John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I mentioned earlier, I say to my friend, Senator Kyl, the letter and press conference of our, I think very courageous, Governor and a speaker of our Arizona House and Senate. They held a press conference yesterday and announced the letter they were sending to the President of the United States. I think she graphically demonstrates not only the incredible burden this lays on our home State of Arizona but on States all over America. Isn't it true, I ask my colleague from Arizona, that not only has the State of Arizona warned of the consequences of this legislation, in the State of Arizona we may have on our ballot a statement included in our State constitution that no one should be forced to buy health insurance. Isn't it true that other States both have enacted legislation and are working on their own State constitutions to prevent this mandatory health insurance purchase and the included tax increases and costs on their States?

Mr. McCAIN. I had it printed in the Record, and also I highlighted the comments the Governor said, ``imploring our Congressional delegation to vote against your proposal. . . .'' Therefore, ``the reason for my position is simple: we cannot afford it.''

Mr. McCAIN. I would like to bring to my colleague's attention--one of the major health care providers in our home State of Arizona and across the country is Banner Health, as my colleague knows. There is a letter. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letter from Peter Fine, CEO of Banner Health in Phoenix be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. His letter states: The President has called on Congress to pass H.R. 3590. . . . This legislation would greatly expand Medicaid at a tremendous cost to Arizona. Our state cannot afford its current Medicaid program and your support for H.R. 3590 would be fiscally irresponsible. . . . Despite these and other drastic program cuts, Arizona's budget still has a $2.5 billion structural deficit--the difference between on-going expenditures and on-going revenues. . . . Arizona has run a budget deficit in eight of the last ten years. Banner Health, Arizona's largest provider of health care services, supports expanded access to health care services for the uninsured but not as an unfunded mandate. According to the AHCCS Administration-- That is our State's version of Medicaid-- the Medicaid expansion in H.R. 3590 will cost Arizona $3.9 billion, from 2014 through 2020. The state simply cannot afford this expansion. The State cannot financially support the first dollar to gain the federal match and if the legislation calls for expanded Medicare coverage, the Federal Government will have to financially support it in total. While the legislation has many good things that could still be put in place by going after them individually rather than in a large complex bill, the negative impact of the unfunded mandate associated with the expansion of Medicaid will devastate Arizona.

Mr. McCAIN. Also, I am very interested. I said earlier, before my colleague came to the floor, that the announcement this morning that Caterpillar has announced the health care bill would cost the company $100 million more in the first year--$100 million more, just Caterpillar, in the first year alone. The hour is late. But what I think maybe my colleague and I should do is ask people from Raytheon and Boeing and other major manufacturing companies--by the way, many of them are export driven, Intel and others, that are located in our State--what the cost to them would be. If Caterpillar says it is $100 million more in 1 year, I can imagine what the costs are going to be to the major manufacturers that are located in the State of Arizona as well. Again, I want to repeat--I know Senator Kyl agrees with me--I would like to congratulate our Governor for standing up for the people of Arizona, for the courage she has shown more than once in her press conference. The statement she, joined by the members of the legislature, made is an important aspect of this debate. We should know in Washington what our actions will do to the people of the States we represent. As Senator Kyl mentioned, 38 States are taking some kind of action or another to prevent this piece of legislation from--however it comes out, certainly in its present form, which we know will not change very much if it is passed--wanting us to stop and start over. I hope our colleagues will recognize if this legislation passes through this weekend, through the House of Representatives, that the fight will then come back to the floor of the Senate. If in the worst case scenario this legislation is passed by the Senate and signed into law by the President of the United States, there will be a movement throughout the country that will be entitled ``Repeal Now'' or something like that, which will argue strenuously through demonstrations, at the ballot booth, and at tea parties and gatherings all over America that we will repeal this legislation. Back in the 1990s there was a piece of legislation called catastrophic health care. We passed it through the Congress. The President signed it. The American people said no. This fight goes on. All of us want to fix the health care system. All of us want to bring health care costs down. This is not the way to do it. It is certainly not the way to do it, which would be done strictly on a partisan basis for the first time in history that legislation of this magnitude is passed without a broad, bipartisan basis for it. