John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would imagine that my colleagues remember that several months ago the President announced there would be a number of significant cuts in spending in order to try to bring unnecessary and wasteful programs under control. The President announced there would be some $41 billion saved over the next decade, and the administration, as part of its budget submission, recommended terminating or reducing 121 Federal programs that were estimated to save the taxpayers $41 billion over the next decade. That announcement by the President was greeted with certainly applause and appreciation by most Americans since we are amassing multitrillion-dollar deficits. Unfortunately, it seems pretty clear these budget cuts the administration recommended terminating are not being terminated. We have had votes already on at least two of them, and now we are about to talk about another one that would achieve a savings of some $36 million in 2010, and $190 million over 5 years, not a small amount of money, at least in the old days before we got into trillion-dollar and multitrillion-dollar deficits. So what this amendment does is seek to strike the Loran-C Program. In the interest of full disclosure, Loran was around when I was in the Navy, so obviously it is a pretty old program. The President and the administration called it ``obsolete technology.'' I certainly agree. The administration stated in its budget submission--and I have that somewhere--and I quote from it: The Loran-C is a federally provided radio navigation system for civil marine use in U.S. coastal areas. The Nation no longer needs this system because the nationally supported civilian Global Positioning System [known to us as GPS] has replaced it with superior capabilities. As a result, Loran-C, including recently technological enhancements, serves only the remaining small group of longtime users. It no longer serves any governmental function, and it is not capable as a backup for GPS. I want to point out again to my colleagues, that is not my view, and I will enumerate a number of governmental agencies that agree with that. But several Federal agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Transportation, and Homeland Security, already have backup systems for their critical GPS applications, and the termination of Loran-C does not foreclose future development of a national backup system. It nearly stops the outflow of taxpayers' dollars to sustain a system that does not now and will not in its current state serve as a backup to GPS. That is pretty strong and pretty direct and pretty clear language. Obviously, the administration is proposing to terminate the terrestrial-based, long-range radio navigation system, Loran-C, operated by the Coast Guard because it is obsolete technology. Accounting for inflation, this will achieve a savings of $36 million in 2010 and $190 million over 5 years. Again, I point out this is one of 121 terminations or cuts the President of the United States announced the administration wanted done and, of course, many Americans believed they would be achieved. So far we haven't done one. I am sure we may, but we have not done one. In 2005 numerous Federal agencies called for the termination of this program, as I mentioned earlier, including the Coast Guard; the Secretary of Defense; Secretary of Transportation, representing the Federal Aviation Administration; and the Secretary of Homeland Security, representing the Coast Guard. All signed, in October 2005, a report that stated the Department of Defense has determined that Loran is no longer needed as a positioning, navigational, or timing aid for military users, and ``with respect to aviation, the FAA has determined that sufficient alternative navigation aids exist in the event of a loss of GPS-based services, and, therefore, Loran is not needed as a back-up navigation aid for aviation users.'' And, ``with respect to maritime safety, the United States Coast Guard has determined that sufficient back-ups are in place to support safe maritime navigation in the event of a loss of GPS-based services, and, therefore, Loran is not needed as a back-up navigational aid for maritime safety.'' It is not a new debate. Once programs come into being, they are almost impossible to kill, and we may not be able to kill this one. The votes so far have indicated there certainly is not a harboring of success. This is a GAO report, the U.S. Government General Accounting Office, dated September 18, 1981. The report States: DOT, [Department of Transportation] should terminate further Loran-C development and modernization exploit the potential of the Navstar global position system, [i.e. GPS.] Remarkable. 