John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator be given 3 additional minutes.

Mr. McCAIN. I hope everybody had a chance to read the wording of this amendment that says ``appropriate committees of Congress shall hold hearings,'' et cetera, ``promptly after the decision by the President on those matters is announced.'' In other words, we don't have any input into the decisionmaking process. We don't get to hear from the Secretary of Defense on down while the decision is being made by the President as a coequal branch of government. This is bizarre. I have never seen a requirement that we can't call witnesses and won't call witnesses on an issue about sending young Americans into harm's way. This is a remarkable statement that we are not going to be in on the takeoff and so therefore we will not be in on the landing. We aren't going to have a hearing on one of the most pressing and incredible emergencies of our time? We aren't going to have any witnesses before the appropriate committees until after the decision is made? I am not ready to abrogate those responsibilities that I have to the citizens of Arizona who are in harm's way. I urgently ask colleagues to vote against this bizarre amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment says within 45 days that we should have testimony from our military leaders, whom we have given the responsibility for combat operations in Afghanistan. We have just abrogated the Senate's obligations and constitutional authority for advice and consent, because now, thanks to the passage of the Levin amendment, we will not have testimony from those commanders in the field. I take special exception to it, and so should most people who have their young citizens over there in harm's way today fighting and dying. What we are going to do is say we cannot have any hearing as regards to strategy concerning how we are going to succeed in Afghanistan. So we are not in on the takeoff, and a lot of us may have trouble being in on the landing. This is an issue regarding which the Senate should have a role--at least of being informed. I guess maybe we will be restricted to interviews with General McChrystal on ``60 Minutes.'' I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment.

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I find it entertaining when our constituents ask: Have you read the bill? Of course we haven't been able to because there is no bill. If I could just quote what happened here. This says: The Chairman's Mark will provide additional assistance that would be made available to high-needs states which are defined as states that (1) have total Medicaid enrollment that is below the national average for Medicaid enrollment as a percentage of state population as of the date of enactment . . . It goes on and on for a few more sentences. What does it mean? It means they got a special deal for four States, one of them being the State of Nevada. Who pays? Who pays? The other States. So we have a complaint by the distinguished majority leader that his State of Nevada would have to pay an amount that they don't appreciate, so we shifted it so that three other States--I am sure my friend from Tennessee knows which ones. I believe one of them is Oregon. I am not sure what the other three are.

Mr. McCAIN. So our constituents who don't happen to live in those fortunate four are now going to pay additional funds because we put in the chairman's mark. Everybody wonders why people are so mad. They wonder why is it that there are these tea parties, why is it that there are people marching on Washington, what are they mad about? I hear the pundits and those who very seldom go outside the beltway or outside Manhattan say they are a bunch of crazies. It is this kind of thing. It is this kind of thing. We are going to do a legislative appropriations bill here that has $500,000 in it so that Senators can send out postcards to announce townhall meetings. Has anybody had any trouble getting people to townhall meetings? We need to spend $500,000 additional to notify people? Getting back to the point of the Senator from Tennessee, this is what is wrong. This is what is wrong with the way we do business. We cut special favors for special States, not based on need or requirements but on the influence of the individual Senator or Member of Congress. That is what they are mad about. May I mention one other thing to my friend from Tennessee. Yesterday, there was a big vote in the Finance Committee that dominated the headlines. The so-called public option was voted down by a significant margin. And we hear rumors that finally the administration will come up with a proposal. Doesn't that mean the goal will be basically to get any bill through both the House and Senate and then go into conference behind closed doors and rewrite the bill? That is my greatest fear.