John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor this bill, with Senator Coverdell and others, to provide a 2-month extension to file federal taxes for U.S. military personnel who are on duty abroad. Current Treasury regulations allow military personnel to file federal tax forms on June 15 rather than April 15. However, filers who elect to use this exception are still subject to interest and penalties during that two-month grace period. This legislation codifies the existing Treasury regulations and adds a waiver of the interest and penalties that could be charged during the two-month grace period against military personnel who elect to take the filing exception. Military personnel, serving their country overseas are often isolated from the resources necessary to prepare their tax returns. The Internal Revenue Service and the Department of the Treasury recognized this reality and provided our nation's military personnel with a much-needed two-month grace period to file their taxes. However, it is inconsistent to grant a grace period for filers, but to penalize those who take it. These brave men and women have not committed any wrongdoing; all they are doing is serving their country. Travel to remote regions is inherent to military service. In 1998 alone, the United States had approximately 37,000 men and women deployed to the Persian Gulf region, preparing to go into combat, if so ordered. There were also 8,000 American troops deployed in Bosnia, and another 70,000 U.S. military personnel deployed in support of other commitments worldwide. That is a total of 108,000 women and men deployed outside of the United States, away from their primary home, protecting and furthering the freedoms we Americans hold so dear. We cannot afford to discourage military service by penalizing military personnel with interest and penalties merely because the unique characteristics of their job makes it difficult to file their taxes on time. Military service entails sacrifice, such as long periods of time away from friends and family and the constant threat of mobilization into hostile territory. We must not use the tax code to heap additional burdens upon our women and men in uniform. This measure will restore equity and consistency to this tax provision, and, at the same time, provide a small measure of tax relief to our men and women in the military. I urge my colleagues to join me and my other cosponsors to support this much-needed measure.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I, along with Senator Thurmond, and others are proud to sponsor this bill to allow members of the Uniformed Services, who are away on extended active duty, to qualify for the same tax relief on the profit generated when they sell their main residence as other Americans. This bill will not create a new tax benefit; it merely modifies current law to include the time members of the Uniformed Services are away from home on active duty when calculating the number of years the homeowners has lived in their primary residence. In short, this bill is narrowly tailored to remedy a specific dilemma. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 delivered sweeping tax relief to millions of Americans through a wide variety of important tax changes that affect individuals, families, investors and businesses. It was also one of the most complex tax laws enacted in recent history. Mr. President, as with any complex legislation, there are winners and losers. But in this instance, there are unintended losers: members of the Uniformed Services. The 1997 act gives taxpayers who sell their principal residence a much-needed tax break. Prior to the 1997 act, taxpayers received a one- time exclusion on the profit they made when they sold their principal residence, but the taxpayer had to be at least 55 years old and live in the residence for 2 of the 5 years preceding the sale. This provision primarily benefitted elderly taxpayers, while not providing any relief to younger taxpayers and their families. Fortunately, the 1997 act addressed this issue. Under this law, taxpayers who sell their principal residence on or after May 7, 1997, are not taxed on the first $250,000 of profit from the sale, joint filers are not taxed on the first $500,000 of profit they make from selling their principal residence. The taxpayer must meet two requirements to qualify for this tax relief. The taxpayer must (1) own the home for at least 2 of the 5 years preceding the sale, and (2) live in the home as their main home for at least 2 years of the last 5 years. Mr. President, I applaud the bipartisan cooperation that resulted in this much-needed form of tax relief. The home sales provision sounds great, and it is. Unfortunately, the second part of this eligibility test unintentionally and unfairly prohibits many of our women and men in the armed forces from qualifying for this beneficial tax relief. Constant travel across the United States and abroad is inherent in the Uniformed Services. Nonetheless, some members of the Uniformed Services choose to purchase a home in a certain locale, even though they will not live there much of the time. Under the new law, if a serviceman does not have a spouse who resides in the house during his absence or the spouse is also in the military and also must travel, that service member will not qualify for the full benefit of the new home sales provision, because no one ``lives'' in the home for the required period of time. The law is prejudiced against dual-military couples who are often away on active duty. They would not qualify for the home sales exclusion because neither spouse ``live'' in the house for enough time to qualify for the exclusion. This bill simply remedies an inequality in the 1997 law. The bill amends the Internal Revenue Code so that members of the Uniformed Services will be considered to be using their house as their main residence for any period that they are away on extended active duty. In short, members of the Uniformed Service will be deemed to be using their house as their main home, even if they are stationed in Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, in the ``no man's land,'' commonly called the DMZ between North and South Korea, or anywhere else on active duty orders. In 1998 alone, the United States had approximately 37,000 men and women deployed to the Persian Gulf region, preparing to go into combat, if so ordered. There were also 8,000 American troops deployed in Bosnia, and another 70,000 U.S. military personnel deployed in support of other commitments worldwide. That is a total of 108,000 women and men deployed outside of the United States, away from their primary home, protecting and furthering the freedoms we Americans hold so dear. We are in a period of robust growth. Many Americans are reaping the benefits of our country's growth by investing in the stock market. Many of our nation's recent millionaires became millionaires through the stock market. However, many middle- and lower-income Americans do not hold vast amounts of stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and the like. Therefore, how does the average American participate in our nation's robust growth? Through home ownership. Appreciation in the value of a home because of our country's overall economic growth allows everyday Americans to participate in our country's prosperity. Fortunately, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 recognized this and provided this break to lessen the amount of tax most Americans will pay on the profit they make when they sell their homes. The 1997 home sale provision unintentionally discourages home ownership among members of the Uniformed Services, which is bad fiscal policy. Home ownership has numerous benefits for communities and individual homeowners. Having a fixed home provides Americans with a sense of community and adds stability to our nation's neighborhoods. Home ownership also generates valuable property taxes for our nation's communities. We also cannot afford to discourage military service by penalizing military personnel with higher taxes merely because they are doing their job. Military service entails sacrifice, such as long periods of time away from friends and family and the constant threat of mobilization into hostile territory. We must not use the tax code to heap additional burdens upon our women and men in uniform. In my view, the way to decrease the likelihood of further inequalities in the tax code, intentional or otherwise, is to adopt a fairer, flatter tax system that is far less complicated than our current system. But, in the meantime, we must insure that the Tax Code is as fair and equitable as possible. The Taxpayers' Relief Act of 1997 was designed to provide sweeping tax relief to all Americans, including our women and men in uniform. Yes, it is true that there are winners and losers in any tax code, but, this inequity was unintended, Enacting this narrowly tailored remedy to grant equal tax relief to the members of our Uniformed Services restores fairness and consistency to our increasingly complex Tax Code.

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. 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.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I, along with Senator Thurmond, and others are proud to sponsor this bill to allow members of the Uniformed Services, who are away on extended active duty, to qualify for the same tax relief on the profit generated when they sell their main residence as other Americans. This bill will not create a new tax benefit; it merely modifies current law to include the time members of the Uniformed Services are away from home on active duty when calculating the number of years the homeowners has lived in their primary residence. In short, this bill is narrowly tailored to remedy a specific dilemma. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 delivered sweeping tax relief to millions of Americans through a wide variety of important tax changes that affect individuals, families, investors and businesses. It was also one of the most complex tax laws enacted in recent history. Mr. President, as with any complex legislation, there are winners and losers. But in this instance, there are unintended losers: members of the Uniformed Services. The 1997 act gives taxpayers who sell their principal residence a much-needed tax break. Prior to the 1997 act, taxpayers received a one- time exclusion on the profit they made when they sold their principal residence, but the taxpayer had to be at least 55 years old and live in the residence for 2 of the 5 years preceding the sale. This provision primarily benefitted elderly taxpayers, while not providing any relief to younger taxpayers and their families. Fortunately, the 1997 act addressed this issue. Under this law, taxpayers who sell their principal residence on or after May 7, 1997, are not taxed on the first $250,000 of profit from the sale, joint filers are not taxed on the first $500,000 of profit they make from selling their principal residence. The taxpayer must meet two requirements to qualify for this tax relief. The taxpayer must (1) own the home for at least 2 of the 5 years preceding the sale, and (2) live in the home as their main home for at least 2 years of the last 5 years. Mr. President, I applaud the bipartisan cooperation that resulted in this much-needed form of tax relief. The home sales provision sounds great, and it is. Unfortunately, the second part of this eligibility test unintentionally and unfairly prohibits many of our women and men in the armed forces from qualifying for this beneficial tax relief. Constant travel across the United States and abroad is inherent in the Uniformed Services. Nonetheless, some members of the Uniformed Services choose to purchase a home in a certain locale, even though they will not live there much of the time. Under the new law, if a serviceman does not have a spouse who resides in the house during his absence or the spouse is also in the military and also must travel, that service member will not qualify for the full benefit of the new home sales provision, because no one ``lives'' in the home for the required period of time. The law is prejudiced against dual-military couples who are often away on active duty. They would not qualify for the home sales exclusion because neither spouse ``live'' in the house for enough time to qualify for the exclusion. This bill simply remedies an inequality in the 1997 law. The bill amends the Internal Revenue Code so that members of the Uniformed Services will be considered to be using their house as their main residence for any period that they are away on extended active duty. In short, members of the Uniformed Service will be deemed to be using their house as their main home, even if they