character flaws distinguished from crimes intended to subvert democracy. The President thwarted justice. No matter how unfair he or we may view a process that forces a President to disclose his own failings, we should not excuse or fail to punish in the constitutionally prescribed manner evidence that the President has deliberately thwarted the course of justice. I do not desire to sit in judgement of the President's private misconduct. It is truly a matter for him and his family to resolve. I sincerely wish circumstances had allowed the President to keep his personal life private. I have done things in my private life that I am not proud of. I suspect many of us have. But we are not asked to judge the President's character flaws. We are asked to judge whether the President, who swore an oath to faithfully execute his office, deliberately subverted--for whatever purpose--the rule of law. All of my life, I have been instructed never to swear an oath to my country in vain. In my former profession, those who violated their sworn oath were punished severely and considered outcasts from our society. I do not hold the President to the same standard that I hold military officers to. I hold him to a higher standard. Although I may admit to failures in my private life, I have at all times, and to the best of my ability, kept faith with every oath I have ever sworn to this country. I have known some men who kept that faith at the cost of their lives. I cannot--not in deference to public opinion, or for political considerations, or for the sake of comity and friendship--I cannot agree to expect less from the President. Most officers of my acquaintance would have resigned their commission had they been discovered violating their oath. The President did not choose that course of action. He has left it to the Senate to determine his fate. And the Senate, as we all know, is going to acquit the President. As much as I would like to, I cannot join in his acquittal. The House managers have made, and I believe some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would agree, a persuasive case that the President is guilty of perjury and obstruction. The circumstances that led to these offenses may be tawdry, trivial to some, and usually of a very private nature. But the President broke the law. Not a tawdry law, not a trivial law, not a private law. The tortured explanations with which the President's attorneys have tried to defend him against both articles fail to raise reasonable doubts about his guilt. It seems clear to me, and to most Americans, that the President deliberately lied under oath, and that he tried to encourage others to lie under oath on his behalf. Presidents may not be excused from such an abuse no matter how intrusive, how unfair, how distasteful are the judicial proceedings they attempt to subvert. The President's defenders want to know how can I be certain that the offenses, even if true, warrant removal from office. They are not expressly mentioned in the Constitution as impeachable offenses. Nor did the founders identify perjury or obstruction as high crimes or high misdemeanors. Were an ordinary citizen accused of perjury in a civil proceeding he or she would in all likelihood not be prosecuted or forced out of political necessity into a perjury trap. No, an ordinary citizen would not be treated as the President has been treated. But ordinary citizens don't enforce the laws for the rest of us. Ordinary citizens don't have the world's mightiest armed forces at their command. Ordinary citizens do not usually have the opportunity to be figures of historical importance. Presidents are not ordinary citizens. They are extraordinary, in that they are vested with so much more authority and power than the rest of us. We have a right; indeed, we have an obligation, to hold them strictly accountable to the rule of law. Are perjury and obstruction of justice expressly listed as high crimes and misdemeanors? No. Why? Because they are self-evidently so. Just as the President is self-evidently the nation's chief law enforcement officer, despite his attorneys' quibbling to the contrary. It is self-evident to us all, I hope, that we cannot overlook, dismiss or diminish the obstruction of justice by the very person we charge with taking care that the laws are faithfully executed. It is self- evident to me. And accordingly, regretfully, I must vote to convict the President, and urge my colleagues to do the same.''

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I also report favorably three nomination lists in the Coast Guard which were printed in full in the Record of February 3, 1999, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Addiction Free Treatment Act which reforms our nation's drug policy regarding the treatment of heroin addiction. This bill would restrict Medicaid reimbursements and funding through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration for methadone and LAM maintenance programs. Maintenance programs would be limited to six months. The bill requires that such programs conduct regular drug testing, report all results, and terminate methadone treatment to any patient testing positive for any illegal drugs. The legislation directs the National Institute of Drug Abuse to study the methods and effectiveness of nonpharmacological, and methadone-to- abstinence heroin rehabilitation programs, and requires the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment to provide an annual report to Congress on the relative effectiveness of heroin treatment programs in achieving freedom from chemical dependency. Mr. President, few crises represent a more fundamental threat to the basic institutions of our society then substance abuse and addiction, and there are few drugs that do more harm than heroin. Heroin use in the United States continues to rise. Drug use among teenagers is increasing and the number of teenagers using heroin for the first time is higher than at any other point in our history. Between 1992 and 1996, heroin use among college-age students increased an estimated 10 percent. Currently, there are an estimated 810,000 chronic heroin addicts living in the United States with over 115,000 heroin addicts participating in methadone programs. Drug addiction undermines family, work, friendships, and communities. The drug trade, which feeds the addict, undermines the security and stability of our neighborhoods through violence and other crime-related phenomena. At its core, drug addiction does violence to the basic humanity of the addict, robbing him or her of the most fundamental element of their existence--their freedom. The addict is enslaved by the need to get a fix; all other needs become secondary to the physical and psychological drive to feed the hunger of addiction. This enslavement goes to the core of the debate surrounding the use of methadone maintenance as a solution to heroin addiction: What have we done to restore the human condition if we have not freed the addict of chemical dependency? Methadone maintenance programs simply transfer addiction from one narcotic to another. The methadone patient is every bit as dependent on methadone as he or she was with heroin. Patients who attempt to free themselves from their addiction to methadone experience withdrawal symptoms that are as violent, if not more than, those they would experience coming off of heroin. What is more, even the promise of freedom from illegal drug use is an illusion. For many methadone patients regularly test positive for other illegal drugs. And yet, for some 30 years, the only hope that U.S. policy has offered to our citizens addicted to heroin is an Orwellian addiction swap. In the 105th Congress, I, along with Senator Coats and Senator Coverdell, introduced a Senate Resolution addressing the topic of methadone treatment. The resolution was a response to an emerging Clinton Administration policy designed to dramatically increase the federal government's activities in the area of methadone treatment. Barry McCaffrey, the so-called Drug Czar, proposed that ONDCP would double the number of heroin addicts in methadone treatment. Mr. President, this sounds less like the policy of a Drug Czar, and more like the policy of a drug bazaar--a bazaar where the federal government trades places with the street dealer, swapping heroin for methadone and feeding the addiction with taxpayer dollars. This is disgusting and it is immoral. It does serious harm to the humanity of those people who have mustered the courage to walk into a clinic seeking help to free themselves from addiction. It is the ultimate in cruel irony that our government's first response should be to trade the shackles of heroin for the shackles of methadone. The fundamental flaw of methadone treatment as a national anti-drug policy is that it is not an anti-drug policy at all. As I have said, methadone simply transfers addiction from one drug to another. To say that this is effective, because the symptoms of methadone addiction are more tolerable to society and less dramatic for the addict, is to miss the most fundamental point--that is that addiction enslaves the individual. That slavery is no less onerous to the basic humanity, to the dignity of the addict simply because the drug has been endorsed by the FDA, prescribed by a physician and paid for with taxpayer dollars. After 30 years of methadone, is there nothing better to offer to the heroin addict? The answer is an emphatic yes. Drug addiction is a complicated condition. It has behavioral, social/environmental, and physical characteristics. If we are to free individuals from heroin addiction, we must adopt policies supporting programs that address, in an intensive and comprehensive way, each of these areas of concern. Throughout society, in our homes, neighborhoods, communities, and in public policy fora, there has been much debate surrounding the decay of our civil society. A certain consensus has emerged regarding how best to address this crisis. That consensus centers around the need to rebuild the mediating structures of our society--family, neighborhood, church, and volunteer associations. If we are to free the addict from the slavery of drug addiction--be it heroin or methadone--rebuilding or, in many cases, introducing for the first time these same mediating structures into the life of the addict must play a central role. There are models for success. Just ask Rev. Sam McPherson. Rev. McPherson has spent his life tending to the needs of drug addicts. He now runs a Ready, Willing, and Able rehabilitation center on Florida Avenue here in Washington. It is an extraordinary and inspiring place. Founded on a drug-free principle, Ready, Willing, and Able embraces the addict, first demanding detoxification, and then dealing in a sustained and comprehensive way with the bundle of needs that contributed to the participant's drug use and addiction, and that result in recidivism if left unresolved. Dr. Robert Woodson, in his recent book ``The Triumphs of Joseph'', describes the many examples of community-based organizations that have succeeded in healing the scourge of drug addiction, lifting people up from the slavery of dependency--people like Freddie and Nina Garcia, who run the Victory Fellowship, based out of San Antonio. Some thirty years ago, Freddie Garcia and his wife began their operation in a tiny one-bedroom house, at one point moving all their furniture under a make-shift awning outside the house to make room for eleven recovering addicts who slept on their living