John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1910 which is at the desk.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I intend to have three amendments considered. I discussed with the majority leader and the Republican leader how we would proceed. So at this time, after I make a brief remark about amendment No. 1910, I will be calling up amendment No. 1912 and amendment No. 2030, both of which are at the desk. Amendment No. 1910 eliminates, as suggested and recommended strongly by the President of the United States, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's High Energy Cost Grant Program. This is a $17.5 million subsidy designed to pay for energy generation systems in rural areas. This program was proposed for termination by the administration because it is duplicative of existing programs, including USDA's own Rural Utilities Service Loan Program. Under the fiscal year 2010 budget, the Rural Utilities Service Program would provide $6.6 billion in electric loans at no cost to the taxpayers. In comparison, providing $17.5 million in grants, as opposed to a loan, actually costs the taxpayer $17.5 million. Moreover, Senators should know there is $20 million in unobligated high energy cost grants still available from the previous year. This is the submission to Congress, the budget of the U.S. Government for fiscal year 2010, by the Office of Management and Budget. Guess what. In there is a page that is titled ``Termination: High Energy Cost Grant, Department of Agriculture.'' It goes on to say: The administration proposes to eliminate the High Energy Cost Grants program because it is duplicative of and less effective than the Rural Utilities Service's electric loan program. Those are not my words, those are the words of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, who, at the direction of the President of the United States, prepared this document of certain programs that should be eliminated. It goes on to say: The 2010 budget proposes elimination of the duplicative High Energy Cost Grants program in favor of electric loans, which are more cost effective from the standpoint of the taxpayer. Using loans to provide support is less expensive than using grants because loans provide more support . . . with fewer appropriated dollars. For example, the 2010 budget provides for $6.6 billion in electric loans at no cost to the taxpayer. In comparison, providing $18 million in grants costs the taxpayers $18 million. In addition, the funds for High Energy Cost Grants have not been obligated in a timely manner and $20 million in balances from previous year funding are still available. In other words, this amendment eliminates a duplicative, unnecessary program, according to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and at the President's request, he has sent over one of the programs they want eliminated. So somehow it ends up back in the appropriations bill. It seems to me it is a pretty clear-cut case again that at some point we have to try to make some kinds of cost savings. I admit, as we are throwing around billions and trillions of dollars, as we do here lately, $17.5 million is probably not much money given the kind of behavior the Congress and the administration have been up to lately. I would still argue, though, to millions of Americans, including those in my home State of Arizona, $17.5 million--in the view of the administration and a clear argument, it is not a complicated issue-- should be eliminated. I hope we will be able to vote on this amendment. Amendment No. 1912 to Amendment No. 1908

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 1912 which is at the desk.

Mr. McCAIN. This amendment eliminates the U.S. Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program, also known as the Small Watersheds Program. This program is a textbook example of how reckless earmarks can devastate a government program. Like the previous four Presidents' budgets, the administration proposes to terminate this account because Congress has earmarked virtually all of this program in recent years, meaning that the agency is unable to prioritize projects on any merit- based criteria such as cost effectiveness. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Small Watersheds Program was 97 percent earmarked in fiscal year 2009, which severely marginalized the USDA's ability to evaluate and prioritize projects. Earmarks may partly be to blame for the findings of a 2003 Office of Management and Budget study that showed this program has a lower economic return than any other Federal flood prevention program, including those in the Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The onslaught of earmarks over the years has almost certainly contributed to the current backlog of about 300 unfunded authorized small watershed projects totaling $1.2 billion. As it was originally intended, the Small Watersheds Program may be a worthwhile program. I am sure we will hear a vigorous defense of this program. But by inundating it with so-called congressionally designated projects, the program is challenged to function properly to the point where the administration would rather see it gone. Note this. Our friends on the Appropriations Committee have not given up on plundering it yet. This bill provides $24.3 million for this program, including $16.5 million in earmarks for projects such as $2 million for the Pocasset River in Rhode Island, which is not authorized; $1.5 million for Dunloup Creek in West Virginia, which is not authorized; and $1 million for the DuPage County Watershed in Illinois, which is not authorized, to name a few. I refer back again to the Office of Management and Budget publication entitled ``Terminations, Reductions and Savings,'' where the administration proposes to terminate watershed and flood prevention operation programs. Congress has earmarked virtually all of this program in recent years, meaning that agencies are unable to prioritize projects on any merit-based criteria such as cost effectiveness. So, again, these first two amendments, the President of the United States, the Office of Management and Budget, most any casual observer would argue need to be eliminated. Amendment No. 2030 to Amendment No. 1908

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 2030, which is at the desk.

