John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It would prohibit funds from being spent on any of the hundreds of earmarks listed in the committee report that accompanies this bill--I emphasize, that are listed in the committee report, not part of the basic legislation. It would prohibit those funds from being spent on any of the hundreds of earmarks unless that project is specifically authorized. As we all know, committee reports do not have the force of law. They are meant to serve as explanatory statements for what can often be complicated legislative bill text. Unfortunately, around here Appropriations Committee reports now are treated as if they were law and are routinely loaded up with millions, if not billions, of dollars in unrequested, unauthorized, unnecessary, wasteful earmarks. When Congress establishes its funding priorities, it should do so decisively, without cause for subjective interpretation or reference to material outside the bill passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. These funding priorities should have the binding force of law subject only to the President's veto power. Yet here we are again, with a committee report that contains 622 ``congressionally directed spending items''--that is a great name: congressionally directed spending items--totaling over $985 million. None of these projects were requested by the administration. Many of them were not authorized or competitively bid in any way. No hearing was held to judge whether these were national priorities worthy of scarce taxpayer dollars, and they are in the bill for one reason and one reason only: because of the self-serving prerogatives of a few select Members of the Senate, almost all of whom serve on the Appropriations Committee. Sadly, these Members chose to serve their own interests over those of the American taxpayer. Earlier this year, in response to criticism about the number of earmarks in the Omnibus appropriations bill, one of the Senators stood on the floor and proclaimed: Let me say this to all the chattering class that so much focuses on those little, tiny, yes, porky amendments: The American people don't really care. If the American people don't really care, then on behalf of the American people, I suggest we remove some of the ``little, tiny, porky'' items that are listed in this report. Here are just a few: There is $1 million for the Bayview Gas to Energy Project in Utah. My colleagues and people who pay attention to these processes will know that almost every one of these projects has a location. Again, usually they are located in the home State of a member of the Appropriations Committee. So $1 million for the Bayview Gas to Energy Project in Utah. I have never heard of the Bayview Gas to Energy Project. I have never heard a thing about it. I have never read about it. I am sure that maybe it is known in Utah, but I have no way of knowing whether it is a worthwhile project or not. The most important thing: Are there other gas to energy projects in other parts of the country? Maybe so. Maybe not. These are earmarked. We have $500,000 for the Ben Franklin Technology Partners in Pennsylvania--the Ben Franklin Technology Partners in Pennsylvania. From the reading of that, I have not a clue, nor would anyone else know, what the Ben Franklin Technology Partners is all about. We have $600,000 for biodiesel blending in Wisconsin; $1 million for the Black Hills State Heating and Cooling Plant in South Dakota; $250,000 for a gas heat pump cooperative training program in Nevada; $1.5 million for the genetic improvement of switchgrass, not in South Carolina but in Rhode Island; $1 million for a high-speed wind turbine noise model with suppression in Mississippi; $5 million for an offshore wind initiative in Maine; $2 million for the Algae Biofuels Research in Washington; $750,000 for the Algae to Ethanol Research and Evaluation in New Jersey; $1.2 million for the Alternative Energy School of the Future in Nevada--the Alternative Energy School of the Future. We have $6 million for the Hawaii Energy Sustainability Program, Hawaii; $6 million for the Hawaii Renewable Energy Development Venture, Hawaii; $2.25 million for the Montana Bioenergy Center of Excellence, Montana; $10 million for the Sustainable Energy Research Center in Mississippi. My colleagues may get a little thread that runs through this: Mississippi, Nevada, South Dakota, Utah, et cetera--it goes on and on. We have $10 million for the Sustainable Energy Research Center, Mississippi; $450,000 for the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation in Vermont; $1.2 million for the Hydrogen Fuel Dispensing Station, West Virginia; $1.25 million for the Long Term Environmental and Economic Impacts of the Development of a Coal Liquefaction Sector in China, West Virginia; $1 million for the Alaska Climate Center, Alaska; $5 million for the Computing Capability, North Dakota; $1 million for the Performance Assessment Institute in Nevada; $1 million for the New School Green Building in New York. It goes on and on. There are 22 pages worth, and my colleagues might be interested at some of the innovative names and may be interested in trying to find out what those projects are. You won't find an explanation in the report. So let me be clear on one point. I don't question the merits of these projects. There is no way to find out what the merits are. Many of them may be very worthy of Federal funds. If that is the case, one should wonder, if they are national priorities in desperate need of scarce Federal funds, why they haven't been authorized by a congressional