John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I have one very important question. There is no one who has led the fight against waste, fraud, and abuse more than Dr. Coburn!. Dr. Coburn, the President keeps saying we will eliminate all this fraud and abuse and waste. If we can, why don't we start tomorrow?

Mr. McCAIN. May I ask Dr. Coburn again, if we start tomorrow, what can we do?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 2461 be called up and the pending business be set aside.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would simply prohibit the use of funds for the Des Moines Art Center in Des Moines, IA--just one of the 308 earmarks contained in this bill which total $246 million. This earmark is like most other earmarks posing as a national spending priority. Many of these earmarks were not authorized and were not competitively bid in any way, and no hearing was held to judge whether these are worthy of scarce taxpayers' dollars. Every summer we hear news of major wildfires destroying people's homes and businesses across the country. According to the National Interagency Fire Center, over 5.5 million acres of land were scorched this year so far. Spending bills such as this one are vitally necessary for fire suppression activities and forest health programs--programs that save lives and property. As we look for ways to pay for the escalating cost of wildfires, we must also address the mixed messages we are sending to taxpayers about our spending priorities. Buried in the committee report, as usual, is a $200,000 earmark for historic preservation needs at the Des Moines Art Center in Iowa. I am all for preserving our Nation's historic buildings, but good intentions or not, the process of earmarking is how appropriators steer taxpayers' dollars to pet projects that wouldn't otherwise win a grant competition or pass a prioritization formula. They are placed above more deserving projects simply because of their ``connections'' in Washington. According to an article in the Des Moines Register dated August 27, 2009, entitled ``Look Out Below: Des Moines Art Center is Adding Space Underground,'' the Art Center is embarking on a $7.5 million capital improvement project which includes building a $3.5 million basement level ``storage addition and a new glass elevator.'' The Art Center raised this money as part of its ongoing $34 million fundraising campaign launched in 2005. The multimillion dollar underground addition will double as a ground level ``green roof,'' says the art center's director Jeff Fleming: ``People can walk on it without even knowing it's a roof . . . a great space for outdoor gatherings.'' The article also notes that the art center will gladly name the new addition to whichever benefactor closes out their $34 million fundraising campaign. Americans are hurting. The unemployment rate is nearly 10 percent. The deficit is estimated to be $1.6 trillion for this year, and the projected 10-year deficit jumped from $7.1 trillion to $9 trillion, et cetera, et cetera. Obviously, it might be nice if we started thinking about the future of America and the future generations who are going to pay the tab for our continued spending. I am offering this amendment on behalf of taxpayers who will rightfully question what makes the Des Moines Art Center a national spending priority. Why is the Des Moines Art Center allowed to bypass the proper procedures for determining historic preservation spending? Why can't the Des Moines Art Center cough up $200,000 from its $7.5 million capital improvement project? Why can't they address this $200,000 need in their $34 million fundraising campaign? I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I spent, as did many of my colleagues, the last few days at home in Arizona, traveling around my State. When this issue of earmarking and porkbarrel spending is brought up, there is a visible reaction. Americans are sick and tired of it. Sooner or later, while those who continue to vote for and support this unnecessary, unneeded porkbarrel spending while we have a 10-year $9 trillion deficit, Americans are going to rise up in an even more vociferous fashion than they are today. I believe what is going on around the country is not just the issue of health care. What is going on around the country is people are sick and tired of this unbridled spending in porkbarrel and earmark projects which have bred corruption here in our Nation's Capital. They figured it out. They have had enough of it. I ask my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment, being aware that those on the Appropriations Committee will probably vote to turn down this amendment even though it is only a $200,000 unnecessary spending project. So do so. You have done it in the past. I am going to continue, and the American people are going to continue, to demand some kind of accountability for this outrageous, out-of-control spending which has mortgaged future generations of Americans and, believe me, at least in the State of Arizona, they are sick and tired of it. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment at a time to be determined by the majority leader.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask that we proceed to the regular order.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe the regular order is that I am allowed 1 minute. Is that correct?