are stationed in Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, in the ``no man's land,'' commonly called the DMZ between North and South Korea, or anywhere else on active duty orders. In 1998 alone, the United States had approximately 37,000 men and women deployed to the Persian Gulf region, preparing to go into combat, if so ordered. There were also 8,000 American troops deployed in Bosnia, and another 70,000 U.S. military personnel deployed in support of other commitments worldwide. That is a total of 108,000 women and men deployed outside of the United States, away from their primary home, protecting and furthering the freedoms we Americans hold so dear. We are in a period of robust growth. Many Americans are reaping the benefits of our country's growth by investing in the stock market. Many of our nation's recent millionaires became millionaires through the stock market. However, many middle- and lower-income Americans do not hold vast amounts of stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and the like. Therefore, how does the average American participate in our nation's robust growth? Through home ownership. Appreciation in the value of a home because of our country's overall economic growth allows everyday Americans to participate in our country's prosperity. Fortunately, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 recognized this and provided this break to lessen the amount of tax most Americans will pay on the profit they make when they sell their homes. The 1997 home sale provision unintentionally discourages home ownership among members of the Uniformed Services, which is bad fiscal policy. Home ownership has numerous benefits for communities and individual homeowners. Having a fixed home provides Americans with a sense of community and adds stability to our nation's neighborhoods. Home ownership also generates valuable property taxes for our nation's communities. We also cannot afford to discourage military service by penalizing military personnel with higher taxes merely because they are doing their job. Military service entails sacrifice, such as long periods of time away from friends and family and the constant threat of mobilization into hostile territory. We must not use the tax code to heap additional burdens upon our women and men in uniform. In my view, the way to decrease the likelihood of further inequalities in the tax code, intentional or otherwise, is to adopt a fairer, flatter tax system that is far less complicated than our current system. But, in the meantime, we must insure that the Tax Code is as fair and equitable as possible. The Taxpayers' Relief Act of 1997 was designed to provide sweeping tax relief to all Americans, including our women and men in uniform. Yes, it is true that there are winners and losers in any tax code, but, this inequity was unintended, Enacting this narrowly tailored remedy to grant equal tax relief to the members of our Uniformed Services restores fairness and consistency to our increasingly complex Tax Code.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, over the past several years some satellite TV companies routinely broke the law by selling customers distant network stations when they weren't authorized to. These customers bought the service in good faith. For many, especially those in rural areas, these distant network stations are the only source of decent network TV reception. For others, they provide a window on life in a distant city. Despite the fact that these satellite TV customers had no intention of breaking the law, and despite the fact that many welcome the added diversity these distant network stations provide, and despite the fact that the law prevents satellite TV companies from transmitting local network stations, many of these customers--perhaps as many as two million of them--are within weeks of losing their distant network stations, thanks to a court order secured by local TV stations, and TV network broadcasters. And the way the law is written, there's not much the FCC or anybody else can do to stop it--unless we change the law. Mr. President, that's what I propose to do. Today, with the cosponsorship of Senator Conrad Burns, I am introducing the Satellite Television Act of 1999. Together with legislation introduced earlier this week by myself and Senators Hatch, Leahy, DeWine, Kohl, and Lott, this legislation will settle, in a fair and rational way, the ongoing dispute between broadcasters and satellite TV companies about how and when satellite TV customers can receive local and distant network TV stations. It should come as no surprise that telecommunications law, like the notoriously failed 1996 Telecommunications Act, often seems to work against the interests of the average consumer: the plain but sorry fact is that the interests of big telecommunications companies, not average Americans, are the ones that the laws are really drafted to serve. And why is that? because these companies often successfully argue that serving their interests is serving the consumer's interests. That just doesn't wash in this case, however. For example, how can anybody argue with a straight face that it's really serves the consumer's interests to keep satellite TV companies from carrying local stations? Or to allow broadcasters to force satellite TV companies to drop all their distant network stations--even if local broadcasters aren't suffering any meaningful loss of audience or revenue as a result, and if the local market doesn't even have a station that broadcasts the same network shows? This legislation will change the law and avoid these unfair results. It would allow satellite TV companies to carry local signals, and to continue carrying distant network stations in three situations: when a local network affiliate doesn't exist, when a local affiliate can't be received off-air, or when carriage of the distant signals will not cause local stations any significant loss of revenue. The FCC would be ordered to determine, on an expedited, bipartisan basis, those situations in which the lack of adverse impact would justify continued carriage of distant network stations, and whether any program blackout rules should be applied to their carriage. In the interim, satellite TV subscribers located at a greater distance from the local stations would be permitted to continue carrying the distant network stations they currently offer. Those located close to the core of the local station's market, however, would be subject to having their distant network stations withdrawn by the broadcasters' enforcement of their outstanding judgment. This will appropriately punish the satellite TV companies that most likely deliberately broke the law, and these consumers are highly likely to receive full network service from local network station affiliates. Mr. President, this bill attempts to strike a fair compromise between the warring corporate interests of the satellite TV and broadcast TV interests, so that we can, at least this time, avoid having consumers bear the consequences of bad law and corporate selfishness. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am introducing the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act in the 106th Congress. This legislation would establish a series of practical reforms to reduce interstate restraints of trade in the industry; protect boxers from exploitative business practices; reduce arbitrary practices by sanctioning organizations; and increase financial disclosure requirements to prevent misconduct by promoters and sanctioning bodies. The legislation I am introducing today is the same version of the Ali Act that was reported out of the Senate Commerce Committee and passed by the Senate last year. I am pleased to again have the cosponsorship and sound counsel of my colleague from Nevada, Senator Richard Bryan. He has a strong interest and long record of promoting responsible oversight of the professional boxing industry. Boxing is of course a major industry in Nevada, and Senator Bryan has worked closely with his State's athletic commission to assess and propose effective measure to make boxing a more respected and healthy industry. I have attached a summary of the Ali Act to concisely describe its major provisions. The bill is a modest and practical proposal which would simply curb some of the most egregious and anti-competitive practices which have exploited athletes and undermined the integrity of the boxing industry. Senator Bryan and I worked with state commissioners and credible boxing industry leaders from across the U.S. to develop the Ali Act. It requires no public funding and would create no new bureaucracy at any level of government. This legislation instead requires adherence to fair business practices and public disclosure requirements designed to significantly reduce abusive practices in the sport. It is worth noting that the public response to the Ali Act has been tremendous. We have received strong praise for this legislation from every sector of the industry and, most importantly, from boxers themselves. It is to be expected that certain vested interests in professional boxing industry will not welcome any reforms of anti- competitive and confiscatory business practices in the sport. However, the Ali Act will clearly improve the sport in the public interest, and will not inhibit any legitimate business practices. If enacted, the professional boxing industry will not only be free of certain types of abusive and unethical business practices, but competition should surely increase. Competition is the heart of any sport, and fair, open competition is the key to a sport's success. I look forward to the day when boxing achieves the reputation of credible competition and fair business practices for its athletes. I will work with members of the Senate Commerce Committee to promptly bring the Ali Act before the full Senate this year. With the Ali Act also being introduced in the House of Representatives in the near future, I am hopeful that 1999 will be the year the professional boxing industry in America embarks on a new path of fair business practices, legitimate rankings, and enhanced integrity. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, over the past several years some satellite TV companies routinely broke the law by selling customers distant network stations when they weren't authorized to. These customers bought the service in good faith. For many, especially those in rural areas, these distant network stations are the only source of decent network TV reception. For others, they provide a window on life in a distant city. Despite the fact that these satellite TV customers had no intention of breaking the law, and despite the fact that many welcome the added diversity these distant network stations provide, and despite the fact that the law prevents satellite TV companies from transmitting local network stations, many of these customers--perhaps as many as two million of them--are within weeks of losing their distant network stations, thanks to a court order secured by local TV stations, and TV network broadcasters. And the way the law is written, there's not much the FCC or anybody else can do to stop it--unless we change the law. Mr. President, that's what I propose to do. Today, with the cosponsorship of Senator Conrad Burns, I am introducing the Satellite Television Act of 1999. Together with legislation introduced earlier this week by myself and Senators Hatch, Leahy, DeWine, Kohl, and Lott, this legislation will settle, in a fair and rational way, the ongoing dispute between broadcasters and satellite TV companies about how and when satellite TV customers can receive local and distant network TV stations. It should come as no surprise that telecommunications law, like the notoriously failed 1996 Telecommunications Act, often seems to work against the interests of the average consumer: the plain but sorry fact is that the interests of big telecommunications companies, not average Americans, are the ones that the laws are really drafted to serve. And why is that? because these companies often successfully argue that serving their interests is serving the consumer's interests. That just doesn't wash in this case, however. For example, how can anybody argue with a straight face that it's really serves the consumer's interests to keep satellite TV companies from carrying local stations? Or to allow broadcasters to force satellite TV companies to drop all their distant network stations--even if local broadcasters aren't suffering any meaningful loss of audience or revenue as a result, and if the local market doesn't even have a station that broadcasts the same network shows? This legislation will change the law and avoid these unfair results. It would allow satellite TV companies to carry local signals, and to continue carrying distant network stations in three situations: when a local network affiliate doesn't exist, when a local affiliate can't be received off-air, or when carriage of the distant signals will not cause local stations any significant loss of revenue. The FCC would be ordered to determine, on an expedited, bipartisan basis, those situations in which the lack of adverse impact would justify continued carriage of distant network stations, and whether any program blackout rules should be applied to their carriage. In the interim, satellite TV subscribers located at a greater distance from the local stations would be permitted to continue carrying the distant network stations they currently offer. Those located close to the core of the local station's market, however, would be subject to having their distant network stations withdrawn by the broadcasters' enforcement of their outstanding judgment. This will appropriately punish the satellite TV companies that most likely deliberately broke the law, and these consumers are highly likely to receive full network service from local network station affiliates. Mr. President, this bill attempts to strike a fair compromise between the warring corporate interests of the satellite TV and broadcast TV interests, so that we can, at least this time, avoid having consumers bear the consequences of bad law and corporate selfishness. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am introducing the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act in the 106th Congress. This legislation would establish a series of practical reforms to reduce interstate restraints of trade in the industry; protect boxers from exploitative business practices; reduce arbitrary practices by sanctioning organizations; and increase financial disclosure requirements to prevent misconduct by promoters and sanctioning bodies. The legislation I am introducing today is the same version of the Ali Act that was reported out of the Senate Commerce Committee and passed by the Senate last year. I am pleased to again have the cosponsorship and sound counsel of my colleague from Nevada, Senator Richard Bryan. He has a strong interest and long record of promoting responsible oversight of the professional boxing industry. Boxing is of course a major industry in Nevada, and Senator Bryan has worked closely with his State's athletic commission to assess and propose effective measure to make boxing a more respected and healthy industry. I have attached a summary of the Ali Act to concisely describe its major provisions. The bill is a modest and practical proposal which would simply curb some of the most egregious and anti-competitive practices which have exploited athletes and undermined the integrity of the boxing industry. Senator Bryan and I worked with state commissioners and credible boxing industry leaders from across the U.S. to develop the Ali Act. It requires no public funding and would create no new bureaucracy at any level of government. This legislation instead requires adherence to fair business practices and public disclosure requirements designed to significantly reduce abusive practices in the sport. It is worth noting that the public response to the Ali Act has been tremendous. We have received strong praise for this legislation from every sector of the industry and, most importantly, from boxers themselves. It is to be expected that certain vested interests in professional boxing industry will not welcome any reforms of anti- competitive and confiscatory business practices in the sport. However, the Ali Act will clearly improve the sport in the public interest, and will not inhibit any legitimate business practices. If enacted, the professional boxing industry will not only be free of certain types of abusive and unethical business practices, but competition should surely increase. Competition is the heart of any sport, and fair, open competition is the key to a sport's success. I look forward to the day when boxing achieves the reputation of credible competition and fair business practices for its athletes. I will work with members of the Senate Commerce Committee to promptly bring the Ali Act before the full Senate this year. With the Ali Act also being introduced in the House of Representatives in the near future, I am hopeful that 1999 will be the year the professional boxing industry in America embarks on a new path of fair business practices, legitimate rankings, and enhanced integrity. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will establish the Director of the Indian Health Service within the Department of Health and Human Services as an Assistant Secretary for Indian Health. My colleagues, Senators Inouye and Conrad, are joining me in this effort as original co-sponsors. I am pleased to note that Congressman Nethercutt from Washington introduced companion legislation on the House side. Last year, we came very close to successful passage of this same bill, but the legislative clock expired. It is our hope that we can move this legislation forward expeditiously this year as this bill enjoys widespread support from Indian tribes nationwide and the Administration. The history of this legislation spans back several years. Every year, the Congress deliberates on how best to raise the standard of health care for all Americans. Yet, in nearly every debate, the health care needs of Indian people are either marginalized or ignored. The need for this legislation arose out of the continuing frustration expressed by the tribes that their health concerns were not adequately addressed under the existing administrative policy and budgetary processes. As the primary health care delivery system, the Indian Health Service is the principal advocate for Indian health care needs, both on the reservation level and for urban populations. More than 1.3 million Indian people are served every year by the IHS. At its current capacity, the IHS estimates that it can only meet 62 percent of tribal health care needs. The IHS will continue to be challenged by a growing Indian population as well as an increasing disparity between the health status of Indian people as compared to other Americans. Thousands of Indian people continue to suffer from the worst imaginable health care conditions in Indian country--from diabetes to cancer to infant mortality. In nearly every category, the health status of Native Americans falls far below the national standard. The purpose of this bill can be simplified to three primary needs. Indian people desire a stronger leadership and policy role within the primary health care agency, the Department of Health and Human Services. The Assistant Secretary for Indian Health will ensure that critical policy and budgetary decisions will be made with the full involvement and consultation of not only the Indian Health Service, but also the direct involvement of the Tribal governments. Second, the enactment of this legislation is consistent with the unique government-to-government relationship between federally recognized Indian tribes and the federal government. This legislation is long overdue in bringing focus and national attention to the health care status of Indian people and fulfilling the federal trust responsibility toward Indian tribes. Finally, passage of this legislation is critical as the Congress is set to deliberate several pieces of Indian health policy. Reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and development of legislation to permanently extend tribal self-governance authority to tribes will be vital components of Indian health care in the future. Implementation of this bill is intended to support the long-standing policies of Indian self-determination and tribal self- governance and assist Indian tribes who are making positive strides in providing direct health care to their own communities. At this critical time, the IHS is in dire need of a senior policy official who is knowledgeable about the programs administered by the IHS and who can provide the leadership for the health care needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives. We continue to pursue passage of this legislation as many believe that the priority of Indian health issues within the Department should be raised to the highest levels within our federal government. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure prompt passage of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the full text and section-by-section analysis of this bill be included in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will establish the Director of the Indian Health Service within the Department of Health and Human Services as an Assistant Secretary for Indian Health. My colleagues, Senators Inouye and Conrad, are joining me in this effort as original co-sponsors. I am pleased to note that Congressman Nethercutt from Washington introduced companion legislation on the House side. Last year, we came very close to successful passage of this same bill, but the legislative clock expired. It is our hope that we can move this legislation forward expeditiously this year as this bill enjoys widespread support from Indian tribes nationwide and the Administration. The history of this legislation spans back several years. Every year, the Congress deliberates on how best to raise the standard of health care for all Americans. Yet, in nearly every debate, the health care needs of Indian people are either marginalized or ignored. The need for this legislation arose out of the continuing frustration expressed by the tribes that their health concerns were not adequately addressed under the existing administrative policy and budgetary processes. As the primary health care delivery system, the Indian Health Service is the principal advocate for Indian health care needs, both on the reservation level and for urban populations. More than 1.3 million Indian people are served every year by the IHS. At its current capacity, the IHS estimates that it can only meet 62 percent of tribal health care needs. The IHS will continue to be challenged by a growing Indian population as well as an increasing disparity between the health status of Indian people as compared to other Americans. Thousands of Indian people continue to suffer from the worst imaginable health care conditions in Indian country--from diabetes to cancer to infant mortality. In nearly every category, the health status of Native Americans falls far below the national standard. The purpose of this bill can be simplified to three primary needs. Indian people desire a stronger leadership and policy role within the primary health care agency, the Department of Health and Human Services. The Assistant Secretary for Indian Health will ensure that critical policy and budgetary decisions will be made with the full involvement and consultation of not only the Indian Health Service, but also the direct involvement of the Tribal governments. Second, the enactment of this legislation is consistent with the unique government-to-government relationship between federally recognized Indian tribes and the federal government. This legislation is long overdue in bringing focus and national attention to the health care status of Indian people and fulfilling the federal trust responsibility toward Indian tribes. Finally, passage of this legislation is critical as the Congress is set to deliberate several pieces of Indian health policy. Reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and development of legislation to permanently extend tribal self-governance authority to tribes will be vital components of Indian health care in the future. Implementation of this bill is intended to support the long-standing policies of Indian self-determination and tribal self- governance and assist Indian tribes who are making positive strides in providing direct health care to their own communities. At this critical time, the IHS is in dire need of a senior policy official who is knowledgeable about the programs administered by the IHS and who can provide the leadership for the health care needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives. We continue to pursue passage of this legislation as many believe that the priority of Indian health issues within the Department should be raised to the highest levels within our federal government. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure prompt passage of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the full text and section-by-section analysis of this bill be included in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Marriage Penalty Elimination Act of 1999. This bill would deliver sweeping tax relief to millions of lower- and middle-income Americans by eliminating the marriage penalty. The bill is simple: it incrementally increases the standard deduction over a 5-year period, until the joint filer's standard deduction is equal to 2 times the individual filer's deduction. This bill significantly lessens the effect of one of the Tax Code's most inequitable provisions, the marriage penalty. Under today's Tax Code, the marriage penalty occurs when the sum of the tax liabilities of two unmarried individuals filing their own tax returns is less than their tax liability would be under a joint return if they were married. The Marriage Penalty Elimination Act would allow a married couple to claim the same amount of the standard deduction as two individuals. It seems logical that a married couple would be eligible to take two times the standard deduction that an individual can take. This is not the case. Under current law, joint filers are only eligible to take approximately 1.67 times the standard deduction of single filers. Because CBO has estimated that federal budget surpluses will total more than $700 billion over the next 10 years, there could be no better time for Congress to focus our attention on relieving the tax burden on the American people. There is no better time than now to provide relief to the taxpayers who have been overtaxed and overburdened with our antiquated tax system. Mr. President, as Congress is well aware, it is essential to provide relief to the ordinary, hard-working, middle-class American families who are struggling to make ends meet. This bill focuses directly on lower- and middle-income taxpayers, because the disparity between a married couple's standard deduction and an unmarried couple's combined standard deduction is most discriminating to the lower- and middle- income level taxpayers. The current standard deduction for joint returns is currently 1.67 times that of single returns for tax bracket rates of 15%, 28% and 31%. However, the disparity narrows at the 36% bracket for joint filers to 1.2 times that of individual filers. And, at the highest bracket rate of 39.6%, the standard deduction for married and unmarried couples is equal. These figures make clear the discrimination that our present Tax Code imposes on lower- and middle-income taxpayers. This bill would eliminate the unjust disparity between the standard deduction afforded a married couple and an unmarried couple. It is vital to our Nation that Congress work to foster strength among American families. By enacting the Marriage Penalty Elimination Act, this Congress would not only be addressing the tax concerns of the American people, but also providing an incentive for the American family. As the Tax Code is written now, couples are punished with an undue financial burden just for being married. In effect, the marriage penalty taxes marriage, one of our most fundamental institutions. There can be no doubt that this kind of disincentive for marriage is wrong. In addition to the overriding moral objection to a marriage penalty, there exists a basic question of fairness. Not only is it debilitating to our society to penalize those who enter into the sacred institution of marriage to create a family, but it is fundamentally unjust to impose a greater tax burden on two married people than on two unmarried people who live together. Mr. President, on behalf of the millions of lower- and middle-income American families, I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Middle- Income Savings and Investment Act of 1999. This bill is designed to encourage lower- and middle-income Americans to save and invest more of their hard-earned dollars, by allowing taxpayers to earn $200 ($400 for joint filers) of interest and dividend income tax-free. This bill also lessens the impact of one of the most nefarious aspects of our current tax code--double taxation. Mr. President, this legislation is important. Consumers can do three things with their income: spend it, pay taxes, or save it. Unfortunately, Americans are not doing enough of the latter. America's personal savings rate is at an all-time low. Furthermore, the U.S. national savings rate ranks among the lowest of the G-7 countries. According to the Department of Commerce, in September 1998, the personal savings rate was 0%. In other words, we saved nothing. In October 1998, things got worse and our personal savings rate fell to -2%. Americans spent more that month than they earned. Other countries have high tax rates, but their citizens still manage to save more of their hard-earned dollars than most Americans. Economists say that this is because many other countries provide a tax incentive for small savers by exempting some portion or all of their interest or dividend income from tax. In contrast, the U.S. tax code taxes the savings twice, once when the individual earns the income, and again when the small savers earn interest or dividends generated by the savings or investments. Congress can not place the blame entirely on the American consumer for our nation's record low savings rates. Our current tax code discourages savings and investment. Income is taxed first when it is earned. If the income is spent, then it is not taxed again. However, if the income is saved or invested, the returns on the savings are taxed once again. Thus, savings and investment are taxed twice. The multiple layers of taxation on savings increase the cost of savings, which leads to a smaller supply of capital, and a decreased personal savings rate. A fairer tax code would not penalize savings relative to consumption. This legislation is not a cure for all of the ills of our overly complicated burdensome tax code, but it is an important step to eradicating the double taxation inherent in our antiquated tax code. The Middle-Income Savings and Investment Act provides some tax relief to taxpayers by allowing individuals to earn up to $200 in interest or dividend income tax-free; a married couple could earn up to $400 in interest and dividends tax-free. $200 may not sound like much money, but it represents an important first step in eliminating the bias against savings and investment. This legislation would provide tax relief to the majority of Americans. However, because of the low $200 and $400 exemption levels, this legislation will particularly benefit lower- and middle-income taxpayers, and boost savings incentives among non-savers and small- savers alike. The vast majority of moderate-income savers would not be taxed on any of their interest or dividend income under this legislation. The Congressional Joint Economic Committee estimates that this type of interest and dividend exclusion would affect 57% of all taxpayers, with more than 30 million taxpayers not paying any tax on interest and dividend income. It is vital that we create further incentives to encourage moderate- income Americans to save and invest more of their hard-earned dollars. Policy makers and economists have long been concerned about the adequacy of savings in the United States. These fears address both the financial well-being of individuals, and the fiscal stability of the national economy. Increased savings and investment are an essential element of low- to moderate-income Americans' financial well-being. Savings impact taxpayers' ability to save for emergencies, education, home buying and most importantly, for retirement. Consumer spending is powering the United States economy at a brisk rate of growth, even as we struggle with diminished export sales and slumping economies in Asia, Russia, and Latin America. However, as demonstrated by the low levels of personal savings in September and October of 1998, we are raiding our savings to purchase homes, consumer goods, and other products. Consumers cannot raid their wealth forever. The recent devaluation of the Brazilian currency and other geopolitical instability could result in a potential economic downturn in the United States. In the event this does happen, increased personal savings will give Americans a financial cushion to weather any potential downturn. Retirement looms around the corner for many baby boomers. While I am confident Congress will ensure that the Social Security trust funds will be solvent when the baby boomers retire, Social Security alone may not be sufficient to maintain the boomers' current standard of living. Personal savings must make up this gap. Since personal savings are at an all-time low, it is unlikely that a substantial number of baby boomers will have sufficient personal savings to supplement their social security benefits to make up this income gap. Tax reform which encourages savings and investment can be an important tool to ensure that retiring Americans have sufficient personal savings to maintain their current standard of living. Increased personal savings and investment are also good for the nation's fiscal well-being. The money financial institutions lend or invest does not grow on trees. This capital comes from the funds everyday Americans deposit or invest in these institutions. Thus, savings are important because they are a key element of capital formation. Capital formation is necessary for economic growth and rising wages. We must increase the savings rate if we wish to continue our current economic expansion. Without savings, it is impossible to build factories, purchase equipment, conduct research, or develop technology. Savings allow businesses to purchase equipment, and new equipment allows factories to be more productive, which in turn raises the income of workers and owners. This link between savings rates and capital formation is not rocket science. Workers are more productive when they are working with modern equipment. More productive workers earn higher real wages. Higher real wages are the beginning of higher standards of living. But, the key is capital. American industry must have access to a readily available supply of affordable domestic capital to purchase this productivity enhancing equipment. The bottom line is that capital formation is necessary for economic growth and rising wages. Further incentives for savings and investment will increase capital formation. The Middle-Class Savings and Investment Act provides a necessary incentive to get low- to moderate- income Americans to save and invest more. At present, America is not suffering from its current savings dilemma. However, we must act now to increase the personal savings rate to prepare for the challenges of the next millennium. Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Office estimates a budget surplus of $80 billion for fiscal year 1999. Informal estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation indicate that this bill will only cost $15 billion over 5 years. What better way to use a small portion of the surplus than to return it to the American people in the form of much- needed middle-class tax relief.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important piece of legislation which would have a tremendous impact on the lives of many blind people. This bill restores the 20-year link between blind people and senior citizens in regards to the Social Security earnings limit which has helped many blind people become self- sufficient and productive. When the Congress passed the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act in 1996, we unfortunately broke the longstanding linkage in the treatment of blind people and seniors under Social Security, which resulted in allowing the earnings limit to be raised for seniors only and did not give blind people the same opportunity to increase their earnings without penalizing their Social Security benefits. My intent when I sponsored the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act was not to break the link between the blind people and the senior population. In 1996, time constraints and fiscal considerations forced me to focus solely on raising the unfair and burdensome earnings limit for seniors. I am happy to say that the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act became law in 1996, and the earnings exemption for seniors is being raised in annual increments until it reaches $30,000 in the year 2002. This law is allowing millions of seniors to continue contributing to society as productive workers. Now we should work together in the spirit of fairness to ensure that this same opportunity is given to the blind population. We should provide blind people the opportunity to be productive and ``make it'' on their own. We should not continue policies which discourage these individuals from working and contributing to society. The bill I am introducing today is identical to one I sponsored in the last Congress. It would reunite the earnings exemption amount for blind people with the exemption amount for senior citizens. If we do not reinstate this link, blind people will be restricted to earning $14,800 in the year 2002 in order to protect their