Mr. McCAIN. This amendment is very simple. It prohibits funding of the $250,0000 earmark for the Iowa Vitality Center at Iowa State University. This earmark is a textbook example of how difficult it is to stop funding for an earmark once it starts. According to the Web site of the earmark sponsor, since fiscal year 2001, the Iowa Vitality Center has received $2,579,000. For what? What is so vital about the Iowa Vitality Center that it has required over $2.5 million of scarce taxpayer funds? Well, according to their own Web site, the purpose of the Iowa Community Vitality Center is to serve as a catalyst in fostering collaborative public-private partnerships among nonmetro community interests to stimulate vitality and address barriers to growth. I am not making that up. I am not making it up. That is what the Web site says. Let me repeat. We spent $2.5 million. The purpose of the Iowa Community Vitality Center is to serve as a catalyst in fostering collaborative public-private partnerships among nonmetro community interests to stimulate vitality and address barriers to growth. Is there anyone who has a clue as to what that means? I wanted to be clear. I am not questioning the merits of this program, but I am questioning the process. Why was this funding earmarked? If the Vitality Center is such a critical national priority at this time, why wasn't the funding authorized since 2001 or requested by the President in his budget submission? The funding for the Vitality Center is often justified as helping communities ``plan strategically'' and as ``representing diverse interest across the state.'' However, the sponsors of the earmark neglect to explain why 10 years of strategic planning have been insufficient to accomplish this center's stated purpose. Our current economic situation and our vital national security interest concerns require, now more than ever, that we prioritize our Federal spending. We need to prove to the American people that we are serious about changing the way we do business and we should start with ending the practice of earmarking. We need to put our national priorities first and eliminate unnecessary wasteful earmarks such as the Iowa Vitality Center. The Agriculture appropriations bill for the year 2010 spends about $123 billion in direct and mandatory spending, an amount that is approximately $234 million above the administration's budget request. We debate this legislation in the shadow of the fiscal year 2009 omnibus bill, the omnibus bill which doled out $108 billion for U.S. Department of Agriculture programs, as well as the infamous economic stimulus package which provided another $26.5 billion in agricultural spending. So 2009 is certainly a good year to be a U.S. Department of Agriculture program office. I acknowledge that many of the programs funded by this are valid for providing important services to the agricultural community at large. I commend the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee for reporting this bill in a timely manner. I agree we should ensure that our farmers stay out of the red and that some Federal involvement is necessary to assist low-income families under the nutrition programs. Unfortunately, Congress once again has conformed to the practice of diverting precious taxpayer dollars into an array of special interest projects which have not been authorized or requested, and in the case of two of these, they have been requested to be terminated by the administration. The committee report accompanying this bill contains 296 congressionally directed spending items, a fancy new term for ``earmarks,'' totaling over $220 million. None of these projects was requested by the administration. Many of them were not authorized or competitively bid in any way. No hearings were held to judge whether these were national priorities worthy of scarce taxpayer dollars. They are in this bill for one reason and one reason only--because of the prerogatives of a select few Members of the Senate to serve their own interests over those of the American taxpayer. Let's take a look at some of the earmarks. Let's take a look at some of the earmarks that are in this bill and its accompanying reports. There is $250,000 for gypsy moth research in New Jersey. Don't gypsy moths travel all over the country? Why just New Jersey? Over the past 10 years, the taxpayer has funded $42.8 million worth of gypsy moth research. There is $500,000 for the hemlock woolly adelgid at the University of Tennessee. This is an aphid-like insect. That is a lot of money for that bug. There is $235,000 for noxious weed management in Nevada. I think a better term for this one is obnoxious. Over the past 10 years, over $15.4 million has been earmarked for Nevada noxious weed management. There is $200,000 for cotton research at Texas Tech University. Congress subsidizes the industry, the cotton industry, to the tune of $3 billion a year. There is $300,000 for floriculture at the University of Hawaii. Nearly $3.5 million has been earmarked for floriculture in the past 10 years. There is $165,000 for the Maple Research Center at the University of Vermont. According to the center's director, Tim Perkins, Maple syrup science is a nose-and-mouth science. The technical term is organoleptic, which means you put it in your mouth and taste it, says Perkins. We get people who know the flavor of maple syrup, and off- flavors, and they try each one. Laboratory tests using gas chromatography provide a breakdown of the many compounds in the syrup, which supplements the tastebud approach. Since 1998, the University of Vermont Proctor Maple Research Center has received over $2.1 million in earmarks. There is $75,000 for farm safety education for children in Iowa. Who better