Mr. McCAIN. Thank you, Mr. President. This amendment strikes an earmark of $200,000 for the Des Moines Art Center in Iowa. The center just began a $7.5 million capital improvement project. It is time we got serious. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep disappointment with the administration's decision to cancel plans for fully developing missile defenses in Eastern Europe. This decision calls into question security and diplomatic commitments the United States has made to Poland and the Czech Republic. I believe it has the potential to undermine American leadership in Eastern Europe. Given the strong and enduring relationships we have forged with the region's Nations since the end of the Cold War, we should not take steps backward in strengthening these ties. Yet I fear the administration's decision will do just that, and at a time when Eastern European nations are increasingly wary of renewed Russian aggression. The administration's decision to abandon these sites comes at a time when the United States is in the midst of negotiations with Russia on reducing strategic nuclear weapons. Russia has long opposed the planned missile defense sites in Europe and has on numerous occasions tried to link reductions in offensive strategic nuclear arms with defensive capabilities such as missile defense. In fact, President Putin, on many occasions, has stated in very belligerent tones his opposition to this agreement that was already made between the United States and Poland and the Czech Republic. The United States should reject the Russian attempt to further this argument and capitalize on these ongoing negotiations. As rogue nations, including North Korea and Iran, push the nuclear envelope and work tirelessly to develop weapons capable of reaching America and its allies, we must aggressively develop the systems necessary to counter such belligerent efforts and enhance our national security, protect our troops abroad, and support our allies. Enhancing missile defense capabilities in Europe is an essential component to addressing threats we currently face and expect to face in the future. As Iran works to develop ballistic missile capabilities of all ranges, the United States must reaffirm its commitments to its allies and develop and deploy effective missile defense systems. I wish to point out two important factors. The United States of America does not believe missile defense systems are in any way a threat to any nation. They are defensive in nature, and I believe they were a key component and factor in ending the Cold War. Intelligence assessments apparently have changed rather dramatically since January 16. According to Eric Edelman, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy under Secretary Gates during the Bush administration, intelligence reports on the Iranian threat as recently as January of this year were more troubling than what is being portrayed by the current administration. Mr. Edelman maintains that: Maybe something really dramatic changed between January 16 and now in terms of what the Iranians are doing with their missile systems, but I don't think so. You know what. I don't think so either. I think the fact is that this decision was obviously rushed. The Polish Prime Minister, according to news reports, was called at midnight. The agreement was made and ratified by these countries after consultation, discussion, and a proper process. They were not even notified of this decision. The decision to abandon the missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic came as a surprise to them. I understand that administration officials were on a plane supposedly to arrive in Poland today. I might add that Members of Congress were also not briefed on this decision prior to reading about it in the newspaper. I was not informed. I didn't know what ``new technology'' was being recommended to be put in the place of the agreement. As short a time ago as August 20, the United States said: The United States is committed to the security of Poland and of any U.S. facilities located on the territory of the Republic of Poland. . . . The United States and Poland intend to expand air and missile defense cooperation--et cetera. We all know the Iranian ballistic missile threat is real and growing. We all know the administration is seeking the cooperation and help of the Russians. Now we will see. Now we will see. Why was this agreement rushed into--or the abrogation of an agreement? Why the abrogation of this agreement between the United States with Poland and the United States with the Czech Republic rescinded in such a dramatic and rushed fashion? We all know the Iranian ballistic missile threat is real and growing. How many times have the ``intelligence estimates'' been wrong dating back to and including the Cold War? As many times as they have been right, I tell my colleagues--whether it be their assessment about the war in Iraq or whether it be the capabilities of many of our adversaries, including the Korean buildup, which we have been consistently wrong on. The last administration reached out to the governments of Poland and the Czech Republic and asked that they make what many at the time perceived as an unpopular agreement. Despite threats from Russia, both governments recognized the importance such a defense capability would provide to their citizens and to Europe as a whole and agreed to allow the United States to place ground-based interceptors in Poland and a midcourse radar site in the Czech Republic. What are these countries going to do the next time we want to make