John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the chairman. I wish to remind my colleagues where we are. We have a national debt of $10.7 trillion. The budget that was proposed by the President was $3.6 trillion. What we are looking at is a debt of $10.7 trillion. The Fed just pumped $1.2 trillion into the economy. The TARP, Troubled Asset Relief Program, was $700 billion. We passed an omnibus bill of $410 billion. Prior to that, we passed a $1.1 trillion stimulus package. And to cap it all off, the Chinese own $2 trillion of our paper, of our debt. This is an unprecedented expenditure of the taxpayers' dollars, and with no way of paying for it. So these are extraordinary times, and we need to do extraordinary things. But let's try not to ignore what we are doing to future generations of Americans. Especially this time of year, I see lots of our citizens around the halls of Congress wearing badges and buttons and carrying signs and advocating for the causes and efforts they believe in. Generally speaking, those causes and efforts, in their view, require more of our tax dollars. I understand that. I appreciate it. And it is wonderful to see people exercising their right to petition Congress, which is guaranteed by the Constitution. But I do not see anybody who is in the halls of Congress for my kids and my grandkids and your kids and your grandkids. We are laying an astronomical debt on them, which they will have to pay for sooner or later. One of the ways to pay for it is to debase the currency and print money. The result of that is hyperinflation, which is the greatest enemy of the middle class, and we have seen that before in the 1970s. So, yes, this is a tough budget I am talking about. Yes, these are caps on discretionary spending. Tell me of a family in America-- hardly--that is not having to put a cap on their spending. Tell me of a State legislature in America that is not having to put a cap on their spending because of enormous debts. My home State of Arizona is looking at a billion-dollar deficit. That is small compared to what is happening in California. Madam President, I ask for 2 additional minutes from Senator Gregg's time.

Mr. McCAIN. So my point here is--by the way, one of the areas I agree with both Senator Gregg and Senator Conrad is, we have to have a commission that meets and makes tough decisions on entitlements. We know entitlements cannot be sustained at their present level. And, of course, the first area we ought to look at is the $60 billion the inspector general has said is wasted in Medicare and Medicaid every year. But tough decisions have to be made. This is a tough budget proposal here. This is tough. It caps discretionary spending, except for defense and veterans. It increases defense spending. We are in two wars. We are in two wars, and I wish to give a little straight talk. In Afghanistan it is going to get worse before it gets better, and it is going to cost more of American blood and treasure. It reduces the deficit and debt more than the proposals offered by the Senate Budget Committee or the President, and I would point out that 10 years is what we have to plan for rather than 5. It addresses the critical problem of Social Security and Medicare solvency by the establishment--according to the proposal both by the chairman and ranking member--of BRAC-like commissions that would provide recommendations to reduce mandatory spending by at least 4 percent over the next 5 years. It addresses our critical energy goals, and it also extends the tax cuts. This is the wrong time to increase anyone's taxes. History shows us if we raise people's taxes in tough economic times, it exacerbates the economic problems. I do not pretend this is easy. I do not pretend this does not affect many Americans and their lives. But if we lay these multitrillion- dollar debts on future generations of Americans, we have contradicted and betrayed the commitment this Nation has kept throughout our history; that is, that the next generation of Americans inherit a better Nation than the one we did. Madam President, I urge a vote for this amendment and this alternate budget proposal. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, this proposal caps discretionary funding at a baseline level plus inflation, a dramatic difference between this proposal and the Senate budget committee proposal. The proposal by Senator Conrad increases domestic spending by 8 percent for 2010 and then 1 percent in the years following. We all know that is unrealistic. And we all know we will be back here next year with another 8 percent increase in domestic spending. It is time for some tough love. This is what this budget proposal is.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, tonight I am pleased to be joined by Senators Coburn, Graham, and Hutchison to offer an amendment that will serve as an alternative to the 5-year budget offered by the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and the 10-year budget offered by the President. Except for defense and veterans affairs, our proposal would cap discretionary funding, reduce our Nation's deficit and debt more than the proposals offered either by the Senate Budget Committee or the President. This 10-year budget alternative would cap discretionary funding at baseline levels, plus inflation, except for defense and veterans. Defense is increased by $190 billion above baseline over 5 years. Veterans is increased by $25 billion above baseline over 5 years, and other discretionary spending, $62 billion less than the Senate budget proposal over 5 years, $229 billion less than the President's proposal over 5 years, and $759 billion less than the President's proposal over 10 years. Mandatory spending is $373 billion less than the Budget Committee proposal over 5 years, $922 billion less than the President's proposal over 5 years, and $3.2 trillion less than the President's proposal over 10 years. The deficit would be at $484 billion in 2014, the Conrad budget, the Senate Budget Committee budget deficit would be $508 billion, the President's would be $749 billion. It would be $448 billion by the year 2019, compared with the President's $1.189 trillion deficit over 10 years, and the Senate Budget Committee proposal is a 5-year budget. This results in a cumulative deficit reduction of $369 billion more than the Senate budget proposal, $977 billion more in reductions than the President's proposal, and $3.44 trillion--the deficit would be reduced--than the President's budget. The national debt would be $767 billion less than the Budget Committee over 5 years, $2 trillion less than the President's budget over 5 years, and $3.5 trillion less than the President's over 10 years. In other words, why, why are we offering this alternative? It is simple. Our current national debt is $10.7 trillion. I know when we throw these numbers around, like $10.7 trillion, people's eyes glaze over. But we are talking about numbers that are unprecedented in the history of this country. The projected deficit for 2009 is $1.7 trillion. The total cost of the stimulus bill enacted last month is $1.18 trillion. We gave the TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, $700 billion. Everyone expects the administration will request up to an additional $75 billion more. President Obama recently signed an Omnibus appropriations bill totaling $410 billion. The Federal Reserve recently pumped another $1.2 trillion into our markets, and the President's budget request totals $3.6 trillion. Earlier this week the administration laid out a plan that will provide even more taxpayer dollars to the domestic automakers. The measure offered by the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee increases spending by $225 billion over current levels and raises at least $361 billion in taxes and borrows $1.1 trillion more than what we expect to borrow under current law. The President's budget doubles the public debt in 5 years and nearly triples it in 10 years. As a consequence, beginning in 2019, the Government will spend more on interest than on the defense of our Nation: $806 billion we will be spending on interest, $720 billion on defense. That is eight times more than we will spend on education, eight times more than we will spend on transportation. The budget proposals offered by the President and by the Senate Budget Committee put us on an unsustainable fiscal path, and we will pass on to future generations unprecedented levels of debt that they will never be able to afford. As I said on the floor of the Senate earlier this week, the President's budget numbers are staggering. On