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, during the intervening time allowed that I have been allocated, I intend to speak on two issues. One is the point of order under rule XXVIII against the pending legislation, H.R. 2918, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The other issue I wish to speak about is the amendment I have pending that calls for the $2.5 billion that has been appropriated for the acquisition of unneeded and unwanted C-17 aircraft to be allocated to operations and maintenance which has been cut by some $3 billion, which, obviously, is vitally important to the men and women who are serving in the military so they have the proper equipment and capabilities to defend our Nation in the two wars in which we are engaged and around the world. First, I will raise a point of order--and I will formally raise it when the manager chooses for me to do so--so this legislation is not permitted to proceed to full consideration. Specifically, as is known, rule XXVIII is a rule that precludes conference reports from including policy provisions that were not related to either House or Senate versions of the legislation as sent to conference. This $4.7 billion piece of legislation was bloated enough; however, conferees took this opportunity to airdrop into the bill's conference a ``continuing resolution'' to continue funding the operations of the government through October 31, having, obviously--certainly not according to the rules of the Senate--any relation to the appropriations bill. By including a CR or continuing resolution, we are precluded from offering amendments to modify it. That is why we have the rule that you don't put these things in conference reports because it then inhibits and actually prohibits Members from trying to amend and perfect the legislation. So it is a direct assault on how we do business in the Senate, by adding a very mammoth piece of legislation to what is a very small piece of legislation designated to allow the legislative branch to receive the funding it needs. It is particularly troublesome, since conferees are treating the resolution as a Christmas tree--reauthorizing and extending several programs; forgiving billions of dollars of the Postal Service's debt; increasing funding for the Census Bureau--and not simply just a stopgap measure to allow the government to continue operating at last year's levels. Specifically, the continuing resolution provides $3.9 billion more than last year for the Census Bureau; $3.85 billion more than last year for the Veterans Health Administration; it frees up funds for the Postal Service that is severely in the red by lowering the payment it must make into the trust fund intended for future retiree health benefits, which are obligations, to $1.4 billion from $5.4 billion last year. It extends the authorization for the highway program; intelligence program; stop-loss payments to U.S. troops; restrictions on funding to Guantanamo Bay; housing assistance programs; flood insurance programs; religious worker, physician, and investor VISA programs; use of e-verify and much more. I wish to warn my colleagues: If we allow this kind of procedure to go forward in the Senate, it will deprive every single Member of the Senate of his and her right to amend legislation because, unless this point of order is upheld, we have only two choices: a ``yea'' vote or a ``nay'' vote, up or down. That flies in the face of the fundamentals upon which the Senate functions. You may be in favor of all these programs. You may think we need, right away, $3.9 billion more for the Census Bureau. You may think we need--and we probably do--more money for the Veterans Health Administration. Who is going to oppose more money for the Veterans Health Administration if it is brought up as a single bill? Certainly not this Member and not anybody I know. But what we are doing here, by putting the continuing resolution as part of the least controversial of all appropriations bills, is setting very dangerous precedence for this body. My colleagues should have no doubt about it. There is a little book we give out all the time. We give it out all the time. We send it to schoolchildren all over America. It is called ``How Our Laws Are Made.'' On page 43 it says: The House conferees are strictly limited in their consideration of matters in disagreement between the two Houses. Consequently, they may not strike or amend any portion of the bill that was not amended by the other House. Furthermore, they may not insert new matter that is not germane to or that is beyond the scope of the differences between the two Houses. Let me tell my colleagues what else we tell schoolchildren and young people all over America: A report that contains any recommendations which extend beyond the scope of differences between the two Houses is subject to a point of order in its entirety unless that point of order is waived. So why don't we--if I am defeated here--and I may be--why don't we change this book. Why don't we have a resolution from the Senator from Nebraska who put this in, along with his $300,000 museum, to change this book so we don't mislead schoolchildren all over America in a pamphlet that says how our laws are made. There is no reason why the majority can't bring the continuing resolution to the floor as a stand-alone piece of legislation. A Christmas tree of funding increases and authorizations deserves floor consideration and discussion, rather than a process by which the appropriators unilaterally decide how, when, and where what is deserving of getting a 30-day extension and which programs are able to expire. The American people deserve better. Just this morning, Politico, a newspaper published here in Washington, wrote a story: Lawmakers jack up spending for themselves: $500,000 for townhalls. The article goes on to say: Congress is on the verge of giving itself a bump in its annual budget--even as local governments, families, and businesses across the country are tightening their belts in the worst recession in decades. The measure includes a hodgepodge of new funding for lawmakers: a $500,000 pilot program for Senators to send out postcards about their town hall meetings-- Is there any Member of Congress in the