committee. Why haven't we had a single hearing to talk about the desperate need for a hydrogen fuel dispensing station in West Virginia? If genetically improved switchgrass was such an imperative at this time of economic crisis, why was the funding not requested by the administration? I just wish to point out again, contrary to popular belief, contrary to what members of the Appropriations Committee will continue to tell us, earmarking funds in an appropriations bill is not the way the Congress has operated historically. It is similar to any other evil--it has grown, grown, and grown larger every time, just about. After various scandals, it has leveled off or decreased some, but after the scandal dies down, the earmarks return. Yes, 9,000 of them were in the Omnibus appropriations bill and, of course, the stimulus package as well. So there was a time when earmarks were nonexistent, or at least very rare. Guess what. We didn't have $1.8 trillion worth of deficit for the year. I am proud to have served in the House with a man by the name of Congressman William Natcher, chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services. He prevented earmarks in his committee. I am sorry there are not more William Natchers still in the Congress of the United States. Citizens Against Government Waste has tracked the growth of earmarks since 1991. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, in 1991, there were 546 earmarks, totaling $3.1 billion. In 2008, there were 11,106 earmarks, totaling $17.2 billion. That is an increase of 337 percent in 17 years. Obviously, it is not pleasant for my colleagues from the Appropriations Committee, and it is not particularly pleasant for some of my other colleagues, for me to come down here to, day after day, year after year, fight against these earmarks and porkbarrel projects. The fact is, they have bred corruption. It wasn't inadequate disclosure requirements that led Duke Cunningham to violate his oath of office and take $2.5 million in bribes in exchange for doling out $70 million to $80 million of taxpayers' funds to a defense contractor. It was his ability to freely earmark taxpayer funds without question. So here we are with a $1.8 trillion deficit and 22 pages of earmarks, most of which have a State earmark next to them so there is no competition, there is no revealing of the details of the project and, meanwhile, we have places being raided by the FBI around the country due to the allegations that criminal activity has taken place, which can be traced back to this earmark porkbarreling process. I don't expect to win this vote, but I intend to keep up this fight until such time as the American people rise and demand that we exercise some kind of fiscal discipline. I will tell my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee the reason why I think the chances are better and better, because they are having trouble staying in their homes, educating their kids, and the unemployment rate is now 9.5 percent and predicted to go higher. The present President of the United States campaigned and said he would change the culture in Washington. One of my deep disappointments is that the President has not fulfilled his commitment to go line by line, item by item, in every appropriations bill and not allow this porkbarreling earmark practice to continue. The American people will not stand for it forever. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, do we have the yeas and nays?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. McCAIN. Is the Senator from Delaware waiting to speak?

Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to follow the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the violence that continues to plague our southern border region by Mexico's well-armed, well-financed, and very determined drug cartels. Last weekend, I went to Yuma, AZ, and met with Border Patrol and Customs and other law enforcement agents who do such an outstanding job for our country. By the way, the temperature was approximately 115 degrees, and our men and women, who are serving so well, were out there trying to secure our border and keep our country safe. Despite the increased efforts of President Calderon to stamp out these bloodthirsty and vicious drug cartels, violence has increased dramatically, claiming over 6,000 lives in Mexico last year alone. The murderers carrying out these crimes are as violent and dangerous as any in the world. Many have extensive military training and carry out their illegal activities with sophisticated tactical weapons and no regard for human life. Last week, the Washington Post reported that 12 Mexican Federal agents were murdered and left alongside a mountain road in retaliation for the arrest of the leader of the country's most violent drug cartel, La Familia. According to the article, this act represents ``the highest one-day death toll for Federal forces in the 3-year-old drug war.'' The article provides the deadly details of the violent attack, reporting: The attacks began at dawn on Saturday . . . shortly after the arrest of the right-hand man of La Familia founder Nazario Moreno Gonzalez. After La Familia gunmen were repelled in their attempt to free (the leader), they went on what police described as a shooting rampage to ``avenge'' his capture. The attacks, in which convoys of gunmen mounted surprise assaults on government positions in eight cities, went on for 10 hours Saturday and continued sporadically Sunday. The bodies of these brave law enforcement officers were accompanied by a note promising future violence from La Familia if the