1981. So the report goes on--and I will not waste too much time going into it--but the GAO obviously found that the Coast Guard-- We have completed a follow-up review on our March 21, 1978 report. The report concluded that the Department of Defense's DOD satellite-based Navstar GPS could be a national asset, could replace many existing navigation systems at substantial savings. The report considered these systems, including the Department of Transportation's Loran-C system, to be unneeded by the early 1990s and cautioned against further investment in Loran-C. It also recommended that the Secretary of Transportation become more involved in the GPS program to ensure the timely availability of low-cost civil receivers. Obviously, we have low-cost civil receivers. So beginning in 1981 and here we are 28 years later trying to terminate a program that literally every agency of government is trying to kill. But will we succeed? Again, the votes so far do not indicate that. Yesterday there was an article by Mr. Walter Alarkon, which says. Democrats ignore Obama's cuts. Congressional Democrats are largely ignoring President Obama's $19.8 billion in budget cuts. The President proposed axing dozens of programs that he said were inefficient or ineffective, but Members of the House Appropriations Committee are including the money for them. Over here on this side of the Capitol we are doing the same thing. The Associated Press: Congress largely is ignoring Obama budget cuts. Lawmakers have yet to deal with most controversial proposed cuts. Obama proposed the cuts last month after what he promised would be a line-by-line scrub of the Federal budget to counter Republican charges that he is spending the country into too much debt. The House has already rejected his effort to kill a $400 million program that helps States with the costs of incarcerating criminal illegal immigrants, and a homeland security spending bill up for a House vote this week keeps in place the World War II era Loran-C maritime navigation system that Obama wanted to ax even though it has been rendered obsolete by the modern global positioning system. The homeland security measures also preserve $12 million for bus systems-- That is the one that died, the amendment we tried to kill yesterday that died 51 to 47-- and $40 million in grants to local governments for emergency operations centers. That one was not approved today by a vote of 60 to 38. All told, lawmakers in both parties--California Republicans were the driving force in preserving the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program--have combined to preserve more than $750 million worth of cuts suggested by Obama. From Politico: Democrats make show of budget cuts. That was on June 23. With growing public concern about the deficit and billions still backed up in President Obama's economic recovery program, just how do Democrats sell another 8 percent increase in discretionary spending this summer? Some of the terminations are less than advertised. It goes on and on. I applaud the President's commitment cutting some of these programs. I spoke out at the time when he said they would go line by line, when he said they would have budget cuts that were significant, that there would be billions of dollars saved in unwanted, unnecessary programs and spending. Why don't we in Congress get that message? If we continue on this path--and we probably will; I have been around this body long enough to see where the votes are; the appropriators have the control here--I will strongly suggest that the President start vetoing some of these bills, something the previous administration should have done and the previous President should have done. I came to the floor and fought against these earmark pork-barrel projects in the last administration, just as I am with this one. Yesterday I offered an amendment to strip funding for a program the administration had declared unnecessary and sought to terminate. The amendment was defeated, and only 12 Members of the President's party supported the amendment seeking to implement the administration's recommendation. When are we going to get serious about making tough choices around here? I know there are other amendments in line. Let me sum up. This system is an aid to navigation for ships at sea and in rivers and lakes that long ago was replaced by something called GPS, the global positioning system. We have them in our cars. They are easily available to be bought at very low price at most any of our stores and outlets. I am sure one could draw a scenario where somehow all satellites fall from the sky and we are deprived of Loran-C, but that is sheer foolishness. If we don't kill this program, which was recommended to be terminated by GAO in September of 1981, it is pretty obvious we are not going to be able to reduce or terminate funding for any program, once it gets into production and once it gets its sponsors in the Congress. I strongly recommend that my colleagues understand that we can't keep spending this kind of money. We just can't do it. We are laying a terrible burden on