room floor. Today, the Victory Fellowship has freed more than 13,000 men and women from their addictions and has spread to 65 satellite centers in California, Texas, New Mexico, Peru, Puerto Rico, Columbia and Venezuela. Dr. Woodson pus it this way: ``In contrast with psychiatric therapy and treatment that relies on medication, the goal of grassroots programs is not rehabilitation but transformation. Their end is not to modify behavior but to engender a change in the values and vision of the people they work with which will, in turn affect behavior . . . they do not simply curb deviant behavior but offer something more--a fulfilling life that eclipses the power of temptation.'' These community-based institutions possess certain common characteristics that can serve as a model for all who seek to address the challenges of addiction: (1) Their programs are open to all comers. Often, these programs take the worst cases, the long-term, homeless addicts that the ``system'' has abandoned as hopeless. (2) They have the same zip code as the people they serve. They do their work in the same neighborhoods, on the same streets as the addicts they serve. Reverend McPherson points out one of the pleasant benefits of Ready, Willing and Able: When they come into a neighborhood, the drug dealers go away. They leave because there is an unwritten code. If these guys are trying to get off of heroin, the dealers go somewhere else, taking their trade out of sight of the very addicts they have enslaved. (3) Their approach is flexible to the needs of the individual. The many behavioral, social/environmental, and physical challenges that contribute to drug addiction are unique to each individual. These organizations develop individualized programs for each individual. (4) They contain a central element of reciprocity. As Dr. Woodson says: ``They do not practice blind charity but require something in return from the individuals they serve.'' (5) Clear behavioral guidelines and discipline are critical. (6) These healers fulfill the role of parent, providing authority and structure, but also love and support. (7) They are committed for the long haul, not just for the duration of funding. (8) They are on-call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for as long as the participant needs them. (9) The healing offers immersion in an environment of care and mutual support with a community of individuals who are trying to accomplish the same changes in their lives. (10) They are united in their cause, providing mutual support in their struggles, and celebration in their accomplishments. These concepts are not new. But combined and sustained, they offer hope and success in freeing the addict from a life of chemical dependency. That freedom should be the policy of the United States Government, and the relentlessly pursued goal of everyone concerned with the scourge of heroin addiction.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to introduce the Congressional Openess Act, a bill to make selected Congressional Research Service products, lobbyist disclosure reports and Senate gift disclosure forms available over the Internet for the American people. This bipartisan legislation is sponsored by Senators Leahy, Lott, Abraham, Robb, and Enzi. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has a well-known reputation for producing high-quality reports and issue briefs that are concise, factual, and unbiased--a rarity for Washington. Many of us have used these CRS products to make decisions on a wide variety of legislative proposals and issues, including Amtrak reform, the Endangered Species Act, the Line-Item veto, and U.S. policy in Zambia. Also, we routinely send these products to our constituents in order to help them understand the important issues of our time. My colleagues and I believe that it is important that the public be able to use this CRS information. The American public will pay $67.1 million to fund CRS' operations for fiscal year 1999. They should be allowed to see that their money is being well-spent on material that is neither confidential nor classified. Congress can also serve two important functions by allowing public access to this information. When we give the public access to these CRS products, it will mark an important milestone in opening up the federal government. Our constituents will be able to see the research documents which influence our decisions and understand the factors that we consider before a vote. This will give the public a more accurate view of the Congressional decision-making process to counter the current prevailing cynical view. Also, CRS reports will serve an important role in informing the public. Members of the public will be able to read these CRS products and receive a concise, accurate summary of the issues that concern them. As elected representatives, we should do what we can to promote an informed, educated public. The educated voter is best able to make decisions and petition us to do the right things here. It is important to realize that these products are already out on the Internet. ``Black market'' private vendors can charge $49 for a single report. Other web sites have outdated CRS products on them. It is not fair for the American people to have to pay a third party for out-of- date products for which they have already footed the bill. Last year my colleagues on the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration proposed that Senators and Committee chairmen be allowed to post CRS products as they see fit on the Internet. I appreciate this gesture, and believe that it was a first step. Today we are proposing the commonsense next step--a centralized web site. A centralized web site will make it much easier for the public to find CRS information. The public can just go to a web site and look up those products that interest them. That would be much easier than having them go through all of our web sites to find CRS reports. One concern about the legislation we introduced last year was that it would not protect CRS from more public scrutiny. We would like to ensure you that we do not want to put CRS in a position that would in any way alter its current mission or open it up to liability suits. Therefore, the bill provides that this centralized web site will be accessible only through Members' and Committees' web sites. This process will preserve CRS' mission by reducing its public visibility. More importantly, it will continue to allow us to inform our constituents about how we are helping them here in Washington. This bill also includes other safeguards to ensure that CRS will remain protected from public interference. The Director of CRS is empowered to remove any information from these reports that he believes is confidential. He also can remove the names and phone numbers of CRS employees from these products to keep the public from distracting them from doing their jobs. We have also been informed that CRS may not have permission to release copyrighted information over the Internet. While we hope that this situation can be quickly resolved, we have included a provision in this bill to allow the Director to remove unprotected copyrighted information from these reports before they are posted. Finally, we have allowed a 30-day delay between the release of these CRS products to Members of Congress and the public. This delay allows CRS to review their products, consult with us, and revise their products to ensure that only accurate, up-to-date information is available to the public. It should be pointed out that CRS has been granted none of these protections as part of the current decentralized approach. This bill also requires the Senate Office of Public Records to place lobbyist disclosure forms and Senate gift disclosure forms on the Internet. We have already voted to make this information available to the public. Unfortunately, the public can only get access to this information through an office in the Hart building. These provisions will give our constituents throughout the country timely access to this information. This legislation has been endorsed by many groups including the American Association of Engineering Societies, the Congressional Accountability Project, the League of Women Voters of the U.S., and the National Association of Manufacturers. In conclusion, we would like to urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation. The Internet offers us a unique opportunity to allow the American people to have everyday access to important information about their government. We are sure you agree that a well-informed electorate can best govern our great country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to introduce the Congressional Openess Act, a bill to make selected Congressional Research Service products, lobbyist disclosure reports and Senate gift disclosure forms available over the Internet for the American people. This bipartisan legislation is sponsored by Senators Leahy, Lott, Abraham, Robb, and Enzi. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has a well-known reputation for producing high-quality reports and issue briefs that are concise, factual, and unbiased--a rarity for Washington. Many of us have used these CRS products to make decisions on a wide variety of legislative proposals and issues, including Amtrak reform, the Endangered Species Act, the Line-Item veto, and U.S. policy in Zambia. Also, we routinely send these products to our constituents in order to help them understand the important issues of our time. My colleagues and I believe that it is important that the public be able to use this CRS information. The American public will pay $67.1 million to fund CRS' operations for fiscal year 1999. They should be allowed to see that their money is being well-spent on material that is neither confidential nor classified. Congress can also serve two important functions by allowing public access to this information. When we give the public access to these CRS products, it will mark an important milestone in opening up the federal government. Our constituents will be able to see the research documents which influence our decisions and understand the factors that we consider before a vote. This will give the public a more accurate view of the Congressional decision-making process to counter the current prevailing cynical view. Also, CRS reports will serve an important role in informing the public. Members of the public will be able to read these CRS products and receive a concise, accurate summary of the issues that concern them. As elected representatives, we should do what we can to promote an informed, educated public. The educated voter is best able to make decisions and petition us to do the right things here. It is important to realize that these products are already out on the Internet. ``Black market'' private vendors can charge $49 for a single report. Other web sites have outdated CRS products on them. It is not fair for the American people to have to pay a third party for out-of- date products for which they have already footed the bill. Last year my colleagues on the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration proposed that Senators and Committee chairmen be allowed to post CRS products as they see fit on the Internet. I appreciate this gesture, and believe that it was a first step. Today we are proposing the commonsense next step--a centralized web site. A centralized web site will make it much easier for the public to find CRS information. The public can just go to a web