Federal Government continues its law enforcement efforts. I remind my colleagues that this is the same drug cartel that, according to the Washington Post, ``announced its presence 2 years ago by rolling five decapitated heads into a dance hall.'' Earlier this month, two American citizens with dual citizenship were dragged out of their homes and shot several times in the head in the Mexican state of Chihuahua. The reason was that the victims, according to the Associated Press: helped lead the town's approximately 2,000 inhabitants in protest against a May 2 kidnapping. The residents refused to pay the $1 million ransom kidnappers requested and demonstrated in the Chihuahua state capital to demand justice. Even after (the kidnapped victim) was released unharmed a week later, the (town's) people continued to lead marches demanding more law enforcement in the rural, isolated corner of Chihuahua state. They also set up a committee to report any suspicious activities in town to police, quickly becoming an example for other Chihuahua communities. Yesterday's Washington Post front-page story about these events states: Chihuahua today is the emblem of a failed state, run by incompetent authorities who have little ability to protect the citizens. The violence that has terrorized Mexican citizens continues to seep across the border, devastating families and crippling communities. In my hometown of Phoenix, there have been over 700 reported kidnappings in the past year. This has led to Phoenix being declared the ``kidnapping capital of the United States,'' second only to Mexico City in the world. In many cases, kidnap victims are intertwined with criminal elements of society, involved with illegal cross-border smuggling operations. The police chief of Phoenix testified in April before the Senate's Homeland Security Committee that Phoenix is a transshipment point for illegal drugs and smuggled humans, both coming to Phoenix before being shipped to other points throughout the United States. Immigrants illegally crossing the border with paid ``coyotes'' are treated like expendable cargo to be bought, sold, traded, or stolen. In many cases, the immigrants' families are ransomed for additional funds by bajadores, or takedown crews, to guarantee safe delivery of their loved ones. As detailed in a Newsweek article from earlier this year: Kidnap victims have been found bound and gagged, their fingers smashed and their foreheads spattered with blood from pistol whippings. When the bajadores abduct illegal immigrants--hoping to extort more money from relatives--they will sometimes kill someone off immediately to scare the others. There was a case last year where they duct-taped the mouth and nose of one individual and had the others watch while he asphyxiated and defecated on himself. These are not pleasant things. They are not pleasant things to describe. But they are going on right now as we speak. Aside from the horrible toll these cartels extract from their victims and the victims' families, they also severely tax the resources of law enforcement agencies of border communities. The police chief of Phoenix also testified that the Phoenix police receive a kidnapping report almost every night, which can require the efforts of up to 60 officers to find, rescue, and protect kidnap victims. Lest you believe these activities are limited to border communities, last year the bodies of five Mexican men were discovered bound, gagged, and electrocuted in Birmingham, AL, in an apparent hit by a Mexican cartel. In recent years, arrests of Mexican cartel members have occurred across the South, including Tennessee, North Carolina, and Georgia. There is no sign that the number of these drug-related arrests will abate in the near future, which is why I support efforts to complete the proposed 700 miles of double-layer fence. But, as we have seen, fencing alone fails to take into account the realities of the southern border and should not be treated as a panacea. These criminal smuggling enterprises are very sophisticated and are not easily deterred, which is why we must work to truly secure our border, not merely fence it. This past weekend, as I mentioned, I visited the border in Yuma, AZ, and witnessed the extraordinary lengths these cartels go to smuggle their goods across the border. One cartel spent upwards of $1 million using sophisticated GPS-directed drilling equipment to develop their tunnel far below the surface to move goods underneath fencing and out of sight of law enforcement agencies. In Nogales, AZ, drug traffickers have used the city's sewer system to channel drugs across the border. Every other month tunnels are discovered underneath the border. Since 1990, 110 cross-border tunnels have been discovered. Twenty-four tunnels were discovered in 2008 alone. Not to be deterred, our outstanding law enforcement officials have developed investigative strategies and tunnel detection equipment to locate and identify subterranean cross-border tunnels. The latest, by the way, on the part of the drug cartels, is the use of ultralights. Ultralights now are being flown at extremely low altitude, loaded with drugs, across the Mexico-Arizona border and all across the border. We must also increase personnel on the border to put an end to illegal immigration and protect our citizens from the drug cartel violence occurring in Mexico. For this reason, I was disappointed that the administration rejected Arizona Governor Brewer's request--and the requests of the Governors of California, New Mexico, and Texas--who also requested National Guard troops to bolster the Joint Counter- Narcotics