John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I call up amendment No. 1378 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague from Arizona for this amendment. Look, it is all about the fact that there has been no analysis, no assessment, no debate on the merits of using Federal funds for a municipal improvement project. I am sure Whitefish needs municipal improvement. So do cities and towns all over America. Why was Whitefish picked? By the way, it might be of interest to taxpayers, Whitefish, according to my information, has a population of 5,849 people. This earmark equals $153.87 per inhabitant. Cities all across America are operating out of inadequate facilities, including those in my own State. All we have asked for is to have these prioritized according to competition, assessment, and recommendations by agencies of government rather than inserted in the bill as an earmark and without any of that. From the previous votes, we will probably lose on this one, but I want to tell my friend from Montana, sooner or later the American people are going to reject this kind of pork-barrel earmarking, $153.87 for every resident in Whitefish, which may be warranted--it may be warranted--but there is no assessment, there is no study, there is no rationale besides the fact that this was inserted in this bill without any scrutiny or authorization. We should reject this kind of practice. This is an egregious example of it. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask for the immediate consideration of amendment No. 1378.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair. Madam President, this amendment strikes an earmark of $39.7 million for an advanced training center in West Virginia, a training facility for U.S. Customs and border protection agents. The center features a range of training environments, facilities, et cetera. The administration requested and the committee approved $30.3 million to operate and equip the facility. While I have a problem with that, I do not intend for the amendment to affect the $30 million the administration requested to operate and equip the facility. This amendment is not about that. The committee earmarked an additional $39.7 million to equip, furnish, and expand the Leadership Academy at the Center. Let me be clear what the amendment does and does not do. It does not strike the requested funding for the training facility. It does strike an unrequested, unauthorized, unnecessary earmark of nearly $40 million that was added to this bill at the direction of a senior Member of this body. I wish to make that perfectly clear. I am sure there will be opponents of this amendment but have no doubt: It does not affect the $30 million the administration requested. This is an additional $39.7 million to equip, furnish, and expand the Leadership Academy. It might be of interest to our colleagues that today, at 9:23 a.m., the CBO is reporting that the year-to-date budget deficit tops a trillion dollars. We are considering a provision that adds an additional $39.7 million in light of the Congressional Budget Office monthly budget review. Its key points are, the Federal budget deficit is $1.1 trillion for the first 9 months of fiscal year 2009. Here we are with a bill loaded down with earmarks worth tens of millions of dollars on the very day that the deficit tops $1 trillion; in fact, it is $1.1 trillion. That is more than $800 billion greater than the deficit recorded through June 2008. Outlays are 21 percent or $457 billion higher than they were in the 9 months of 2008. Revenues have fallen by 18 percent, by some $346 billion. Outlays for unemployment benefits so far this year are more than 2.5 times what they were at this point last year. About half this increase is driven by a higher unemployment rate and half is driven by legislation expanding unemployment. The estimated deficit reflects outlays of $147 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP, recorded on a net present value basis, and spending of $83 billion in support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Interest payments have declined 25.5 percent as a result of lower short-term interest rates. So here we are looking at business as usual on the earmarks and appropriations bills. Meanwhile, the year-to-date budget deficit tops $1 trillion. Maybe it is approaching $2 trillion by the end of the year--an incredible burden to lay on future generations of Americans. I am sure--I am sure--this amendment will probably lose. I am sure proponents of the Advanced Training Center's Leadership Academy in West Virginia will stoutly defend it, and its essential functions will be graphically described by the opponents of this amendment. It is time we stopped. Isn't a $1.1 trillion deficit for the first 9 months of this year enough of a signal that maybe we ought to tighten our belts, that maybe we ought to stop adding $39.7 million to an already requested $30 million to operate and equip an advanced training center--a training facility that is located in the State of West Virginia? I understand that. Our thoughts and prayers go out for the senior Senator from West Virginia. We hope he regains his health soon. We hope he continues in his very effective membership and service in this body. But the fact is, the committee--the committee--earmarked an additional $39.7 million to equip, furnish, and expand the Leadership Academy at the Center. Can't we delay expanding, equipping, and furnishing a leadership academy? Can't we do that? Probably not. Probably not. Probably not. But as long as Americans are bearing this incredible burden--a burgeoning deficit we are laying on our children and our grandchildren--I and some others will be coming to this floor to try to point out it is time we got rid of things that are maybe even necessary but not vital to our Nation's future. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