site and look up those products that interest them. That would be much easier than having them go through all of our web sites to find CRS reports. One concern about the legislation we introduced last year was that it would not protect CRS from more public scrutiny. We would like to ensure you that we do not want to put CRS in a position that would in any way alter its current mission or open it up to liability suits. Therefore, the bill provides that this centralized web site will be accessible only through Members' and Committees' web sites. This process will preserve CRS' mission by reducing its public visibility. More importantly, it will continue to allow us to inform our constituents about how we are helping them here in Washington. This bill also includes other safeguards to ensure that CRS will remain protected from public interference. The Director of CRS is empowered to remove any information from these reports that he believes is confidential. He also can remove the names and phone numbers of CRS employees from these products to keep the public from distracting them from doing their jobs. We have also been informed that CRS may not have permission to release copyrighted information over the Internet. While we hope that this situation can be quickly resolved, we have included a provision in this bill to allow the Director to remove unprotected copyrighted information from these reports before they are posted. Finally, we have allowed a 30-day delay between the release of these CRS products to Members of Congress and the public. This delay allows CRS to review their products, consult with us, and revise their products to ensure that only accurate, up-to-date information is available to the public. It should be pointed out that CRS has been granted none of these protections as part of the current decentralized approach. This bill also requires the Senate Office of Public Records to place lobbyist disclosure forms and Senate gift disclosure forms on the Internet. We have already voted to make this information available to the public. Unfortunately, the public can only get access to this information through an office in the Hart building. These provisions will give our constituents throughout the country timely access to this information. This legislation has been endorsed by many groups including the American Association of Engineering Societies, the Congressional Accountability Project, the League of Women Voters of the U.S., and the National Association of Manufacturers. In conclusion, we would like to urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation. The Internet offers us a unique opportunity to allow the American people to have everyday access to important information about their government. We are sure you agree that a well-informed electorate can best govern our great country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to submit legislation, cosponsored by Senators Warner and Levin and other members of the Armed Services Committee, to designate May 1999 as National Military Appreciation Month. I would like to emphasize at the outset the role of the United Services Organization, the USO, in approaching me to ask that I submit this resolution. I am honored that an organization so central to the quality of the lives of our service personnel for so many decades chose me as the one to carry this legislation forward. Last week, I joined with a number of my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee to report to the Senate S. 4, the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights of 1999. That legislation addresses areas identified by the Joint Chiefs of Staff as their highest priorities in resolving the growing readiness problems afflicting the Armed Forces. By restoring the retirement system that existed prior to 1986 and taking concrete measures to close the pay gap and remove military families from the rolls of those eligible for food stamps, I am confident that S. 4 will go a long way toward alleviating the retention and recruitment problems that have contributed so much to the recent decline in military readiness. It is out of concern for the welfare of the men and women who wear the uniform of our nation's armed forces that S. 4 was passed so early in the legislative year by the Armed Services Committee. It is out of a sense of pride in those same men and women that I offer this resolution designating May as National Military Appreciation Month. During May 1999, we will observe Victory in Europe Day, Military Spouse Day, Armed Forces Day, and, most importantly, Memorial Day. It is appropriate that, with our armed forces currently operating in Bosnia, Macedonia, Haiti, and the Persian Gulf, and conducting routine peacetime activities too numerous to list in support of U.S. foreign policy in virtually every part of the globe, that the nation dedicate that month to remind itself of the contribution these individuals make to the preservation of a way of life increasingly taken for granted. It has become almost platitudinous to point out the increased burden placed on a smaller military since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. Our military forces are being sent into harm's way more often than during any period since the Vietnam War, with additional deployments contemplated as I speak. Strong economic growth and low unemployment have reduced the incentive on the part of many young people to enlist in the Armed Forces, thereby further diminishing the percentage of Americans exposed to military Service. By designating May 1999 as National Military Appreciation Month, it is my hope that the country will be more inclined to reflect on the sacrifices of so many throughout our history and today, and to better understand why we in Congress are acting so hastily to address quality of life issues affecting our service personnel and their families. My good friend, Duncan Hunter, has offered companion legislation in the House of Representatives, and I look forward to speedy passage of this bill in the weeks ahead.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Troops to Teachers Improvement Act of 1999. This legislation would help provide high-quality teachers to our nation's classrooms by assisting and counseling retired military personnel who are interested in beginning a new career as a teacher. I have worked hard with my colleagues, Senators Robb and Lieberman to develop a bill which strengthens, reforms and reauthorizes the current Troops to Teachers program in a manner which effectively addresses the educational needs of our nation's students. 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. Unfortunately, our current education system is failing to provide many students with the academic skills they need. The Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) ranked U.S. high school seniors last among 16 countries in physics and next to last in math. These disappointing results underscore the challenge we face in improving our public schools and providing our children with a competitive, world-class education. A big part of that challenge will be funding, recruiting and retaining quality teachers to make America's children ready for tomorrow, particularly in the area of math and science. The Department of Education estimates that the nation's local school districts will need to hire more than two million teachers over the next decade to meet growing enrollment demands. It is essential that we work together to develop and support innovative programs which help address this growing need for school teachers. Fortunately, an effective and innovative program for addressing this shortfall already exists, the Troops to Teachers program. As many of my colleagues know, the Troops to Teachers program was initially created in 1993 to assist military personnel affected by defense downsizing but were interested in utilizing their knowledge, professional skills and expertise by becoming a teacher. Unfortunately, the authorization for this program is set to expire at the end of this fiscal year. Senators Robb, Lieberman and I were disconcerted to learn that this successful program would soon be terminated. We joined together to develop a bipartisan bill which not only reauthorizes this program but strengthens and reforms it so that it more effectively meets the academic needs of our students and schools. Our bill reforms this program so that it operates more efficiently and effectively targets the educational needs of our students. First, our bill transfers responsibility and funding for this program from the Department of Defense to the Department of Education. I and many other members of the Armed Services Committee believe that this is appropriate since it targets an educational need, rather than a military issue in our country and the Defense Department needs to use their limited resources to address a litany of problems impairing the readiness of our armed forces. Another important concern we address in our bill is eligibility. Under the current program, military personnel are eligible for participation after serving only six years in the military. This eligibility policy is outdated and no longer appropriate while our military is facing a personnel retention crisis. Therefore, we have limited eligibility to military personnel who retire after at least twenty years of service, physically disabled personnel or individuals who have served a minimum of six years and can provide documentation they were affected by military downsizing. Based on academic scores, particularly the TIMSS report it is evident that a stronger emphasis needs to be placed on the academic preparation of our children in the areas of math and science. This is why we have made math, science, and special education teachers a priority for the Troops to Teachers program. We also recognize the difficulties which face many of our schools, particularly those with a large proportion of at-risk students who pose a greater challenge to educators. Many schools are confronted with the difficult task of educating children who face a litany of personal obstacles, including poverty, broken homes, language barriers, learning disabilities and physical disabilities. We have attempted to help schools conquer these challenges by providing incentives for individuals who commit to teaching for a minimum of four years at a school with a large proportion of at-risk students and a significant shortage of teachers. Finally, we have limited the cost of this program to the federal government by eliminating excessive, duplicative or unnecessary expenses. We have also limited administrative costs to operate this program to five percent, to ensure that federal funds being spent on this program are actually benefitting our children and education system, rather than being absorbed by Washington bureaucrats. ``A teacher affects eternity; they can never tell where their influence stops.'' I share this sentiment of Henry Adams, and hope that each of my colleagues will work with us to continue providing high quality, experienced and effective teachers to our children through the Troops to Teachers program. It is important for our children, for our nation and for our future.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Troops to Teachers Improvement Act of 1999. This legislation would help provide high-quality teachers to our nation's classrooms by assisting and counseling retired military personnel who are interested in beginning a new career as a teacher. I have worked hard with my colleagues, Senators Robb and Lieberman to develop a bill which strengthens, reforms and reauthorizes the current Troops to Teachers program in a manner which effectively addresses the educational needs of our nation's students. 