our children and grandchildren. This is some $36 million for next year, $190 million for the next 5 years. For anybody who has a rudimentary understanding of what GPS provides and how obsolete Loran-C is, it is willful ignorance. I urge colleagues, let's, for a change, stand up for the American taxpayer. Let's stand up for the taxpayer and our children and grandchildren. In this era of $10 trillion debts and trillion-dollar- plus deficits, does $36 million in 2010 and $190 million over 5 years matter? I think it matters in that we ought to at least sometimes stop business as usual. People are not able to stay in their homes, not keeping jobs. Unemployment is at an all-time high. And we are going to waste another $36 million? How many people could stay in their homes, how many people could we employ in small businesses, how many people could educate their kids with this $36 million for next year? There is something wrong here that we continue to spend like this, when America is going through the toughest recession in our history. Time after time we come to the floor and try to terminate obsolete programs. We try to stop the wasteful and unnecessary pork-barrel spending and earmarks. What do we get? We get majority votes against it. Don't be surprised when the TEA parties get bigger around the country. Don't be surprised when more and more Americans register as Independents because they think both sides of the aisle are guilty. Don't be surprised when Americans in every way that they can express their extreme dissatisfaction with our spending habits and the corruption that exists as a result. It is time we started standing up for the American people and not the special interests that are the sponsors of Loran-C and so many wasteful and unnecessary programs we continue to see increase in spending, when every other American family is having to tighten their belts and decrease spending, if they are able to spend at all. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the distinguished chairman left out a couple of items. One, it will still cost an additional $18 million, if the program is terminated by January 4, 2010. The interesting thing, when we read the bill on pages 75, 76, and 77, there is a list of caveats that have to be achieved in order for that to happen. How many times have I seen around here a determination made that they will terminate a program if the following criteria are met? The limitations in the bill are that termination will not adversely impact the safety of maritime navigation, the system is not needed as a backup to the GPS or any other Federal navigation, if the Commandant makes a certification. The Commandant doesn't have to make a certification. The Coast Guard has already said they don't want it. It needs no certification. From the language of the bill: Not later than 30 days after such certification pursuant to subsection (b), the Commandant shall submit to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives a report setting forth a proposed schedule for the phased decommissioning of the Loran-C system infrastructure in the event of the decommissioning of such infrastructure in accordance with subsection (c). If the Commandant makes the certification described in subsection (b), the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the Commandant of the Coast Guard, may, notwithstanding any other provision of law, sell any real or personal property under the administrative control of the Coast Guard and used for the Loran system, by directing the Administrator of General Services to sell such real and personal property . . . So after the completion of such activities, the unexpended balance shall be available for any other environmental compliance and restoration. Why not stop it now? Why not stop it now? Why spend an additional $18 million? Why open this? Since 1981, we have been trying to kill it. Why open it for an additional period of time when clearly this system needs to stop? With all due respect to the Senator from Washington, let's stop it now. We can stop it now. We know it can be stopped now. We don't have to spend an additional $18 million on the program. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am sure the Senator understands from the budget of the U.S. Government for fiscal year 2010 that the Office of Management and Budget submitted to the Congress, it says the administration is proposing to terminate and achieve a savings of $36 million in 2010, and now the Senator from Washington is obviously contradicting what we were told by the administration, which is what we wanted. How it could cost $18 million, as you say, to shut down seven sites, and not be allowed to sell off valuable assets, of course, is foolishness. Of course the government sells off assets that are extraneous assets all the time without the permission or the need to have legislation. Is the Senator aware of that?