average, his budget adds $1 trillion to the debt every year for the next 10 years and contains $1.4 trillion in tax increases. It reinstates the death tax, and it discourages investment by raising taxes on capital gains and dividends. It would create more debt than under every President from George Washington to George W. Bush combined. As others have already warned, the Nation would be bankrupt. This is not just generational theft, it is multigenerational theft. That we are on a dangerous path is not just my opinion, in fact, it has been acknowledged by the President's Director of the Office of Management and Budget. In a recent interview, Peter Orszag was asked to respond to this statement: What deficit hawks are really saying is that the number is so huge that it is literally going to swarm over us and destroy us if we do not start dealing with it today. Mr. Orszag replied: There is no question that we are on an unsustainable fiscal course, and we need to change course. The Federal budget must address the most pressing issues facing our Nation, and among these priorities are keeping Americans safe and our Nation secure and all of the other issues with which we are familiar. The budget must also ensure that taxpayers' dollars are managed in the most fiscally responsible manner by targeting resources to priorities, spending no more than needed, and holding their Government accountable to the taxpayer. This is exactly what our alternative will do. Our plan meets America's needs by spending less and reducing the debt faster than the Democrats' proposals. It caps discretionary spending, except for defense and veterans, at baseline, and increases defense spending by $190 billion. I would point out we are still in two wars. It also increases veterans spending by $25 billion over 5 years. It reduces the deficit to $484 billion by 2014, compared to the Budget Committee's $508 billion and the President's $749 billion. It keeps taxes low, and it shaves, by 2014, $767 billion more off the national debt than Chairman Conrad's 5-year budget and nearly $3.5 trillion more than the President's 10-year budget. Today, the ranking member of the House Budget Committee unveiled the Republican alternative to the House budget resolution. In an op-ed about his plan in today's Wall Street Journal, Representative Paul Ryan wrote: House Republicans will offer an alternative plan. This too is no ordinary budget. As the opposition party, we believe this moment must be met by offering the American people a different way forward--one based on our belief that America is an exceptional nation, and we want to keep it that way. Our budget applies our country's enduring first principles to the problems of our day. Rather than attempting to equalize the results of people's lives and micromanaging their affairs, we seek to preserve our system of protecting our natural rights and equalizing opportunity for all. I agree with Congressman Ryan's assessment, and that is why we are here tonight. My friends on the other side of the aisle have become fond of criticizing Republicans for just saying no and offering no alternatives or specifics. Well, we offered an alternative on the stimulus package. We offered an alternative on the omnibus bill. And we will continue, as members of the loyal opposition, to propose alternatives, complete with specifics and reflecting our philosophy as fundamentally fiscal responsible. I hope this will put an end once and for all to that argument. Our proposal budgets for 10 years. It achieves lower deficits than the Democratic plan in every year. By 2019, it yields nearly half the deficit proposed by the President. In doing so, we control Government debt so that under our plan, debt held by the public is $3.5 trillion less during the budget period. It gives priority to national defense and veterans health care. It addresses our critical energy goals. It takes steps to ensure health and retirement security by making these problems fiscally sustainable while preserving existing Medicare benefits for those beneficiaries age 55 and older. It does not raise taxes and extends the 2001 and 2003 tax laws. The nearly identical proposals of the House and Senate Republicans share the same goals of attaining health and retirement security, controlling our Nation's debt, putting our economy on a path of growth, and preserving the American legacy of leaving the next generation better off. We obviously are living in perilous economic times, but we will emerge from this period with strong job growth, rising incomes, restored confidence, and the ability to meet our obligation of passing on to the next generation the opportunity to make their lives safer, more prosperous, and more enriching than our own. We are dealing with a financial crisis, a housing crisis, and a consumer-led recession. Why then does the President's budget envision borrowing trillions of dollars for new initiatives without spending discipline or offsets? Addressing our most important and immediate problems should be our urgent priority. For two centuries, Americans have worked hard so their children could have better lives and greater opportunity. Are we going to reverse that order and force our children to work hard to pay off our debts because we didn't have the courage to make tough economic choices now? That is what this alternative is about--tough but realistic decisions designed to secure the future prosperity of our country. We were promised change, and that is what our proposal offers. In the op-ed I mentioned earlier, Congressman Ryan also wrote that ``America is not the greatest nation on earth by chance. We earned this greatness by rewarding individual achievement, by advancing and protecting natural rights, and by embracing freedom. We (Republicans) intend to continue this uniquely American tradition.'' The Congressman is exactly right. We have an opportunity to put our Nation back on sound fiscal footing. Let us seize that opportunity. Let us propose, reason, debate and exhaust every means to invest in the future of this country according to our faith in free people and free markets, a faith that has produced more good for more people than ever imagined by our Forefathers. Let us not exploit this crisis for political gain. Let us do what every preceding generation has managed to do--bequeath subsequent American generations a land of unlimited opportunities. We can, and must do better, I urge my colleagues to support this alternative proposal. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record other provisions in this proposal.

Mr. McCAIN. We, as the loyal opposition, are required to offer an alternative to the President's budget and that passed by the Senate Budget Committee on a party-line vote. These are tough decisions that have to be made. We must continue to fund defense and take care of our veterans. But we are also going to have to reform entitlement programs, and we all know that. There is no expert or ordinary citizen in America who doesn't agree that we have to reform Medicare, Social Security, and other mandatory spending programs which are consuming a larger part of our budget. We need a bipartisan commission that has the BRAC imperatives, that they meet and we come up with a solution to the burgeoning fiscal problems posed by entitlement programs and other mandatory spending programs. I was in the other body in 1983, when Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill sat down together across the table and negotiated and saved Social Security for decades. That is what we need to do again. After this budget debate is over, why don't we sit down, the President, Republicans, and Democrats, together, and try and solve our Nation's problems. Americans voted for change. Americans want change. That change is to address these compelling and terrible issues that affect this Nation and our future in a bipartisan fashion. It is pretty clear what is going to pass tomorrow night sometime, but wouldn't it be time for us to sit down together and chart a path for the Nation's future in an environment committed to fiscal responsibility on both sides of the aisle and ensuring our children's future? We will be discussing this more for a short period of time before the vote tomorrow. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a resolution to pardon posthumously the world's first African-American heavyweight champion, John Arthur ``Jack'' Johnson. This resolution expresses the sense of the Senate that the President should exercise his constitutional authority to pardon Jack Johnson posthumously. For my colleagues who may not be familiar with the plight of Jack Johnson, he is considered by many to be the most dominant athlete in boxing history. Arthur John Johnson was born March 31, 1878, in Galveston, TX, to parents who were former slaves. At an early age he realized his talent for the sweet science. In order to make a living, Johnson traveled across the country fighting anyone willing to face him. But he was denied repeatedly on purely racial grounds a chance to fight for the world heavyweight title. For too long, African-American fighters were not seen as legitimate contenders for the championship. Fortunately, after years of perseverance, Johnson was finally granted an opportunity in 1908 to fight the then-reigning title holder, Tommy Burns. Johnson handily defeated Burns to become the first African- American heavyweight champion. Mr. Johnson's success in the ring, and sometimes indulgent lifestyle outside of it, fostered resentment among many and raised concerns that his continued dominance in the ring would somehow disrupt what was then perceived by many as a ``racial order.'' So as history tells us, a search for a Caucasian boxer who could defeat Johnson began a recruitment effort that was dubbed the search for the ``Great White Hope.'' That hope arrived in the person of former champion, Jim Jeffries, who returned from retirement to fight Johnson in 1910. But when Johnson defeated Jeffries, race riots broke out as many sought to avenge the loss. Following the defeat of the ``Great White Hope,'' the Federal Government launched an investigation into the legality of Johnson's relationships with Caucasian women. The Mann Act, which was enacted in 1910, outlawed the transport of Caucasian women across State lines for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for ``any other immoral purpose.'' Using the ``any other immoral purpose'' clause as a pretext, Federal law enforcement officials set out to ``get'' Johnson. On October 18, 1912, he was arrested for transporting his Caucasian girlfriend across State lines in violation of the act. However, the charges were dropped when the Caucasian, whose mother had originally tipped off Federal officials, refused to cooperate with authorities. She later married Johnson. Yet Federal authorities persisted in their persecution of Johnson, persuading a former Caucasian girlfriend of Johnson's to testify that he had transported her across State lines. Her testimony resulted in Johnson's conviction in 1913, when he was sentenced to 1 year and a day in Federal prison. During Johnson's appeal, one prosecutor admitted that ``Mr. Johnson was perhaps persecuted as an individual, but that it was his misfortune to be the foremost example of the evil in permitting the intermarriage of whites and blacks.'' After the trial, Johnson fled the country to Canada, and then traveled to various European and South American countries, before losing his heavyweight championship title in Cuba in 1915. He returned to the United States in 1920, surrendered to federal authorities, and served nearly a year in Federal prison. Despite this obvious and clear injustice, Johnson refused to turn his back on the country that betrayed him. Mr. Johnson died in an automobile accident in 1946. The Jack Johnson case is an ignominious stain on our Nation's history. Rectifying this injustice is long overdue. Again, this resolution calls on the President to pardon Mr. Johnson posthumously. It recognizes the unjustness of what transpired, and sheds light on the achievements of an athlete who was forced into the shadows of bigotry and prejudice. Johnson was a flawed individual who was certainly controversial. But he was also a historic American figure, whose life and accomplishments played an instrumental role in our Nation's progress toward true equality under the law. And he deserved much better than a racially motivated conviction, which denied him of his liberty, and served to diminish his athletic, cultural, and historic significance. Yesterday was the 131st anniversary of Jack Johnson's birth and we should take this opportunity to allow future generations to grasp fully what Jack Johnson accomplished against great odds and appreciate his contributions to society unencumbered by the taint of his criminal conviction. We know that we cannot possibly right the wrong that was done to Jack Johnson, but we can take this small step toward acknowledging his mistreatment and removing the cloud that casts a shadow on his legacy. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator really believe that reconciliation will not be part of the final budget resolution?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from North Dakota, and I thank him for his hard work under very difficult circumstances. Obviously, the debate begins on the budget resolution for fiscal year 2010. Like the President's plan, the measure offered amounts, in all candor, to generational theft. It increases spending by $225 billion over current levels, raises at least $361 billion in taxes, and borrows $1.1 trillion more than what we expect to borrow under current law. But unlike the President's plan, the resolution budgets for 5 years. Now, I would like to say, in deference to my friend from North Dakota and members of the Budget Committee, I am aware that in previous years a 5-year budget process has been generally the way to do business. There are years where we have used 10 years. The President's budget was 10 years. In these difficult times, given the circumstances under which we are laboring, I think we do a disservice to not do a 10-year budget. So budgeting for only a 5-year period in many respects hides the costly expansion of Government that is sure to take place after 2014. As we go through this debate--and I notice the Senator from North Dakota has many charts--I will be bringing forward some charts that show the dramatic expansion in cost for a whole variety of reasons, including demographics and more and more baby boomers retiring, which, as the President's chief budget person, Mr. Orszag, has stated, is ``not sustainable.'' The Senate owes it to the American taxpayer, in my view, to produce a 10-year budget that shows the unsustainable fiscal path we are on and the terrible burden we are passing on to future generations because of the explosive debt it produces. The Senator from North Dakota, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, just mentioned a proposal for a commission for reform of Social Security and Medicare, and I agree with him. But I would also argue that on the issue of Social Security we could all sit down in a matter of hours and address the issue of Social Security. We know the factors that are involved. We know what the costs are. We know the fixes that basically are necessary. And it would have to be done in the spirit of compromise, as Tip O'Neill and former President Reagan did way back in 1983, the last time there was any significant reform to Social Security. Medicare and Medicaid and health care is obviously a much more complicated issue. In an op-ed entitled ``Hiding a Mountain Of Debt'' from yesterday's Washington Post, David Broder, who, in my view, is perhaps the most respected columnist in America in many ways, and certainly the most experienced, wrote: [T]he Democratic Congress is about to perform a cover-up on the most serious threat to America's economic future. . . . The Congressional Budget Office sketched the dimensions of the problem on March 20, and Congress reacted with shock. The CBO said that over the next 10 years, current policies would add a staggering $9.3 trillion to the national debt--one- third more than President Obama had estimated by using much more optimistic assumptions about future economic growth. . . . The ever-growing national debt will require ever-larger annual interest payments, with much of that money going overseas to China, Japan and other countries that have been buying our bonds. Reacting to this scary prospect, the House and Senate budget committees took the paring knife to some of Obama's spending proposals and tax cuts last week. But many of the proposed savings look more like bookkeeping gimmicks than realistic cutbacks. . . . But the main device the Democratic budgeteers employed was simply to shrink the budget ``window'' from 10 years to five. Instantly, $5 trillion in debt disappeared from view, along with the worry that long after the recession is past, the structural deficit would continue to blight the future of young working families. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the David Broder column that appeared in the Washington Post yesterday printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. What does the President's budget do? It doubles the public debt in 5 years and nearly triples it in 10 years. As a consequence, beginning in 2019, the Government will spend more on interest than on the defense of our Nation. That is $806 billion on interest, $720 billion on defense. That is eight times more than we will spend on education and eight times more than we will spend on transportation. The budget proposals offered by the President and the Senate Democrats put us on an unsustainable fiscal path and will pass on to future generations an unprecedented level of debt they will never be able to afford. We should not take lightly the significant impact our mounting debt has on our future financial stability and security. Currently, China owns nearly $2 trillion of our debt, and because of the global economic downturn, the Chinese are now focused on pumping their money into their own economy. I believe one of my colleagues said it best when he warned: ``The only thing worse than China holding so much of our debt, is China declining to finance any more of our debt.'' Buying our national debt is no longer a very attractive investment for the Chinese and, given the explosion of debt currently envisioned in the President's budget, an even less inviting one in the future. We see evidence of this approaching predicament brought on by their well- founded concerns about the dollar's declining value and in China's recent suggestion that the world should consider a new international currency to replace the dollar. Here are some cold, hard facts: Our current national debt is $10.7 trillion. The projected deficit for 2009 is $1.7 trillion. The total cost of the stimulus bill enacted last month is over $1.1 trillion. We gave the Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP, $700 billion, but everyone expects the administration will request up to an additional $750 billion or more. President Obama recently signed an Omnibus appropriations bill totaling $410 billion. The Federal Reserve recently pumped another $1.2 trillion into our markets, and the President has submitted a budget request of $3.6 trillion. Just today, we have decided we will keep General Motors and Chrysler alive, when General Motors and Chrysler should go to a prepackaged bankruptcy. They could enter bankruptcy, change the parameters on which they are doing business, and emerge as more competitive and efficient automobile manufacturing corporations that could compete with automobile manufacturing here in the United States, only they are not located in Michigan, they are located in other States. So instead of sending General Motors and Chrysler into the prepackaged bankruptcy they deserve, we now have taken the unprecedented step of firing the CEO of General Motors--a remarkable move by the Federal Government, I think unprecedented in the history of this country. What does the signal send to other corporations and financial institutions about whether the Federal Government will decide to fire them as well? But the fundamental issue here is, who is too big to fail? Who is too big to fail in America? And what do I tell the businessperson in Phoenix, AZ, who is about to have to close their doors because they do not have the financing and they have not been bailed out? Who is too big to fail and who is too small to survive? That is why we have seen an outpouring and outrage over the bonuses paid to executives of financial institutions that they neither deserve nor warrant. The President's budget numbers are simply staggering. On average, he adds $1 trillion to the debt every year for the next 10 years. He produces deficits totaling $9.2 trillion over this period, taking spending from 20 percent of GDP up to 25 percent of GDP. The deficit for fiscal year 2009 will be more than three times the previous record of the biggest deficit. The President's budget also contains $1.4 trillion in tax increases. It resurrects the death tax and, even at this critical time, discourages investment in our economy by raising the top rate on capital gains and dividends by one-third. If the CBO-projected deficits in the budget's outyears prove close to accurate, by 2019 Americans would owe a debt that is over 80 percent of our gross domestic product--the highest level since 1948--and double our debt's current share of gross domestic product. It would create more debt than under every President from George Washington to George W. Bush combined. As others have already warned, the Nation would be bankrupt, and the America our children and grandchildren inherit would be, for the first time in history, a land of limited opportunities. Beyond the serious ramifications of the budget numbers, we also need to be concerned about the very real fight we face over reconciliation. The House has included reconciliation instructions for both health care and education. The administration has been clear that it wants climate change added to the reconciliation measures. I recently read where the administration is considering declaring greenhouse gases a health risk. Just 2 weeks ago, the EPA delivered documents to the White House stating findings that global warming threatens both public health and welfare. If this declaration is made, none of us should be surprised to see changes to environmental law used as an opening to fund universal health care. I fully recognize that Republicans have in the past engaged in using reconciliation to further the party's agenda. It was wrong then. I wish it had not been done. And I hope and I wish it would not be done now. But the groundwork has been laid. I think this would be a grave mistake. We should be working on the most pressing issues in a bipartisan, thoughtful manner. We are in the midst of a severe recession. The U.S. Labor Department announced that employers cut another 651,000 jobs in February, raising the unemployment rate to 8.1 percent, the highest since 1983. These statistics are dire and argue for Government's intervention to stimulate the economy. However, it would be an appalling dereliction of duty to use the crisis caused by the global credit crunch, as some members of the administration have suggested, to excuse profligate spending that would not hasten economic growth and that puts the United States on an accelerated path to bankruptcy. I believe the President's budget has fallen prey to the siren song of short-term expediency. It is bad economics. The antiquated U.S. Code has driven an increasing number of businesses--especially small, dynamic startup ventures--to file their taxes as individuals. Nearly one-half of Americans work in businesses with fewer than 50 employees, and we should focus on keeping those jobs and creating more of them. While the administration argues that a minuscule number of businesses are affected by its proposed tax increases, a majority of small business income will be hit by them. Jobs are where the money is, and increasing taxes on jobs endangers the recovery. It is a misguided policy toward fairness. Rising inequality is a 30- year process with its roots in skills and education--not tax policy. Lastly, insulating 95 percent of voters from the consequences of their electoral decisions is dangerous for a democracy. It is also misleading. Does anyone really believe we can expand all nondefense spending to a record share of GDP, reform the health care system that is one-sixth of the economy, reinvent the energy portfolio that powers our lives, and drive next-generation broadband to every home, while cutting taxes for 95 percent of Americans? It doesn't add up, it won't add up, and it won't last. I fully recognize tough choices need to be made in order to get our country back on course. It is like the old saying, ``Everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die.'' Except in Washington, it would be, everyone wants fiscal prosperity, but no one wants to force the belt tightening. For two centuries, Americans have worked hard so their children could have better lives and greater opportunity. Do we really want to reverse that order by having our children work hard so we don't have to make hard economic choices now? The Federal budget must address the most pressing issues facing our Nation. Among those priorities are keeping Americans safe and the Nation secure, enhancing economic growth and raising standards of living, reducing the burden of debt for the next generation, reforming our health care system, and shifting to a cleaner, more secure energy portfolio. The budget must also ensure that taxpayers' dollars are managed