an agreement with them, in view of the way this decision was made and announced or, shall I say, made known to the media before they were even told about it. It will be very interesting to see what we get in return. According to a Christian Science Monitor's global news blog: ``We see this as a pragmatic decision,'' says Pavel Zolotaryov, deputy director of the official institute of USA- Canada Studies, suggesting that internal U.S. factors mainly account for Mr. Obama's choice. ``Obama's sober approach is understandable, given the [economic] crisis, because this project would have given nothing but trouble.'' If it sounds like Moscow has already discounted this sweeping strategic concession from Washington, experts suggest that's because Russia's foreign policy establishment had been expecting such a decision, at least since Obama hinted that he might give up the missile defense scheme during his summit with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Moscow last July. ``We've been getting signals since last Spring that made it seem almost certain that the missile defense plan would be set aside,'' said Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs, a leading Moscow foreign policy journal. The Russians seem to have anticipated this decision. Unfortunately, the Polish Government and the Czech Government did not. Members of Congress were certainly not informed of this decision until after reading about it in the media. That is not the way to do business. I think it sends the wrong signal to the Russians and to our friends and allies. There are consequences with every decision. I believe the consequences of this decision may--albeit unintentionally--encourage further belligerence on the part of Russians and a distinct lack and loss of confidence on the part of our friends and allies in the word of the United States and the commitments of the United States of America. I ask unanimous consent that articles in the Wall Street Journal and the Christian Science Monitor be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the amendment prohibits funding for brownfields economic development initiatives. In May--and not for the first time--the President recommended termination of the brownfields economic development initiatives. You can look it up. Even the committee this time, in the Record, said: The committee does not recommend an appropriation for the brownfields redevelopment program, consistent with the budget request. On pages 138 and 139, there is $1.3 million for brownfields redevelopment in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. So now we are not only going against the President's recommendations, we are going to go against the bill itself and give another $1.3 million in pork. All I say is you cannot make it up.

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 the pending business before the Senate be set aside in order to consider amendment No. 2403.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment is very simple. It prohibits, as recommended by the President, the use of funds under this act to carry out the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative grant program that is administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In May of this year, President Obama released a list of 121 programs that he recommended be terminated or reduced. One of the programs the President recommended for termination is the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative. The administration stated specifically that this grant program is extremely small relative to other programs that address this need. They added that local governments have access to other public and private funds that can address this same purpose. In justification for the termination, the administration wrote--and I quote from the document ``Terminations, Reductions and Savings, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2010,'' that is issued by the Office of Management and Budget. In other words, it is a number of terminations and reductions that the administration wants carried out, with justification for doing so. So far I have had amendments on several of these and they have all been overridden. Our amendments have not carried and I imagine I will lose this also. The moral is why didn't OMB stop this? Because clearly it is being totally disregarded by the appropriators. The American people pay attention to the President's recommendations. But now I have had a number of amendments that have been in keeping with the President's request--the same President who said we will go line by line in the appropriations bills and eliminate those that are unnecessary. Again, the Office of Management and Budget has said: The Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) is a competitive grant program whose purposes are served through much larger and more flexible Federal programs. BEDI is designed to assist cities with the redevelopment of abandoned, idled, and under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion and redevelopment is burdened by real or potential environmental contamination. These funds are targeted for redevelopment of brownfield sites for the purposes of economic development and job creation. While these are very important objectives, the program is very small, and local governments have access to other public and private funds, including the much larger Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). The 2010 Budget funds CDBG as $4.5 billion, or 14 percent above the 2009 enacted level. We are talking about trying to reduce spending