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. Unfortunately, our current education system is failing to provide many students with the academic skills they need. The Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) ranked U.S. high school seniors last among 16 countries in physics and next to last in math. These disappointing results underscore the challenge we face in improving our public schools and providing our children with a competitive, world-class education. A big part of that challenge will be funding, recruiting and retaining quality teachers to make America's children ready for tomorrow, particularly in the area of math and science. The Department of Education estimates that the nation's local school districts will need to hire more than two million teachers over the next decade to meet growing enrollment demands. It is essential that we work together to develop and support innovative programs which help address this growing need for school teachers. Fortunately, an effective and innovative program for addressing this shortfall already exists, the Troops to Teachers program. As many of my colleagues know, the Troops to Teachers program was initially created in 1993 to assist military personnel affected by defense downsizing but were interested in utilizing their knowledge, professional skills and expertise by becoming a teacher. Unfortunately, the authorization for this program is set to expire at the end of this fiscal year. Senators Robb, Lieberman and I were disconcerted to learn that this successful program would soon be terminated. We joined together to develop a bipartisan bill which not only reauthorizes this program but strengthens and reforms it so that it more effectively meets the academic needs of our students and schools. Our bill reforms this program so that it operates more efficiently and effectively targets the educational needs of our students. First, our bill transfers responsibility and funding for this program from the Department of Defense to the Department of Education. I and many other members of the Armed Services Committee believe that this is appropriate since it targets an educational need, rather than a military issue in our country and the Defense Department needs to use their limited resources to address a litany of problems impairing the readiness of our armed forces. Another important concern we address in our bill is eligibility. Under the current program, military personnel are eligible for participation after serving only six years in the military. This eligibility policy is outdated and no longer appropriate while our military is facing a personnel retention crisis. Therefore, we have limited eligibility to military personnel who retire after at least twenty years of service, physically disabled personnel or individuals who have served a minimum of six years and can provide documentation they were affected by military downsizing. Based on academic scores, particularly the TIMSS report it is evident that a stronger emphasis needs to be placed on the academic preparation of our children in the areas of math and science. This is why we have made math, science, and special education teachers a priority for the Troops to Teachers program. We also recognize the difficulties which face many of our schools, particularly those with a large proportion of at-risk students who pose a greater challenge to educators. Many schools are confronted with the difficult task of educating children who face a litany of personal obstacles, including poverty, broken homes, language barriers, learning disabilities and physical disabilities. We have attempted to help schools conquer these challenges by providing incentives for individuals who commit to teaching for a minimum of four years at a school with a large proportion of at-risk students and a significant shortage of teachers. Finally, we have limited the cost of this program to the federal government by eliminating excessive, duplicative or unnecessary expenses. We have also limited administrative costs to operate this program to five percent, to ensure that federal funds being spent on this program are actually benefitting our children and education system, rather than being absorbed by Washington bureaucrats. ``A teacher affects eternity; they can never tell where their influence stops.'' I share this sentiment of Henry Adams, and hope that each of my colleagues will work with us to continue providing high quality, experienced and effective teachers to our children through the Troops to Teachers program. It is important for our children, for our nation and for our future.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to waive ``Buy America'' restrictions on all items procured for the Department of Defense. I have spoken of this issue before in this Chamber and the potential impact of our ``Buy America'' policy on bilateral trade relations with our allies. From a philosophical point of view, I oppose this type of protectionist trade policy, not only because I believe free trade is an important means of improving relations among all nations and a key to major U.S. economic growth, but also because I believe we must reform these practices in order to make our limited defense dollars go further so as to reverse the downward trend in our military readiness. Mr. President, this is a simple and straightforward bill that promotes U.S. products, not by imposing restrictive barriers on open competition and free trade, but by reinforcing sound and beneficial economic principles. This bill gives the Secretary of Defense the authority to waive restrictions on the procurement of all items with respect to a foreign country if the Secretary of Defense determines they would impede cooperative programs entered into between a foreign country and the Department of Defense. Additionally, it would waive protectionist practices if it is determined that such practices would impede the reciprocal procurement of items in that foreign country, and that foreign country does not discriminate against items produced in the U.S. to a greater degree than the U.S. discriminates against items produced in that country. For example, the Secretary of Defense may waive ``Buy America'' restrictions for contracts and subcontracts for items because of unreasonable delays or costs to the U.S. government in equipping servicemembers with U.S. products; insufficient quantity or unsatisfactory quality of U.S. products; and absence of competition in the U.S., resulting in a monopoly or a sole source contract, and thus, a higher price for the Department of Defense and ultimately the taxpayer. Let me be clear, I am not against U.S. procurement of American products. The United States, without a doubt, produces the very best products in the world. In fact, a recent Department of State study reported that U.S. defense companies sold more weapons and defense products and claimed a larger share of the world market than was previously realized. This new study shows U.S. exports of defense products increased to nearly $25 billion in 1996, comprising nearly 60 percent of global exports. This number continues to rise steadily. From a practical standpoint, adherence to ``Buy America'' restrictions seriously impairs our ability to compete freely in international markets for the best price on needed military equipment and could also result in a loss of existing business from longstanding international trading partners. While I fully understand the arguments made by some that the ``Buy America'' restrictions help maintain certain critical industrial base capabilities, I find no reason to support domestic source restrictions for products that are widely available from many U.S. companies (e.g., pumps produced by at least 25 U.S. companies). I believe that competition and open markets among our allies on a reciprocal basis would provide the best equipment at the best prices for taxpayers and U.S. and allied militaries alike. In recent meetings, the Ambassadors and other senior representatives of the United Kingdom, Sweden, Netherlands, Australia and Israel have apprised me of similar situations in their countries. In every meeting, they tell me how difficult it is becoming to persuade their governments to buy American defense products, because of our protectionist policies and the growing ``Buy European'' sentiment. Mr. President, we have heard over the last four months of the dire situation of our military forces. We have heard testimony of decreasing readiness, modernization programs that are decades behind schedule, and quality of life deficiencies that are so great we cannot retain, much less recruit, the personnel we need. As a result, there has been a recent groundswell of support in Congress for the Armed Forces, including a number of pay and retirement initiatives and the promise of a significant increase in defense spending. All of these proposals are excellent starting points to help re-forge our military, but we must not forget that much of them will be in vain if the Department of Defense is obligated to maintain wasteful, protectionist trade policies. When we actually look for the dollars to pay for these initiatives, it would be unconscionable not to examine the potential for savings from modifying the ``Buy America'' program. Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have stated repeatedly that they want more flexibility to reform the military's archaic acquisition practices. We cannot sit idly by and throw money at the problem, without considering this partial solution regarding ``Buy America.'' Mr. President, the Congress can continue to protect U.S. industry from foreign competition for selfish, special interest reasons, or we can loosen these restrictions to provide the necessary funds to ensure our military can fight and win future wars. Every dollar we spend on archaic procurement policies, like ``Buy America,'' is a dollar we cannot spend on training our troops, keeping personnel quality of life at an appropriate level, maintaining force structure, replacing old weapons systems, and advancing our military technology. Mr. President, it is my sincere hope that this legislation will end once and for all the anti-competitive, anti-free trade practices that encumber our government, the military, and U.S. industry. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this critical bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleagues, Senator Wyden, Senator Snowe, and Senator Bryan, to introduce the Airline Passenger Fairness Act. People who travel by air are the airlines' customers. As such, they expect and deserve the same fair treatment that consumers in other areas have come to rely on. The Airline Passenger Fairness Act would ensure that passengers have the information that they need to make informed choices in their travel plans. It also seeks to encourage airlines to provide better customer service by outlining some minimum standards. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on some of the specific provisions in the bill. The Airline Passenger Fairness Act will enable an airline passenger to: find out whether the flight on which that passenger is booked has been oversold; use whatever portions of a ticket he or she chooses to use to get to his or her destination; receive his or her checked baggage within 24 hours of a flight's arrival, unless additional delays are reasonable; find out from an airline all of the fares that the airline offers, regardless of the method used to access fares; receive prior notice when a scheduled flight will be delayed, if reasonable; receive accurate information about the reasons why a passenger's flight has been delayed, canceled, or diverted to another airport; obtain a full refund of the purchase price of a ticket if the passenger requests it within 48 hours of purchase; and receive accurate information about an airline's frequent flyer program, including the number of seats that can be redeemed on each flight, and the percentage of successful and failed frequent flyer redemptions on each flight. The Department of Transportation already holds the authority to investigate airlines that have been charged with exercising ``unfair and deceptive practices,'' and ``unfair methods of competition.'' Our bill simply specifies that if passengers are denied any of the items of fair treatment that I just listed, that denial constitutes an unfair or deceptive practice on the part of the airline, or an unfair method of competition. Mr. President, as I said earlier, this legislation is about helping consumers make informed choices among their air travel options. A key component of this bill is a publication requirement. Consumers will be able to review the Department of Transportation's monthly Air Travel Consumer Report to find out what airlines are denying passengers the fair treatment outlined in the bill, and on how many occasions. Air travel is on the rise. As airport congestion, delays, and fares increase, so have the complaints among airline passengers. The Air Passenger Fairness Act seeks to respond to these complaints in a constructive manner by giving passengers better information on which to judge the service levels offered by the airlines. We expect to hold hearings soon on this bill in the Commerce Committee, and we welcome any input on the initiative.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to waive ``Buy America'' restrictions on all items procured for the Department of Defense. I have spoken of this issue before in this Chamber and the potential impact of our ``Buy America'' policy on bilateral trade relations with our allies. From a philosophical point of view, I oppose this type of protectionist trade policy, not only because I believe free trade is an important means of improving relations among all nations and a key to major U.S. economic growth, but also because I believe we must reform these practices in order to make our limited defense dollars go further so as to reverse the downward trend in our military readiness. Mr. President, this is a simple and straightforward bill that promotes U.S. products, not by imposing restrictive barriers on open competition and free trade, but by reinforcing sound and beneficial economic principles. This bill gives the Secretary of Defense the authority to waive restrictions on the procurement of all items with respect to a foreign country if the Secretary of Defense determines they would impede cooperative programs entered into between a foreign country and the Department of Defense. Additionally, it would waive protectionist practices if it is determined that such practices would impede the reciprocal procurement of items in that foreign country, and that foreign country does not discriminate against items produced in the U.S. to a greater degree than the U.S. discriminates against items produced in that country. For example, the Secretary of Defense may waive ``Buy America'' restrictions for contracts and subcontracts for items because of unreasonable delays or costs to the U.S. government in equipping servicemembers with U.S. products; insufficient quantity or unsatisfactory quality of U.S. products; and absence of competition in the U.S., resulting in a monopoly or a sole source contract, and thus, a higher price for the Department of Defense and ultimately the taxpayer. Let me be clear, I am not against U.S. procurement of American products. The United States, without a doubt, produces the very best products in the world. In fact, a recent Department of State study reported that U.S. defense companies sold more weapons and defense products and claimed a larger share of the world market than was previously realized. This new study shows U.S. exports of defense products increased to nearly $25 billion in 1996, comprising nearly 60 percent of global exports. This number continues to rise steadily. From a practical standpoint, adherence to ``Buy America'' restrictions seriously impairs our ability to compete freely in international markets for the best price on needed military equipment and could also result in a loss of existing business from longstanding international trading partners. While I fully understand the arguments made by some that the ``Buy America'' restrictions help maintain certain critical industrial base capabilities, I find no reason to support domestic source restrictions for products that are widely available from many U.S. companies (e.g., pumps produced by at least 25 U.S. companies). I believe that competition and open markets among our allies on a reciprocal basis would provide the best equipment at the best prices for taxpayers and U.S. and allied militaries alike. In recent meetings, the Ambassadors and other senior representatives of the United Kingdom, Sweden, Netherlands, Australia and Israel have apprised me of similar situations in their countries. In every meeting, they tell me how difficult it is becoming to persuade their governments to buy American defense products, because of our protectionist policies and the growing ``Buy European'' sentiment. Mr. President, we have heard over the last four months of the dire situation of our military forces. We have heard testimony of decreasing readiness, modernization programs that are decades behind schedule, and quality of life deficiencies that are so great we cannot retain, much less recruit, the personnel we need. As a result, there has been a recent groundswell of support in Congress for the Armed Forces, including a number of pay and retirement initiatives and the promise of a significant increase in defense spending. All of these proposals are excellent starting points to help re-forge our military, but we must not forget that much of them will be in vain if the Department of Defense is obligated to maintain wasteful, protectionist trade policies. When we actually look for the dollars to pay for these initiatives, it would be unconscionable not to examine the potential for savings from modifying the ``Buy America'' program. Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have stated repeatedly that they want more flexibility to reform the military's archaic acquisition practices. We cannot sit idly by and throw money at the problem, without considering this partial solution regarding ``Buy America.'' Mr. President, the Congress can continue to protect U.S. industry from foreign competition for selfish, special interest reasons, or we can loosen these restrictions to provide the necessary funds to ensure our military can fight and win future wars. Every dollar we spend on archaic procurement policies, like ``Buy America,'' is a dollar we cannot spend on training our troops, keeping personnel quality of life at an appropriate level, maintaining force structure, replacing old weapons systems, and advancing our military technology. Mr. President, it is my sincere hope that this legislation will end once and for all the anti-competitive, anti-free trade practices that encumber our government, the military, and U.S. industry. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this critical bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleagues, Senator Wyden, Senator Snowe, and Senator Bryan, to introduce the Airline Passenger Fairness Act. People who travel by air are the airlines' customers. As such, they expect and deserve the same fair treatment that consumers in other areas have come to rely on. The Airline Passenger Fairness Act would ensure that passengers have the information that they need to make informed choices in their travel plans. It also seeks to encourage airlines to provide better customer service by outlining some minimum standards. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on some of the specific provisions in the bill. The Airline Passenger Fairness Act will enable an airline passenger to: find out whether the flight on which that passenger is booked has been oversold; use whatever portions of a ticket he or she chooses to use to get to his or her destination; receive his or her checked baggage within 24 hours of a flight's arrival, unless additional delays are reasonable; find out from an airline all of the fares that the airline offers, regardless of the method used to access fares; receive prior notice when a scheduled flight will be delayed, if reasonable; receive accurate information about the reasons why a passenger's flight has been delayed, canceled, or diverted to another airport; obtain a full refund of the purchase price of a ticket if the passenger requests it within 48 hours of purchase; and receive accurate information about an airline's frequent flyer program, including the number of seats that can be redeemed on each flight, and the percentage of successful and failed frequent flyer redemptions on each flight. The Department of Transportation already holds the authority to investigate airlines that have been charged with exercising ``unfair and deceptive practices,'' and ``unfair methods of competition.'' Our bill simply specifies that if passengers are denied any of the items of fair treatment that I just listed, that denial constitutes an unfair or deceptive practice on the part of the airline, or an unfair method of competition. Mr. President, as I said earlier, this legislation is about helping consumers make informed choices among their air travel options. A key component of this bill is a publication requirement. Consumers will be able to review the Department of Transportation's monthly Air Travel Consumer Report to find out what airlines are denying passengers the fair treatment outlined in the bill, and on how many occasions. Air travel is on the rise. As airport congestion, delays, and fares increase, so have the complaints among airline passengers. The Air Passenger Fairness Act seeks to respond to these complaints in a constructive manner by giving passengers better information on which to judge the service levels offered by the airlines. We expect to hold hearings soon on this bill in the Commerce Committee, and we welcome any input on the initiative.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my distinguished colleague, Senator Inouye, to propose the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act Amendments of 1999. The good Senator and I have sponsored this bill for the past four years because of our continuing belief that we must strengthen the Indian gaming law and protect the authority of tribal governments to engage in gaming activities. Senator Inouye and I have sat through hundreds of hours of discussions with Indian tribes, the States and interested parties over the expansion of Indian gaming. While the interest grows stronger in amending IGRA, a proposal has not been endorsed by either the Tribes or the States. Our intention in forwarding this bill is to once again set forth a balanced and fair discussion over necessary changes to the Indian gaming law. The bill we are introducing today will provide for minimum federal standards in the regulation and licensing of class II and III gaming as well as all of the contractors, suppliers, and industries associated with such gaming. This will be accomplished through the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Commission which will be funded through assessments on Indian gaming revenues and fees imposed on license applicants. In addition, this bill is consistent with the 1987 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians in that it neither expands or further restricts the scope of Indian gaming. The laws of each State would continue to be the basis for determining what gaming activities may be available to an Indian tribe located in that State. Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, Indian tribes are required to expend the profits from gaming activities to fund tribal government operations or programs and to promote tribal economic development. Profits may only be distributed directly to the members of an Indian tribe under a plan which has been approved by the Secretary of Interior. Virtually all of the proceeds from Indian gaming activities are used to fund the social welfare, education, and health needs of the Indian tribes. Schools, health facilities, roads, and other vital infrastructure are being built by the Indian tribes with the proceeds from Indian gaming. In the years before the enactment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and in the years since its enactment, we have heard concerns about the possibility for organized criminal elements to penetrate Indian gaming. I believe the Act provides for a very substantial regulatory role and law enforcement role by the States and Indian tribes in class III gaming and by the Federal government in Class II gaming. The record clearly shows that in the few instances of known criminal activity in class III gaming, the Indian tribes have discovered the activity and have sought Federal assistance in law enforcement. Indian gaming will continue to be scrutinized because of its increasing prominence in our nation's economy and political spectrum. I believe that any proposal to amend the Indian gaming law should respect both the rights of the Indian tribes and the States, while recognizing the benefits of well-regulated gaming to both Indian and non-Indian communities. I look forward to working with my colleagues and all affected entities on a continuing dialogue to protect the integrity of Indian gaming. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am proud to cosponsor legislation with Senators Thomas, Robb, and Kerry to grant nondiscriminatory trade status to Mongolia. Passage of this legislation will play an important role in aiding Mongolia's transition to a democratic government and a market-oriented economy. There has been a stunning political transformation in Mongolia since it broke away from Communist rule in 1990. In the past seven years, there have been two presidential elections and three parliamentary elections. All of these have been open and democratic, and have not suffered from violence or fraud. The most important aspect of these elections is that they show the triumph of democracy and democratic forces. In 1996, the Mongolian Social Democratic Party (MSDP) and Mongolian National Democratic Party (MNDP) joined forces to win an unexpected victory in the parliamentary elections. By fulfilling its ``Contract with the Mongolian Voter,'' this coalition is ensuring the establishment of a political system based on our cherished democratic principles. After a few months of uncertainty, the Mongolian government is now back on track and committed to continue its reforms. I am happy to say that the International Republican Institute is continuing to play a major role in showing these political parties how to establish a stable democratic government. This democratic transformation has established a firm human rights regime. The Mongolian Constitution allows freedom of speech, the press and expression. Separation of Church and state is recognized in this predominantly Buddhist nation as well as the right to worship or not worship. Full freedom of emigration is allowed, and Mongolia now is in full compliance with sections 402 and 409 of the Trade Act of 1974, also known as the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. An independent judiciary has been established to protect these rights from any future violation. Mongolia is also in the middle of an economic transformation. As part of the ``Contract with the Mongolian Voter,'' the democratic coalition of the MNDP and MSDP ran on promises to establish private property rights and encourage foreign investment. The Mongolian government is now steadily creating a market economy. A program has been set up to allow residents of government-owned high rise apartments to acquire ownership of their residence. In 1997, Mongolia joined the international trading system by joining the World Trade Organization and eliminating all tariffs, except on personal automobiles, alcoholic beverages, and tobacco. On January 1, 1999, the state-run press became privatized. The economic news also continues to be good. The 1997 GDP growth was 3.3%, and the inflation rate has dropped from 53.2% in 1996 to 9.2% in June, 1998. The Mongolian government is now boldly moving to set the nation on a course to privatize large-scale enterprise and reform the state pension system. When I was in Mongolia in 1997, I saw the effects of this economic transformation firsthand. At a town hall meeting in Kharakhorum, the ancient capital of the Mongol Empire, I met a herdsman and asked him about the economic liberalization. First, I asked him how many sheep he had under Communism. He said none, because the Communists didn't allow private property. Then I asked him how many sheep he owned after privatization. He answered that he had three sheep then, which is not much in a country with 25 million sheep. So I asked him how many sheep he has now. He answered that he now has 90 goats, 60 sheep, 20 cows and 6 horses. I asked him if that was considered successful. He replied that he was successful as were many herdsmen in this new economy. He then told me that he would never want to change the system back to what it was, because ``now Mongols have control over their own life and destiny.'' That is the new culture of a market Mongolian economy. There are many benefits to supporting Mongolian democracy and economic liberalization. In 1991, Secretary of State James Baker promised Mongolia that the United States would be Mongolia's ``third neighbor.'' We remain committed to that course of action to encourage Mongolia in its endeavors and promote it as an example of how nations can successfully convert from a Communist totalitarian state to a market democracy. The democratic Mongolia has already begun to promote peace and stability among its neighbors by becoming the world's first national nuclear-free zone. Furthermore, the United States will be able to count on the liberalized Mongolian economy as an important market for American goods and services. I hope that my colleagues here in the Senate will join me in passing this legislation to grant nondiscriminatory trade status to Mongolia to help it continue its successful democratic transformation and transition to a market economy.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) authorization bill for fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002. As Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I am able to work closely with NASA and to review the agency's achievements on a continual basis. I am proud of NASA's accomplishments and want to applaud its sustained dominance throughout the world as the premier leader in basic aeronautics and space research. Yet leadership has a price. All one has to do is open the newspaper to learn about NASA's endless difficulties with the International Space Station, the agency's most comprehensive and complex endeavor to date. This one-of-a-kind research facility bears a lifetime price tag of approximately $100 billion dollars to the American taxpayers. Although this program is a long-term investment which will bring discoveries unimaginable to scientists today, it is our duty to protect the American people from the repeated inconsistent performance of the participating foreign partners, prime contractor, and program managers. During the 105th Congress, I offered an important amendment to this legislation that would impose a price cap on the development costs of the International Space Station. The language would ensure maximum program flexibility by providing NASA additional funding for Space Shuttle flights to service the Station, and by exempting specific activities when development costs are 5 percent or less of the Station's annual budget. I will again personally encourage my Congressional colleagues to enact a cost-cap measure this year to impose some semblance of fiscal restraint, however, it is up to NASA to prove that it is a responsible steward of public resources. The recent political and economic uncertainty in Russia has only exacerbated the development delay of the Russian components. Congress must pledge to work with NASA to bring further accountability to the Space Station if the United States is going to continue its leadership, both financially and managerially. NASA is not, and should not become a one mission agency. Congress must ensure that the Space Station does not impede progress on NASA's other important programs such as the Reusable Launch Vehicle, commonly referred to as the RLV. During the past year Congress has expressed its grave concerns about the alleged illegal transfers of U.S. missile technology to China and other nondemocratic nations. Yet, neither the transferring of licensing control from the Commerce Department back to State, nor an embargo on foreign launches will solve the underlying issues which result in American companies choosing foreign launch sites. Additional work is needed to substantially change the current environment for the domestic commercial launch industry. What the community needs is cheaper access to space including less expensive vehicles, launching costs, and insurance. The X-33, a joint venture between NASA and private industry, and X-34 programs are examples of promising flight demonstrators which will lead the path to stimulating the industry. Mr. President, we are at a unique juncture in the history of space discovery. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and to help restore Congressional confidence in NASA and the Nation's valuable space program.