in the most fiscally responsible manner by targeting resources to priorities, spending no more than needed, eliminating waste and special interest projects, and holding the Government accountable to the taxpayer. We are obviously living in perilous economic times, but with resolute action and clarity of vision, we can emerge from this period with strong job growth, rising incomes, restored confidence, and the ability to meet our patriotic obligation of passing to the next generation the opportunity to make their lives safer, more prosperous, and more enriching than our own. We are in a financial crisis, a housing crisis, and a consumer-led recession. Why, then, does the President's budget envision borrowing trillions of dollars for new initiatives in education and health care, energy, the environment, transportation, and technology without any spending discipline or offsets? Of course, those programs sound appealing, but whether you support or oppose those long-term goals, addressing our most important and immediate problems should be our urgent priority. We have not devoted resources to the right problems. We have left our principles behind as we deliver check after Treasury check, and we will not be able to continue down this road. I hope again that we, on both sides of the aisle, can sit down together for a change and work out a bipartisan agreement. I believe with the right kind of preparation and the right kind of work, we could have come up with a budget proposal that took into consideration the concerns of those of us on this side of the aisle. As with the stimulus package, as with the omnibus bill, as with SCHIP, and with other issues that have come before this body, there has not been what the American people want so badly for us to do, and that is to sit down and work together and come up with a common recipe for the common challenges we face that affect all Americans, whether they be Republican or Democrat. Again, I regret that this budget, after our usual national--well, I won't go into it, but the budget vote-arama, that this budget will go down, will be passed largely on party lines. I regret that. We will have time in the future, as we are facing other issues such as health care reform, issues of climate change and others--energy independence-- that we should be able to sit down together. So far we haven't. I wish we had. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. McCAIN. I am sure one of the things my distinguished colleague is referring to is that after 10 years, whatever the reconciliation would then expire. But I also would again question whether the Senator is aware that it is accepted as common knowledge that there will be reconciliation in this budget resolution when it is finally passed, whether it contains health care reform, education reform, and/or climate change. I do acknowledge, again, before my friend answers, that Republicans began this, and it was the wrong thing to do. It was the wrong thing to do. Sometimes you reap what you sow. So I fully acknowledge that. However, I think to address an issue as serious as health care reform in America, to put it on a budget resolution would be a very serious breach of the customary way the Senate addresses these issues. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee for his hard work on this issue for many years.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I come to the floor to discuss for a few minutes with my colleague from South Carolina the issue of climate change. We all know the budget will be forthcoming. We already understand there will be some $650 billion included in the budget for general revenues that would go as revenues from climate--here it is: $646 billion over 8 years. According to some aides to the administration, it could be as much as $2 trillion. Remarkable. What we have done is we have gone from an attempt to address the issue of climate change through cap and trade to just generating $680 billion or $2 trillion without a trace of bipartisanship, without any consultation, without discussions. What we have done on the issue of climate change, by basically funneling $680-some billion, is we have destroyed any chance of bipartisanship, and the administration is proposing a plan which will have a crippling effect in a bad economy on, particularly, parts of the country and lower income residents in the South and Midwest. First of all, if we are going to do cap and trade, we should have generous allowances for people who are now operating under certain greenhouse gas emission conditions. Second of all, any money, any revenues that are gained through cap and trade clearly should not go to just ``general revenues.'' Any funding should go directly to the development of technologies which will then reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That has to be a fundamental principle. So the administration, in this budget, is basically using it as just a revenue raiser. By the way, the entire budget contains no references to nuclear power, except striking funds for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, for which the utilities--passing it on to the ratepayers-- have paid somewhere between $8 billion and $13 billion for Yucca Mountain to be used as a spent nuclear fuel repository. So it is remarkable. The Secretary of Energy told me in a hearing in the Energy Committee: Yucca Mountain is finished. I said: What about reprocessing? Can't do that either. So here you have nuclear powerplants--there are 120 of them operating in the United States of America today--and we cannot reprocess and we cannot store. So what do we do? We either keep them in pools or ``solidification'' outside of nuclear powerplants all over America-- clearly, a threat to the Nation's security. Let me say to my colleagues, I am proud of my record on climate change. I have been all over the world, and I have seen climate change. I know it is real, and I will be glad to continue this debate with my colleagues and people who do not agree with that. I believe climate change is real. I believe with what we did in addressing acid rain, which was through a cap-and-trade kind of dynamic, we were able to largely eliminate the problem of acid rain in America. So it has been done before, and we can do it again, admittedly on a much smaller scale. In the Antarctic, in Alaska and even in the rain forests of Brazil and here in the United States, we are feeling the effect of climate change. So here we are, with a chance to work together in a bipartisan fashion on the issue, and what does the administration do? They send over a budget which earmarks $600-and-some billion--$646 billion--which would then go to general revenues, with no consultation or discussions on the issue. I am proud to have worked with Senator Lieberman in years past on trying to address the issue of climate change. Of course, there is no mention of nuclear power. I do not wish to spend my time on the floor, too much, on nuclear power. But according to the Department of Energy--and depending on whom you talk to--solar will contribute something like 5, 10, at most, 15 percent of our renewable energy needs between now and 2050. Wind, tide, all those others may contribute another 10, 15, 20 percent. There is a vast, gaping hole in our demand for renewable energy, and nuclear power and hydro can fill those. This administration has turned its back completely on nuclear power. So what do we tell the ratepayers and the utilities that have been paying billions of dollars? As I mentioned, somewhere between $8 billion and $13 billion they have invested in Yucca Mountain. And now we are canceling it? Well, maybe they ought to get their money back since it was Government action that made Yucca Mountain no longer a viable option. We need to debate this issue. We need to address it separately. We certainly do not need to address the issue of climate change and how we are going to remedy it through the budget process. By the way, the Obama administration plans to use revenues as a slush fund to meet budgetary shortfalls, as I mentioned. Only $120 billion of the $650 billion in new revenues would go to climate policy spending, $15 billion a year out of the $650 billion would go for clean energy technologies. There is no detail in the budget as to what this includes or excludes--except for closing Yucca Mountain. Nuclear is not mentioned in the entire budget. Most of the remainder of the revenues generated from the present cap-and-trade proposal as sent over and part of the budget will be used to pay for the Making Work Pay tax credit. I would add that the administration