John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise to speak on the pending bill before us, one of the great porkbarrel, earmark-filled pieces of legislation I have seen come before this body. I would like to quote from ABC News, by Jonathan Karl and Devin Dwyer, ``Tis the Season of `Pork': Congress Gifts $4 Billion in Earmarks.'' Just weeks before returning to their districts for Christmas, Congress is poised to give the gift of pork-- roughly $4 billion of it. More than 5,000 earmarks were included in the $447 billion omnibus spending bill passed yesterday by the House, funding ``pet projects'' of key members of Congress from both parties and all regions of the country. The Senate will vote on the bill this weekend. . . . Independent analyses of the bill reveal a whopping 12 percent increase in government spending for 2010 while the inflation rate in the country remains near zero. Really, isn't that remarkable? A 12-percent increase in spending when people are out of jobs, out of their homes. They cannot afford, basically, what they need to sustain their lives, and we have increased spending by 12 percent and 4,500 earmarks, about $4 billion of it. ``This Congress has not shown that they are at all serious about the budget deficit in any way,'' said Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation. ``The spending spree is continuing even as the deficit escalates to $2 trillion.'' The earmarks are all explicitly listed in the bill--right next to the members of Congress who inserted them: $800,000 for jazz at New York's Lincoln Center, for Rep. Jerold Nadler, D-N.Y., and Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa. Harkin, and Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-Iowa, got $750,000 for exhibits at the World Food Prize Hall in Iowa. Hawaii Democratic senators Dan Inouye and Daniel Akaka helped get $3.4 million for a rural bus program in Hawaii. ``The country needs to be tightening its belt, just like the rest of America,'' said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense. Republicans have criticized the spending package, but many Democrats say it funds key priorities. Two of the biggest earmarks are from Republican senators Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker of Mississippi at a cost of $8 million for improvements to four rural State airports. One airport serves fewer than 100 passengers a day and another-- the Mid-Delta Regional Airport--sees even less. By the way, I have seen the pork extended to both of those airports over the years. The new funds would come on top of $4.4 million the airports just received from the stimulus package. I am not making this up. ``We obviously have huge aviation and transportation needs in this country and stuffing millions of dollars in small, little-used airports in Mississippi is not a wise use of funds,'' said Ellis. President Obama had promised to curb the inclusion of earmarks in government spending bills but he has yet to issue the threat of a veto. My friends, do not wait for the threat of a veto. In March, Obama signed a $410 billion spending package that contained nearly 8,000 pet projects. ``I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government,'' Obama said at the time. ``But I also view this as a departure point for more far-reaching change.'' What has changed? What has changed? Nothing. Nothing has changed. Senate majority leader Harry Reid said about the last omnibus: We have a lot of issues we need to get to after we fund the government-- something we should have done last year but could not because of the difficulty we had working with President Bush. Difficulty working with President Bush? Whom did the majority leader have trouble working with this time? Again, I repeat, a 1,350-page Omnibus appropriations conference report, 6 bills, spends $450 billion, 4,752 earmarks totaling $3.7 billion, and a full 409 pages of this conference report are dedicated to listing congressional pork-barrel spending. Spending on domestic programs in this bill is increased 14 percent over the last fiscal year, while spending on military construction and care for veterans has increased by only 5 percent. Let's look at a little bit of it. Transportation, Housing and Urban Development contains 1,400 earmarks totaling over $1 billion. Commerce- Justice-Science contains 1,511 earmarks totaling $715 million. The list goes on and on. Here we are with a deficit of $1.4 trillion, a debt of $12 trillion, unemployment at 10 percent, nearly 900,000 families lost their homes in 2008, yet there is every indication that the aggregate numbers for 2009 will be worse. With all this, we