than a bureaucrat in Washington to teach a farmer's children to be safe. The 10-year total for earmarks for Iowa farm safety education--over $4.2 million. There is $300,000 for shrimp aquaculture research at the University of Southern Mississippi Thad Cochran Marine Agricultural Center. Over the past 10 years, we have earmarked over $30.4 million on shrimp aquaculture research. There is $1 million for potato research at Oregon State University. We have earmarked, over the past 10 years, $7.1 million for potato research. There is $600,000 which is gobbled down by the National Wild Turkey Federation for projects in Nebraska, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina. Since fiscal year 2004, the National Wild Turkey Federation has received over $1.7 million in earmarks. There is $265,000 for minimizing blackbird damage to sunflowers in North and South Dakota. This is an earmark ``regular'' for the Agriculture appropriations bill. Evidently the South Dakota sunflowers have a rather serious Alfred Hitchcock ``Birds'' problem. According to the USDA, blackbird management in North and South Dakota has received over $1.2 million over the past 5 years. There is $200,000 for Washington State University to study goatgrass. Since 2003, $767,000 has been earmarked for goatgrass research. There is $372,000 for the University of Pennsylvania to study dairy farm profitability. If you are relying on a federally mandated study to make your dairy farm profitable, you might want to find a new business plan, because nearly $3.8 million has been earmarked for dairy farm profitability over the last 10 years. There is $288,000 for the Iowa Soybean Association. Since 2002, over $3.3 million has been earmarked for the Iowa Soybean Association. There is $1 million for Mormon cricket control in Nevada; the 10-year total for Mormon cricket control, nearly $13.7 million. There is $260,000 for wine grape research at Washington State University. According to Washington State University's own Web site, the wine industry generates $3 billion in their State, so we are going to pour another $260,000 into it. There is $350,000 for the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture to support the ``specialty meats industry.'' Specialty meats industry? Since 2004, the Wisconsin specialty meats industry has received over $12.7 million in earmarks. There is $340,000 for the Center for Beef Excellence in Pennsylvania. According to their own press release, the center was established by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture just last year. At least we can agree that a $340,000 handout from Congress is quite a good start. Over $1 million has been earmarked to the Center for Beef Excellence since 2005. There is $450,000 for the University of Northern Iowa to study agriculture-based lubricants. They have received over $3 million in the last 10 years. It is not surprising that the largest earmark in this bill goes to Hawaii. The Aloha State bags $5 million to continue construction of an Agricultural Research Service center to study agricultural practices in the Pacific. As my colleagues might know, ARS construction is one of the most heavily earmarked accounts in government, so much so that the President's budget actually proposed zeroing out Agricultural Research Service center construction for fiscal year 2010 because ``Congress routinely earmarks small amounts of funding for [these projects] located throughout the nation. The result of scattering funding in this manner is that . . . few, if any, of the projects are able to reach the critical threshold of funding that would allow construction to begin. Funding construction over such a long time significantly increases the amount of money needed to fully complete these projects as well as postponing their completion for many years.'' So here we have a program that is earmarked so severely that it delays and drives up the cost of approved construction projects. Not only are we defiantly funding this Hawaiian facility, the bill provides a total of $47 million for a list of 15 of these facilities ranging from $4 million for a fruit lab in West Virginia to $2 million for an animal waste research facility in Kentucky. Another amendment I have filed proposes striking the $50.7 million contained in this bill for USDA's Resource Conservation and Development Program, known as RC&D. The RC&D Program was created in 1962 to promote resource conservation through community-based conservation leadership councils. The RC&D councils have helped to leverage local funding for efforts such as soil mapping or erosion control for rural areas. The administration supports terminating this program because, in their own words: After 47 years, the goal of the RC&D program has been accomplished. These councils have developed sufficiently strong state and local ties . . . and are now able to secure funding for their continued operation without Federal assistance. The program has been in operation for decades and these councils have a proven track record of success, showing that they have outlived the need for Federal funding. A half-century-old program proposed for termination by this administration, yet retained by appropriators for its spoils. I could go on for a long time. This bill funds several other government programs that were proposed for termination in the President's budget. I filed amendments to strike these programs as well as zero out the ARS construction account. If successfully adopted, these amendments would save taxpayers over $144.5 million. As I have said throughout my comments, some of these programs may have merit and may be helpful to the designated communities. But considering our current budgetary crisis, it is inappropriate