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of the States' Rights Protection Act. This bill will ensure that the states retain the use of the settlement proceeds from the tobacco litigation settlement announced in November, 1998, as well as the prior settlements with Mississippi, Texas, Florida, and Minnesota. The bill will entitle the states to keep all of the money from the settlement, without federal recoupment of a Medicaid share. I believe this is the right thing to do for several reasons. First, and foremost, the settlement was of litigation initiated and pursued by the states. The President announced in his State of the Union address that the Department of Justice will be filing an action on behalf of the United States against the tobacco companies. This is the right way for federal claims to be addressed, rather than taking this hard- fought, negotiated money from the states. Second, not all of the states raised Medicaid claims in their lawsuits. The courts dismissed the Medicaid claims in other cases. Thus, in some states, the federal government is not truly entitled to share in the settlement proceeds. Allowing recoupment from some of the states, but not all of the states, will lead to disparate and unfair results. Finally, federal and state governments alike share in the goal of addressing public health needs. It is not necessary that this goal only be accomplished through federally mandated programs. The states' settlement also includes funding for counter-advertising and cessation efforts. These efforts may be complemented by federal programs, but do not need to be duplicated simply to give the federal government an excuse to spend money. In addition, many states have other existing public health programs related to tobacco use or children's health on the books. The federal government does not need to attempt to duplicate those programs through federal mandates. Most importantly, I am confident that the state will spend their settlement money wisely and in the best interests of their citizens. These decisions are best reached through discussion and consensus reached at the state and local levels. I regret that Congress was unwilling to accept the opportunity presented to us with the 1997 proposed settlement agreement. Comprehensive legislation would have benefited the nation by addressing kids smoking and limiting the excessive attorney's fees paid in these cases. Nevertheless, I applaud the Attorneys General for reaching settlement of their litigation and for the public health advances they have made in the settlement agreement. They have ensured a win for every state, without years of litigation and varied results. They have ensured an end to Joe Camel on billbroads throughout the country. They have established a mechanism to police advertising. They have achieved more in this joint settlement than any one state could have achieved alone with a court verdict. I thank my colleague, Senator Hutchison, for introducing this bill, and am pleased to join with so many other distinguished friends in sponsoring this important piece of states' rights legislation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my distinguished colleague, Senator Inouye, to propose the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act Amendments of 1999. The good Senator and I have sponsored this bill for the past four years because of our continuing belief that we must strengthen the Indian gaming law and protect the authority of tribal governments to engage in gaming activities. Senator Inouye and I have sat through hundreds of hours of discussions with Indian tribes, the States and interested parties over the expansion of Indian gaming. While the interest grows stronger in amending IGRA, a proposal has not been endorsed by either the Tribes or the States. Our intention in forwarding this bill is to once again set forth a balanced and fair discussion over necessary changes to the Indian gaming law. The bill we are introducing today will provide for minimum federal standards in the regulation and licensing of class II and III gaming as well as all of the contractors, suppliers, and industries associated with such gaming. This will be accomplished through the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Commission which will be funded through assessments on Indian gaming revenues and fees imposed on license applicants. In addition, this bill is consistent with the 1987 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians in that it neither expands or further restricts the scope of Indian gaming. The laws of each State would continue to be the basis for determining what gaming activities may be available to an Indian tribe located in that State. Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, Indian tribes are required to expend the profits from gaming activities to fund tribal government operations or programs and to promote tribal economic development. Profits may only be distributed directly to the members of an Indian tribe under a plan which has been approved by the Secretary of Interior. Virtually all of the proceeds from Indian gaming activities are used to fund the social welfare, education, and health needs of the Indian tribes. Schools, health facilities, roads, and other vital infrastructure are being built by the Indian tribes with the proceeds from Indian gaming. In the years before the enactment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and in the years since its enactment, we have heard concerns about the possibility for organized criminal elements to penetrate Indian gaming. I believe the Act provides for a very substantial regulatory role and law enforcement role by the States and Indian tribes in class III gaming and by the Federal government in Class II gaming. The record clearly shows that in the few instances of known criminal activity in class III gaming, the Indian tribes have discovered the activity and have sought Federal assistance in law enforcement. Indian gaming will continue to be scrutinized because of its increasing prominence in our nation's economy and political spectrum. I believe that any proposal to amend the Indian gaming law should respect both the rights of the Indian tribes and the States, while recognizing the benefits of well-regulated gaming to both Indian and non-Indian communities. I look forward to working with my colleagues and all affected entities on a continuing dialogue to protect the integrity of Indian gaming. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) authorization bill for fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002. As Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I am able to work closely with NASA and to review the agency's achievements on a continual basis. I am proud of NASA's accomplishments and want to applaud its sustained dominance throughout the world as the premier leader in basic aeronautics and space research. Yet leadership has a price. All one has to do is open the newspaper to learn about NASA's endless difficulties with the International Space Station, the agency's most comprehensive and complex endeavor to date. This one-of-a-kind research facility bears a lifetime price tag of approximately $100 billion dollars to the American taxpayers. Although this program is a long-term investment which will bring discoveries unimaginable to scientists today, it is our duty to protect the American people from the repeated inconsistent performance of the participating foreign partners, prime contractor, and program managers. During the 105th Congress, I offered an important amendment to this legislation that would impose a price cap on the development costs of the International Space Station. The language would ensure maximum program flexibility by providing NASA additional funding for Space Shuttle flights to service the Station, and by exempting specific activities when development costs are 5 percent or less of the Station's annual budget. I will again personally encourage my Congressional colleagues to enact a cost-cap measure this year to impose some semblance of fiscal restraint, however, it is up to NASA to prove that it is a responsible steward of public resources. The recent political and economic uncertainty in Russia has only exacerbated the development delay of the Russian components. Congress must pledge to work with NASA to bring further accountability to the Space Station if the United States is going to continue its leadership, both financially and managerially. NASA is not, and should not become a one mission agency. Congress must ensure that the Space Station does not impede progress on NASA's other important programs such as the Reusable Launch Vehicle, commonly referred to as the RLV. During the past year Congress has expressed its grave concerns about the alleged illegal transfers of U.S. missile technology to China and other nondemocratic nations. Yet, neither the transferring of licensing control from the Commerce Department back to State, nor an embargo on foreign launches will solve the underlying issues which result in American companies choosing foreign launch sites. Additional work is needed to substantially change the current environment for the domestic commercial launch industry. What the community needs is cheaper access to space including less expensive vehicles, launching costs, and insurance. The X-33, a joint venture between NASA and private industry, and X-34 programs are examples of promising flight demonstrators which will lead the path to stimulating the industry. Mr. President, we are at a unique juncture in the history of space discovery. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and to help restore Congressional confidence in NASA and the Nation's valuable space program.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of the States' Rights Protection Act. This bill will ensure that the states retain the use of the settlement proceeds from the tobacco litigation settlement announced in November, 1998, as well as the prior settlements with Mississippi, Texas, Florida, and Minnesota. The bill will entitle the states to keep all of the money from the settlement, without federal recoupment of a Medicaid share. I believe this is the right thing to do for several reasons. First, and foremost, the settlement was of litigation initiated and pursued by the states. The President announced in his State of the Union address that the Department of Justice will be filing an action on behalf of the United States against the tobacco companies. This is the right way for federal claims to be addressed, rather than taking this hard- fought, negotiated money from the states. Second, not all of the states raised Medicaid claims in their lawsuits. The courts dismissed the Medicaid claims in other cases. Thus, in some states, the federal government is not truly entitled to share in the settlement proceeds. Allowing recoupment from some of the states, but not all of the states, will lead to disparate and unfair results. Finally, federal and state governments alike share in the goal of addressing public health needs. It is not necessary that this goal only be accomplished through federally mandated programs. The states' settlement also includes funding for counter-advertising and cessation efforts. These efforts may be complemented by federal programs, but do not need to be duplicated simply to give the federal government an excuse to spend money. In addition, many states have other existing public health programs related to tobacco use or children's health on the books. The federal government does not need to attempt to duplicate those programs through federal mandates. Most importantly, I am confident that the state will spend their settlement money wisely and in the best interests of their citizens. These decisions are best reached through discussion and consensus reached at the state and local levels. I regret that Congress was unwilling to accept the opportunity presented to us with the 1997 proposed settlement agreement. Comprehensive legislation would have benefited the nation by addressing kids smoking and limiting the excessive attorney's fees paid in these cases. Nevertheless, I applaud the Attorneys General for reaching settlement of their litigation and for the public health advances they have made in the settlement agreement. They have ensured a win for every state, without years of litigation and varied results. They have ensured an end to Joe Camel on billbroads throughout the country. They have established a mechanism to police advertising. They have achieved more in this joint settlement than any one state could have achieved alone with a court verdict. I thank my colleague, Senator Hutchison, for introducing this bill, and am pleased to join with so many other distinguished friends in sponsoring this important piece of states' rights legislation.