continue to spend and spend and spend. Every time we pass an appropriations bill with increased spending and load it up with earmarks, we are robbing future generations of Americans of the ability to obtain the American dream. Forty-three cents out of every dollar spent in this bill is borrowed from our children and our grandchildren and, unfortunately, generations after theirs. This is the greatest act of generational theft committed in the history of this country. Let me go through a few of these, if I might, and remind people of the context this is in. In my home State of Arizona, 48 percent of the homes are ``underwater,'' meaning they are worth less than the mortgage payments people have to pay. We have small businesspeople losing credit everywhere. Instead of trying to fix their problems and helping them out, it is business as usual in the Senate of the United States of America and the Congress. For example: $200,000 for the Washington National Opera, Washington, DC, for set design, installation and performing arts at libraries and schools; $13.9 million on fisheries in Hawaii--there is always Hawaii-- nine projects throughout the islands ranging from funding bigeye tuna quotas, marine education and training, and coral research; $2.7 million--one of my favorites--to support surgical operations in outer space at the University of Nebraska. As I have said many times--the common theme--you will always have a location designated for these projects. That is why some of them may be worthwhile, but we will never know because they don't compete them. They earmark them for the particular place they want to help. Unfortunately, that shuts out other people. There may be other places besides the University of Nebraska that can support surgical operations in outer space. I suggest we get Dr. Spock and Bones out there to help at the university. I don't know if they live in Omaha or not. I am sure to them and all the others on ``Star Trek,'' surgical operations in outer space may be one of their priorities. It certainly isn't a priority of the citizens of my State. One of the great cultural events that took place in the 20th century was the Woodstock Festival. In order to do a lot more research on that great cultural moment, we are going to spend $30,000 for the Woodstock Film Festival Youth Initiative; $200,000 to renovate and construct the Laredo Little Theater in Texas--people from all over America are flocking to the Laredo Little Theater, and they want to invest $200,000 of their tax dollars into the Laredo Little Theater. The money would be used to replace worn auditorium seating and soundproofing materials. Anybody got a little theater that warrants soundproofing? Maybe they should apply to the Senator from Texas. Continuing: $665,000--I am not making this one up--for the Cedars- Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles for equipment and supplies for the Institute for Irritable Bowel Syndrome Research. I have a lot of comments on that issue, but I think I will pass so as not to violate the rules of the Senate. There is $500,000 for the Botanical Research Institute of Texas in Fort Worth. I am sure the Botanical Research Institute in Fort Worth is a good one. I would like to see other botanical research institutes able to compete. There is $600,000 for water storage tower construction in Ada, OK, population 16,008; $200,000 for a visitor center in Bastrop, TX, the population is 5,340; $292,200 for elimination of slum and blight in Scranton, PA--that may have been put in by the cast of the office--$229,000 for elimination of slum and blight in Scranton; $200,000 for design and construction of the Garapan Public Market in the Northern Mariana Islands; $500,000 for development of a community center--$\1/2\ million--in Custer County, ID, population 4,343; $100,000 for the Cleveland Municipal School District--they just picked one and gave them $100,000--$800,000 for jazz at the Lincoln Center; $300,000 for music programs at Carnegie Hall; $400,000 for Orchestra Iowa Music Education, Cedar Rapids, IA, to support a music education program; $2.5 million for the Fayette County Schools in Lexington, KY, for a foreign language program; $100,000 to the Cleveland Municipal School District in Cleveland, OH, to improve math and language skills through music education; $700,000 for the National Marine Fisheries Service for the project Shrimp Industry Fishing Effort Research Continuation; $1.6 million to build a tram between the Huntsville Botanical Garden and the Marshall Flight Center in Alabama--how many places need $1.6 million to build a tram, it will probably go out to the