Terrorism Task Force. But, as we know, the coyotes are aggressive and creative despite our efforts to secure the border with more personnel, more fencing, and more surveillance technology. The United States must keep its focus on securing our southern border and doing all it can to assist President Calderon in his efforts against these violent drug cartels. The prosperity and success of Mexico is essential to the prosperity and success of our own country. We share a border, our economies are intertwined, and we are major trading partners with each other. The United States must show its support for our neighbor to the south and support the Mexican people and the Calderon administration in this fundamental struggle against lawlessness and corruption. We have a big problem. We have a big problem with these drug cartels. The Mexican Government now has a problem. They just lost an election because the people of Mexico, many of them, believe these drugs are just going through Mexico, intended for the United States of America. Violence is at an incredibly high level not only on the border but throughout the country of Mexico and, tragically, corruption reaches to very high levels in the government. We have the Merida Initiative. We are working with the Mexican Government. But there is no time like the present, in my view, because we need to not only enforce and increase our efforts on our side of the border but also work as closely as possible with the Mexican Government and people. It is horrific what is taking place: beheadings of people, bodies hung from overpasses. These are amongst the most cruel and terrible people who inhabit this Earth. It is a lot about drugs. It is a lot about a $16-billion-a-year business, of drugs coming into the United States of America. That is how they can afford to spend easily $1 million to build a tunnel underneath the border between Yuma, AZ, and Mexico. I know we have a lot of issues that are affecting the future of our country, including two wars, including relations with countries, including the Iranian situation, but I hope we can focus a lot of our attention on the problems that are bred on our border by the drug cartels and the human smuggling and the terrible mistreatment of people on both sides of the border as a result of that. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the articles in the Washington Post and Newsweek be printed in the Record, and I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, let me just say to my friend, the distinguished chairman, all of our Members have very busy schedules. The Senator from Arizona, whose amendment it is, happens to be the second ranking Republican and has heavy responsibilities. I would point out that we waited for a couple hours yesterday for the same Senator yesterday afternoon to be able to come to the floor to address another amendment. At the same time, the clock is running because the majority leader has filed cloture on the bill. So are we going to run the proceedings here, consideration of the authorization bill, based on the priorities of one Senator or are we going to carry out what we all agreed to last night in the unanimous consent agreement? There was no objection last night from the Senator from Massachusetts. He could have objected. So now we want to turn everybody else's schedules on their heads because one Senator has some other priorities. Obviously, we are going to finish the bill because the majority leader filed cloture, and we have to close out the bill, after spending nearly a week on two issues, hate crimes and guns, neither of which had a single thing to do with the Defense authorization bill--because, unprecedented in the 20-some years I have been a member of the Armed Services Committee, the majority leader of the Senate came to the floor and proposed a hate crimes bill that had not been through the committee of jurisdiction and was, obviously, very controversial on this side. So after getting bollixed up for a week and a half--or at least a week--on those two issues, we enter into a unanimous consent agreement when the majority leader files cloture to close off debate on this side. That is the reason it is done. So now we are supposed to overturn, some 10 hours later, a unanimous consent agreement because one Senator cannot fit it into his schedule, when the sponsor of the amendment is the No. 2 ranking member on this side? There is something wrong with that process. I will be glad to discuss it with the distinguished chairman and we will try and see if we can adjust to it. In the meantime, the clock continues to run and we have fewer and fewer amendments that will be germane and be allowed to be discussed, because we find out this morning, after a unanimous consent agreement which could have been objected to last night, one Senator has a schedule that dictates we turn the unanimous consent agreement on its head. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. I withhold my request.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I would ask the distinguished chairman, then, in the spirit of compromise, can we arrange a time agreement on the Lieberman amendment that is reasonable so that perhaps we could take up the Kyl amendment later in the morning so that at least that might not upset his schedule, since we are making accommodation for the sponsor of a second-degree amendment, which seems to be our priority.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, let me say we can have 1 hour for each side on the Lieberman amendment and then move directly to the Kyl amendment, if that is agreeable.