Senate who needs to send out a postcard to tell our constituents that we are having a townhall meeting? Really: $500,000. --$30,000 for receptions for foreign dignitaries and $4 million for consultants. There's $15.8 million for salaries for the Senate Appropriations Committee--plus an extra $950,000 for the committee's administrative expenses. So here we are with people not--Americans can't have an office because they have lost their jobs, and conferees have included $50 million to refurbish congressional offices. While millions of American families risk losing the roof over their head, appropriators have set aside millions to replace the roof of the Rayburn House Office Building. While millions of Americans have seen their income and household budgets decrease significantly this year, Congress has provided a 5.8 percent increase over last year to cover Congress's expenses and salaries. Millions of small businesses across America have been forced to shut down or severely cut expenses. Somehow, Congress sees fit to provide itself with a 5.8 percent increase. Incredible. Millions of Americans are seeing their hours cut or their salaries slashed. This conference report includes an 8.4 percent increase over fiscal year 2009 for salaries--for salaries. According to the House committee report, this is to: Allow for compensation improvements beyond inflation for the staff of Member offices, especially among younger staff where current salaries are often less competitive. I have had no difficulty with people applying for work in my office. Maybe the managers of the bill have. If this weren't enough, the conference report retains an earmark from the Senate bill of $200,000 to support a photo exhibit at the Durham Museum in Nebraska. So people who are having trouble making mortgage payments and putting food on the table are probably a little bit surprised, although maybe they shouldn't be. National unemployment is at almost 10 percent, public debt is close to $2 trillion, the deficit is projected to hit $1.6 trillion this year, and we go on spending. We go on spending. I ask my colleagues, in supporting this point of order, to block this bill from full Senate consideration and allow Congress to rethink its priorities. So I raise a point of order that the legislation violates rule XXVIII.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, now I wish to make some final remarks about the amendment that cuts $2.5 billion that the Defense Appropriations bill uses to fund 10 C-17 Globemaster aircraft, planes which the Secretary of Defense says the Pentagon doesn't need and that the President didn't ask for, and restores that money to the critical operations and maintenance accounts that support military training, readiness, flying and steaming hours and depot maintenance that is so crucial to our Armed Forces in wartime. Let me make it clear to my colleagues what I am doing. We are taking the $2.5 billion that has been appropriated for the purpose of procuring 10 additional C-17s and transferring that money back to the operations and maintenance account I described--training, readiness, flying, steaming hours, et cetera--to make up for the cuts--or at least mostly to make up for the cuts--that have been made in O&M funding. I understand a budget point of order will be lodged against the amendment. Let me make it clear to my colleagues: We will have an up- or-down vote on this amendment. So if it fails, I will have two more amendments, separate amendments, one that cuts the C-17 and one that adds funding to operations and maintenance funding if this pending amendment of mine is challenged on a technical basis. I agreed with Secretary Gates when he said the military has no more need to buy more C-17s. The fact is, the Air Force and the U.S. Transportation Command: ``Have more than necessary [strategic airlift] capacity'' for airlift over the next 10 years. Mr. President, I received a letter from the Secretary of Defense. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will quote partially from the letter: The President's defense budget request has requested no additional C-17s. This position is based on the Department's firm judgment that we have acquired a sufficient number of C- 17s to meet the Nation's military needs. Let me point out what is really important about this letter: More specifically, the $2.5 billion it will cost to purchase 10 additional C-17s, plus the $100 million per year it will cost to operate them, will invariably result in a reduction in crucial warfighting capability somewhere else in the defense program. So the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all of our military leaders, and the highly respected Secretary of Defense say not only that they don't want any more C-17s, but if we spend this $2.5 billion and the $100 million annually required to maintain them, there will be a reduction in critical warfighting capability somewhere else in the defense program. We are in two wars. We have 68,000 young Americans in Afghanistan-- and most likely more to come--and 120,000 in Iraq, and we are going to buy 10 more C-17s when they need their equipment maintained and they need to be replaced and they need to fly and they need to have the best capability in combat. President Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex. It is not the military industrial complex anymore; it is the industrial complex. You cannot walk through the hallways without bumping into a lobbyist from Boeing. Of course, there are subcontractors all over America, absolutely. But this