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise in support of amendment No. 3475, which I have introduced. As I have stated several times already, the amendment is very simple. It would place a moratorium on all earmarks in years in which there is a deficit. I am joined in this effort by my good friend from Indiana, Senator Bayh, and I again thank him for his leadership and courage on this issue. Last year, I reminded my colleagues about the current fiscal situation. I think it is important to again review the facts. The Treasury Department, a week ago, announced the government racked up a record-high monthly deficit of $220.9 billion. We now have a deficit of over $1.4 trillion and a debt of $12.5 trillion, and unemployment remains at close to 10 percent. The list goes on and on. On Tuesday, the Senate rejected an amendment offered by Senator DeMint. This amendment called for a moratorium on all earmarks for fiscal years 2010 and 2011. There wasn't anything earth-shattering about that amendment. It wouldn't have shaken the foundations of our democracy. It is simply the political equivalent of calling a timeout. Yet, sadly, 68 Senators voted against this modest proposal, including 15 from my own party. So I have no illusions about the outcome of this amendment. I have been around here long enough to see what goes on. But it doesn't mean I will quit fighting, nor does it mean the American people will quit fighting to eliminate the waste and abuse of this system, and indeed the corruption that is part of this earmarking. I have listened to the arguments some of my colleagues continue to state; that eliminating the earmarks isn't necessary because they account for such a small part of our annual budget. Is that a reason to continue this practice? I am aware that earmarks consume a small percentage of a budget measured in the trillions, but given the seriousness of our current situation and the problems that are confronting American families who wake up every morning wondering if they are going to lose their job or their house, or if they will still be able to afford their children's education, it is deeply offensive to them. It is deeply offensive that we in Congress can't exercise some fiscal discipline. It is all the more offensive given that we have had in recent times all the evidence we should require to understand that earmarks are so closely tied to acts of official corruption. In a report entitled ``Why Earmarks Matter,'' the Heritage Foundation wrote: They Invite Corruption: Congress does have a proper role in determining the rules, eligibility and benefit criteria for Federal grant programs. However, allowing lawmakers to select exactly who receives government grants invites corruption. Instead of entering a competitive application process within a Federal agency, grant-seekers now often have to hire a lobbyist to win the earmark auction. Encouraged by lobbyists who saw a growth industry in the making, local governments have become hooked on the earmark process for funding improvement projects. They Encourage Spending: While there may not be a causal relationship between the two, the number of earmarks approved each year tracks closely with growth in Federal spending. They Distort Priorities: Many earmarks do not add new spending by themselves, but instead redirect funds already slated to be spent through competitive grant programs or by States into specific projects favored by an individual member. So, for example, if a member of the Nevada delegation succeeded in getting a $2 million earmark to build a bicycle trail in Elko in 2005, then that $2 million would be taken out of the $254 million allocated to the Nevada Department of Transportation for that year. So if Nevada had wanted to spend that money fixing a highway and rapidly expanding Las Vegas, thanks to the earmark, they would now be out of luck. On March 17, a Roll Call editorial, ``Earmark Action,'' stated the following: Even though they represent just a small fraction of Federal spending, earmarks have accounted for an outsized proportion of Congressional embarrassment over recent years, so we are pleased to see House Democrats and Republicans moving to limit them. But until the Senate goes along, or until President Barack Obama determines to veto earmarks when they come his way, the spectacle of special interest spending won't stop--nor, with it, the public's suspicion that many earmark projects are bought with campaign contributions. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the editorial from Roll Call from which I just quoted.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following articles: the article in the Wall Street Journal of March 17 entitled ``Earmarks in Reverse,'' the Washington Post article of March 12 entitled ``All Earmarks Should Be Banned in the House and Senate,'' the Steven and Cokie Roberts article entitled ``A Bribe By Any Other Name,'' the editorial of the Las Vegas Review-Journal entitled ``Going All In,'' and finally, the article of Matthew Bandyk of March 15, 2010, entitled ``Why Earmark Reform Has Not Changed Much In Congress.''