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

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his remarks. I would remind him that this amendment strikes $39.7 million which has been added to the $30 million that is already there for the center. The $39.7 million is described to equip, furnish, and expand a leadership academy at the center. So all the missions the Senator just described don't have anything to do with the additional $39.7 million. It does strike an unrequested, unauthorized, unnecessary earmark. The administration didn't ask for the additional $39.7 million, nearly $40 million. No Member of Congress, regardless of position or seniority, should be able to spend $40 million on a pet project with no scrutiny, no hearing, and no competitive bidding process. I will take the word of the Senator from West Virginia. This is important. If it is important, why didn't we have a hearing on it before the Homeland Security Committee? Why didn't we have some competition from other parts of America? Why didn't we have a request for it from the administration? This is just another one of these egregious earmarks that may or may not have merit. We may actually need a leadership academy that needs to be equipped, furnished, and expanded in some place in West Virginia, but no one will ever know that because we have never undergone the scrutiny that should be required before we spend $40 million of the taxpayers' money. I probably talked enough about this, and I would imagine that we will lose this amendment again. This is in the backdrop of a Federal budget which for the first 9 months of the fiscal year 2009--3 more months to go--is $1.1 trillion. It is estimated to be as high as $1.8 trillion. The last budget deficit that was anywhere near this in recent history was about $450 billion. We are looking at a deficit of massive proportions, and yet we have to pile on additional millions, tens of millions and even billions of dollars in projects that are of questionable value. They may even be valuable, but there has been no authorization, no request, no scrutiny, no competition. It is simply put into a bill in a process we call earmarking. That is not fair to the American taxpayers. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if I could say, first of all, I would like to thank the Senator from Tennessee for his leadership on this issue. It is a privilege to serve on the HELP Committee with him, and his continued involvement in the ongoing discussion and debate about one- sixth of America's gross national product has been vital. I thank my friend from Tennessee. Could I also pick up on what the Senator was just saying, that the majority leader criticized the Republican leader in the House who said America has the best health care system in the world. What the Republican leader in the House was saying was the obvious: America has the highest quality health care in the world. And as the Senator from Tennessee just mentioned, I was in Houston at M.D. Anderson with Republican leaders, the Senator from Kentucky and Senator Cornyn from Texas. There were people there from 90 countries around the world--90 countries, most of them wealthy people who could have gone anywhere in the world for health care. But they went to the best place in the world, M.D. Anderson--one of the best, I would argue. We have some facilities in Arizona and probably in Tennessee that are of equal quality. But is there any doubt, when people come from all over the world to the United States of America, that the highest quality health care is not in America? It is. The problem is, and I am afraid some of my colleagues do not get it, it is not the quality of health care, it is the affordability and the availability of health care. Our effort has been to try to make health care affordable and available. The latest proposal of the Democrats is that it only covers 40 percent of the uninsured and costs trillions of dollars. So why not, I would ask my friend from Tennessee, why not let people go across State lines to get the insurance policy they want? Why could not a citizen of Arizona who does not like the insurance policies that are available there find one in Tennessee? Why not have meaningful malpractice reform? We all know where 10, 15, 20 percent, sometimes, of health care costs come from. They come from the practice of defensive medicine. Everybody knows it. It is one of the elephants in the room. So, therefore, we do not have--and consistently in the HELP Committee, amendments that have been proposed by the Senator from Tennessee and me and others to reform medical malpractice have been voted down. The State of California some years ago enacted meaningful and significant medical malpractice reform. Guess what. It has decreased health care costs. So we are not getting--and I say to my friend from Tennessee, I hope he agrees that we are going at the wrong problem. The problem is not the quality of health care. We want to keep the quality of health care. It is the cost and affordability of health care. We have not gotten affordable and available health care for all Americans.

Mr. McCAIN. I totally agree. Could I mention, since the Senator from Tennessee and I are going up to another meeting in the HELP Committee, the Roll Call article this morning says: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Tuesday strongly urged Finance Chairman Max Baucus to drop a proposal to tax health benefits and stop chasing Republican votes on a massive health care reform bill. Reid, whose leadership is considered crucial if President Barack Obama is to deliver on his promise of enacting health care reform this year, offered the directive to Baucus through an intermediary after consulting with Senate Democratic leaders during Tuesday morning's regularly scheduled leadership meeting. In other words, according to this article, any shred or semblance of bipartisanship is now out the window. So I think the Senator from Tennessee would agree with me. One of the very disappointing aspects of this whole debate is we have not changed the climate in Washington. Has there ever been, to the Senator's knowledge, a call to sit down at a table in a room with leading Republicans and Democrats and say: Hey, can't we work this out? What is your proposal? Here is ours. Can't we sit down and agree to save health care in America and preserve its quality and make it affordable and available? Way back in the 1980s when Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill sat down together, they saved Social Security. This is unfortunate that even the last shreds of attempts at bipartisanship are now gone. Now maybe it is because the 60th Democratic vote was sworn in yesterday. Maybe they figured they had the votes. Maybe they do. But anybody who alleges that this administration and the other side of the aisle are changing the climate in Washington, that is simply false.

Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend, indeed. One of the issues I think we ought to continue to understand is one of the key elements of this debate is whether we will have the so-called government option. I know the Senator from Tennessee is going to talk about that. I think it is important for us to look overseas at other countries that are highly industrialized, highly sophisticated, strong economies, countries that have government-run health care. To say the government option would be just another competitor clearly is not the case; otherwise, we would just have 1,501 new insurance companies in America. If you had the government option, it will lead to a government takeover of health care, and we ought to look at what other countries do. I am sure the Senator from Tennessee knows this, but it is health care rationing and a level of health care that will not be acceptable in the United States of America. I say that with great respect to our friends in Canada, the British, and other countries that have government-run health care systems. I think that is going to be one of the two major issues: the government-run health care and the employee mandate. Those are what this health care debate will come down to. It is of great concern, I know, to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. It is my understanding that the Senate bill the Senator has described directs half of the emergency operations funds to only 10 States, and there are 50 States in America. But half of these emergency operations center funds--it doesn't make much geographic sense, if you look. Funds are directed at Illinois, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Montana, Washington, Rhode Island--East and West, all over the country. Maybe my friend from Wisconsin can describe what do they have in common, 9 of these 10 States have in common?

Mr. McCAIN. There is an additional question I have to my friend from Wisconsin. Isn't it true that the administration has requested that this entire program be canceled?

Mr. McCAIN. Yes.

Mr. McCAIN. Isn't it true that the Office of Management and Budget recommended this as one of the programs to be eliminated, as the President announced?

Mr. McCAIN. In other words, the administration believes we need emergency operations center funds because of the requirements of homeland security. But this process is so badly flawed that they want to go back to do away with this and go back to the merit and needs- based system, is that correct?

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator respond to one more question? So the Senator is not saying we do not need emergency operations centers in America? We would not be eliminating the need for emergency operations centers, let me be perfectly clear. But what he is saying is we need to eliminate them in this form, which does not give the highest and most needed priority to these emergency operations centers around the country? In other words, we still have a threat to our Nation's security, but this is not the way to meet it. We can come up with a far better and more efficient way.

Mr. McCAIN. I would like to thank the Senator from Missouri not only for her comments about this particular issue but her dedication to reform, transparency, and to making sure the American taxpayers' dollars are wisely and appropriately spent. It has been a pleasure working with her on various reform issues. I would argue this may not be the last time the three of us are on the floor of the Senate. When you look at the approval ratings of Congress, not just now but for a long time, we are not held in the highest of esteem, and sometimes for good reason. Sometimes for good reason. We have ongoing scandals concerning the use of public funds for earmarking and porkbarrel projects and rewards to Members of Congress that have caused them to be in Federal court and, indeed, even Members of Congress residing in Federal prison. This is an important amendment because as the votes line up I think we will see--on both sides of the aisle--we will see members of the Appropriations Committee probably voting on the theory that if they lose one they will lose a number of other efforts to eliminate earmarks and porkbarrel spending. I hope that would not be the case because this is particularly egregious, particularly egregious. This legislation which Senator Feingold's amendment is intended to cure is about homeland security, and to direct half of the emergency operations center funds to only 10 States obviously is a gross misuse of the taxpayers' dollars and could--and could--conceivably cause us not to fund emergency operations centers that are more badly needed and could then put our homeland security perhaps in some jeopardy, or certainly not ensuring our homeland security to the best and wisest expenditure of tax dollars. Could I just remind my colleagues, last year's appropriators provided $35 million for the Emergency Operations Center Grant Program but earmarked $12.5 million of them. The Department of Homeland Security received 613 applications asking for $264 million for the purposes of the grant program to construct emergency operations centers. There is clearly a need for this money in the States. It is unfortunate that many of the applicants were turned down by the Department because there was no money left because we had already spent half of it on earmarked projects which had no competition. Again, I want to emphasize to my colleagues, this is not a matter of whether we need emergency operations centers. It is simply a matter of whether we are going to wisely and appropriately use the taxpayers' dollars where it is most needed. There has been no screening, no authorization, no hearing held on this issue, and it was put in, obviously, in an appropriations bill in an inappropriate fashion. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment by the Senator from Wisconsin. I congratulate him on proposing this amendment. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley.) Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendment No. 1406 to Amendment No. 1373

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I see it as 1404, which is to strike the Loran-C Program. It is at the desk. It could be 1406.

Mr. McCAIN. Pending me finding the right number, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Thanks to my crack staff, that amendment number is 1406. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

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