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

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

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, in the last few years, I have traveled all over this country talking to people about health care. After listening to countless Americans--including in two townhall meetings last week--I proposed in the past health care reforms that would have ensured health care coverage was more affordable, accessible, portable, and suitable for all American families. Health reforms need to be consistent with our American values of freedom, choice, and limited government. The key to these reforms is to put our citizens in charge of their own health coverage. Rather than being stuck in a job because the job provides health care, or worse, losing health insurance if the economy causes you to lose your job, we need to change our system and allow Americans to obtain coverage options with a tax credit for policies not limited by State boundaries or government dictates. Just this past week, I had the great good fortune to visit two of the finest health care institutions in this country. First, I spent time with hundreds of patients, doctors, nurses, and health care leaders at the world-renowned MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX. I heard from patients who had come to this center of excellence from 90 countries and States, including Arizona. Why do patients come to the United States of America from all over the world? It is because the highest quality health care is in the United States of America. And I repeat, the fundamentals of this discussion and debate sometimes go astray from the fact that the highest quality health care in the world is available in the United States of America. The key to it and our challenge is to make that health care available and affordable to all Americans. The path we are on will destroy the quality of that coverage and will, in fact, make health care the same as it is in other countries. The reason they leave there is to get high-quality health care in the United States of America. It is the best--our system-- because innovation and technology are allowed to flourish. Later in the week, in my home State of Arizona, I visited one of the premier children's hospitals in the country. Phoenix Children's Hospital is a destination medical facility for children all around the Southwest and in the country. At Phoenix Children's Hospital, I also met with patients, physicians, nurses, medical executives, and average Arizonans. During this visit, not one health care provider in Phoenix told me they wanted more government control over health care. In fact, they told me the opposite. PCH has experience with Medicaid, and time after time I was told of the problems providers face every day with the government Medicaid Program. The program is a vital safety net for the low income, but we have to recognize the important lessons we have already learned about government running health care programs. During these events, I was repeatedly told that we need reform. They also told me about the problems they face in the government-controlled Medicare and Medicaid Programs, both with massive unfunded liabilities. They want a stable system that keeps costs under control, gets everyone covered, pays fairly, encourages innovation, and maintains America's standing as providing the best health care in the world. But none of them told me we need more government control of health care or government-controlled health insurance. I have listened to Americans. But I am worried they are not being heard here in Congress by those who control the agenda in the White House and the Senate. If President Obama and the Democratic leaders were listening, we would not have a bill before us that costs too much, taxes too much, covers too few, and puts government in control at every turn. This country has fought for over 200 years for the fundamental values that I fear are being eroded by the other side's appetite for one-size- fits-all government control of one of our most cherished economic gems. First, this administration takes over the banking industry. Then they take over the auto industry. Along the way, they tell us $787 billion in more and bigger government, along with $1.8 trillion of debt this year alone, is the answer to our ailing economy. Now they are telling the American people they were not aware of the economic situation and, guess what, they are going to want another stimulus package. I think that idea would be soundly rejected by the American people. And now they are telling the American people that we must rush to pass a new government health care plan that we cannot pay for, will increase taxes, and kill jobs. We are talking about one-sixth of the gross national product of America. And it is pretty obvious the other side wants to jam this through in the next 4 weeks. We should not do that. They still have not come up with ways to pay for this grandiose takeover of the American health care system. Americans are losing health care coverage every day. And it gets back to the issue of affordability, not quality. But the Democrats cannot produce legislation that responsibly makes coverage available to all Americans without trillions of dollars in new spending. This weekend, after a 4-week delay, we finally received new provisions in their new government-run health care plans. Here is what we know about the legislation before us: The Congressional Budget Office says the preliminary cost estimate for the new language they reviewed was nearly $900 billion in new spending. The other side says this is a cost reduction from an earlier version of the bill. Do not be fooled by