Social Security benefits, compared to the $30,000 which seniors will be permitted to earn. There are very strong and convincing arguments in favor of reestablishing the link between these two groups and increasing the earnings limit for blind people. First, the earnings test treatment of our blind and senior populations has historically been identical. Since 1977, blind people and senior citizens have shared the identical earnings exemption threshold under Title II of the Social Security Act. Now, senior citizens will be given greater opportunity to increase their earnings without losing a portion of their Social Security benefits; the blind, however, will not have the same opportunity. The Social Security earnings test imposes as great a work disincentive for blind people as it does for senior citizens. In fact, the earnings test probably provides a greater aggregate disincentive for blind individuals since many blind beneficiaries are of working age (18-65) and are capable of productive work. Blindness is often associated with adverse social and economic consequences. It is often tremendously difficult for blind individuals to find sustained employment or any employment at all, but they do want to work. They take great pride in being able to work and becoming productive members of society. By linking the blind with seniors in 1977, Congress provided a great deal of hope and incentive for blind people in this country to enter the work force. Now, we are taking that hope away from them by not allowing them the same opportunity to increase their earnings as senior citizens. Blind people are likely to respond favorably to an increase in the earnings test by working more, which will increase their tax payments and their purchasing power and allow the blind to make a greater contribution to the general economy. In addition, encouraging the blind to work and allowing them to work more without being penalized would bring additional revenue into the Social Security trust funds as well as the Federal Treasury. In short, restoring the link between blind people and senior citizens for treatment of Social Security benefits would help many blind people become self-sufficient, productive members of society. I am pleased that this Congress will be focusing on the overall structure of the Social Security system and working together for solutions which would strengthen the system for seniors of today and tomorrow without placing an unfair burden on working Americans. It is absolutely crucial that we include raising the earnings test for blind individuals as a part of any Social Security bill we enact this year. I urge each of my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this important measure to restore fair and equitable treatment for our blind citizens and to give the blind community increased financial independence. Our nation would be better served if we restore equality for the blind and provide them with the same freedom, opportunities and fairness as our nation's seniors.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor The Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 1999 with Senators Coverdell and Senator Torricelli. This bill would deliver sweeping tax relief to lower- and middle-income taxpayers. The bill incrementally increases the number of individuals who pay the lowest tax rate, which is 15%. If this bill had been law in 1998, approximately millions of taxpayers now in the 28% tax-bracket would have paid taxes at the 15% rate. In addition, this bill significantly lessens the effect of one of the Tax Code's most inequitable provisions: the Marriage Penalty. Mr. President, before I proceed, I want to congratulate Senator Coverdell for his leadership and his tireless work in crafting this historic legislation. This bill recognizes the need to maintain the momentum toward fundamental tax reform evidenced by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. This bill is the only major tax relief proposal focused directly on addressing the middle-class tax squeeze. According to preliminary estimates by the Tax Foundation, 29 million taxpayers would benefit from this broad-based, middle-class tax relief in 1998 alone. Mr. President, I support this legislation because: First, it is a step toward further reform; second, it helps ordinary middle-class families who are struggling to make ends meet without asking the government to help out, and third, it promotes future economic prosperity by increasing the amount of money taxpayers have available for their own savings and investment. It is essential that we provide American families with relief from the excessive rate of taxation that saps job growth and robs them of the opportunity to provide for their needs and save for the future. Over a five-year period, this bill would deliver sweeping tax relief to middle-class taxpayers by increasing the number of individuals who pay the lowest tax rate. In addition, this bill is simple, and it calculates tax relief based upon income alone, not on factors such as the number of school-age children. This bill benefits our citizens in several ways. It focuses tax relief on the individuals who feel the tax squeeze the most: lower- and middle-income taxpayers. Under this bill, unmarried individuals will be able to make $35,000 and married individuals can make $70,000, and still be in the lowest tax bracket. This measure also results in taxpayers being able to keep more of the money they earn. This extra income will allow individuals to save and invest more. Increased savings and investment are key to sustaining our current economic growth. In sum, the measure is a win for individuals, and a win for America as a whole. Millions of Americans would realize some tax savings from this legislation. Citizens will be able to keep more of what they earn, which will ensure that Americans have more of the resources they need to invest in their own individual futures, and America's future. Mr. President, on a broader scale, I believe we should abandon our existing tax code altogether and create a new system. This new system should have one tax rate, which taxes income only one time. This system should also reduce the time to prepare tax returns from days to minutes, and the expense to prepare tax returns from thousands of dollars to pennies. The 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act was a step in the right direction to provide tax relief to lower- and middle-income families. The Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 1999 represents an important further step toward a flatter, fairer tax system, which also provides immediate tax relief for hard-working Americans and families. Mr. President, on behalf of the millions of Americans in need of relief from over-taxation, I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to repeal the increase in tax on Social Security benefits. As my colleagues know, the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act increased the taxable portion of Social Security benefits from 50% to 85% for Social Security recipients whose threshold incomes exceed $34,000 (single) and $44,000 (couples). The legislation I am introducing today simply phases out this increase gradually over a four-year period. In 1999, the applicable percentage would be 75 percent; in 2000, 65 percent: in 2001, 60 percent; in 2002, 55 percent; and finally in 2001, the taxable percentage would return to 50%. I believe the increase in the taxable portion of Social Security benefits was blatantly unfair because it changed the rules in the middle of the game. Responsible senior citizens who had carefully planned for their retirement were penalized and saw their income fall while their marginal tax rate skyrocketed. Nearly 9,000 seniors representing 23.4 percent of recipients are affected by this provision. These seniors relied on and based their decisions on the old law, and they cannot now go back in time to change these decisions. Clearly, we should be encouraging all Americans to save and invest for the future. We can not be sure that Social Security benefits will take care of all our retirement needs. If Congress continues to change the rules after plans and investment decisions have been made, we will diminish the incentive for Americans to prepare for the future and plan accordingly. I am consistently amazed by the perverse disincentives Congress enacts. Aside being patently unfair, taxing 85% of Social Security benefits above the current income levels creates a tremendous disincentive for seniors to work. It simply does not make sense to work if every dollar you earn over the threshold drastically reduces your Social Security benefits. This legislation is supported by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the Seniors Coalition and Sixty-Plus. I am pleased that this Congress will be focusing on strengthening and restructuring our nation's Social Security system for the seniors of today and tomorrow without placing an unfair burden on American workers. As we continue working together for a solution to our nation's retirement system I will push to include this provision in any Social Security bill we enact this year. Finally, I am sure many of my colleagues note that the problems with this additional tax on Social Security benefits are strikingly similar to the Social Security earnings limit. It is my strong hope that we will act expeditiously on this legislation as well as my legislation to fully repeal the unfair earnings test. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that authorizes two rounds of U.S. military installation realignment and closures to occur in 2001 and 2003. I am pleased to have Senator Levin and Senator Robb as cosponsors of this bill. Mr. President, we have heard over the last 4 months of the dire situation of our military forces. We have heard testimony of plunging readiness, modernization programs that are decades behind schedule, and quality of life deficiencies that are so great we cannot retain or recruit the personnel we need. As a result of this realization, there has been a 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 it will be in vain if the Department of Defense is obligated to maintain 23 percent excess capacity in infrastructure. When we actually look for the dollars to pay for these initiatives, it is unconscionable that some would not look to the billions of dollars to be saved by base realignment and closure. Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have stated repeatedly that they desire more opportunities to streamline the military's infrastructure. We cannot sit idly by and throw money and ideas at the problem when part of the solution is staring us in the face. This proposed legislation offers two significant changes to present law. First, the process for the first round in 2001 is moved back two months to ensure there is no conflict of interest with a commission nominated under one administration but effectively working under the direction of the follow-on administration. Second, under this legislation, privatization in-place would be permitted only when explicitly recommended by the Commission. Additionally, the Secretary of Defense must consider local government input in preparing his list of desired base closures. Total BRAC savings realized from the four previous rounds exceed total costs to date. The annual net savings for previous rounds will grow from almost $3 billion last year to $5.6-7.0 billion per year by 2001. These savings are real, they are coming sooner, and they are estimated to be greater than anticipated. Mr. President, we can continue to maintain a military infrastructure that we do not need, or we can provide the necessary funds to ensure our military can fight and win future wars. Every dollar we spend on bases we do not need 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. We must finish the job we started by authorizing these two final rounds of base realignment and closure. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this critical bill and to work diligently throughout the year to put aside local politics for what is clearly in the best interest of our military forces. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that authorizes two rounds of U.S. military installation realignment and closures to occur in 2001 and 2003. I am pleased to have Senator Levin and Senator Robb as cosponsors of this bill. Mr. President, we have heard over the last 4 months of the dire situation of our military forces. We have heard testimony of plunging readiness, modernization programs that are decades behind schedule, and quality of life deficiencies that are so great we cannot retain or recruit the personnel we need. As a result of this realization, there has been a 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 it will be in vain if the Department of Defense is obligated to maintain 23 percent excess capacity in infrastructure. When we actually look for the dollars to pay for these initiatives, it is unconscionable that some would not look to the billions of dollars to be saved by base realignment and closure. Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have stated repeatedly that they desire more opportunities to streamline the military's infrastructure. We cannot sit idly by and throw money and ideas at the problem when part of the solution is staring us in the face. This proposed legislation offers two significant changes to present law. First, the process for the first round in 2001 is moved back two months to ensure there is no conflict of interest with a commission nominated under one administration but effectively working under the direction of the follow-on administration. Second, under this legislation, privatization in-place would be permitted only when explicitly recommended by the Commission. Additionally, the Secretary of Defense must consider local government input in preparing his list of desired base closures. Total BRAC savings realized from the four previous rounds exceed total costs to date. The annual net savings for previous rounds will grow from almost $3 billion last year to $5.6-7.0 billion per year by 2001. These savings are real, they are coming sooner, and they are estimated to be greater than anticipated. Mr. President, we can continue to maintain a military infrastructure that we do not need, or we can provide the necessary funds to ensure our military can fight and win future wars. Every dollar we spend on bases we do not need 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. We must finish the job we started by authorizing these two final rounds of base realignment and closure. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this critical bill and to work diligently throughout the year to put aside local politics for what is clearly in the best interest of our military forces. 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 the Trading Information Act. In 1998, Americans continued to discover the Internet for the increased access to information and entertainment it provides, and as a more convenient means of purchasing goods. Americans also continued to discover the Internet as a more direct means of making and managing investments. Online stock trading is growing at a phenomenal pace. According to Forrester Research, there are more than 3 million online accounts, and that number is expected to exceed 14 million by 2002. In fact, the number of online traders in 1998 doubled from 1997, as it did from 1996. Trading over the Internet is providing more Americans with the opportunity to increase their personal wealth, and to participate in the current growth in the market. New discount brokerages, high-speed Internet access, and ``real time'' market updates are all contributing to the growth of online trading. The Trading Information Act will help to preserve this growing trend. The Trading Information Act will ensure that online traders will continue to have access to information relating to financial markets which they rely on to properly manage their assets. Whether watching a stock ticker on television, receiving up-to-date information over a cell phone or pager, or logging on with an online brokerage firm, Americans must continue to have unfettered access to this vital information, and this bill will ensure they continue to have it.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, I will reintroduce the Separate Enrollment Act of 1999. This bil requires each targeted tax benefit or spending item in legislation to be enrolled as a separate bill before it is sent to the President. If the President chooses to veto one of these items, each of these vetoes would be returned to Congress separately for an override vote. Last year, the Supreme Court struck down the line item vote on Constitutional grounds in a 6-3 decision. I was very saddened by this decision. Polls from previous years indicate that 83 percent of the American people support giving the President the line-item veto authority. We need the line-item veto to restore balance to the federal budget process. The Supreme Court struck down the 1996 Line-Item Veto Act on the basis that the Constitution requires every bill to be presented to the President for his approval or disapproval. In other words, the decision was not based on the concept that transferring power to the President of the United States lacked constitutionally, but the fact that bills are to be sent to the President for approval in their entirety. Separate enrollment as a line-item veto tool is not a new concept. This concept is not controversial. The Senate adopted S. 4, a separate enrollment bill in the 104th Congress, by a vote of 69 to 29. Legal scholars contend that the separate enrollment concept is constitutional. Congress has the right to present a bill to the President of the United States. Separate enrollment merely addresses the question of what constitutes a bill. It does not erode or interfere with the presentment of the bill to the President. Under the rulemaking clause, Congress alone can determine the procedures for defining and enrolling a bill. Separate enrollment is constitutional and will clearly work. Separate enrollment, as a line-item veto tool, will be a vital force in eliminating wasteful, unnecessary pork-barrel spending. Unfortunately, as we saw last year, pork-barrel spending is alive and well. On October 21, 1998, Congress passed the FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Bill--the worst example of pork-barrel spending in my memory. This was a 4,000 page, 40-pound, non-amendable, budget-busting bill which provided over a half-trillion dollars to fund 10 Cabinet- level federal departments. The bill exceeded the budget ceiling by $20 billion for what is euphemistically called emergency spending, much of which is really everyday, garden-variety, special-interest, pork-barrel spending, paid for by robbing billions from the budget surplus. The omnibus spending bill made a mockery of the Congress' role in fiscal matters. It was a betrayal of our responsibility to spend the taxpayers' dollars wisely and enact laws and policies that reflect the best interests of all Americans, rather than the special interests of a few. We cannot afford this magnitude of park-barrel spending when we have accumulated a multi-trillion dollar national debt. Right now, today, we use a huge portion of our federal budget to make the interest payments on the national debt. In fact, the annual interest payment almost equals the entire budget for national defense. We should be paying down the national debt, saving Social Security, and providing tax cuts for hard-working middle class Americans, not indulging in wasteful, unnecessary spending. The objective of the Separate Enrollment bill, and the Line-Item Veto before it, is to curb wasteful pork-barrel spending by giving the President the authority to eliminate individual spending items. The Separate Enrollment Act of 1999 will be our new tool to restore fiscal responsibility to the way we spend Americans' hard-earned dollars. This is not a partisan issue. The issue is fiscal responsibility. We have a President, we have 100 Senators, and we have 435 Representatives. It is hard to place responsibility upon any one person for profligate spending. Thus, no one is accountable for our runaway budget process. Past Presidents have sought the line-time veto. Congress finally agreed in 1996, when we passed the Line-Item Veto Act, to give the President the ability to surgically remove wasteful spending for appropriations and authorization bills. It would also establish greater accountability in the Executive branch for fiscal decisions and provide much-needed checks and balances on Congressional spending sprees. Unfortunately when given the Line-Item Veto authority in 1997, the President failed to exercise the authority in a meaningful fashion. Of over $8 billion in wasteful spending, he excised $491 million from the annual appropriations bills. And then the Supreme Court struck the Line-Item Veto Act down. Restoring this power this year in the form of the Separate Enrollment Act would if exercised responsibly by the President, reduce the excesses of the congressional budget process that focus on locality- specific earmarking and cater to special interests, not the national interest. Mr. President, I simply ask my colleagues to be fair and reasonable when addressing the issue of fiscal responsibility. The line-item veto, in the form of separate enrollment, is vital to curbing wasteful pork- barrel spending and restoring the American people's respect for their elected representatives.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Air Transportation Improvement Act, which would reauthorize the programs of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), including the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). This legislation includes numerous provisions that will help sustain and enhance safety, security, efficiency, and competition in the national aviation system. The bill also would establish a widely-endorsed system for managing the environmental consequences of commercial air tour flights over national parks. As most of my colleagues know, the Commerce Committee worked hard last year to develop a multi-year FAA reauthorization bill. Following a bipartisan, inclusive, and constructive process, we developed a package that among other things would have authorized important airport construction grants. The legislation also would have instituted a host of safety and security enhancements. One of the key elements of last year's Senate-passed FAA bill was the aviation competition and service title. It would have modestly enhanced the capacity at the four slot-controlled airports in the country-- LaGuardia and JFK in New York, Chicago O'Hare, and Reagan National. New entrant, low fare carriers have been effectively shut out of these key markets, which are critical to sustaining a healthy network and giving consumers new low cost choices. Senator Frist and Majority Leader Lott were instrumental in developing these proposals. Senator Frist in particular has been out in front in the effort to bolster the role that regional jets play in the overall aviation system. As everyone who cares about the quality of air service knows, regional jets will be integral to expanding and improving service to small and medium-sized communities in the years to come. Unfortunately, special interests worked to thwart our efforts and killed these provisions to encourage airline competition. Instead of delivering pro-consumer aviation legislation to the traveling public, Congress failed to act after some of the major airlines applied pressure against these proposals that threatened their lock on the market. On the same day that the Senate approved the bill by a vote of 92 to one, we also appointed conferees. Although the House approved its own FAA reauthorization bill in August of last year, the leadership failed to appoint conferees. As a result, the two chambers were never given an opportunity to reconcile the two bills. Congress was then forced to include a short-term reauthorization of the AIP in the Omnibus Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999. This was a clear failure on the part of the 105th Congress. The text of the bill I am introducing today is nearly identical to the FAA reauthorization bill that the Senate approved overwhelmingly last year. The only changes that have been made involve a few purely technical corrections and removal of provisions that have already been enacted into law. In last year's Omnibus Appropriations Act, we reauthorized the AIP for six months so that this Congress would have to act immediately to complete the work of the last Congress. The AIP is set to expire on March 31, 1999. With the introduction of this bill, I am fulfilling my commitment to continue the reauthorization process where the last Congress left off in a time frame that ensures the continuation of the federal airport grant program. I plan to hold a hearing on this bill and to mark it up as soon as possible. The heavy lifting has already been done. The bill may undergo some revisions, especially considering our good fortune to have Senator Rockefeller appointed as the new ranking member on the Aviation Subcommittee. Even so, it will not be necessary for us to start from scratch. As the Commerce Committee begins this effort, I look forward to working again with Senators Gorton, Hollings, and Rockefeller, as well as the rest of my colleagues, on a reauthorization package that all Senators can support. Mr. President, we must work over the next few months to finish the job we started last year. It is vital that we push forward with the important pro-consumer provisions that are included in this bill. Last year, consumers lost out to special interests. This year, I will use all means at my disposal to ensure that does not happen again.