Mr. McCAIN. The reason I add those to the Record is because it isn't just my opinion, it is the opinion of the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and many other periodicals to this effect. Also, we perhaps in the Congress might pay attention to the fact that a poll in the last couple of days shows a 17-percent approval of Congress. Our approval ratings are at an all-time low. There are a variety of reasons. It isn't all because of earmarks. It is because of the economic situation, it is because of the frustration, it is because of the belief by many Americans that we are not responsive to their problems and challenges they face, which are unprecedented in these days, especially when we are spending $1 million to rehabilitate a bathhouse at Hot Springs, AR, $1 million for a waterless urinal initiative, $250,000 for turf grass research, $500,000 for a teapot museum in North Carolina, $2 million for the Vulcan monument in Alabama or $556,000 for the Montana Sheep Institute. Some may argue these are small amounts of money. But Americans don't understand when they can't stay in their homes or educate their kids or they can't keep their jobs, why Congress continues to engage in this practice. Let me just say, in the interest of full disclosure, this problem was exacerbated when Republicans took control of both Houses of Congress. The Wall Street Journal says: The reluctance to change is rooted in the Congressional belief that earmarks are the main guarantee of incumbency. Earmarks were relatively rare until the rise of the Tom DeLay Republicans in the late 1990s. By 2005, the high-water mark of the earmark craze, both parties had linked arms to add 13,500 pet projects to spending bills. Legislators crow about their largesse and use it to land campaign money from earmark recipients. This cash-for-votes mentality has become a symbol of everything Americans hate about Washington. The recent decision by the House ethics committee to put aside allegations that seven House Members awarded earmarks in order to secure campaign donations was another sign that Congress wasn't serious about changing this culture of special favors. So I think, Madam President, we could take a major step in the direction of restoring confidence in us if we would just stop using the earmark process until the deficit is erased. I urge my colleagues to consider this proposal and to reconsider their opposition to it. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, this is a very complicated and complex, difficult amendment to understand. It would place a moratorium on all earmarks on years in which there is a deficit. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before I get into the main topic, I obviously appreciate the passion of the Senator from Louisiana. It is unfortunate that she and the majority on the other side refuse to vote for the most important thing we could have done immediately for small business; that is, give them payroll tax relief and take the money out of the stimulus package, so much of which is being wasted on issues such as Davis-Bacon and environmental impact statements. We ought to give small businesses payroll tax relief immediately.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Now I wish to take this opportunity to speak about the ongoing cause of human rights and democracy in Russia. These are not issues we hear much about from the current Russian Government, unfortunately, unless it is to denounce those Russian citizens who aspire to these universal values. I had an opportunity the other week to meet with one of these brave Russian champions of human rights, human dignity, and freedom--a man by the name of Boris Nemtsov. I know several other people and other Members of Congress had a similar opportunity to speak with him. Mr. Nemtsov is but one of the many Russians who believe their country deserves a government that enhances and enshrines the human rights of its people in an inviolable rule of law, that allows citizens to hold their leaders accountable through a real Democratic process. This Saturday, March 20, many Russian human rights activists are planning public demonstrations all across their great country--I might add at great risk, since there is very little doubt that the Russian Government may even forcibly repress some of these public demonstrations, which will be peaceful. I asked Mr. Nemtsov what we in Washington could do to support the cause of human rights in Russia, and he simply said: ``Speak up for it. Speak up for us.'' It is my pleasure to do that today. The Russian Government will surely take whatever I say here and similar things said by others and try to paint Russia's champions of human rights and democracy as puppets and proxies of the United States. Of course, they would say and do the exact same thing even if no Americans spoke up for the human rights of Russia's citizens. So we should refrain from internalizing the Kremlin's talking points, especially when Russians themselves are requesting our moral support for their cause. Because the fact is, this isn't about particular individuals or particular demonstrations held this week or any week in Russia. This is about universal values--values that we in the United States embody but do not own, values that should shape the conduct of every government, be it ours or Russia's or any other country's. When we see citizens of conviction seeking to hold their governments to the higher standard of human rights, we should speak up for them. This is all the more necessary when we realize the obstacles those citizens face, especially in Russia. I wish to read a passage from the 2009 Country Report on Human Rights