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am proud to cosponsor legislation with Senators Thomas, Robb, and Kerry to grant nondiscriminatory trade status to Mongolia. Passage of this legislation will play an important role in aiding Mongolia's transition to a democratic government and a market-oriented economy. There has been a stunning political transformation in Mongolia since it broke away from Communist rule in 1990. In the past seven years, there have been two presidential elections and three parliamentary elections. All of these have been open and democratic, and have not suffered from violence or fraud. The most important aspect of these elections is that they show the triumph of democracy and democratic forces. In 1996, the Mongolian Social Democratic Party (MSDP) and Mongolian National Democratic Party (MNDP) joined forces to win an unexpected victory in the parliamentary elections. By fulfilling its ``Contract with the Mongolian Voter,'' this coalition is ensuring the establishment of a political system based on our cherished democratic principles. After a few months of uncertainty, the Mongolian government is now back on track and committed to continue its reforms. I am happy to say that the International Republican Institute is continuing to play a major role in showing these political parties how to establish a stable democratic government. This democratic transformation has established a firm human rights regime. The Mongolian Constitution allows freedom of speech, the press and expression. Separation of Church and state is recognized in this predominantly Buddhist nation as well as the right to worship or not worship. Full freedom of emigration is allowed, and Mongolia now is in full compliance with sections 402 and 409 of the Trade Act of 1974, also known as the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. An independent judiciary has been established to protect these rights from any future violation. Mongolia is also in the middle of an economic transformation. As part of the ``Contract with the Mongolian Voter,'' the democratic coalition of the MNDP and MSDP ran on promises to establish private property rights and encourage foreign investment. The Mongolian government is now steadily creating a market economy. A program has been set up to allow residents of government-owned high rise apartments to acquire ownership of their residence. In 1997, Mongolia joined the international trading system by joining the World Trade Organization and eliminating all tariffs, except on personal automobiles, alcoholic beverages, and tobacco. On January 1, 1999, the state-run press became privatized. The economic news also continues to be good. The 1997 GDP growth was 3.3%, and the inflation rate has dropped from 53.2% in 1996 to 9.2% in June, 1998. The Mongolian government is now boldly moving to set the nation on a course to privatize large-scale enterprise and reform the state pension system. When I was in Mongolia in 1997, I saw the effects of this economic transformation firsthand. At a town hall meeting in Kharakhorum, the ancient capital of the Mongol Empire, I met a herdsman and asked him about the economic liberalization. First, I asked him how many sheep he had under Communism. He said none, because the Communists didn't allow private property. Then I asked him how many sheep he owned after privatization. He answered that he had three sheep then, which is not much in a country with 25 million sheep. So I asked him how many sheep he has now. He answered that he now has 90 goats, 60 sheep, 20 cows and 6 horses. I asked him if that was considered successful. He replied that he was successful as were many herdsmen in this new economy. He then told me that he would never want to change the system back to what it was, because ``now Mongols have control over their own life and destiny.'' That is the new culture of a market Mongolian economy. There are many benefits to supporting Mongolian democracy and economic liberalization. In 1991, Secretary of State James Baker promised Mongolia that the United States would be Mongolia's ``third neighbor.'' We remain committed to that course of action to encourage Mongolia in its endeavors and promote it as an example of how nations can successfully convert from a Communist totalitarian state to a market democracy. The democratic Mongolia has already begun to promote peace and stability among its neighbors by becoming the world's first national nuclear-free zone. Furthermore, the United States will be able to count on the liberalized Mongolian economy as an important market for American goods and services. I hope that my colleagues here in the Senate will join me in passing this legislation to grant nondiscriminatory trade status to Mongolia to help it continue its successful democratic transformation and transition to a market economy.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to offer legislation to authorize the Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation to establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia to honor all disabled American veterans. This legislation is not controversial, costs nothing, and deserves prompt consideration and passage during the first session of the 106th Congress. As a nation, we owe a debt of gratitude to all Americans who have worn their country's uniform in the defense of her core ideals and interests. We honor their service with holidays, like Veterans Day and Memorial Day, and with memorials, including the Vietnam Wall and the Iwo Jima Memorial. But nowhere in Washington can be found a material tribute to those veterans whose physical or psychological well-being was forever lost to a sniper's bullet, a landmine, a mortar round, or the pure terror of modern warfare. To these individuals, we owe a measure of devotion beyond that accorded those who served honorably but without permanent damage to limb or spirit. For these individuals, a memorial in Washington, D.C. would stand as testament to the sum of their sacrifices, and as proof that the country they served values their contribution to its cause. We cannot restore the health of those Americans who incurred a disability as a result of their military service. It is within our power, however, to authorize a memorial that would clearly signal the nation's gratitude to all whose disabilities serve as a living reminder of the toll war takes on its victims. Under the terms of this legislation, the Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation would be solely responsible for raising the necessary funding. Our bill explicitly requires that no Federal funds be used to pay any expense for the memorial's establishment. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senators Coverdell, Cleland, and Kerrey in support of this legislation. America's disabled veterans, of whom Senator Cleland himself is one of our most distinguished, deserve a lasting tribute to their sacrifice. They honored us with their service; let us honor them with our support today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to assist homeless veterans and eliminate some of the suffering of these less fortunate Americans who served their country in uniform. This legislation would develop better methods for identifying veterans who utilize federally funded homeless shelters so that they can be educated about veteran benefits to which they are entitled, including Department of Veterans Affairs health care. A homeless shelter which receives federal funding would be required to inquire if a person entering the shelter is a veteran. This information would be used solely to assist in tracking the number of homeless veterans and providing counseling to the veteran regarding all available benefits, including job search, veterans preference rights, and medical benefits. Additionally, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development would coordinate these activities and specify a schedule for notifying the Department of Veterans Affairs of the status of these homeless veterans. It is the intent of this legislation to require homeless shelters to follow this procedure if they are to be eligible for additional Federal grants. It goes without saying that this country owes a great deal to the men and women who bore arms to keep America free. Today there is no easy way to ensure that veterans who are homeless have access to the benefits they have earned. We do not even know how many of our veterans are homeless. I find this astonishing. The Department of Veterans Affairs estimates the number of homeless veterans to be between 275,000 and 500,000 over the course of a year. Conservatively, one out of every three individuals who is sleeping in a doorway, alley, or box in our cities and rural communities has worn a uniform and served our country. Mr. President, the time is right, right now, to give a helping hand. Based on the figures the Department of Veterans Affairs does have, homeless veterans are mostly male; about three percent are women. The vast majority are single; most come from poor, disadvantaged communities; forty percent suffer from mental illness; and half have substance abuse problems. More than seventy-five percent served our country for at least four years, and Vietnam veterans account for more than forty percent of the total number estimated. Mr. President, there are many complex factors affecting all homelessness: extreme shortage of affordable housing, poverty, high unemployment in big cities, and disability. A large number of displaced and at-risk veterans live with the lingering effects of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance abuse, compounded by a lack of family and social support networks. I do not mean to be critical of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs or the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in offering this legislation. To a great degree, the Department of Veterans Affairs has been very responsive in taking care of some homeless veterans. But the ones who are receiving critical medical treatment and veterans benefits are those who know that such programs exist. It is incumbent on our government to reach out to all veterans, particularly those who are homeless. However, to do that, there must be a process in place. Homeless veterans need a coordinated effort, between the Secretaries of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, that provides secure housing and nutritional meals, essential physical health care, substance abuse aftercare, and mental health counseling. They may need job assessment, training, and placement assistance. To those who may argue that this is a new entitlement program, I would say that these rights and benefits currently exist for veterans today. Why would we as a nation not do everything in our power to provide this help for those less fortunate veterans? Mr. President, our veterans deserve no less. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation and support our veterans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.