Mr. McCAIN. Maybe we need a quorum call for a moment.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment which has been described by the proponent and opponent. Obviously, it would strip from the Defense authorization bill a provision that authorizes funding for an alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Underscoring Senator Lieberman's point and as was the case with the provision this body addressed in the F-22 program, funding for an alternate engine for the JSF at this time is something the Department of Defense has not asked for and does not want. It is not reflected in either the President's budget request or any of the Services' unfunded priorities list. I believe there is good reason why neither the Department nor any of the services at this time want an alternate engine for the JSF. That reason is perhaps best expressed in a letter that Senator Lieberman has already quoted from and had printed in the Record, from Secretary Gates. He concludes by saying: It is my belief that the Joint Strike Fighter Program presented in the President's budget request is in the best interests of national security. If a final bill is presented to the President concerning provisions that would seriously disrupt the F-35 program, the President's senior advisers will recommend that the President veto the bill. Before I go much further, I would like to apologize to all Members who had planned to speak on this very important amendment and had arranged their schedules to do so. We have obviously changed the timing, despite the unanimous consent agreement to the contrary, apparently to accommodate one Senator's schedule. I hope, because this is a very important issue, that Senators both in support of Senator Bayh's position and in support of this amendment would seize the opportunity to come down and address this issue. Some have cited the benefits of competition as a reason to pursue a second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, but a competition for this engine was already conducted. It was already conducted as a part of the original flyoff competition for the Joint Strike Fighter itself. The current airframe manufacturer and engine team won. In 1996, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and McDonnell Douglas originally competed for the two Joint Strike Technology Concept Demonstration Awards. In connection with that, each of those airframe manufacturers solicited engine proposals from Pratt & Whitney and General Electric. Pratt & Whitney won the competition as to Lockheed Martin and Boeing, and General Electric won separately as to McDonnell Douglas. Lockheed Martin and Boeing were selected to proceed to concept demonstration-- where Lockheed Martin ultimately won in 2001. That is exactly how most military aircraft engines are selected--as a team, combining an airframe with a powerplant. That makes sense, I might say. Obviously, we do not want them being developed separately. So with regard to a second engine, we are not talking about competition, we are actually talking about another bite at the apple. I hope the great engine war is over. I know of no data or analysis that supports that taxpayers will see any net savings from subjecting the engine for the JSF to any further competition. I do not believe there is anybody who believes more in competition than the Senator from Connecticut and me, including the chairman. We need to have competition. But there comes a point where you have to make a decision in the development of both the aircraft and the engine and move forward. At some point you have to abandon the alternate engine or, in some cases, there have been advocates of an alternate aircraft itself, to perform the same mission, as in the case of the tanker, and to move forward in order to proceed in a fashion which is in the best interests of the taxpayers and the defense of the country. That is why the Secretary of Defense feels so strongly on this issue that he says the President's senior advisers will recommend that the President veto the bill if the Lieberman amendment is not adopted. The fact is also funding an alternate engine over the next 6 years has been estimated to cost the program about $5 billion, the equivalent of 50 to 80 aircraft, according to the program manager. Also, given that continuing development of a second engine would require in excess of $600 million in fiscal year 2010 alone, according to the Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisitions, GEN Mark Shackelford. Paying for the engines in just that year would require cutting production of at least two Joint Strike Fighters this year alone. There may be some nonfinancial benefits to subjecting the engine program for the Joint Strike Fighter to additional competition-- improved contractor performance at the margins, for example. Like Senator Lieberman, I am not persuaded those benefits are worth an additional cost of $5 billion to the Joint Strike Fighter's bottom line over the next 6 years. Certainly there are more cost-effective ways of ensuring contractor performance. In my view, the possibility of a fleetwide