Practices, which was recently released by our State Department. Here is how they described the human rights situation in Russia: Direct and indirect government interference in local and regional elections restricted the ability of citizens to change their government through free and fair elections. During the year, there were a number of high-profile killings of human rights activists by unknown persons, apparently for reasons related to their professional activities. There were numerous credible reports that law enforcement personnel engaged in physical abuse of subjects. Prison conditions were harsh and could be life threatening. Eight journalists, many of whom reported critically on the government, were killed during the year. With one exception the government failed to identify, arrest, or prosecute any suspects. Beating and intimidation of journalists remained a problem. The government limited freedom of assembly, and police sometimes used violence to prevent groups from engaging in peaceful protest. It will be very interesting to see how the police and the government treat these demonstrations that will take place across Russia on March 20. These conditions would be intolerable in any country, and this conduct would be unacceptable for any government. Clearly, Russia today is not the Soviet Union, neither in its treatment of Russia's people nor in its foreign policy. But I fear that may be damning with faint praise, and Russians themselves are right to hold their country and their government up to higher standards. Russia is a great nation, and like all Americans of good will, I want Russia to be strong and successful. I want Russia's economy to be a vibrant source of wealth and opportunity for all Russians. I want Russia to play a proud and responsible role in world affairs. I will continue to affirm in public and in private that the best way for Russians to secure what they say they care about most--reduced corruption, a strengthened and equitable rule of law, economic modernization--is by nurturing a pluralistic and free civil society, by building independent and sustainable institutions of democracy, and by respecting the human rights of all. I was happy to see that Russian political parties not aligned with the Kremlin actually won more seats in regional parliamentary elections this week. Perhaps this signals a growing recognition among Russians that the authoritarian tendencies of the Kremlin need to be rolled back through popular opposition. Perhaps the Russian Government could allow future elections at all levels to be freer and fairer. Perhaps. But there is still a long way to go for the cause of democracy in Russia, and I hope these small electoral gains only embolden democracy's defenders. As we speak up for the rights of Russia's dissidents, we must do the same for the rights of Russia's neighbors as well--neighbors such as the country of Georgia. I visited Georgia in January, and I had a chance to travel to the so-called ``administrative boundary line'' with the breakaway region of Abkhazia. On the other side of that boundary line is sovereign Georgian territory occupied by Russian troops, as it has been since the 2008 invasion. When I was in Munich last month for an annual security conference, I heard several Russian officials speaking from the same script, alleging acts of aggression by Georgian forces against Russian peacekeepers--the same kind of rhetoric we heard before the 2008 invasion. This should give us all pause. I know Washington has a lot of foreign policy challenges at the moment, but we cannot forget Georgia and the support it deserves amid a continuing threat from its neighbor to the north. A Russian government that better protects the human dignity of its people would be more inclined to deal with its neighbors in peace and mutual respect. That is why we should all say a silent prayer and a public word of support for Russia's courageous human rights activists, as they make their voices heard this Saturday. These brave men and women want the best for their country. They want a government that is not only strong but just, peaceful, inclusive, and democratic. I urge Russia's leaders to recognize that peaceful champions of universal values are not a threat to Russia, and that groups such as this should not face the kinds of violence, repression, and intimidation that Russian authorities have used against similar demonstrators in the past. The eyes of the world will be watching. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, earlier today the senior Senator from Oklahoma incorrectly claimed that an article entitled, ``McCain Breaks Own Pork Rule'' that ran in Roll Call on November 6, 2003, proved that I had broken my pledge against requesting earmarks. However, the Senator failed to mention that Roll Call subsequently ran a correction to this article on November 17, 2003, stating that, ``the article inaccurately stated that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) violated his own rules against so-called ``pork barrel'' spending.'' I ask unanimous consent that the entirety of the original story and, more importantly, the correction published in Roll Call be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and that I be allowed to call up four amendments that are at the desk. They are amendment No. 3472, Amendment No. 3475, an amendment that has been at the desk on FAA reauthorization and--they are all at the desk--and the fourth concerns the Federal Aviation Administration finance proposal for development and implementation of technology for the Next Generation Air Transportation System.

Mr. McCAIN. Is amendment No. 3528 on the Grand Canyon National Park?