to include them in this year's agricultural spending bill, especially when they have been identified for termination or reduction. I hope my colleagues will agree that we have higher spending priorities that are directly related to the purposes of this Agriculture bill. This bill is intended to address farmers, women, children, and rural communities with the greatest need and should not be used as a vehicle for piggybacking pet projects to get the support of special interest constituents. It is no surprise that many of these earmarks are not included for practical purposes. I know many of my colleagues have spoken about the economic struggles of America's hard-working farmers and low-income families. The farmers and struggling families I know are tired of watching their hard-earned money go down the drain. I intend to fight every single unnecessary, unrequested, unauthorized earmark in this and every other appropriations bill. I filed 313 amendments to this bill. The bulk of those amendments seek to strike the 296 earmarks, now humorously called ``congressionally directed spending items,'' in the committee report on this bill. I have now offered only three of these amendments. Let me assure my colleagues I have no problem with offering, debating, and voting on each and every one of the amendments I have filed. The time has come to end this practice. This first amendment, which we may vote on today, I want to emphasize, eliminates, as recommended by the President and the Office of Management and Budget, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's High Energy Cost Grants Program, a $17.5 million subsidy designed to pay for energy generation systems in rural areas. It was proposed for termination by the administration because it is duplicative of existing programs. Under the fiscal year 2010 budget, the rural utility service program would provide $6.6 billion in electric loans at no cost to the taxpayers. Senators should know there is $20 million in unobligated high energy cost grants still available from last year. I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, this amendment eliminates the U.S. Department of Agriculture's High Energy Cost Grant Program which is a $17.5 million subsidy that is designed to pay for energy generation systems in rural areas. The 2010 budget from the President of the United States and the Office of Management and Budget have recommended a number of programs be eliminated. Concerning this High Energy Cost Grant Program, it says: The administration proposes to eliminate the High Energy Cost Grant Program because it is duplicative of and less effective than the Rural Utility Services Electric Loan Program. This recommendation by the administration to eliminate this program is because it is both duplicative and unnecessary and there is a $6.6 billion program in electric loans at no cost to the taxpayer. I recommend we agree with the President of the United States and eliminate this unnecessary $17.5 million subsidy. I yield.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to talk for a few minutes about the actions taken by the House of Representatives yesterday when they passed the Defense appropriations bill. It is not a small piece of legislation. It provides $636 billion for defense, and it avoided one veto fight by stripping out funding for advanced procurement of the F- 22 fighter jet, but it chose to ignore veto threats over funding for an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the VH-71-- incredibly, the VH-71 Presidential helicopter. The House bill provides $560 million to continue pursuing an alternative engine and $485 million for continuation of the VH-71 helicopter. The VH-71 helicopter is the Presidential helicopter, which Secretary Gates has, I think very accurately, derided as one of the most outrageous examples of overspending for any system the Defense Department has ever acquired. The bill also provides $674 million for three C-17 cargo aircraft, not requested in the administration's budget. It has been determined time after time that there is no need for additional C-17 aircraft. So what did they do in return for continuation of things like a Presidential helicopter that costs more than a 747 and all of these other porkbarrel projects? Well, the House bill reduces funding by $1.9 billion for our request for MRAPs--for MRAPs, the vehicles that are protecting young men and women who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. They reduce the number from what the administration thinks we need--5,244--to 2,000. It is remarkable. But what I really wanted to talk about for a minute is the 1,100 earmarks totaling $2.8 billion. Of those, 540, totaling $1.3 billion, are slated to go to specific private companies without competition. Remarkable--$1.3 billion. You know, the bill may have language saying funding should be competed, but in reality it is not the case when a specific company is identified in report language. Also incredibly, there are 70 earmarks in the bill for former clients of the PMA Group--the people whose offices have been raided and shut down. It is currently under investigation by both the Justice Department and the House ethics committee. Concerning earmark reform, President Obama said: Earmarks must have a legitimate and worthy public purpose. Earmarks that Members do seek must be aired on those Members' web sites in advance, so the public and press can examine them and judge their merits for themselves. Each earmark must be open to scrutiny at public hearings, where Members will have to justify their expense to the taxpayer. None of that has happened. The earmarks in the House fail woefully in meeting scrutiny at public hearings. As Representative Jeff Flake--a man of great courage and of incredible integrity--so rightfully pointed out when he addressed the earmarks in the bill: These earmarks receive scant scrutiny by the House Appropriations Committee. The committee's markup of the bill lasted all of 18 minutes. Given the way this bill has been earmarked, you'd never know that serious ethical questions have been raised about this process. Simply put, Members of Congress should not have the ability to award no-bid contracts. Even worse, many times the recipients of these earmarks are campaign contributors. The practice has created an ethical cloud over Congress, and it needs to end. Congressman Flake talked about the ethical cloud over Congress. We know about PMA. Every day, there is a new story about one of these earmarks. I would like to cite two quick examples. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article headlined ``nextgov,'' entitled ``Software company won earmarked funds for work on military health records,'' and the other article from Politico entitled ``Exclusive: Earmark critic steered cash to blimp research.''

Mr. McCAIN. Quoting from the first article: Adara Networks, the company that is the subject of a Defense Department employee's allegations that it received important software code in advance of winning the sole-source contract to provide hardware and software for a new military electronic health record system, has only between 20 and 50 employees and revenues of $8 million a year. But the company has powerful friends in Washington. Senator Thad Cochran . . . inserted earmarks in the fiscal 2008 and 2009 Defense appropriations measures funding work by Adara on Defense health record systems. He also has a pending earmark for Adara in the 2010 Defense appropriations bill. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Adara has paid $240,000 in lobbying fees to Gage LLC, a consulting and government affairs firm whose partners include former Senator Conrad Burns, R-Montana. The firm is headed by Burns' former Chief of Staff, Leo A. Giacometto. The bulk of the fees, $160,000, went to Gage last year, making Adara one of the company's biggest sources of revenue in 2008. The Adara lobbying tab from Gage last year matched the fee paid to the lobbying firm by VeriSign, an Internet security company that had revenues of $255 million in the first quarter of this year. According to a database of Federal contract awards, Adara won defense contracts valued at $7.2 million in 2007 and $13.7 million in 2008. Cochran's earmarks steered $4 million to Adara last year for work on what was described as a ``next-generation networking electronic medical records project'' and $1.1 million in 2009 for the Strategic/Tactical Resource Interoperability Kinetic Environment Project. Cochran has sought $10 million in Adara funding for the STRIKE project in 2010. An internal e-mail NextGov obtained shows that the military health system tapped Adara to provide software as well as hardware for a new enterprise architecture, including a means of exchanging data and a graphical user interface to view medical records. In that e-mail, Major Frank Tucker, chief of product development for the Defense Health Information Management System at MHS, charged he was directed to provide Adara with software source code and documentation, which he viewed as unethical because this would give the company a leg up in any competition. Tucker alleged Adara was awarded a sole-source contract by the Military Health System, but did not specify the contract's value. There should be a full investigation of that. Quoting from the Politico story: Representative Pete Sessions, the chief of the Republicans' campaign arm in the House, says on his Web site that earmarks have become ``a symbol of a broken Washington to the American people.'' Yet in 2008, Sessions himself steered a $1.6 million earmark for dirigible research to an Illinois company whose president acknowledges having no experience in government contracting, let alone in building blimps. What the company did have: the help of Adrian Plesha, a former Sessions aide with a criminal record who has made more than $446,000 lobbying on its behalf. But the company that received the earmarked funds, Jim G. Ferguson & Associates, is based in the suburbs of Chicago, with another office in San Antonio--nearly 300 miles from Dallas. And while Sessions used a Dallas address for the company when he submitted his earmark request to the House Appropriations Committee last year, one of the two men who control the company says that address is merely the home of one of his close friends. . . . Ferguson acknowledged that neither he nor his father has a background in the defense or aviation industries, nor any engineering or research expertise. Finally, it goes on: . . . more than half of the $1.6 million earmark was to go toward research and engineering costs. The remainder was for overhead and administrative costs. This is the result--and there are myriad examples--of this earmarking which goes on and on in this year's Defense appropriations bill from the House, and there will be more from the Senate. There are 1,102 earmarks. We can't do that. We have to stop. The American people are very tired of it. Let me remind my colleagues again about PMA, of which there are some 70 earmarks. The PMA Group was a DC lobbying firm with deep ties to Capitol Hill and a reputation for securing lucrative earmarks for its clients, especially defense earmarks. It boasted more than $15 million in revenue last year. PMA Group clients reportedly received $300 million in defense earmarks for fiscal year 2008 and $317 million for fiscal year 2009. PMA Group and its clients spread around a lot of campaign contributions