and the CDBG program is now 14 percent, $4.5 billion, above 2009-enacted levels. A 1999 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report (RCED- 99-86) found that about $469 million was planned and $413 million in Federal funds were obligated for brownfields activities in 1997 and 1998. Of the planned total, BEDI appropriations ($25 million) contributed just five percent of the planned expenditure. By terminating this program, the Department of Housing and Urban Development is also able to reduce the administrative workload associated with managing a small and duplicative program. Focusing staff on higher impact and higher return activities is a priority for the agency. I am sure that the opponents of my amendment will argue that the Senate did not include funding for this program in the underlying bill. The committee report states that ``The Committee does not recommend an appropriation for the Brownfield Redevelopment program, consistent with the budget request. The Committee notes that other Federal appropriations are available for the same purpose through the Environmental Protection Agency. Communities may also use CDBG funds to redevelop Brownfield's sites'' If that is the case, and the committee agrees with the President that Brownfield Redevelopment under HUD is duplicative, then why does the committee report also contain three specific earmarks totaling $1.3 million for the redevelopment of Brownfields properties as Economic Development Initiatives? It makes no sense. In here, despite the committee saying they are eliminating the program, we have $600,000 for the redevelopment of Brownfields property into a business park in Cincinnati, OH; $500,000 for the redevelopment of Brownfields properties in Waterbury, CT; $200,000 for Brownfield redevelopment in Pittsburgh, PA. Americans are hurting. The Nation's unemployment rate is nearly 10 percent, the deficit for this year is estimated to be $1.6 trillion, the projected 10-year deficit jumped from $7.1 trillion to $9.1 trillion, our public debt is expected to reach $12.1 trillion by mid- October. When is it going to stop? Again, I urge my colleagues to listen to the American people. The American people are rising up everywhere. Although it is a bit derided and underestimated, at the TEA parties and demonstrations and the marches last weekend, at conservative estimates 70,000 people came from all over the country to march. In Yuma, AZ 1,000 to 2,000 people decided to demonstrate and it is still pretty warm in Yuma, AZ this time of the year and all over my State. So what did we do? We say we are going to terminate a program in the committee report and then of course we cannot resist earmarks and porkbarrel spending which has led to corruption. There is a trial going on right now of a lobbyist who some years ago engaged in paying off legislators for earmarks. That person, if convicted, will be the 23rd person convicted or who pled guilty in the Abramoff scandal. I would like to tell the American people that things have improved, that things have improved since the Abramoff scandal broke and people pled guilty and went to prison, but I can't. I can't tell them there has been any improvement. I can't tell them that corruption doesn't go on here in Washington. I can't tell them that there are no more Duke Cunninghams out there who are residing in Federal prison. You know what, they are sick and tired of it. This is only $1.3 million. That is less than chickenfeed around this place. But we have to start somewhere and we might start with implementing the recommendations of the President of the United States and the Office of Management and Budget and get rid of a program that is obviously unneeded. I don't want to take too much more time of the body, except to again say there is a peaceful revolution going on out there. It is not just over health care reform. It is over the out-of-control spending and the trillions and trillions of dollars of debt we are laying on future generations. Our children and our grandchildren are inheriting an unsustainable situation while we do business as usual here in the Senate. I could go back to Coast Guard vessels that the Coast Guard and the Navy never needed. I could go back to museums that were funded that are now closed all over America, and a lot of other abuses that have taken place. But I hope my colleagues will vote in favor of this amendment. Those who do not, I hope people at home will pay attention, will pay attention to the out-of-control spending that continues here and the mortgaging of our children's futures and what we are doing in the commission of generational theft. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, there seems to be some possibility of ambiguity in the amendment. I appreciate the Senator from Washington bringing that to my attention. I ask unanimous consent, if necessary, to be able to modify the amendment before the vote with the intent of the elimination of these three earmarks as I have argued on the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. McCAIN. Is it true that yesterday, when we had the hearing with Admiral Mullen for renomination as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who I think we would all agree has done an outstanding job of serving our country, it was pretty clear that Admiral Mullen felt a sense of urgency for us to act in Afghanistan because al-Qaida and the Taliban-- especially the Taliban--are making inroads and we, in his words, are not seeing the progress we want, that we are losing, basically, in Afghanistan? Didn't he say