Mr. McCAIN. I would like to discuss all four amendments briefly. The first is the prohibition on earmarks in years in which there is a deficit. I have been pleased and somewhat surprised over the past week to hear about the renewed bipartisan interest in banning earmarks. I am thankful for the attention and I welcome the House Democratic leadership to the fight against earmarks. According to last Thursday's Washington Post: Facing an election year backlash over runaway spending and ethics scandals, House Democrats moved Wednesday to ban earmarks for private companies, sparking a war between the parties over which would embrace the most dramatic steps to change the way business is done in Washington. I was pleased to see that the Speaker of the House and the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee have recognized earmarks for what they are: a corrupting influence that should not be tolerated in these times of fiscal crisis. I applaud my Republican colleagues in the House and Senate, especially Senators Coburn and DeMint, who have called for a year-long moratorium on all earmarks. I fully support and join them in those efforts, but I think we need to do more. We need a complete ban on earmarks until our budget is balanced and we have eliminated our massive deficit. This amendment promises to do just that. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort. It is what the American people want. We have an obligation to give it to them. I am pleased to be joined by my good friend from Indiana, Senator Bayh. Amendment No. 3472 The next amendment I would like to discuss very quickly is that no funds from the passenger facility fee could be used to construct bike storage facilities at airports. As many know, the passenger facility fee is assessed on every ticket for any flight. Currently, this fee is $4.50 per flight. During these very difficult economic times for most Americans, the bill from the House raises this fee to $7 and indexes it to inflation. It is frustrating, but it is more frustrating that taxes and fees make up as much as 25 percent of every passenger's airline ticket. I think most airline passengers would agree with me that they would rather see more improvements to ensure faster travel times and safer departures and arrivals. The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported earlier this year, on January 14, 2010, that $1.5 million of passenger facility fees were used for a ``function art project of glass panels laminated with patterns of tree bark.'' It sounds beautiful, but I know most Americans want these excessive fees and charges to be used effectively and for the goal that Congress intended: to improve safety and performance. Amendment No. 3527 On the issue of the amendment concerning moving Next Generation air traffic control forward, this amendment would require the FAA to report back to Congress in 90 days with proposals for innovative financing mechanisms to further the deployment and implementation of a modernized air traffic control system known as NextGen. Specifically, the report requires these innovative financing proposals to not increase our Federal deficit and consider public- private partnerships. As the distinguished chairman of the committee knows all so well, modernizing our outdated air traffic control system will positively impact all Americans by decreasing airport delays, improving the flow of commerce, and advancing our Nation's air quality by reducing aircraft carbon emissions. Every day Americans sit on a runway and miss meetings, children's soccer games, family dinners, and other important events due to air traffic delays that could have been avoided if our Nation had a modernized air traffic control system. Thousands of goods are delayed for delivery each year due to air traffic delays which results in more than $40 billion in costs each year that are passed on to consumers, according to the Joint Economic Committee. The Government Accountability Office estimates that one in every four flights in the United States of America is delayed. The airlines have called our air traffic control system ``an outdated World War II radar system.'' The FAA's Next Generation Air Transportation System, NextGen, will transform the current ground-based radar air traffic control system to one that uses precision satellites, digital network communications, and an integrated weather system. Moving from a ground-based to a satellite-based system will enable more flights to occupy the same airspace, meaning the ontime performance improvements would be a reality, and would triple the aircraft capacity according to airlines. However, the administration and Congress have not provided adequate funding toward air traffic control modernization, and instead continue to fund billions of dollars of earmarks. The FAA estimates it will cost up to $42 billion to implement a modern air traffic control system. Congress appropriated $188 million for air traffic control modernization in 2008, and $638 million in 2009, then another $358 million in the fiscal year 2010 Department of Transportation appropriations bill. However, that same bill dedicated $1.7 billion on transportation earmarks. We have to stop spending billions of dollars and instead cut spending or at least spend taxpayers' dollars on worthy projects. Again, I would like to thank the chairman of the committee for his efforts over many years on FAA modernization. There is no doubt the airlines are right when they describe our air traffic control system as ``an outdated World War II radar system.'' It is a shame that all of these years we have had attempts that failed and wasted billions of dollars in our efforts to modernize the air traffic control system, and we have failed. But we have to redouble our efforts. As we expect the economy to recover, there will be more aircraft flying in crowded airspace. There will be a more dangerous situation unless we modernize our air traffic control system. Amendment No. 3528 The final amendment I have is to provide standards for determining whether the substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the Grand Canyon National Park has been achieved, and to clarify regulatory authority with respect to commercial air tours operating over the park. I see my colleagues waiting, and I will not take a lot of time on this amendment. But I would like to mention to my colleagues that it was approximately 25 years ago that I proposed legislation to restore natural