the smoke and mirrors. After an inexplicable 4-year phase-in that delays several provisions in the Democratic bill in an effort to hide costs through accounting techniques, the bill will actually spend $1.5 trillion when it is fully implemented. And that is not counting the hundreds of billions of dollars in new Medicaid spending promised by that legislation. CBO also tells us the HELP Committee bill still leaves over 30 million Americans without coverage. Mr. President, for all the spending being proposed, don't you think we should be covering more than 40 percent of the uninsured? When the final numbers come in, don't be surprised if the cost of this ``rush'' proposal is at or above $2 trillion. What is worse, the sponsors cannot tell us how we will pay for such a massive price tag. My colleagues and I plan to continue talking to the American public. I suggest the other side in the Senate talk to all Americans about what they need rather than making these decisions for them. Again, Mr. President, we cannot risk running through a legislative proposal in the next 4 to 5 weeks and be sure that we are not making serious and fundamental mistakes. And the serious and fundamental mistake is the approach to this legislation, which is, the quality of health care in America can and must be preserved; it is the cost that needs to be brought under control. We can bring those costs under control by innovative techniques, by competition, by allowing Americans to go all across America to get the health insurance of their choice-- the same way we have been able to reduce costs in other sectors of our economy, as technology has improved the quality of our lives. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time of the majority be preserved.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. McCAIN. And the underlying legislation is the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and to call up amendment No. 1400.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill before us today spends $44.3 billion. It is $207.5 million--or 7 percent more than last year's appropriation and nearly $97 million more than the budget request. An increase of this size is remarkable. I need to remind my colleagues that Americans are hurting, they are losing their jobs and their homes at record rates, and here we are, business as usual, as was made very clear in the vote on the amendment that was defeated concerning a museum in Nebraska on another appropriations bill--a bill that was supposed to be for funding legislative business of the Congress. On this bill again, it is business as usual. The level of spending is wrong, and there are numerous unrequested, unauthorized earmarks which were added at the direction of members of the Appropriations Committee and the Senate. Maybe we ought to take a look at them. This is the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, I would remind my colleagues, but we threw in $4 million for the Fort Madison Bridge in Fort Madison, WI. As always, there are earmarks and geographic locations delineated in the bill for these pork-barrel projects. There is $39.7 million for the Advanced Training Center in West Virginia and $3.6 million for the Coast Guard Operations Systems Center in West Virginia. That is a good place for Coast Guard operations, to say the least. I wish to point out that none of these earmarks were authorized. None of them had a hearing. None of them were requested. In fact, three of them I will read about were included in the President's budget request in a report from the Office of Management and Budget entitled ``Terminations, Reductions, and Savings: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2010,'' which was submitted by the Office of Management and Budget. In other words, the administration requested that these specific appropriations not be spent because of the fact they either are not needed or are outright wasteful spending of the taxpayers' dollars. Continuing with the list of earmarks in this bill, we have another $16.8 million for the Coast Guard Station in Cleveland Harbor, OH, to demolish the existing facility and construct a new multipurpose building. I wish to emphasize to my colleagues that these may be worthy projects. They may be. Generally, they aren't, but they may be. But there has been no hearing, there is no request on the part of the administration, there is no request from anybody except for the representative of that State. Continuing: $4 million for the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center; $102 million for the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium--and that contains six earmarks: The National Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center in New Mexico, $23 million; National Center for Biomedical Research and Training at Louisiana State University, $23 million; National Emergency Response and Rescue Training Center at Texas A&M University, $23 million; National Exercise, Test, and Training Center in Nevada, $23 million; Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, CO, $5 million; and, of course, we never want to forget the Natural Disaster Preparedness Training Center at the University of Hawaii, $5 million. There is $3 million for the Distributed Environment for Critical Infrastructure Decision-making Exercises. We need $3 million for the infrastructure decision-making exercises. Money is also set aside for the Cyber Security Consortium, which is a group of schools, including Miami University of Ohio, Utah State University, University of Nevada at Reno, and Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. A certain thread may become apparent throughout this conversation and that is