grounding due to a single engine--that is another argument that is made by proponents of a second engine--is overstated. In fact, the only other U.S. military aircraft with an alternative engine is the F-16. All other aircraft have single- engine sources and have worked well. There is no doubt the cost growth of the engine has been a huge problem. From fiscal year 2007 to 2008, the engine costs have grown specifically to meet the needs of the Marine Corps for a version capable of short takeoff and vertical landing. But I suggest the challenge there is to ensure that development costs leading to production remain stable, not to introduce a new engine to the program that will most assuredly add more uncertain testing requirements, complexity, and ultimately cost to the program. So I believe the provision currently in the bill would be seriously disruptive because one of the offsets it uses to fund developing and buying a second engine derives from research, development, and testing and evaluation efforts supporting the program itself. Also, it is my understanding the offset is of the C-130, which obviously is very much required in our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Remember, Secretary Gates restructured the Joint Strike Fighter Program this year precisely to provide for more robust developmental testing over the next 5 years to ensure that the program stays on its planned budget. Taking money out of the program's research, development, and testing and evaluation effort will, in my view, most assuredly disrupt the program. One of the lessons of history on this program is its stability in funding is absolutely vital to executing that program soundly, the instability in funding--the disruption that the provision introduces into the bill--brings the bill within the scope of a veto threat. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment under consideration and prohibit any additional funding for an alternate engine program for the Joint Strike Fighter. Let me also point out to my colleagues, I think this Secretary of Defense has decided, in an incredible act of courage, to take on certain institutions and the way we do business. I think this Secretary of Defense has decided to take on--and I know he has--the military- industrial-congressional complex which lards on porkbarrel projects and unnecessary spending which, in many respects, places parochial interests over the national interests. Obviously, he feels so strongly about it that he would recommend a veto by the President of the United States. That would be regrettable, obviously, because we have so many important provisions in this bill for the men and women who are serving this country, from the wounded warriors, to a pay raise, for so many things--to the amendment of Senator Lieberman's that we adopted yesterday that we would provide an additional 30,000 members of the U.S. Army so we can better pursue the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, obviously, as of yesterday, the Secretary of Defense feels so strongly on this issue that he would recommend that the President veto the entire bill. Does that mean it would kill a bill? No. But it does mean there would be a significant period of delay in passing this legislation and therefore delay the ability of the Pentagon and the military to implement some of the very important provisions of this legislation. So I would urge my colleagues to examine this issue carefully, as I am sure they do all of the issues before this body. Also I would hope they would take into consideration the views of our distinguished Secretary of Defense. I do not agree on every issue with the Secretary of Defense, and neither does my colleague, Senator Lieberman. But I think he is on the right track. I think he can bring about change, at least on how we acquire weapons and how we spend money, and end these atrocious, outrageous cost overruns we have experienced in literally every single weapon system in recent years, which have cost the taxpayers incredible amounts of money, and end this earmarking and porkbarrel process that I will talk more on today. Every day just about we pick up a paper and hear about, or go on line and hear about, some organization that got an earmark and their waste, mismanagement, and in some cases criminal behavior as far as use of the taxpayers' dollars are concerned. We have to do the big things and the small things. This is a big thing. I respect, enormously, the Senator from Indiana. There has been no more valuable member of the Armed Services Committee than Senator Bayh. I respect his views. I understand where he is coming from in the name and sake of competition. Senator Lieberman's and my argument is that the time for competition is over, and it is time to move forward with a tested engine that will, one, accelerate the development and operational entrance by the F-22, and also save some $5 billion of the taxpayers' money. So I hope my colleagues will examine this issue very carefully and support the Lieberman amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, what is the time situation?