argues that the Making Work Pay tax credit will offset the increase in utility bills caused by their cap-and-trade policy. However, the credit is phased out for taxpayers earning between $75,000 and $95,000 a year for individuals and $150,000 to $190,000 for married couples. So the administration is insisting on 100 percent auction which, obviously, would be an incredible detriment to a very serious approach. Our economy is suffering. At times such as these, it is particularly important we provide for transition assistance that will not result in higher energy costs. Again, I wish to point out 100 percent auction will harm heavy manufacturers, the very ones who need the help the most: automobiles, concrete, et cetera, and the lower income residents of the South and Midwest. Every reasonable cap-and-trade bill in the past has been a blend of auction and allocations--except for this one. The hybrid approach allows heavy manufacturers and coal-fired utilities time to meet emissions targets without needing to exponentially raise energy costs for consumers. So the administration has sent us a budget with not a single mention of nuclear power and Yucca Mountain no longer an option. No Yucca Mountain means no waste confidence and, certainly, no new licensing, no spent fuel recycling. Secretary Chu is insinuating the French and Japanese, who have been recycling for decades, are ``reckless.'' So what we need to do is take up separately the issue of climate change legislation. It would have a gradual implementation schedule. It would allow for the economy to adapt while we meet our environmental goals. The policy must aggressively promote nonemitting green energy technologies, such as nuclear power, hydro, and others. We should pursue a hybrid approach of auctioning a portion of credits while reserving a large portion of the credits that we could allocate to those who need the most help, complying with the emission reductions. Revenues should be used to promote new technologies, help low-income people with the increased costs of electricity, and pay down the debt-- not expand the Federal Government. So it is with some regret I come to the floor to discuss this important issue with a total lack of bipartisanship on the part of the administration and, again, express my willingness--in fact, my deep desire--to sit down and try to address, in a bipartisan fashion, this compelling issue, which is endangering the future of this planet and certainly our children's and grandchildren's future, and that is the issue of climate change. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. The President nominated Elena Kagan, currently dean of Harvard Law School, for Solicitor-General of the United States. While I do not share many of Dean Kagan's views, I especially disagree with Dean Kagan on the constitutionality of the Solomon amendment. In 2005, Dean Kagan and 53 other law school faculty members filed an amicus brief to declare the Solomon amendment unconstitutional. The Solomon amendment, named for former Congressman Jerry Solomon, alloys military recruiters to meet with students on college campuses and allows the Reserve Officers' Training Corps, ROTC, to train on college campuses. The Supreme Court found Dean Kagan's arguments to be unpersuasive and declared the Solomon Amendment to be constitutional. I believe the Supreme Court was absolutely correct in its decision. It is my hope that as Solicitor General, Dean Kagan will not allow her personal viewpoint on this important issue to prohibit the implementation of the Solomon amendment and that our military recruiters continue to recruit the best and brightest at our Nation's colleges to serve in our military.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as you noted, we will consider the nomination of Mr. Ron Kirk as the next U.S. Trade Representative. With some reluctance, I will vote to confirm Mr. Kirk's nomination. I think it is pretty obvious Mr. Kirk has been less than forthcoming on a number of trade issues that affect this country, and some of the positions he has articulated are very dangerous for this Nation's future. I have come to this floor on numerous occasions and argued against the provisions that have been signed into law in omnibus bills recently, one of them ``Buy American,'' the other, of course, the latest being the barring of Mexican trucks into the United States of America. The signal that sends to the world is that the United States is on a path of protectionism. That shows at least a majority of Members of this body have ignored the lessons of history. That lesson, obviously, we learned in the Great Depression, when isolationism and protectionism turned our economy from a deep recession to the worst depression of modern times. That is what protectionism and isolationism does. So we now have a predictable result of killing the program which would allow, in keeping with the North American Free Trade Agreement, a solemn treaty signed by then-President Clinton, that Mexican trucks would be allowed into the United States. Before I go much further, though, I wished to comment on the issue that is consuming the American people and the Congress today; that is, the AIG bonuses paid to executives. The simple lesson is, if we had not bailed out AIG, we would not be worried about the bonuses. I spoke out against the bailout of AIG at the time when it was first proposed when AIG was in trouble. I, along with every other American, share anger and obvious displeasure that these bonuses were given to executives who obviously did not deserve them. But we should not have bailed out AIG. We should have let them fail and reorganize. I would also like to point out that another area of the bailout that Americans should be equally disturbed about is the $20 billion that went to foreign banks. American taxpayers are paying now $20 billion to bail out foreign banks. Have we not enough trouble here at home and enough areas of the country that need Government assistance than to send $20 billion to foreign banks? There is an obvious need for increased transparency, increased oversight, and far more careful stewardship of American tax dollars. The numbers we are talking about are, indeed, staggering. I would point out, again, we are committing generational theft by these kinds of expenditures of American taxpayers' dollars and mortgaging our children and grandchildren's future. The direction of our trade policy has hardly been more important in recent years, given the enormous economic challenges we are facing today, with unemployment rising, consumer confidence dropping, and our growth rate stagnating, at best. American exports. American exports have been one of the few bright spots in a terrible economic situation. Until last quarter, the export sector of our economy grew at a faster rate than other sectors during the past several years. In the face of this fact, and mindful of history lessons, Congress and the administration should be working to break down remaining barriers to trade. However, we are doing the opposite. Since the beginning of this year, Congress and the administration have taken several steps designed to choke off access to the U.S. market which invites retaliation from our foreign trading partners. American business and workers will suffer as the result of these ill- considered moves. Last month, as I mentioned, Congress adopted and the President signed into law--again, one of the consequences of these omnibus bills that are thousands of pages, that nobody knows what is included, they are designed to be a ``stimulus'' or ``spending bill,'' and we stuff policy provisions in them, which people may not know about for weeks or even months. We find out that these are egregious in the case of ``Buy American'' and in the case of the American trucks. Both of them send a signal to the world that America is going down the path of protectionism. The results, as far as Mexico is concerned, are unfortunate, very unfortunate, but predictable. The reaction of our friends and allies throughout the world to the ``Buy American'' provisions is predictable. They are angry and they are upset. I cannot say I blame them. Now, the ``Buy American'' provision required funds appropriated in that bill--this is a policy change, remember, adopted in a ``stimulus package,'' that we purchase only American-made steel, iron, and manufactured goods. As we debated this provision, many of our closest partners expressed great concerns about the implications of this course of action. The Canadian Ambassador to the United States wrote: If Buy America becomes part of the stimulus