quiet in the great experience over the Grand Canyon National Park. All of these years have intervened and there still have not been regulations written to implement that legislation. All of us share the same goal. We have been able to sit down, with the help of the majority leader's office, Senator Ensign's office, Senator Kyl's office, and others to try to make progress on this important issue. I think we have brought all parties together. I think there is consensus. So I am hoping that we will be able to adopt this amendment without further disagreement. It is important that we restore the natural quiet and experience of the Grand Canyon National Park. At the same time, it is also very important that people from all over the world have the opportunity to enjoy one of the great and magnificent experiences that any person can have; that is, to view the Grand Canyon from the air as well as from the ground. I think this legislation represents that careful balance. I thank Senator Reid and Senator Ensign and Senator Kyl for their efforts in crafting this legislation. It is time we acted. I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce an amendment along with Senators Reid, Ensign and Kyl to clarify the Grand Canyon Overflights Act of 1987 that sought to restore the natural quiet of the canyon from commercial air tour overflights. After 23 years of numerous rulemakings by the National Park Service and the Federal Aviation Administration, and a lawsuit in 2002, it is now time to move forward to ensure that the 5 million visitors to the Grand Canyon can enjoy its majestic beauty by air or by foot without excessive noise from commercial air tour operators. Specifically, this amendment would set forth in statute the ``substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the Grand Canyon'' is achieved if for at least 75 percent of each day-- between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m--50 percent of the park is free from the sound produced by commercial air tour operations. Additionally, the amendment provides curfews for overflights, particularly during the peak visitor season, so many visitors can enjoy the grand sunset at the Grand Canyon relatively free from overflight noise. The amendment also sets forth curfews and reduced flight allocations for specific parts of the canyon that are particularly special for many visitors, including the Dragon Corridor on the west rim in the vicinity of Hermits Rest and Dripping Spring, the Zuni Point Corridor that includes the area known as ``Snoopy's Nose,'' and Marble Canyon. I have many fond memories of hiking the canyon with my sons, most recently just last year, and I hope all Americans are able to enjoy the beauty of the canyon without the interference of excessive noise from air tours. I believe this amendment allows without waiting another 23 years for progress. Over the past few years, there have been strong improvements in quiet technology for aircraft. I am pleased that several of the air tour operators that provide air tours at the Grand Canyon have migrated to quiet technology aircraft. This amendment would mandate the conversion to quiet technology for all air tour operations within 15 years of enactment. Additionally, this amendment provides numerous incentives for operators to convert to quiet technology, including a reduced park entrance fee and increased flight allocations for aircraft that utilize quiet technology. Lastly, this amendment requires the FAA to review flight allocations for air tour operators serving the Grand Canyon. These allocations have not been reviewed since 2001 and are based on 1990s data. Tourism is essential to Arizona's economic recovery. Over 37 million visitors came to Arizona in 2008 generating over $2.5 billion in tax revenues. There are over 300,000 jobs in Arizona that are tied to tourism in Arizona, and we must ensure that these jobs continue to exist and grow. Over 5 million tourists, hikers and adventure seekers visited the Grand Canyon in 2008. These visitors have also contributed millions of dollars to the great States of Arizona and Nevada, in addition to the local communities surrounding the Grand Canyon. We must ensure that these visitors have the ability to view the canyon by air if they wish to do so, but in a manner that maintains ``natural quite'' for those visiting the canyon by foot. I think this amendment achieves that goal. Again, I am proud to have the support of Senators Reid, Ensign, and Kyl who share my commitment to continuing the progress that has been made toward establishing ``natural quiet'' at the Grand Canyon, while continuing to ensure that its majesty is available to be viewed by air for those who wish to do so. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important amendment.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to my friend, I know he has been observing in the last few days the events that have transpired in regard to the situation in Israel and the reaction of the United States to the announcement that there would be additional housing construction in areas the Israelis believe are within the boundaries that will exist once peace is settled, and that the Palestinians are of the view that it is their area--as there are many territorial disputes between the Palestinians and the Israelis, which is one of the reasons there is a compelling argument for a peace process. I know my friend from Connecticut is disturbed, as I am, about the level of tension in the public discourse that has been going on, which cannot only not be helpful to Israeli-U.S. relations but also to the ability of Israel to deal with other tensions in the region and the existential threats they face from their neighbors who have threatened their extinction. So I have had the great pleasure and honor of travelling to Israel on numerous occasions with my friend from Connecticut. I would state for the record that no one has a closer relationship and a better understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian situation and the urgency of the peace process. I would just ask my friend, doesn't he think if we want the Israeli Government to act in a way that would be more in keeping with our objectives, that it does not help them to have public disparagement by the Secretary of State, by the President's political adviser on the Sunday shows? On the contrary, shouldn't we lower the dialog, talk quietly among friends, and work together toward the mutual goals we share?

Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask my colleague, shouldn't we be emphasizing what I very much appreciated? Vice President Biden--and I quote him-- said: In my experience one necessary precondition for progress [toward peace in the Middle East] is that every time progress is made, it's made when the rest of the world knows there is absolutely no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to security, none. I thought the Vice President had it exactly right, and as the Senator says: Look, mistakes are made. It is a government in Israel which is sometimes interesting to watch, particularly when you watch the proceedings in the Knesset, the parliamentary proceedings. But somehow it seems that the rhetoric has escalated and maybe given the impression to the wrong people--the neighbors of Israel who have stated time after time they are bent on Israel's extinction; the statements by Ahmadinejad that he wants to ``wipe Israel off the map''--and that perhaps there may be sufficient space, as the Vice President pointed out, that they could exploit that in a way that would be harmful to the State of Israel. I know that was not the intention of the President's political adviser on Sunday, and it is not the intention of the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State knows the Israelis very well. She has had dealings with all of the countries in the region. She is very knowledgeable and experienced. I hope all of us would realize, let's lower the rhetoric. Let's try and fix the problems that exist amongst the close friends we are rather than escalate the tensions that exist in a very dangerous time. The Senator from Connecticut and I were recently briefed about perhaps increased tensions in southern Lebanon, the possibility of attacks from southern Lebanon into Israel, the continued nuclear buildup on the part of the Iranians, the continued statements of assertiveness by the President of Syria, al-Assad. There are increased tensions in the region, and this is not the time--certainly, most importantly, not the time--that we give the impression that there is such differences between ourselves and Israel that it could be exploited by Israel's enemies.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, wouldn't my colleague agree that the original purpose of the Vice President's trip, as I understand it, was a precursor or even an announcement of indirect talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis, using the good auspices of Senator George Mitchell? So the trip was a signal to the world that the process of peace between Israelis and the Palestinians was on track, and a beginning, albeit a modest one, was taking place. So it might be good if our friends in the administration--and other places in the United States--could start refocusing our efforts on the peace process, which came very close to the beginning--again, modest, indirect but still beginning--of peace talks and emphasize the need to commence those, assure our Arab friends in the region of our commitment to the Palestinian-Israeli peace talks, and move forward in that direction. We need to understand that the Prime Minister of Israel has apologized and is trying, as the Senator from Connecticut pointed out, to put a mechanism in place to make sure that an incident of this nature would not arise again. So we could go back--I will not--and be very critical of the Obama administration's initial demand of a complete freeze of settlements which was, in my view, an unnecessary precondition and an impediment, but that is done also. So now we have had our spat, we have had our family fight, and it is time for us to now stop. We have to get our eye back on the goal, which is the commencement of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, and move forward with that--and I know the Senator from Connecticut shares my view--particularly with the leadership we are seeing on the Palestinian side. The chances for fruitful negotiations are better than they have been since the time the Senator from Connecticut cited back when President Clinton had Arafat and Ehud Barak to Camp David.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Connecticut. I rise today to address the very concerning, and unfortunately very public, tensions that have broken out recently between the governments of the United States and Israel. I am not here to take sides or to call out one party at the expense of the other. There have been enough accusations, recriminations, and bad blood. I certainly understand the anger felt by members of the U.S. administration that the announcement of new settlement construction in East Jerusalem by Israel's Interior Ministry simply seemed intended to embarrass Vice President Biden in the middle of his visit. I can also understand the anger felt by Israelis that the U.S. reaction to this announcement has been out of step with the announcement itself. At this point, there is little to be gained by either side by focusing on their anger, however justified they feel it is. It is now time to focus on what matters most: the common interests we share, the urgent need for cooperation between us, and the large capacity within our alliance to move beyond differences and work together. Vice President Biden spoke to exactly these themes in his excellent speech in Tel Aviv during his recent visit to Israel--a speech, I would add, that was delivered 2 days after the Interior Ministry's announcement. Perhaps the most correct and important thing the Vice President said was this: ``In my experience one necessary precondition for progress toward peace in the Middle East is that every time progress is made, it's made when the rest of the world knows there is absolutely no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to security, none.'' This