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I want to add some additional comments about the $438 million that would be taken from the HC/MC 130s recapitalization program to fund development of the alternate engine. I don't think there is any doubt that given the conflict in Afghanistan, as well as Iraq, but particularly now in Afghanistan, as we move into the southern part of the country, the HC/MC 130s are critical weapons systems. Their platforms are designed to specifically support our special operations warriors, which is the kind of fight we are in. It is an irregular fight, and it puts increasing demands on our special forces. As we know, these aircraft are specialized C-130s that are specifically designed for that fight. They have capabilities, such as aerial refueling and gunship weaponry, that meet the requirements of the special operations command. I would be very reluctant and strongly opposed to taking funding away from special operations and using it to fund the second motor for the Joint Strike Fighter. It is a time, obviously, when we are fighting two irregular wars, and it is not a time to take this funding away. According to the Defense Department, the current military requirement for the HC/MC 130s aircraft is 60. The Department recently recognized that the need to modernize the aging, worn-out special operations and combat search and rescue fleets is urgent. According to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, ``the cut to these aircraft would slow down deliveries to the warfighter of the HC- 130 and the MC-130 impacting both the Air Force's Air Combat Command and Special Operations Command.'' According to the Air Force ``based on the JROC validated requirements for 37 MC-130s and 78 HC-130s, the Air Force, including the Air Force Special Operations Command and Air Combat Command, would benefit from an even greater acceleration of the recapitalization rate of all 9 aircraft that remain in the President's budget. Taking that money out of this program would delay the delivery of new aircraft to the warfighter. I think that if General McChrystal were here, and our other leaders, they would make it very clear that in the very difficult situation we face in Afghanistan--large areas of geography that need to be traveled and controlled--these aircraft are very much needed. I hope my colleagues will also take that into consideration as we consider this vote. I congratulate the Senator from Indiana for a very eloquent argument on behalf of his position. Again, I state my appreciation for the very important role he plays as a member of the Armed Services Committee. This is one of the few times we disagree, but I think he has presented his side of the argument with eloquence. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I think we are prepared to vote.

Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion upon the table. The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, if the chairman would agree, the Senator from Montana wants to take some time to talk about his amendment which is germane, but he wants to talk about it. We have not had a chance to examine it. Then we could go back to the Kyl amendment, pending hopefully an agreement.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy for a minute with the distinguished chairman.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand we are hopefully close to an agreement on the Kyl amendment and then we could set up, following that agreement, the Burr amendment, followed by an Akaka amendment, and our staffs will be working on further amendments so our colleagues will know.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the chairman. For the benefit of our colleagues I still think it is possible--and I think the chairman would agree--to finish up by tonight, if we could have expeditious handling of the amendments but which may require us to finish by tomorrow, I hope.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business while we are waiting for the outcome of the negotiations that I had a colloquy with the chairman about.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have long spoken about the broken appropriations process and the corruption it breeds. I remain deeply concerned over the damage done to our country and, indeed, this institution by their continued abuse. I ask my colleagues: How many more pay-to-play scandals will it take before we enact comprehensive and meaningful earmark reform? Look at the scandals over the last 5 years alone: Former U.S. Representative Randy Cunningham sits in a Federal prison today for selling earmarks. Among the many bribes Cunningham admitted receiving was the sale of his house at an inflated price; the use of a yacht, free; a used Rolls Royce; antique furniture; Persian rugs; jewelry; and a $2,000 contribution for his daughter's college graduation party. In return, he earmarked untold millions of dollars and pressured the Department of Defense to award contracts to his coconspirators. Of course, Senator Dorgan and I spent nearly 2 years investigating the Indian lobbying practices of Jack Abramoff, who reportedly dubbed appropriations committees ``a favor factory.'' One former Senate staffer pled guilty to accepting gifts in exchange for helping Mr. Abramoff's team on appropriations matters. An ex-official in the Department of Justice pled guilty to accepting bribes for helping Mr. Abramoff's client secure millions of dollars to build a jail. In all, over 20 people--including an ex-Congressman, administration officials, congressional staffers, and lobbyists--have been indicted, convicted or pled guilty. The Department of Justice investigation into this matter still continues to this day. We have today multiple pay-to-play scandals unfolding before our eyes. We read weekly, almost daily, news article after news article about numerous criminal investigations revolving around earmarks. Take, for example, the ongoing criminal investigation into the PMA Group. Most Americans have probably never heard of the PMA Group. 