in an attempt to curry favor with lawmakers. According to one report, the firm had been credited with $1.8 million in contributions since 2001, and that is just the members of the Defense Appropriations Committee. Last November, the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided PMA's offices and the home of its founder, Paul Magliocchetti. According to news reports, prosecutors were initially focused on whether Mr. Magliocchetti used a Florida wine steward and a golf club executive as a front to funnel illegal donations to lawmakers. The Washington Post examined campaign contributions reportedly given by employees of the PMA Group and found listed in donor records ``several people who were not registered lobbyists and did not work for the lobbying firm,'' including a 75-year-old California man who had never even heard of the firm. Since then the Department of Justice has raided the offices of a number of PMA clients and their business partners. One former PMA client is accused of giving kickbacks to an ex-Air Force contracting official. A Federal grand jury reportedly subpoenaed records from one U.S. Representative's congressional and campaign offices, and the FBI is interviewing his staffers. It upsets my colleagues when I talk about corruption in earmarking. I know it is very painful. I do not question the integrity of any of my colleagues. But when something like this PMA situation goes on, the stories are myriad of this influence of special interests at a time where we have nearly 10 percent unemployment in the United States of America, people not able to stay in their homes, people not being able to keep their jobs. If it was ever unacceptable, which it always was, it certainly is unacceptable now. At some point, the Defense appropriations bill will come to the floor of the Senate. If it is anything like the Defense appropriations bill the House of Representatives passed yesterday, we are going to have a long process because we have to bring this practice to an end. During the campaign, the President of the United States said we would review every appropriation line by line and do away with those that were unnecessary and unwanted and a waste of the taxpayers' dollars. There is no greater opportunity than there is now. I appreciate the President's involvement in ending production of the F-22, his involvement in saying the alternate engine is unsustainable for the F-35--continued billions of dollars of funding. But the earmarks are also billions of dollars of waste of the taxpayers' dollars. The earmarks are what bred corruption and the reason we have former Members of Congress residing in Federal prison. It has to be stopped. No contract should be allowed on a noncompetitive basis to be appropriated by the Congress of the United States. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the Bond amendment No. 1904, which if enacted would add another $8.5 billion to the $1.8 trillion deficit we are accumulating this year. As many of my colleagues will recall, when Congress considered the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act in 2005, the so-called SAFETEA Act, we included a section that required that $8.543 billion of unobligated contract authority be rescinded on September 30, 2009. The question, obviously, would arise: Why would we do such a thing, authorize money but then say it will be rescinded or cancelled? It was done for one simple reason; that is, because of the size of the bill it would have been subject to a point of order because it exceeded the budget. By the way, I would remind my colleagues this was a $223 billion bloated and earmarked highway bill. So apparently it is not sufficient, in the minds of some, that we at least honor a commitment we made, which would have canceled about $8.5 billion. Please keep in mind it was a $223 billion piece of legislation. Please keep in mind that earlier this year we passed a $787 billion stimulus bill, that only 10 percent of the money has been spent, and only 1 percent of the $787 billion stimulus has been spent on highway and infrastructure projects. So we know there are many billions of dollars more that will be spent on highway and infrastructure projects out of the stimulus bill that has not been spent. Yet that does not seem to be enough, we need to add another $8.5 billion. I would point out that this amendment, the same amendment, was considered in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on July 15 and was defeated by a vote of 14 to 5. Well, sometime we have to stop. You keep coming to the floor time after time and saying: At some point we have to consider our children and our grandchildren and the kind of debt they are inheriting. This is another $8.5 billion which was not budgeted, which will add to the burgeoning debt America is staggering under and at a time when we know that tens of billions of dollars additional will be spent on highway and infrastructure. It is almost sad to see this because it began with gimmickry in order that the bill on the floor at that time would not be subjected to a budget point of order, knowing there would be an attempt at some point to restore it, which is now being made. In 2005, we were accumulating deficits but unlike anything we have experienced in the last several months and since the economy cratered back in September of last year. I hope my colleagues will reject this amendment. It is unnecessary, unneeded, and unwanted. Frankly, it is another sign that we don't understand how serious the deficit problem is, that we are accumulating the biggest deficit since World War II as a percentage of our gross national product. I hope my colleagues will vote against the amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?