is absolutely correct, and we all need to remember it right now. We now have a conservative Israeli leader who is committed to the goal of two States for two peoples, living side by side in peace and security. We have a leadership in the Palestinian Authority that is committed to beginning negotiations while also building the institutions of a democratic Palestinian state, including effective security forces that can enforce the rule of law and fight terrorism. We have a U.S. administration, and U.S. Congress, that is committed to being engaged in and supportive of the pursuit of peace in the Middle East. So let us focus on the opportunity we have, the United States and Israel together, as historic allies, to achieve goals that serve both our interests. The United States is completely committed to Israel's security, so Israel can feel totally confident in taking on the large and difficult decisions that peace requires. As the Vice President said, there should be no space between these allies--none. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I say to my friend, obviously, the answer to that question is, they continue to go back to the Congressional Budget Office with different assumptions in order to get the answers they want when the American people have figured it out. Again, I know my friend from Tennessee saw yesterday's news, which has to be considered in the context of the cost of this bill, which Congressman Ryan estimates at around $2.5 trillion with true budgeting over 10 years. But we cannot ignore the fundamental fact that ``the government ran up''--this is an AP article yesterday: The government ran up the largest monthly deficit in history in February, keeping the flood of red ink on track to top last year's record for the full year. The Treasury Department said Wednesday that the February deficit totaled $220.9 billion, 14 percent higher than the previous record set in February of last year. The deficit through the first 5 months of this budget year totals $651.6 billion, 10.5 percent higher than a year ago. The Obama administration is projecting that the deficit for the 2010 budget year will hit an all-time high of $1.56 trillion, surpassing last year's of $1.4 trillion total. I say to my friend from Tennessee, these are numbers that in our younger years we would not believe. We would not believe we could be running up these kinds of deficits. Yet we hear from the President and from the administration that things are getting better--certainly not from the debt we are laying onto future generations of Americans. May I mention also in this context--I wonder if my friend from Tennessee will agree with me that there is so much anger out there over porkbarrel spending and earmark spending that the Speaker of the House said they are going to ban earmarks in the other body for for-profit companies. I think that is a step forward. Why not ban them all? Immediately they would set up shadow outfits. Chairman Obey says that would be 1,000 earmarks. In one bill last year, there were 9,000 earmarks. So why don't we take the final step and put a moratorium on earmarks until we have a balanced budget, until there is no more deficit? I think that is what the American people wanted to get rid of--this corruption that continues there. But I would also mention to my friend from Tennessee very briefly that the President, when he and I sat next to each other at Blair House, and I talked about the special deals for the special interests and the unsavory deal that was cut with PhRMA and how the American people are as angry about the process as the product, the President's response to me was--and there is a certain accuracy associated with it--the campaign is over. Well, I would remind my friend that before the campaign--even before the campaign--when the President was still a Senator, he said this about reconciliation: You know, the Founders designed this system, as frustrating [as] it is, to make sure that there's a broad consensus before the country moves forward. . . . And what we have now is a president who-- And there he was referring to President Bush-- hasn't gotten his way. And that is now prompting, you know, a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate forever. . . . And what I worry about would be you essentially have still two chambers--the House and the Senate--but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that's just not what the founders intended. That was a statement by then-Senator Barack Obama. Then he went on to say: I would try to get a unified effort saying this is a national emergency to do something about this. We need the Republicans, we need the Democrats. Just yesterday, of course, at rallies around the country, he said: It is time to vote. It is time to vote, is his message, which certainly is attractive. We will be glad to vote. But we want to vote preserving the institution of the Senate and the 60-vote rule. In the interest of full disclosure, Republicans, when they were in the majority, tried to change it, as the Senator from Tennessee remembers. But the fact is, if we take away the 60-vote majority that has characterized the way this body has proceeded, we would then have just what then-Senator Obama said: You essentially have still two Chambers--the House and the Senate--but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that's just not what the founders intended. I wonder if my colleague from Tennessee would like to comment on whether the President still believes that is not what the Founders intended.

Mr. McCAIN. I would also remind my friend from Tennessee of Senator Byrd's comments regarding reconciliation and health care reform. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Senator Robert Byrd's statement on the floor of the Senate from April of 2001.