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. As I have said many times, it is the ``Willie Sutton Syndrome,'' because when he was asked why he robbed banks, he said: ``That's where the money is.'' The reason why a lot of these corrupting earmarks came out of defense is because that is where the money is. The PMA Group boasted more than $15 million in revenue last year. The PMA Group clients reportedly received $300 million in defense earmarks for fiscal year 2008 and $317 million for fiscal year 2009. The PMA Group and its clients spread around a lot of campaign contributions in an attempt to curry favor with lawmakers. 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. A Federal grand jury reportedly subpoenaed records from one U.S. Representative's congressional and campaign offices and the FBI is interviewing his staffers. Last week, we read about yet another scandal involving people and firms in PMA's orbit. According to a July 15 Associated Press news article, the former head of the defense contractor, Coherent Systems International, pled guilty in Federal court to defrauding the U.S. Government and accepting kickbacks. Two former PMA clients are reportedly caught up in the scandal. According to court documents, in October of 2005, the Air Force Research Lab awarded Coherent an $8.1 million contract to deliver four Ground Mobile Gateway Systems. An $8.2 million earmark contained in a tsunami relief bill funded the contract. Get that: It was for a Ground Mobile Gateway System included in a tsunami relief bill. Not surprisingly, Coherent had lobbied for that earmark. At the time, Coherent was represented by a firm called KSA Consulting. Coherent submitted to the government at least $1.8 million in purchase orders outside the scope of the Air Force contract. What did the government get for its $1.8 million? Coherent paid two subcontractors, which were also represented by KSA Consulting, almost $600,000 for software that was not called for under the Air Force contract. What did Coherent do with the software? It literally threw the software in a closet where it sat collecting dust. Coherent paid another subcontractor $650,000 for the delivery of five prototypes, also not part of the prime contract. Some reports suggest that this is the same subcontractor that allegedly bribed Coherent's president and whose offices the FBI raided earlier this year. Coherent also paid Schaller Engineering, a former PMA client, $200,000 for technology that was never delivered. We now know where the money went. On July 21, 2009, Roll Call reported that the former Air Force contracting official, on the Mobile Common Data Link Gateway program, pled guilty to ``skimming money from an earmark that was provided to a Pennsylvania defense contractor.'' In his plea agreement, the official admits to approving invoices that were not part of the contract and then taking the kickback from the defense contractor. This is outrageous, but I also believe it is only the tip of the iceberg. We will undoubtedly see the continued march of news reports about further indictments and guilty pleas. Earmarks breed corruption, purely and simply. The current earmarking process doesn't stop it or adequately guard against it. So I ask my colleagues: How many more scandals must we suffer before we enact meaningful earmark reform? How low must Congress's approval rating sink before we act to repair this institution's reputation? How many more lawmakers, staffers, government officials, and contractors have to go to jail before we actually fix this process? Unfortunately, Congress's earmarking practices have grown worse, not better, just about every year I have served in the Senate. This year promises to be the worst. We began the year by passing a $400 billion Omnibus appropriations bill with almost 9,000 earmarks in it. Contrary to his promise to the American people to stem the tide of earmarks, the President refused to veto that pork-laden bill. In fact, he signed it in a quiet room far from the public eye, I might add, using the rationale it was ``last year's business,'' even though it was passed this year. Two weeks ago, the Senate approved a $44 billion Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. It was over $200 million more than last year's bill and almost $100 million more than the President's budget request. It, too, was laden with numerous unrequested, unauthorized earmarks added at the direction of members of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate. Rest assured, we will see more earmarks in the other appropriations bills that come to the floor later this year. Even the pending fiscal year 2010 national defense authorization bill is not insulated from the practice. Americans all over the country are hurting. People are losing their jobs, their savings, and their homes. So what do we do? We continue this disgraceful earmarking process, elevating parochialism and patronage politics over the true needs and welfare of this Nation. The President pledged during his campaign he would work to eliminate earmarks. The Speaker of the House promised to drain the swamp. Given the abysmal state of our economy, Americans can no longer wait for them to make good on their promises. Earmark reform is needed and it is needed now. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following articles be printed in the Record: July 21, 2009: ``Ex-Air Force Employee Pleads Guilty in Case Tied to Murtha Earmark.'' The Hill, July 21, 2009: ``Second Contractor Pleads Guilty in Earmark Probe.'' July 21, 2009: ``Inquiries Focus on Subcommittee Ties.'' July 15, 2009: ``Ex-Defense Contractor CEO Enters Fraud Guilty Plea.'' Washington Post, February 14, 2009: ``Despite Listing, Donors Don't Work For Firm Being Probed.''