is really egregious because they have taken money from the operation and training capabilities and readiness capabilities--that is what operations and maintenance money is all about--and cut it below the request our military and the Secretary of Defense and the President think is vitally needed, and they added 10 additional aircraft that no one in the military--the Air Force included--believes is needed. This is a young Presidency, and this will be a defining moment in the Presidency. If I am defeated by Boeing today, then it will be up to the President to decide whether to veto this bill. If we don't turn this down here, then we will be sending a signal to every lobbyist in this town--and there are thousands--that if you lobby hard enough and you have enough subcontractors, you can do anything. This is a very important amendment at this particular time in our history, while we are fighting two wars and we have a new administration. If we defeat this amendment, we will also be contradicting the opinion of perhaps one of the most highly regarded individuals in America, and, of course, that is our Secretary of Defense. Mr. President, I have already asked for the yeas and nays on this amendment. I believe we can do a better job for the American people and the men and women in the military than what is being attempted by the Defense Appropriations Committee. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I again quote from a letter from the Secretary of Defense: The President's defense budget request has requested no additional C-17s. This position is based on the Department's firm judgment that we have acquired a sufficient number of C- 17s to meet the Nation's military needs. . . . More specifically, the $2.5 billion it will cost to purchase 10 additional C-17s plus the $100 million per year it will cost to operate them will invariably result in a reduction in critical warfighting capabilities somewhere else in the defense program. I understand there will be a budget point of order. I wish to tell my colleagues we will be voting up or down on this issue because if this is defeated, I will have another amendment simply to kill this unneeded, unnecessary porkbarreling exercise in the power of lobbyists in our Nation's Capital.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable section of the Budget Act with respect to my amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to ask the managers this. I have three amendments I wish to have called up and placed in order. One is amendment No. 2580, one is amendment No. 2581, and the third is amendment No. 2575. The first is to strike the amount for the C-17 aircraft, which is not subject to a point of order, I am told. The second is to add $2.5 billion for operations and maintenance, which is also not subject to a point of order. The third one is to have testimony before Congress by General McChrystal and General Petraeus before the Congress of the United States. I would be glad to agree to a brief debate on all three of those amendments, and I will be glad to enter into a time agreement or whatever their desires are on all three. On the first two, the issue has been debated pretty well. I would only need a few minutes. On the third, I think it is pretty straightforward, calling for the testimony of General McChrystal and General Petraeus before the Congress of the United States. I call up those amendments and ask for their consideration in sequence.

Mr. McCAIN. Not en bloc, in sequence.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that amendments Nos. 2580, 2581 and 2575--I call up those amendments. I think that is my right.

Mr. McCAIN. I believe it is in order. I will be glad to have a vote on whether it is a violation of any of the Senate rules.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator. Parliamentary inquiry: Do I have the right to call up an amendment that is filed?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment 2575 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. McCAIN. I call up amendment No. 2580 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCAIN. I am not seeking unanimous consent.

Mr. McCAIN. I just called up the second amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. I see.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator. We will certainly accede to his request. I would like to tell my colleagues that I do not intend to conclude debate on this legislation until such time as we have straight up-or-down votes on the two amendments about which I talked. One is striking the funding for the C-17, $2.5 billion and adding $2.5 billion for operations and maintenance. I will be glad to discuss it with the managers of the bill how that sequence will take place, how much debate. I do not intend to hold up the bill in any way. I just wish to tell my colleagues I want consideration and recorded votes on both of those amendments. What we have done tonight by not waiving the budget, the rule, is an outrage and is going to damage very badly the men and women who are serving this country because we are not giving them the equipment they need to operate in harm's way--120,000 of them in Iraq, 68,000 of them in Afghanistan. That is the opinion of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Petraeus, General McChrystal, and the Secretary of Defense. It is a remarkable moment--a remarkable moment--in the history of the Senate, although I have seen it happen before. Congratulations to the lobbyists from Boeing. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?