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

Mr. McCAIN. Couldn't it also be traced to earmarks and porkbarrel and ``demonstration projects''? Couldn't it be traced to the fundamental fact that the 1982 highway bill included 10 demonstration projects totalling $386 million? The 1987 bill had 152 porkbarrel projects, totaling $1.4 billion. The 1991 bill had 538 locations with specific porkbarrel projects, totaling $6.1 billion. The 1998 highway bill had 1,850 earmark projects, totaling $9.3 billion, and then in 2005 had 5,634 earmark projects, totaling $21.6 billion. How can anybody who calls himself or herself a fiscal conservative stand by and allow this kind of thing to happen? And what happens? There was $2.3 billion for landscaping enhancements along, of all places, the Ronald Reagan Freeway; $480,000 to rehabilitate a historic warehouse along the Erie Canal; $600,000 for the construction of horse-riding trails in Virginia; $2.5 million for the Daniel Boone Wilderness Trail Corridor; $400,000 to rehabilitate and redesign the Erie Canal Museum; $400,000 for a jogging, bicycle, and trolley trail in Columbus, GA. How in the world can those things be justified and then expect our constituents not to rise up?

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

Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator know how much we are spending on highway and transportation projects in the stimulus, the $787 billion stimulus bill?

Mr. McCAIN. Does the ranking member know how much of that has been spent in dollars?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as Senator Coburn has just mentioned, we released a report today examining how the highway trust fund receipts have been used for projects other than road and bridge construction and maintenance over the past 5 years. It relies heavily on the new GAO analysis that was performed at our request on how we prioritize, or fail to prioritize, our Nation's transportation spending. Again, I remind my colleagues that the GAO concluded that, over the last 5 years alone, we spent $78 billion on projects other than road and bridge construction and maintenance. I will repeat that--$78 billion on projects other than the construction and maintenance of roads and bridges. Where did it go? According to GAO, over $2 billion was spent on 5,547 projects for bike paths and pedestrian walkways. As one example, it identified a $878,000 project for a pedestrian and bicycle bridge for a Minnesota town of 847 people. I don't know what that works out to be, but it works out to roughly $1,000 per person. I would be interested to know how many inhabitants actually use that bridge. We all know about the ``bridge to nowhere''; perhaps this is a ``bridge for no one.'' Another $850 million went for 2,272 ``scenic beautification'' and landscaping projects around the country, and $84 million was spent on roadkill prevention, wildlife habitat connectivity, and highway runoff pollution mitigation projects. Yet another $84 million went to 398 pedestrian and bicyclist safety projects. I don't mean to diminish safety, but do we really need to spend Federal dollars for brochures like the one we cited in our report that encouraged bicyclists to ``make eye contact, smile, or wave to communicate with motorists. Courtesy and predictability are a key to safe cycling.'' Still another $28 million went to the transportation museums, and $215 million went to scenic or historic highway programs. The list goes on. I know Americans find these numbers as disturbing as I do. They should because they demonstrate that Congress is not focused on our Nation's transportation priorities. We should not forget that 2 years ago, the I-35 West Bridge over the Mississippi River collapsed during rush hour, killing 13 and injuring 123 more of our fellow citizens. That tragedy exposed a nationwide problem of deficient bridges. According to the Department of Transportation, in 2008, of the Nation's 601,396 bridges, 151,394, or 25 percent, of our bridges were deficient. Over 71,000 of them had significant deterioration and reduced load-carrying capability, and almost 80,000 didn't meet current design standards. Yet we have been spending billions of dollars on bike paths, museums, landscaping, and roadkill-reduction programs. Part and parcel of the problem, obviously, is the addiction to earmarks. As I mentioned before, the way the earmarks have grown, one of the standard arguments made by the earmarkers and porkbarrelers in Congress is that it has always been like this; we have always had congressional discretion because we know better than the bureaucrats where the taxpayers' money should go. Frankly, I agree that sometimes that is the case, if it competes with other programs, if it is scrutinized and authorized by the appropriate committees. But what we do