statue of Vulcan--$250,000 for the Monroe County Fiscal Court for the Monroe County Farmers Market in Kentucky; $750,000 for the design and fabrication of exhibits to be placed in the World Food Prize Hall of Laureates in Iowa; $500,000 to support creation of a center to honor the contribution of Senator Culver, an Iowa State Senator, at Simpson College; $400,000 to recruit and train closed captioners and court reporters at the AIB College of Business in Iowa; $250,000 for renovating the Murphy Theatre Community Center in Ohio. There is a lot more, and I will go through them briefly. The point is, you will notice several things. One, the preponderance of these pork-barrel and earmark projects is allocated to members of the Appropriations Committee, which is fundamentally unfair. Second, you will find these are designated to a certain place, to make sure none of that money is spent somewhere else where the need may be greater. Third, it breeds corruption. It is a gateway drug. What we are talking about is a gateway drug. It is especially egregious now. Continuing: $300,000 to monitor and research herring in Maine; $200,000 to study Maine lobsters; $250,000 for a Father's Day rally parade in Philadelphia. I scoff and make fun of a lot of these but $250,000 for a Father's Day rally parade in Philadelphia. There is $100,000 for the Kentler International Drawing Space, an art education program in Brooklyn. Here is a deprived area, $75,000 for art projects in Hollywood Los Angeles Park; $100,000 for a performing arts training program at the New Freedom Theater in Philadelphia; $100,000 to teach tennis at the New York junior tennis league in Woodside, NY; $2.8 million to study the health effects of space radiation on humans at the Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA; $200,000 for the Aquatic Adventures Science Education Foundation in San Diego; $100,000 to archive newspaper and digital media at the Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College in Perkinston, MS; $3.9 million on researching weaving and knitting at Clemson University, Raleigh, NC, Philadelphia University, UC Davis in Davis, CA; $90,000 for a commercial kitchen business incubator at the El Pajaro Community Development Corporation in Watsonville, CA; $500,000 to study vapor mercury in the atmosphere at Florida State; $1 million to examine sea scallops fisheries at the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries in Bedford; $300,000 for seal and stellar sea lion biological research; $300,000 for Bering Sea crab management; $500,000 to upgrade the Baldwin County Courthouse security in Fairhope, AL; $900,000 for the operational costs and capital supporting the Alien Species Action Plan cargo inspection facility in Maui; $2 million to streetscape the city of Tuscaloosa, AL; $100,000 for an engineering feasibility study of a bike connector in Hiran, OH; $400,000 for a pedestrian overpass in Des Moines; $300,000 for a bike path in Cuellar, TX; $900,000 for a river freight development study in Missouri; $800,000 for a scenic trail in Monterey Bay, CA, another deprived area; $750,000 for the Philadelphia Museum of Art Transportation Improvement Program, Brady, PA; $500,000 for park-and- ride lots at Broward County, Meek, FL; $487,000 to restore walkways in Newport Cliff, RI, another low-income area; $974,000 for Regional East- West and Bikeway in Albuquerque. The list goes on and on and on, up to nearly $4 billion. The problem is, among other problems, in the last campaign, the President campaigned for change, change you can believe in. There is no change here. It is worse. It is worse because of the conditions Americans find themselves in--out of their homes, out of jobs, high unemployment, tough economic conditions. It is business as usual, spending money like a drunken sailor, and the bar is still open. I tell my colleagues, again, what I keep saying over and over: There is a peaceful revolution going on. They are sick and tired of the way we do business in Washington. They don't think their tax dollars should be spent on these pork-barrel earmarked projects. They are mad about it. We are not getting the message. We are not hearing them. We are not responding to the problems and the enormous challenges the American people have. We are continuing this kind of obscene process, which not only is wrong on its face but breeds corruption in Washington. I ask unanimous consent that the AP story ``Senate Set to Advance $1.1 trillion Spending Bill'' be printed in the Record, as well as the ABC News story and the FOX News story ``Watchdogs Cry Foul Over Thousands of Earmarks in Spending Bills.''