to you and to Senator Graham such that the important thing is that time is not on our side and we need to get troops over there as quickly as possible, in keeping with the strategy that was devised in March of this year and agreed to by the President? That was my understanding. And Senator Graham said: OK, now as to the civilians, I just got back from a visit. I appreciate all our civilians who are over there from different agencies. They are very brave, but, quite honestly, they can't go anywhere. Admiral Mullen said: Right. Senator Graham said: You could send 10,000 lawyers from the State Department to deal with rural law programs, but they are sitting on the base because if they leave the base, they are going to get shot. Admiral Mullen: Right. Then Graham said: The only way to get off the base is if they have a military convoy, is that right? Mullen said: Right. Senator Graham said: So I just want our colleagues to know the security environment in Afghanistan, from my point of view, will prevent any civilian success until we change the security environment. How long would it take to train enough Afghan troops to change the momentum, in your view, if we did it just with Afghan forces? And he said: Two or three years. Then Senator Graham said: What will happen in that two or three year period in terms of the security environment while we are training. Mullen said: If it's just training? Graham said: Yes. Mullen said: I think the security environment will continue to deteriorate. I ask my friend, doesn't that lend urgency, which is certainly not apparent in the President's statement today? After meeting with the Canadian Prime Minister, basically saying he is going to go through a long process of evaluation and another strategy, claiming he didn't have one before. That is what is disturbing, is the total lack of urgency in the President's statement today.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for one more question quickly?

Mr. McCAIN. Isn't it true this is where the contradiction is? It is so paradoxical it is hard for me to comprehend. Admiral Mullen--in a question I said: Admiral Mullen, didn't you say ``time is not on your side''? Admiral Mullen: No, sir, I have a sense of urgency about this. I worry a great deal that the clock is moving very rapidly and there are lots of clocks, as you know. But the sense of urgency-- and I, believe me, share that with General McChrystal who, while he is very focused on the change which includes partner--focus on the Afghan people, he is alarmed by the insurgency; he is in a position where he needs to retake the initiative from the insurgents who have grabbed over the last 3 years. Then to contrast that with the President's statement today he said: I am absolutely clear, you have to get the strategy right and then make determinations about resources. You don't make determinations about resources--certainly you don't make determinations about sending young men and women into battle without having absolute clarity about what the strategy is going to be. He said: My determination is to get this right and that means broad consultation not only inside the U.S. government but also our ISAP partners and our NATO allies, and I am going to take a very deliberate process in making these decisions. I don't know what to make of that.

Mr. McCAIN. Would the Senator yield so I can ask a question? I see we have one of our colleagues waiting to speak. I wonder what the Senator thinks. We held a hearing yesterday with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who is highly regarded. He conveys to every questioner, no matter which Member it is, a sense of urgency because of his belief and that of our military commanders on the ground that we are not winning. In fact, in the words of Admiral Mullen: Time is not on our side. Yet today, the President of the United States came out, after meeting with the Canadian Prime Minister, and basically said he is--after his spokesperson said he is going to take weeks and weeks to make a decision, he came out and basically said there is not a sense of urgency; that the strategy that was developed in March was not the operative strategy, even though Admiral Mullen said the March strategy was the operative strategy, and all we need to do is fill in the resources and the strategy. My question to my friend from South Carolina is, how do you account for this apparent contradiction or difference in view about the sense of urgency that exists in the conflict in Afghanistan?

Mr. McCAIN. Again, I also would ask my colleague, have we forgotten the lessons of history? We were there and we assisted the Afghans in driving out the Russians. Our assistance was critical. The Russians left and we left. When we left, it left a vacuum that ended up with the fighting between warlords, and the Taliban filled the vacuum, the Taliban had an arrangement with al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden, and the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11--which we just commemorated--were able to be trained in Afghanistan. I hope our memories are not so short that we are willing to risk a repetition of that kind of threat, which the President, during the campaign, seemed to recognize very accurately; called it the ``good war.'' He said it ``was a war we had to win,'' ``do what is necessary to win.'' Now I worry--I wonder if my colleague does--that every day we delay doing what we all know is necessary puts the lives of young Americans who are already there at risk and makes it a longer period of time before we can prevail.