is we earmark these porkbarrel projects, and many times--let's have a little straight talk, Mr. President--they are in return for campaign contributions, and we see corruption. People are under investigation. Lobbyists' offices are being raided by the FBI. Again, I am not going to repeat what I said to the Senator from Oklahoma, but the 1982 highway bill had 10--count them--10 demonstration projects, and it was $386 million; in 1987, $1.4 billion; 1991, $6.1 billion; 1998, we get up to 1,850, totaling $9.3 billion; and 2005, 5,634 earmarked projects totaling $21.6 billion of American taxpayers' dollars. That is where we find the bypasses and the beautification projects and the trails. And all those are earmarked by specific Members of Congress. Meanwhile, we have 25 percent of our bridges that are deficient and 71,000 of them have significant deterioration and reduced load-carrying capability and 80,000 that do not meet current design standards. What are we going to say to the taxpayers of America if, God forbid-- and I pray not--there is another bridge collapse? What do we say to them? That we took their tax dollars and built a museum instead of fixing their bridges and highways to ensure their safety? Maybe--just maybe--if we had not spent $21.6 billion on earmarked projects, maybe some of that money, just maybe some of that money might have gone to fix the design problems on the bridge over the Mississippi. Maybe not. Maybe we didn't know. I am not making a judgment here. But it seems to me that sooner or later, if you earmark as much as $21.6 billion of the taxpayers' money for museums and bypasses and brochures, sooner or later the priority projects suffer. Again, projects originally authorized under SAFETEA-LU, the 2005 highway bill, included $3.2 billion for landscaping enhancements along the Ronald Reagan Freeway. I have often wondered how often Ronald Reagan turns over in his grave. I bet he was spinning on that one. Mr. President, $480,000 to rehabilitate a historic warehouse along the Erie Canal; $600,000 for the construction of horse riding trails in Virginia. You will notice all these projects are earmarked to a specific locality. That is what, among other things, they have in common. There is $2.5 million for the Daniel Boone Wilderness Trail Corridor; $400,000 to rehabilitate and redesign the Erie Canal Museum; $400,000 for jogging, bicycle, and trolley trails in Columbus, GA. The list goes on and on. No one thinks our Nation should be without flowers, ferries, bike paths, and boat museums. But today we have to make some choices about priorities and how we spend limited resources. This has to be considered in the backdrop of this year a $1.8 trillion deficit, the largest in the history of this country since World War II. There is no end in sight. It is almost overwhelming, a $1.8 trillion deficit this year. But what is worse, there is no way out. No one knows of a plan to bring us to a balanced budget without fundamental reform of Medicare and Social Security. Here before us on health care reform, we see another trillion dollars piled on that. When are we going to decide we cannot afford taxpayers' dollars to rehabilitate and redesign museums, for trails, for beautification and landscaping enhancements when we have other priorities on transportation that have to do with the safety of our citizens? I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his continued advocacy for the taxpayers of America. I thank him for all the efforts he makes. I regret that neither he nor I will be elected Miss Congeniality in the Senate again this year. But I also believe the American people are beginning to wake up, and they are beginning to get angry. We saw this in the tea parties that took place all over this country. I hear it and see it in response to my Twitters. Over 1 million people now follow my Twitters and my tweets. They are very interested in this. We are going to post all these. We are going to let the American people know where their dollars have gone. I urge my colleagues, let's, for once, catch up with the American people and start becoming fiscally conservative. One of the best ways we can be careful stewards of their tax dollars is to make sure we place as our highest priority their safety as they travel the highways and cross the bridges of the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield, so I may make a unanimous consent request, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Introduction and Conclusion of a report entitled ``Out of Gas: Congress Raids the Highway Trust Fund for Pet Projects While Bridges and Roads Crumble'' by Senator Coburn and myself.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague from Alabama.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside to call up amendment No. 1814 which is at the desk.