that States which are generally getting most of this money happen to have representatives in the Senate on the Appropriations Committee. There is $2 million for the Cincinnati Urban Area Partnership; $20.8 million for the Southeast Region Research Initiative; $300,000 for the City of Hackensack Emergency Operations Center. Emergency operations centers are very popular in this bill. But there was no competition for these emergency operation centers. They may be worthwhile, they may not. We will never know because they are earmarked by the Members and they range from $1 million to $20 million to $247,000. We have New Jersey, New Jersey, New Jersey; Washington State; Providence, RI; north Louisiana; Little Rock; Vermont; Columbus, OH; city of Ames; and the city of Mount Vernon. There is $900,000 for the City of Whitefish Emergency Operations Center in Montana. And because we wouldn't want to leave them out, there is $1 million for the City of Chicago Emergency Operations Center. None of these projects were requested by the administration or authorized or competitively bid in any way. No hearing was held to judge whether these were national priorities worthy of scarce taxpayers' dollars. They are in this bill for one reason and one reason only: because of the selective prerogatives of a few Members of the Senate. Sadly, these Members choose to serve their own interests over those of the American taxpayers. I have filed, and intend to offer, amendments to strike each and every one of these earmarks. Enough is enough. The American people are tired of this process, and they are tired of watching their hard-earned money go down the drain. I intend to fight every single unnecessary, unrequested, unauthorized earmark in every appropriations bill. In addition to the earmarks I covered, this bill includes millions of dollars for programs that the administration has sought to cut due to the program's ineffectiveness or lack of necessity. The amendment I propose has as an example: The Over-the-road Bus Security Program. The administration proposed in its 2010 budget to eliminate the Over-the- Road Bus Security Program since the awards are not based on risk, as recommended by the 9/11 Commission, and has not been assessed as effective. Specifically, the Office of Management and Budget stated: Recently, the funding (for this program) has gone to private sector entities for business investments in GPS-type tracking systems that they could be making without Federal funding. For now, this program should be eliminated in favor of funding initiatives aimed at mitigated verified transit threats. Again, in the Office of Management and Budget submission the administration says: The Government Accountability Office has recommended that TSA conduct an in-depth risk analysis of the commercial vehicle sector before more funding is allocated. For now, this program should be eliminated in favor of funding initiatives aimed at mitigating verified transit threats. Funding for the intercity bus industry should be included in the larger Public Rail/Transit Security Grant program and prioritized against all transit-related security investments. But it is not. Here, on the one hand, we have the President announce with great fanfare a group of reductions and terminations and savings that the administration is going to make and is strongly urging be done. Here we have on the bill an earmark that, indeed, funds these very same programs the administration wants eliminated. There is another one, and that is the U.S. Coast Guard Loran-C. Loran-C sounds like a pretty good program, but the fact is, this $35 million, by the way, is a federally funded radio navigation system for civil marine use in coastal areas. I will quote from the Office of Management and Budget: The Nation no longer needs this system because federally supported civilian Global Positioning System--GPS--has replaced it with superior capabilities. As a result, Loran-C, including recent limited technological enhancements, serves only the remaining small group of long-time users. It no longer serves any governmental function and is not capable as a backup for GPS. So we are going to spend $35 million on GPS that is useless. It is useless for Loran-C. Why? Why would we want to do that? Why would we want to spend that kind of money? It is amazing. Then there is the emergency operation centers, of course, some $20 million for operation centers in Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey-- et cetera. These, of course, are obviously the result of earmarks. Again, the Office of Management and Budget says the administration is proposing to eliminate the Emergency Operations Center Grant Program in the 2010 budget because the program's award allocations are not based on risk assessment. Oh, really. Also: . . . other Department of Homeland Security grant programs can provide funding for the same purpose more effectively. It goes on to talk about how the grant program was established: . . . by supporting flexible, sustainable, secure and interoperable EOCs, with a focus on addressing identified deficiencies and needs. . . . The EOC Grant Program uses award criteria that are not risk-based, and the administration supports a risk-based approach to homeland security grant awards. I wonder how many of these would be awarded if they were risk based and how many of them are awarded because of the influence of members of the Appropriations Committee. In addition, in 2009, EOC construction and renovation was approved as an allowable expense under the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program, thus providing a more effective funding mechanism through which potential grantees prioritize