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Parks Overflights Act. This legislation intends to promote air safety and protect natural quiet in our national parks by providing a process for developing air tour management plans (ATMP) at those parks. An ATMP at a national park would manage commercial air tour flights over and around that park, and over any Native American lands within or adjacent to the park. I would like to remind my colleagues that this is the same legislation that was approved overwhelmingly by the Senate last September, as part of the Wendell H. Ford National Air Transportation System Improvement Act, or the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization bill. Today I reintroduced the FAA reauthorization bill that was approved by the Senate last year. Title VI of the bill deals with national parks overflights. Mr. President, the National Parks Overflights Act was developed at the recommendation of the National Parks Overflights Working Group. The working group was established to develop a plan for instituting flight restrictions over national parks because of the noise and environmental consequences associated with commercial air tours of the parks. Environmentalists, as well as general aviation and air tour industry representatives, constituted the membership of the working group. The group recommended a consensus proposal on overflights, which is embodied in the National Parks Overflights Act. Visitors to our national parks, whether by air or through the entrance gate, deserve a safe and quality visitor experience. The number of air tour flights across the country is on the rise. As additional aircraft operate in concentrated airspace, the risk of an accident increases. We have a responsibility to manage park airspace to provide for the safe and orderly flow of traffic. ``Natural quiet,'' or the ambient sounds of the environment without the intrusion of manmade noise, is a highly valued resource for visitors to our national parks. As commercial air tour flights increase, their noise also increases, which can impair the opportunity for park visitors on the ground to enjoy the natural quiet that they seek and deserve. The National Parks Overflights Act seeks to promote both safety and natural quiet by providing a fair and balanced process for the development of Air Tour Management Plans at individual parks. The FAA Administrator and the Director of the National Park Service are to work cooperatively to develop an ATMP through a public process. The development of an ATMP will include the environmental requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The bill would also require that commercial air tour operators increase their safety standards, specifically by meeting FAA Part 135 or Part 121 safety criteria. Certain parks have been dealt with individually in the bill because of their unique circumstances. Since Grand Canyon overflights are governed by legislation that has already been enacted into law, the Grand Canyon National Park has been exempted from the legislation. Alaska is also exempt from the legislation given the vast expanse of park land and the unique nature of aviation in the state. The legislation would prohibit commercial air tours of the Rocky Mountain National Park. Let me conclude by saying that commercial air tours provide a legitimate means of experiencing national parks. They are particularly important for providing access to the elderly and the disabled. I believe that this legislation appropriately balances the rights of all park visitors. I hope and expect that we can work together toward its swift enactment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I and Senator Hutchison, Senator Stevens, Senator Craig, Senator Warner, and Senator Ashcroft are introducing the Government Shutdown Prevention Act of 1999. This bill creates a statutory continuing resolution as sort of a safety net funding mechanism, which would be triggered only if the Fiscal Year 2000 appropriation acts do not become law or if there is no governing continuing resolution in place after the start of Fiscal Year 2000. Mr. President, this legislation is important. It must be done soon, and I intend to seek early action on this bill. I believe the lesson of the last 4 years is that we cannot allow the Government to be shut down again, nor can we allow the threat of a Government shutdown to be so imminent that we fiscal conservatives are forced to acquiesce to the appropriation of billions of dollars for projects that do not serve our nation's best interests. What this legislation does is ensure that the Government will not shut down and that Government shutdowns cannot be used for political gain. This safety net continuing resolution basically would set spending for fiscal year 2000 at 98 percent of 1999 funding levels. The resolution would take effect only if the Congress and the President have not completed their work on time. Mr. President, let me make it clear that this bill only applies to the Fiscal Year 2000 appropriations. I believe that it should be expanded to make the statutory continuing resolution a permanent safety net to prevent disruptive government shutdowns. We all saw the effects of gridlock in the past. No one wins when the Government shuts down. Shutdowns only confirm the American people's suspicions that we are more interested in political gain than doing the nation's business. The American people are tired of gridlock. They want the Government to work for them, not against them. Our Founding Fathers would have been ashamed of our inability to execute the power of the purse in a responsible fashion. I am sure they would have been quite shocked by the 27 days in late 1995 that the Government was shut down, the 13 continuing resolutions that had to be passed to provide temporary spending authority, and the almost $6 billion in blackmail money that was given to the Administration to ensure that the Government did not shut down a third time in Fiscal Year 1966. Although Republicans shouldered the blame for the 1995 Government shutdown, President Clinton and his colleagues were equally at fault for using it for their political gain. Republicans were outmaneuvered by President Clinton because we did not realize that he was willing to use the budget process for his own political purposes. We also cannot let the threat of another Government shutdown force us to adopt another fiscal debacle like the FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. The political finagling that led to the extra $20 billion in pork-barrel spending in that bill made mockery of the budget process and insulted the intention of the framers to give Congress the power of the purse. The only reason the Congress passed such a monstrosity was the ever-present specter of another government shutdown and Washington gridlock in an election year. The Government Shutdown Act of 1999 does not erode the power of the appropriators. It gives them ample opportunity to do their job. It is only if the appropriations process is not completed by the beginning of the fiscal year, that the safety net continuing resolution will go into effect. In addition, I emphasize that entitlements are fully protected in this legislation. The bill specifically states that entitlements such as Social Security--as obligated by law--will be paid regardless of what appropriations bills are passed or not passed. We saw in 1995 how politically motivated government shutdowns hit all Americans hard. In my State of Arizona, during the Government shutdown the Grand Canyon was closed for the first time in 76 years. I heard from people who worked close to the Grand Canyon. These were not Government employees. These were independent small business men and women. They told me that the shutdown cost them thousands of dollars because people could not go to the park. According to a CRS report, local communities near national parks alone lost an estimated $14.2 million per day in tourism revenues as a direct result of the Government shutdown, for a total of nearly $400 million over the course of the shutdown. The cost of the last Government shutdown cannot be measured in just dollars and cents. During the 1995 shutdown, millions of Americans could not get crucial social services. For example, 10,000 new Medicare applications, 212,000 Social Security card requests, 360,000 individual office visits and 800,000 toll-free calls for information and assistance were turned away each day. There were even more delays in services for some of the most vulnerable in our society, including 13 million recipients of AFDC, 273,000 foster care children, over 100,000 children receiving adoption assistance services and over 100,000 Head Start children--not to mention the new patients that were not accepted into clinical research centers, the 7 million visitors who could not attend national parks, or the 2 million visitors turned away at museums and monuments. And the list goes on and on. In addition, our Federal employees were left in fear wondering whether they would be paid, would they have to go to work, would they be able to pay their bills on time. In my State of Arizona, for example, of the 40,383 Federal employees, over 15,000 of them were furloughed in the 1995 Government shutdown. As bad as the 1995 government shutdown was, the fiscal nightmare known as the FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, was equally repulsive. This 4,000-page, 40-pound, nonamendable, budget-busting bill provided over a half-trillion dollars to fund 10 Cabinet-level federal departments. To make matters worse, this bill exceeded the budget ceiling by $20 billion for what is euphemistically called emergency spending. Much of this so-called ``emergency spending'' is really everyday, garden-variety, special interest, pork-barrel spending paid for by robbing billions from the budget surplus. This monstrous bill passed because Congress was forced to either pass it, or face another government shutdown. The Government Shutdown Prevention Act of 1999 would make it more difficult for opportunistic politicians to put the American public at risk by threatening to shutdown essential government functions if Congress cannot agree on spending priorities and policies. A 1991 GAO report confirmed that permanent funding lapse legislation is a necessity. In their report they stated, ``Shutting down the Government during temporary funding gaps is an inappropriate way to encourage compromise on the budget.'' Let us show the American people that we have learned our lessons from the 1995 Government shutdown and the 1998 fiscal debacle. Passing this preventive measure will go a long way to restore America's faith that politics or stalled negotiations will not stop Government operations. It will show our constituents that we will never again allow a Government shutdown or threat of a Government shutdown to be used for political gain. We anticipate strong support from the Leadership, and urge them to move this legislation forward as soon as possible. This is must-pass legislation. Neither party can afford another breach of faith with the American people. Our constituents are tired of constantly being disappointed by the actions of Congress and the President. That is why this legislation is so important. Never again, should the American public's hard-earned dollars be used as ransom to prevent a politically motivated government shutdown.