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I am sorry to be repetitive. I know my colleague is waiting, so I will end with this: This is wrong. We all know it is wrong. The American people know it is wrong. People who vote for this kind of porkbarrel spending are going to be punished by the voters, and we are going to end this obscene process, and we are going to end it soon, as early as the next election. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I wish to say to my colleague, first of all, as is well known, side-by-sides have been one side of the aisle and the other side of the aisle. If the Lautenberg amendment were in order on the Dorgan amendment as a side-by-side, that would obviously be a change from what we have been doing. Basically, what my amendment does is make some perfecting changes to the underlying Dorgan amendment. It has some sense-of-the-Senate provisions and several other provisions which I think would help make it more effective. I have to be very honest with my friend from Illinois, it doesn't undermine the Dorgan amendment. I think it supplements the Dorgan amendment, just as the Bennet amendment to Medicare costs supplemented the position we had that Medicare benefits wouldn't be cut. So side-by-side amendments aren't necessarily in contrast with each other; sometimes they perfect, and I think my amendment makes it a better amendment--makes the Dorgan amendment a better proposal.

Mr. McCAIN. Yes, plus some perfecting language, as far as the Senate is concerned, about other procedures that would expedite the Dorgan amendment as well.

Mr. McCAIN. No, obviously not, because I don't agree with the Lautenberg language in my amendment, as you know. But what we are trying to do is, obviously, make the Dorgan amendment better, just as other amendments that are side-by-sides have tried to make amendments better. They do not necessarily cancel them out but make them better.

Mr. McCAIN. Yes, a proud cosponsor.

Mr. McCAIN. I guess what I am not sure--if I understand my friend, I am offering an amendment as a side-by-side in order to, in my view, improve the Dorgan amendment; again, in all candor, not to undermine but to make it better.

Mr. McCAIN. And I withdraw, with great reluctance and great anger, my amendment, because I think the Lautenberg amendment would be in violation of what we have agreed to.

Mr. McCAIN. Could I be clear with the Senator from Illinois that what this means is we would move forward with the side-by-side Dorgan and Lautenberg--we would agree to that--and then we would also expect agreement on following amendments so that we could lock those in for debate and votes?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, while my friend from Illinois----

Mr. McCAIN. I ask for an additional 10 minutes of morning business so I could maybe engage in a colloquy with my favorite combatant here.

Mr. McCAIN. Maybe we can talk a little bit about his remarks. I have to say, I appreciate the eloquence and the passion the Senator from Illinois has brought to this debate. He makes some very convincing points. One of the major points--and I would be glad to listen to the Senator. I think it is fair for us to respond to each other's comments very quickly. The Senator from Illinois said we have been engaged in the negotiations and inputs have been made into the formulation of this bill. I have to tell the Senator from Illinois, I have been engaged in many bipartisan compromises, whether it be issues such as campaign finance reform, whether it be--a whole large number of issues, including defense weapons acquisition reform. I say to the Senator from Illinois, do you know what the process was? People sat down at the table together when they were writing the legislation. I am a member of the HELP Committee, OK? I say to the Senator from Illinois, do you know what the process was--because I am on the committee. A bill was brought before the committee without a single--Senator Enzi will attest to this--without a single period of negotiations, where we sat down together with the chairman of the committee, where they said: What is your input into this legislation? We had many hours of amendments in the committee, all of which, if they were of any real substance, were rejected on a party-line vote. I have to tell the Senator from Illinois he can say all he wants to that there have been efforts to open this to bipartisanship. There have not. My experience in this Senate--I know how you frame a bipartisan bill and that has not been the process that has been pursued by the majority. I understand what 60 votes mean. But in all due respect, I say to the eloquence of my friend from Illinois, that has not been the process which I have successfully pursued for many years, where people have sat down together at the beginning, where you are there on the takeoff and also then on the landing. I would be glad to hear the response of the Senator from Illinois. I ask unanimous consent if the Senator and I could engage in a colloquy.

Mr. McCAIN. Respectful but vigorous.

Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to correct the Senator from Illinois. Senator Enzi is here. None of those amendments were of any significant substance that would have a significant impact on the legislation, I have to say to the Senator from Illinois. For example, medical malpractice, we proposed several amendments that would address what we all know, what the Congressional Budget Office says is $54 billion-- other estimates as much as $100 billion--in savings. There were no real fundamental amendments. I have to say that some of those amendments were accepted. But it still doesn't change the fact that at the beginning, as the Senator from Illinois said--the bill came to the committee without a bit, not 1 minute of negotiation before the bill was presented to the committee. The ranking member is on the floor. He will attest to that. Please go ahead.

Mr. McCAIN. May I ask my friend, wasn't the reason the public option was abandoned was not because of a Republican objection, it was because of the Democratic objection? The Senator from Connecticut stated, unequivocally, the public option would make it a no deal. I appreciate the fact that Republican objections were observed. But I don't believe the driving force behind the abandonment of this public option, if it actually was that--we have not seen the bill that is going to come before us--was mainly because of the necessity to keep 60 Democratic votes together.