expenditures on EOCs against other emergency management initiatives. In other words, we are spending these millions of dollars--$20 million I guess it is--in an unnecessary fashion that has nothing to do with risk but has everything to do with influence. It is business as usual in our Nation's Capitol. We just came off a recess. A lot of us spent time, as I did, traveling around our States. People in my State are hurting. People in my State are wondering whether they are going to be able to keep their jobs or get a job; whether they will be able to afford health care; whether they are going to be able to educate their children. They are having to tighten their belts in ways that certainly no one has ever had to do before in their lifetime. So what do we do here? Business as usual: $97-some-million of unnecessary and unwanted pork. Last year, Congress appropriated many millions of dollars. This, once again, is $97 million more than the budget request, and much of that is obviously unnecessary and unneeded and in some cases even unwanted. On behalf of the citizens of my State who are having to tighten their belts, who are undergoing unprecedented difficulties and hard times while we are on this spending spree and accumulating trillions of dollars of debt--we are committing generational theft, laying it on our children and grandchildren. I intend to fight for their tax dollars, and I intend to fight until this egregious practice of porkbarrel earmarked spending, which has bred corruption, is brought to a halt. I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before I yield the floor I would like to include in the Record at this time a list of the various bus companies and the States in which they operate. I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record at this time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senate just voted against the President of the United States--I think we should know that--and his recommendation. The President, on May 7 of this year, as part of his budget submission, recommended terminating or reducing 121 Federal programs, which was estimated to save the taxpayers $41 billion over the next decade. One of the programs the President hopes to see terminated is the Intercity Bus Security Grant Program. What the Senate did was to tell the President of the United States: No, we are sorry, this is a vital program, the Intercity Bus Security Grant Program. I am sure the folks in Maryland at Cavalier Coach Trailways that got $8,000 and Crystal Transport, Inc., that got $108,000--there is one in here that is a limousine service that got several thousand dollars, the Rimrock Stages got only $8,000. But Busco, Inc., doing business as Arrow Stage Lines, they got $137,000 in Nebraska. Maybe they will take people to visit the library that just got $200,000, those from outside of Omaha. What we are talking about is that we cannot even eliminate a program, with a decent number of Democratic votes, about which the President told the American people: We will reduce spending, we will cut spending, don't worry; here are the 121 Federal programs. There are two more that are coming, my friends, that you will be able to vote against the President on because there are two more on his list that are included in this appropriations bill. Anybody in the United States who thinks we got the message that it is time to tighten our belts, including especially members of the Appropriations Committee on both sides of the aisle, they are sadly mistaken. They are sadly mistaken. We are going to vote on all 27. We are going to be on record, and the American people are going to hear about it. They are going to figure it out. It is business as usual. The porkbarrel spending continues even to the point where we cannot even eliminate a program the President of the United States said we would eliminate. There are 60 votes over there. We could not get 51. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I hope my colleagues will vote to strike this earmark for the Durham Museum in Omaha, NE. Strangely enough, this amount has been inserted by the Senator from Nebraska--this $200,000 for the Durham Museum in Omaha, NE. Lest there be any confusion about this, in the last tax return of the Durham Museum in Omaha, NE, they had $10,917,319. So the museum is fairly well off. They have assets of about $11 million. Apparently, the Senator from Nebraska thinks they need a couple hundred grand extra--on the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill. Again, I am interested in hearing the Legislative Branch Appropriations connection to the Durham Museum in Omaha, NE. I am sure it is a fine museum, a wonderful museum, and it gets many visitors from all over the great State of Nebraska. I just came from the great State of Arizona, and do you know what. Storefronts are closing, people are losing their jobs, and unemployment is up. So what are we doing here in Washington, our Nation's capital? Business as usual. But what is an earmark of just $200,000? What is $200,000 in the trillions we are spending? The legislation says that amount ``shall remain available until expended for the purpose of preserving, digitizing, and making available historically and culturally significant materials related to the development of Nebraska and the American West.'' What makes this museum so needy of the taxpayers' dollars? What is it about the Durham Museum in Omaha, NE, that says we need $200,000? Well, they don't, obviously. They had nearly $11 million in net assets at the end of 2007. Why are we earmarking $200,000 of taxpayer funds for this museum? We should not be earmarking these kinds of funds. This is a Legislative Branch Appropriations bill to fund the functioning of Congress, the legislative branch, not a museum in Omaha, NE, which I am sure is a wonderful place. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, let me get this straight. We now have an unauthorized earmark, and there has never been a hearing or a request from the administration for this vital project in Omaha, NE. There has never been a hearing of any kind or a request from the administration, nor, to my knowledge, scheduling of any kind of hearing on it. Of course, this is one of the classic examples of an earmark being put in because of the judgment of a Member of Congress who believes this project is important to his or her State or locality, and there has never been any competition for it. I am sure there are libraries all over America--including in Arizona--that would love to have a couple hundred grand to digitize and preserve materials related to the development of the West. Let's get this straight. This is a Legislative Branch Appropriations bill intended to fund the legislative activities of the Congress of the United States, which has some connection to the Library of Congress, which I imagine that hundreds, if not thousands, of libraries throughout the country do, and then we connect it now as a rationale for $200,000 for the Durham Museum. Again, all I say to my colleague from Nebraska is that Americans are tired of earmarking and projects that are not authorized, that there is no competition for, but are directly related to the influence of Members of Congress. It is wrong. We should remove this, and we should use this as an example of the kind of fiscal discipline that maybe we ought to start exercising, and I intend to go to the floor on earmark after earmark, and the American people are going to have tea parties all over America in direct objection to the kind of conduct we are exercising in Congress. I hope that sooner or later we will listen. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the amendment is very simple. It strikes from the bill an earmark of $200,000 for the Durham Museum in Omaha, NE. Let me be very clear. I hold no grudge against the museum or the sponsor of this earmark. On the contrary, I hold my colleagues from Nebraska in very high esteem, and I have no doubt that the museum does wonderful work. Thanks to modern technology and Wikipedia, it has a very nice description of the Durham Museum, formerly known as the Durham Western Heritage Museum in downtown Omaha, NE, dedicated to preserving and displaying the history of the U.S. western region and it is housed in Omaha's Union Station. I am sure it is a very fine place. I am sure it gets lots of visitors from all over the great State of Nebraska. The only problem is, as I understand from reading the bill, which sometimes some of us don't do, this is a bill that is entitled ``Making Appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2010, and for Other Purposes.'' Well, obviously, the distinguished manager of the bill found another purpose but certainly none that has the slightest connection to the city of Omaha or the State of Nebraska, except the Senator happens to be from that State. He maybe even resides in that city. The reason I am taking the floor is because Americans are hurting right now. Americans all over this country are hurting right now. I go downtown in my city, my hometown of Phoenix, AR, and I see people closing store fronts. I see people not able to make their house payments or people not able to pay their medical bills, and $200,000 would mean a lot to them; $200,000 is not a small sum. So the fact is, I don't question the merits of the program. I don't question that the Durham Museum is probably a nice place to visit. I do question when we are going to stop earmarking porkbarrel projects because of the influence or clout of Members of the Senate. I want to repeat, I do not question that this museum is a fine museum. I do question--and any objective observer would question--how in the world that has a place on appropriations of the taxpayers' dollars for the legislative branch. I don't think the Durham Museum is in the legislative branch of government unless I am badly mistaken, and I am sure I am not. Here we are with trillions of dollars of deficit--$1.2 trillion for TARP, $410 million for the Omnibus appropriations bill, which was loaded with 9,000 unnecessary and wasteful earmarks, tens of billions of dollars to the domestic auto manufacturers, and we passed a budget resolution totaling $3.5 trillion. Now we have a bill totaling $3.1 billion to run the legislative branch of government. As has been widely trumpeted, this bill is less than that requested. What it is also, though, is 3 percent more than it was last year. How many Americans are able to get 3 percent more money than they had last year? It is over $76 million more than last year's bill. So is this a big deal, $200,000? Probably not, with the trillions of dollars that we seem to throw around here. But I am serving notice on my colleagues that I and some of my other colleagues are going to come to the floor and challenge these earmarks. We have to stop doing business as usual while we are committing generational theft and mortgaging our children's future. Since it is going to be about 10 days or so before we will have a vote on this amendment--as the majority leader mentioned, we are not going to have anymore votes--I ask unanimous consent that before the vote I have 5 minutes and the Senator from Nebraska have the time he needs before the vote that will take place at the pleasure of the majority leader.

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

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