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Surface Transportation Board (STB) Reauthorization Act of 1999. I am pleased Senator Hollings, the Ranking member of Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and Majority Leader Lott, also a distinguished member of our Committee, have joined me in sponsoring this important legislation. The introduction of this bill on this, the first day in the 106th Congress for introducing legislation, is intended to demonstrate the firm commitment of the bill's sponsors to enact multi-year legislation extending the Board's authorization. Many of us worked toward enacting a reauthorization measure last year, but those efforts were unsuccessful due to matters generally unrelated to the Board itself. While those rail-related issues remain for some, I do not believe we should hold the STB's reauthorization hostage and believe we could consider dual-track measures--this reauthorization on the one hand and proposals for statutory changes on another. Although the dual-track did not succeed last Congress, I am hopeful that it can in the 106th Congress. The Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 1999 is straight forward. First, it proposes to reauthorize the STB for the current fiscal year through 2002 and provide sufficient resources to ensure the Board is able to continue to carry out its very serious responsibilities and duties. Second, it proposes that the Board's Chairmanship be subject to Senate confirmation like a host of other Boards and Commissions throughout the Federal governmental, including the National Transportation Safety Board, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Export-Import Bank, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission to name a few. Mr. President, I want to inform my colleagues that the Senate Commerce Committee intends to fully explore the resource needs of the Board and also consider limited proposals for statutory changes advocated by some members. I know the Chairman of the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee, Senator Hutchison, plans to hold hearings on the STB and continue the examination of STB actions affecting rail service and rail shipper problems which were initiated during the 105th Congress. As I have stated on numerous occasions, rail service and rail shipper issues warrant serious consideration. These matters have received extensive and comprehensive examination under Subcommittee Chairman Hutchison's able leadership and will continue as important oversight issues under the Committee's jurisdiction. I strongly believe, however, specific rail service and rail shipper problems and cases are best resolved by the Board. That is why Congress must provide the Board with the resources and legal authority necessary for it to continue to carry out its statutory duties fully and fairly, and on a timely basis. The STB is one of our smallest Federal entities and it has very limited resources. It is imperative that we reauthorize the Board so that it can continue to produce the vast workload it has achieved since its inception in 1996. We must do our part to assist the Board in fulfilling its statutory duties responsibly and independently. The Administration and Congress must also take necessary action to ensure a fully constituted Board. I look forward to working on this important transportation legislation and hope my colleagues will agree to join with me and the other sponsors in expeditiously moving this necessary reauthorization through the legislative process.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to sponsor three bills designed to improve the way Congress spends Americans' hard-earned dollars. First, Senator Domenici and I and others are co-sponsoring legislation requiring Congress to adopt a biennial budget process. Second, Senator Kyl and I are introducing a resolution to establish a 60-vote point of order against any item in any appropriations measure that provides more than $1 million for any program, project, or activity which is not specifically authorized in a law other than an appropriations act. Third, Senator Kyl and I are introducing a resolution to establish a privileged, non-debatable motion to proceed to any appropriations measure after June 30 of any year. As anyone who has followed Congress over the years knows, budget process reform is not new. It is often the subject of heated political debate. It has spawned numerous vigorous floor debates and been the subject of much controversy. Unfortunately, little in the way of substantive reform has ever been accomplished. Surely, after our experience with the fiscal year 1999 budget process, most in Congress would agree that budget process reform is an idea whose time has finally come. The time for rhetoric has passed, and the time for overall substantive reforms is here. The power of the purse is vested in the Congress. However, the obligation to control the purse does not mean Congress do so with impunity or with disregard for the greater good of the Nation. Since I came to Congress, I have spent a great deal of my time considering matters related to the budget. As critical as I have been of the Congressional budget process over the past 16 years, the monstrosity of a spending bill we passed last year took my outrage to new heights. This bill clearly illustrates that our budget process is flawed. If we had adequate controls on the budget process, the fiscal year 1999 omnibus appropriations bill would never have occurred. The second session of the 105th Congress convened on January 27 and adjourned on October 21, 1998--a total of 266 calendar days in which Congress completed work on only 4 of the 13 regular appropriations bills that keep the federal government open and functioning. Yet it took us just 24 hours to debate and pass a 4,000-page, 40-pound, non- amendable, budget-busting omnibus appropriations bill that provided more than half-a trillion dollars to fund 10 Cabinet-level federal departments for the fiscal year that started 21 days prior. The bill exceeded the budget ceiling by $20 billion for what is euphemistically called emergency spending, much of which is really everyday, garden-variety, special interest, pork-barrel spending projects. Sadly, these projects are paid for by robbing billions from the budget surplus. This bill made a mockery of the Congress' role in fiscal matters. It was and still is a betrayal of our responsibility to spend the taxpayers' dollars wisely and enact laws and policies that reflect the best interests of all Americans, rather than the special interests of a few. I voted against the omnibus appropriations bill, as did many of our colleagues. But the bill passed, and is now law. This bill became law because Congress was forced to either adopt this bill, or face another government shutdown. In a sense, Congress was once again held hostage by the prospect of experiencing another government shutdown. Sadly, for most years, the Federal budget is passed in one fell swoop through one monster bill. Appropriations committees, charged with passing separate legislation to pay for each portion of the Government, disregard their deadlines and lump all Government spending in one mammoth bill. Failure to pass such a behemoth would result in a complete shutdown of all Government agencies and chaos among recipients of Government benefits. We have been held hostage in this manner, in the past, and will be again in the future if meaningful comprehensive budget process reforms are not adopted promptly. We cannot mortgage away our future generations' prosperity by spending wastefully today. Budget process is key to maintaining fiscal responsibility. Our more than ever increasing $5 trillion national debt and the fiscal nightmare of the fiscal year 1999 omnibus appropriations bill indicate that Congress must change the way it conducts the budget process. We can ill afford to permit an inadequate budget process to squander away our first budget surplus in decades. According to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, our national debt is now $5.52 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that in fiscal year 1998, the federal government paid more than $244 billion in net interest, or some $668 million every day. These numbers are facts. The facts are scary-- $668 million every day to pay for the interest on our national debt. The more we spend on interest, the less we have to spend for other vital goods and services. This must stop. The only way to stop wasting almost a quarter of a trillion dollars a year is to pay down our national debt and ensure we do not squander this opportunity by instituting budget process reforms. Our founding fathers saw the importance of avoiding debt and wasteful spending. The framers assumed that each generation would pay its own bills, and Thomas Jefferson stated: I place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. Yet we are content to burden every child born in this century with a $5.5 trillion debt. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that we will have an $80 billion surplus for fiscal year 1999. But we are not protecting the budget surplus to save social security. We are not protecting the budget surplus to pay down our debt. Nor are we spending tax dollars cautiously to insure that funds are available to allow Congress to pass broad-based middle-class tax relief. Why? Because our current budget process is flawed. It is easily manipulated to appropriate funds for locality-specific parochial interests, as opposed to the national interests. Paying down the debt, saving social security, and broad- based middle-class tax relief would benefit all Americans. Yet we continue to ignore these priority needs when we approve monstrosities like the fiscal year 1999 omnibus appropriations bill. The problem is the current budget process. It allows the politics of the moment to take precedence over larger long-term issues which impact the Nation as a whole. The legislation I am co-sponsoring, and the reforms I am introducing will address the ills in the current budget process. First, the biennial budgeting legislation drafted by Senator Domenici will radically change the way Congress passes a Federal budget. This legislation will require the President to submit and the Congress to enact two-year authorization and appropriations bills. Biennial budgeting would allow us to focus attention on fiscal matters during the first full year of a Congress, then turn to other pressing matters of national policy the second year. Two-year budgets would also provide needed predictability and stability for government agencies and programs. Biennial budgeting will not solve all our budget process woes, and it will not automatically solve the serious problems posed by the increased demand on entitlement programs as the next generation begins to retire. However, what a biennial budget can do is to give us time for the important tasks that often get short shrift these days, such as conducting oversight and long-range planning. The legislation that we are introducing today will ensure that time for oversight and long- range planning is set aside. I am also sponsoring 3 procedural changes governing the Senate's budget process. I am introducing a resolution in the Senate to amend our procedures to establish a 60-vote point of order against any item in an appropriations measure that provides more than $1 million for any program, project, or activity which is not already specifically authorized in a law other than an appropriations act. This is the system of checks and balances that is envisioned in the law, and I believe the Senate should adhere to this necessary fiscal restraint. To do anything less makes a mockery of the authorization process. If we do not do this, and we continue to use appropriations bills to do all our authorizing business, why even have authorizing committees? I am also introducing a resolution in the Senate to make a motion to proceed to any appropriations measure after June 30 a privileged motion. The Budget Act establishes June 30 as the date by which the House is expected to complete action on all the appropriations measures. By eliminating the need to debate, file cloture, and vote on a motion to proceed to appropriations measures after that date, the Senate could save a full week's time, and could instead spend that time working on the bill itself. Also, I am sponsor of Senate Resolution 4, introduced on January 6, 1999, which restores the point of order preventing Senators from attaching legislative ``riders'' to appropriations measures. This measure will go a long way toward preventing gridlock over policy matters in spending bills. These procedural changes would, in my view, go a long way toward restoring openness, fairness, and public input in the process of spending the taxpayers' dollars. We would be able to pass budgets in the normal process, rather than budget by brinkmanship. These budget reform proposals are not a political exercise. These reforms are long-overdue and real. It is my intention to work with the leadership to move this legislation quickly. It is very important we act before the appropriations season begins in earnest. To do nothing to reform our budget process is far more dangerous than to try and not succeed. Budget process reform must be adopted to insure that we do not waste the opportunity to start shaving away at our massive national debt. The system is set up to have checks and balances. Lately, we have drifted from this process. Congress must adopt meaningful budget process reform this year, or risk further fiscal monstrosities like the fiscal year 1999 omnibus appropriations bill. Clearly, the process by which we spend Americans' hard-earned dollars is flawed and needs to be changed. I hope my colleagues will acknowledge the obvious, and push for comprehensive budget process reform at the earliest opportunity.