Mr. McCAIN. We are hoping not.

Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask my friend about the situation as it exists right now? Right now, no Member on this side has any idea as to the specifics of the proposal the majority leader, I understand, has sent to OMB for some kind of scoring. Is that the way we want to do business, that a proposal that will be presented to the Senate sometime next week and voted on immediately--that is what we are told--is that the way to do business in a bipartisan fashion? Should we not at least be informed as to what the proposal is the Senate majority leader is going to propose to the entire Senate within a couple days? Shouldn't we even know what it is?

Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask my friend from Illinois--and by the way, I would like to do this again. Perhaps when he can get more substance into many of the issues.

Mr. McCAIN. I admit these are unusual times. But isn't that a very unusual process, that here we are discussing one-sixth of the gross national product; the bill before us has been a product of almost a year of sausage-making. Yet here we are at a position on December 12, with a proposal that none of us, except, I understand, one person, the majority leader, knows what the final parameters are, much less informing the American people. I don't get it.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend, everything he said is absolutely correct. I am deeply concerned about the situation of health care in America. I know the Senator from Illinois is deeply concerned about the fact that it is going to go bankrupt, about the fact that the Medicare trustees say that within 6 or 7 years it is broke. From what we hear, there is now a proposal over there to extend eligibility for Medicare, which obviously puts more people in the system, which obviously, under the present setup, would accelerate a point of bankruptcy, at least from what I know of this. But the fundamental difference we have, in my opinion, is not what we want--we both share the deep ambition that every American has affordable and available health care--it is that we believe a government option, a government takeover, a massive reorganization of health care in America will destroy the quality of health care in America and not address the fundamental problem. We believe the quality is fine. We think the problem is bringing costs under control. When you refuse to address an obvious aspect of cost savings such as malpractice reform, such as going across State lines to obtain health insurance, such as allowing small businesses to join together and negotiate with health care companies, such as other proposals we have, then that is where we have a difference. We share a common ambition, but we differ on the way we get there. I do not see in this bill, nor do most experts, a significant reduction in health care costs except slashing Medicare by some $\1/2\ trillion, which everybody knows doesn't work, and destroying the Medicare Advantage Program of which in my home State 330,000 seniors are a part.

Mr. McCAIN. First, obviously I want to preserve those programs. But every one of those the Senator pointed out is going broke. They are wonderful programs. They are great things to have. But they are going broke. He knows it and I know it, and the Medicare trustees know it. To say that we don't want these programs because we want to fix them is obviously a mischaracterization of my position, our position. We want to preserve them, but we all know they are going broke. It means cost savings. It means malpractice reform. It means all the things I talked about. The Senator mentioned Medicare Advantage. That is called Medicare Part C. That is part of the Medicare system. There are arguments made that there are enormous savings over time because seniors who have this program, who have chosen it, who haven't violated any law, are more well and more fit and have better health over time, thereby, in the long run, causing significant savings in the health care system which is what this is supposed to be all about. I ask in response: How in the world do you take a Medicare system which, according to the trustees, is going broke and then expand it to people between age 55 and 64? The math doesn't work. It doesn't work under the present system which is going broke. To add on to it, any medical expert will tell you, results in adverse selection and therefore increases in health care costs.

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator has seen the CMS estimates this morning that this will mean dramatic increases in health care costs. You may be able to expand the access to it, but given the dramatic increase, one, it still affects the Medicare system and, two, there will obviously be increased costs, if you see the adverse selection such as we are talking about. I see the staff is getting restless. I ask my friend, maybe we could do this again during the weekend and during the week. I appreciate it. I think people are helped by this kind of debate. I respect not only the passion but the knowledge the Senator from Illinois has about this issue.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, one of the troubling aspects of this conference report is that the appropriators air dropped three very significant spending bills into the text during conference. In other words, three bills without any debate, discussion or amendment were air dropped into this pending legislation. The three bills are the Labor- HHS-Education, financial services and general government, and the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bills. Combined, these three bills spend over $237 billion and contain 2,019 earmarks. It is remarkable and unacceptable that the Senate is willing to approve expenditure of such huge sums without the opportunity to debate and amend their content. I see the Senator from Hawaii, who will say: This is the way we have had to do business before. We have to do this because of the pressure of time, the fiscal year ended, et cetera, et cetera. Again, we get back to this old line that we heard for an entire year and even early this year about change, about how we were going to change things in Washington. We are going to change the way we do business. President Obama said about the last omnibus bill passed last March, 3 months into the Obama administration: The future demands that we operate in a different way than we have in the past. So let there be no doubt: this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability that the American people have every right to expect and demand. What are we doing today? The exact same thing that we were doing before. Here is a quote from the White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel about the last omnibus bill. This is the one we weren't going to do anymore. Second, this is last year's business. He was talking about the one we passed in March. And third, most importantly, we are going to have to make some other changes going forward to reduce and bring more-- reduce the ultimate number and bring the transparency. And that's the policy that he enunciated in his campaign. Bob Schieffer: But it sounds to me like what you're--what he's about to do, here, is say, well I don't like this but I'm going to go ahead and sign it-- Talking about the last omnibus bill-- but I'm going to warn you, don't ever do it again. Is that what's about to happen here? Emanuel: In not so many words, yes. And then, of course, the Senate majority leader said about the last omnibus: We have a lot of issues we need to get to after we fund the government, something we should have done last year but we could not because of the difficulty we had with working with President Bush. I wonder if we are going to blame President Bush for this one. If it rained, if it didn't rain? We blamed him for almost everything. Whatever it is, let's blame President Bush. The point is, what this bill is, and another one that will be coming up in a couple days, is exactly the same business as usual, a porkbarrel-laden bill with increases in spending when the American people are hurting in the worst possible way. The American people are hurting and the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill has $11.3 billion or a 7-percent increase in spending over last year's spending level. Where are we? This is America. Americans are hurting. There is 10 percent unemployment. People can't stay in their homes. They can't keep their jobs. We are passing a piece of legislation with 1,749 earmarks just in the Labor, Health and Human Services piece of over $806 billion. Do you want to hear a few of them? They are fascinating. Here is my favorite of all--there are a lot of good ones--$2.7 million to support surgical operations in outer space at the University of Nebraska. I assure my colleagues, I am not making that up. That is an appropriation in this bill. Let me repeat: $2.7 million to support surgical operations in outer space. There are a lot of compelling issues before the American people. Surgical operations in outer space at the University of Nebraska? I guess the University of Nebraska has some kind of expertise that they need $2.7 million so we could support surgical operations in outer space. I wonder when the next surgical operation is scheduled in outer space? Maybe we ought to go into that. I will be spending more time on the floor on this. But $30,000 for a Woodstock film festival youth initiative? Woodstock was a pretty neat experience, but do we need to spend $30,000 to revisit that one? There is $200,000 to renovate and construct the Laredo Little Theater in Texas. The next time you are in Laredo, be sure to stop by the theater and see $200,000 of your money which is going to renovate and construct this little theater. There is $500,000 for the Botanical Research Institute of Texas in Fort Worth; $200,000 for a visitors center in Bastrop, TX, a visitor center there in Bastrop with a population of 5,340 people. We are going to spend $200,000 of my taxpayers' dollars to build them a visitor center. There is $200,000 for design and construction of the Garapan public market in the Northern Mariana islands; $500,000 for development of a community center in Custer County, ID, population 4,342. If my math is right, that is about $100 per person. Right here in our Nation's Capital, $200,000 to the Washington National Opera for set design, installation and performing arts at libraries and schools. They have an operating budget of $32 million. Their Web site says the secret of its success is due to its position without the crucial government support typical in most world capitals. Then, of course, we always get back to Hawaii: $13 million on fisheries in Hawaii, nine projects throughout the islands ranging from funding the bigeye tuna quotas, marine education and training, and coral research. The list goes on and on. The next time you are in New York, go to Lincoln Center. We are spending $800,000 of your money for jazz at the Lincoln Center. Jazz lovers, rejoice. For those who are not jazz lovers, we have $300,000 for music programs at Carnegie Hall; $3.4 million for a rural bus program in Hawaii. Apparently, the $1.9 million in the 2009 omnibus was not enough. In other words, we gave $1.9 million for this rural bus program in Hawaii so we have to now give them $3.4 million more. Custer County, ID, with a population of 4,342, as of the year 2000--I am sure they have grown since--$500,000 for development of a community center in Custer County, ID. The list goes on. Then, of course, it is loaded with controversial policy riders that should have been debated in the Senate. In the Department of Labor bill, the conference rescinds $50 million from unobligated immigration enforcement funds under section 286(v) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This will result in a decrease in the enforcement of immigration law. I guarantee you, if that provision had been debated here on the floor of the Senate, that $50 million would never have been removed. The conference agreement includes new language providing authority to the International Labor Affairs Bureau, the agency charged with carrying out the Department of Labor's international responsibilities. This may be a worthy program, but it should be addressed in legislation. There are so many other policy provisions in this bill which have not been authorized, which is supposed to be done by authorizers. The conference agreement provides $35 million for the Delta Health Initiative. The Delta Health Initiative provides a service to individuals in only one area of the country, the delta region of Mississippi. I have visited the delta region in Mississippi, and there are severe health needs. But couldn't we authorize this program? Couldn't we authorize it? Couldn't we have the proper debate and discussion? The list goes on and on. Of course, there is $25 million ``for patient safety and medical liability reform demonstrations'' that was not included in the House or Senate. Medical liability reform demonstrations--there is a demonstration project already in being. It is called the State of Texas, where they have reduced medical malpractice costs dramatically, and the physicians and caregivers are flowing back into the State of Texas. Mr. President, I will be talking more later this afternoon about all the pork and earmarking that is in this bill. I have to tell you that the anger and the frustration out there is at an incredibly high level. Those of us who--I am sure most of us do-- spend a lot of time at townhall meetings and hearing from our constituents know there is a level of anger out there, the likes of which I have not seen before. Here they are, hurting so badly because they cannot keep their homes and their jobs. My home State of Arizona is No. 2 in the country of homes where the mortgage payment is higher than the home value--48 percent of the homes in my State. So here we are with 10-percent unemployment, with deficits--this year of $1.4 trillion--and there are dramatic increases, a 7-percent increase in spending in one, a 14-percent increase in spending in the other, and they do not get it. They do not get it. They do not get it. Americans are having to tighten their belts. My home State of Arizona is in a fiscal crisis. They are having to cut services to our citizens because we cannot print money in Arizona. They only print money here. And here we are with Omnibus appropriations bills with as high as a 14-percent increase in spending, loaded down with billions of dollars worth of porkbarrel projects. I predict to my colleagues that the anger out there will be manifest in a number of peaceful ways, including in the ballot booth. They are sick and tired of this. I saw a poll yesterday where the approval rating of Members of Congress has fallen below that of the approval rating for used car salespersons. I think it was at 4 percent, as I recall the poll. I have not met any of the 4 percent. I have not met anybody who approves of what we are doing. This exercise we are in right here, on December 11, 2009, with a pork-laden Omnibus appropriations bill which frivolously and outrageously spends their dollars when they are struggling to keep their heads above water is something that is going to be rejected sooner or later by the American people. I have warned my colleagues that the American people are sick and tired of this. They did not like it before. Now they are fed up with it. We will be hearing more this afternoon. So, Mr. President, I rise today to raise a point of order under rule XXVIII against H.R. 3288, the Omnibus appropriations bill. I do this to ensure that this bloated legislation is not permitted to proceed to full consideration by the Senate. Specifically, rule XXVIII precludes conference reports from including policy provisions that were not related to either the House or the Senate version of the legislation as sent to conference. Several provisions included in division D--the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act--of this omnibus bill are out of scope and were never considered on the floor of the Senate. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the conference report violates the provisions of rule XXVIII.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.