legislation, the United States will lose the moral authority to pressure others not to introduce protectionist policies. A rush of protectionist actions could create a downward spiral like the world experienced in the 1930's. When then-Candidate Obama said he would ``unilaterally renegotiate'' the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Canadian response was: Yes, and if you do that, then we will sell our oil to China. Then, later, Candidate Obama changed his position to saying: Well, that wasn't exactly what he meant. Then, President Obama said: Now we are in favor of free trade. But yet President Obama did not veto either one of these bills, which sends a signal to the world that the United States has embarked on a protectionist path. He should have vetoed those bills, especially the one on Mexican trucks. A European Commission spokesman noted: We are particularly concerned about the signal that these measures could send to the world at a time when all countries are facing difficulty. Where America leads, many others tend to follow. Others lent their own voices to those cautioning against a terribly ill-timed protectionist act. While some Senators may have taken comfort in last-minute language added to require that implementation of the ``Buy American'' provisions be consistent with our international obligations, I worry very much about the effect this and other steps will have on the global trading system. For decades the United States has led global efforts toward free and open trade and investment. We abandon this leadership at our peril. The ``Buy American'' provision was not the only step in the protectionist direction. There have been other protectionist measures, and we are already seeing the fallout from such unwise decisions. Mr. Kirk agreed during his confirmation hearing: [I]f the United States raises barriers in our own market, other countries are more likely to raise barriers against our products. We have that evidence already. On Monday, the Mexican Government announced it will increase tariffs on 90 American agricultural and manufactured goods in direct retaliation for our recent decision to ban Mexican trucks from traveling beyond commercial zones. Although the Mexican Government is yet to specify the 90 different goods, it has announced that its decision would affect $2.4 billion worth of exports from 40 States. The Mexican Ambassador had an article in the Wall Street Journal this morning. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record, along with an editorial from this morning from the Arizona Republic.

Mr. McCAIN. The Mexican Ambassador says, in part of his article: The U.S. Congress, which has now killed a modest and highly successful U.S.-Mexico trucking demonstration program, has sadly left my government no choice but to impose countermeasures after years of restraint and goodwill. Then and now, this was never about the safety of American roads or drivers; it was and has been about protectionism, pure and simple. He is right. It is also a testimony to the influence of the Teamsters Union. Elections have consequences. He goes on to say: It is worth noting that this takes place shortly after Mexico announced it would unilaterally reduce its industrial tariffs from an average of 10.4% in 2008 to 4.3% by 2013, and that it has underscored its commitment, along with its other G-20 partners, to push back on protectionist pressures. What has been particularly frustrating in this long and uphill battle has been the fact that the Congress continues to move the goalposts. Importantly, he concludes: Mexico is the U.S.'s second largest buyer of exports. It remains a steadfast supporter of free and fair trade, and will continue to work actively and responsibly during the coming weeks and months with Congress and the administration to find a solution that will allow safe Mexican trucks onto U.S. roads under Nafta rules. Again, NAFTA was signed by President Clinton 14 years ago. Part of that agreement was that Mexican trucks would be allowed into the United States. Study after study has concluded that Mexican trucks operate as safely as U.S. trucks do. Today, on goods America buys coming from Mexico, the truck, after crossing the border, if it is Mexican, has to stop. The goods are offloaded onto another truck, moved to another truck that is American- owned and loaded onboard that truck. Meanwhile, there are CO2 emissions and the cost and expenses of the delay are passed on to the American consumer. I repeat, Mexico is the third largest trading partner of the United States, behind Canada and China, and the United States ranks first among Mexico's trading partners. United States trade with Mexico totaled $368 billion in 2008. We have close and growing ties between our two Governments. Right now there is an existential threat to our southern neighbor from drug cartels. The violence on the border is at unprecedented levels. Acts of cruelty and murder are taking place beyond belief. People are being beheaded. There is the assassination of police chiefs and others. The corruption is very high. Why should we care? One reason we should care is because of violence spilling over from the Mexican border into ours. The other reason is, there is between, according to estimates, $10 and $13 billion worth of revenue in receipts from the sale of drugs in the United States. It is the United States that is creating the market that is creating the drug cartels and violence on the border that has ensued. The Mexican Government is trying--maybe for the first time in as serious a way as they are now--to bring under control these cartels. The corruption reaches to the highest level. The violence is incredibly high. We need to do what we can to help the Mexican Government bring these cartels under control and try to eradicate them because they do pose an existential threat. We cannot afford to have a government that is full of corruption and controlled by drug cartels on our southern border, not to mention the impact it has on illegal immigration. What did we do? We took steps in violation of our obligations under the North America Free Trade Agreement that will have precisely the opposite effect and have prompted retaliation that will only serve to harm American workers, consumers, and our Nation's relationship with Mexico. During these difficult economic times for many American businesses, the ability to sell products on the world market is essential to our economic recovery. The Financial Times wrote in an editorial published yesterday: The retaliatory duties are a legitimate response to a U.S. violation of a trade deal . . . but this does not bode well for bilateral relations just under two months into the Obama administration. It goes on: We hope cooler heads prevail and prevent any deterioration of the bilateral relationship. Both nations have too much at stake--and trade as well as security issues. I could not agree more. The Arizona Republic published an editorial that reads: With the economy in tatters, it's no time to mince words: The United States is in the wrong. Under NAFTA, we agreed to give Mexican trucks access beginning in 1995, increasing efficiency and lowering costs for consumers. The editorial continues: Around the world, countries are considering trade barriers that could have disastrous consequences for the world economy. The United States must put the brakes on trade restrictions, not fuel them. I am aware there is a sizable block of public opinion that believes we should close our borders to everybody and everything, that somehow Mexican trucks are unacceptable, that legal immigration is something we ought to do away with. I understand all those arguments. But I also urge those who say that trade with Mexico is not important to understand the facts: They are our third largest trading partner; we have a trade surplus; it is important to have our relationship good as we help them battle the drug cartels; and, most importantly, protectionism and high tariffs led to the Great Depression. Congress passed NAFTA in 1993 and President Clinton signed it into law in 1994, which mandated the opening of our southern border to Mexican trucking operations to allow the free flow of goods and services between the two countries. Last year, language was slipped into a fiscal year 2008 spending bill that sought to strip funding for a pilot program with Mexico that would allow a limited number of Mexican trucks to enter the United States. Now the administration says it will try to create ``a new trucking project that will meet the legitimate concerns'' of Congress. I don't understand how the administration can create a new trucking project to comply with NAFTA, when Congress explicitly barred any money from being spent toward such activities. The President should not seek to create a new project to circumvent the terms of the legislative language. Rather, he should have vetoed it in the first place. The administration's eliminating the Mexican cross-border trucking program will harm millions of American consumers who could benefit from lower prices on many goods manufactured in Mexico and then distributed in the United States. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, refusing entry into our country of Mexican trucks carrying Mexican-made goods adds $400 million to the price of Mexican imports which is, of course, passed on to the American consumer. Mr. Kirk has made some statements broadly supportive of international trade, but he has also made comments suggesting protectionism might not be so bad after all. During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Kirk stated: Not all Americans are winning from [trade] and our trading partners are not always playing by the rules. He suggested the administration may abandon the free-trade agreement we have concluded with South Korea, one projected to increase the United States GDP by $10 to $12 billion. He said the pact ``simply isn't fair.'' He emphasized he does not have ``deal fever'' when it comes to trade agreements. Again, it is up in the air as to what the fate of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement would be, sending a clear signal that we would be punishing the Colombian Government for their assistance in trying to combat drug cartels. Our trading partners, including Canada and Mexico, don't seem interested in strengthening agreements that have served them and us well for years. Rather, they would like to see the United States fulfill its own trade obligations and look for further ways to open markets to the free flow of commerce. The free flow of commerce has been a founding principle of U.S. economic policy for many decades and a key factor in our rise to prosperity and greatness. It is for this reason I hope Mr. Kirk and his colleagues in the administration will reconsider their stance and help build, not damage, the consensus behind free trade. After all, we have seen a terribly destructive pattern unfold before. In 1930, as the United States and the world were entering what would be known in history as the Great Depression, two men, Mr. Smoot and Mr. Hawley, led the effort to enact protectionist legislation in the face of economic crisis. Their bill, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, raised duties on thousands of imported goods in a futile attempt to keep jobs at home. In the face of this legislation, 1,028 economists issued a statement to President Herbert Hoover, wherein they wrote: America is now facing the problem of unemployment. The proponents of higher tariffs would claim that an increase in rates will give work to the idle. This is not true. We cannot increase employment by restricting trade. Mr. Smoot, Mr. Hawley, and their colleagues paid no attention to this wise admonishment, and the Congress went ahead with protectionist legislation. In doing so, they sparked an international trade war as countries around the world retaliated, raising their own duties and restricting trade, and they helped turn a severe recession into the greatest depression in modern history. I do not intend to oppose the President's nominee for U.S. Trade Representative. I remain very concerned about the direction of our trade policies at a time of economic peril. I urge my colleagues and the administration to heed the lessons of economics and heed the lessons of history. 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, I know the hour is a bit advanced, so I will not take much time. I think it is pretty clear what the outcome of this vote will be, so I will not take a lot more time of this body. I have spent a lot of time on the Senate floor in the last week or so talking about this legislation before us. I think there are a couple things that need to be mentioned again. Somehow it seems to be accepted around here that earmarks are a standard practice and that they have been going on forever, and it is somehow the purview of the Appropriations Committee to do these earmarks, which Americans have become pretty familiar with, I am happy to say, in the last week or so. That is not so. It is not so. In 1991, there was a total of 537 earmarks for the entire appropriations process. This evil has grown, and it has grown, and it has grown--to the point where we now have close to 9,000 earmarks. All we are asking is to authorize. We have talked a lot about the individual earmarks. But the fact is, they are not authorized. I heard one of my colleagues today, on this side of the aisle, say: Well, the authorizing committees are too busy. Really? Really? So all we are asking is to go back to what this body had done and the Congress had done for a couple hundred years; that is, authorize the projects. So what has happened? It has grown and grown and grown. Today, a former staffer on the Appropriations Committee pled guilty in Federal court. What did it have to do with? It had to do with earmarks, and we have former Members of Congress now residing in Federal prison because of this gateway drug, as my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, calls it. So last November the American people, as I am keenly aware, voted for change. They voted for change, and somehow we are saying: This is last year's business--only this is funding this year's operations. So we will vote to pass this bill, and the message is, my friends and colleagues, that it is business as usual in Washington, while unemployment is 8.1 percent and employers have to cut another 651,000 jobs. So if the President were serious about his pledge for change, he would veto this bill. He will not. Now, he will say we are going to outline a process of dealing with this problem in a different way. I quote from Mr. Gibbs: . . . and that the rules of the road going forward for those many appropriations bills that will go through Congress and come to his desk will be done differently. Well, the first chance we get to show people change is business as usual in the Senate and the House. It is very unfortunate. It is very unfortunate. We should not be astonished at the low approval ratings we have here when Americans see the expenditure of their hard-earned tax dollars in the projects we have talked about in the past without scrutiny, without authorization, and certainly not in a fashion the American people want their tax dollars spent. So we will invoke cloture and we will move forward. The bill will go to the President's desk, he will sign it, and the signal to the American people is: You voted for change, but you are not getting any change today. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to discuss my pending amendment which would prohibit funds to be spent on thousands of earmarks that are listed in the statement of managers but are not included in the bill text. Most Americans would say: Why don't you have what you want to spend in the bill itself? So far, obviously, the answer has been that this has just grown and grown over the years, as earmarks have grown over the years. And let me just also point out, there is an attempt to say: Look, we have always done this. This has always been the case. So we are just doing what we have always done. You know, the fact is, Mr. President, we haven't always done this. The fact is this porkbarrel and earmark spending has grown and grown and grown and grown over the years. One of the people I admired most when I served in the other body was a Congressman from Tennessee, Congressman Natcher, who would not allow a single earmark in his appropriations bills, not a single one. He was proud of that, and he continued to get reelected. I did a little research. It is a little hard to get the information, but up until the 1960s or the 1970s there was no such thing as earmarks. There was no such thing. Citizens Against Government Waste have tracked the growth of earmarks, and in 1991, according to that organization, there were 546 earmarks--546 earmarks in 1991. In this bill, we have nearly 9,000. Now, that is how evil grows. That is what happens when this kind of activity continues to be allowed. There were 546 earmarks. In 2008, there were 11,610 earmarks. That is an increase of 337 percent in 17 years. The numbers for fiscal 2009: with the three bills already enacted, there were nearly 3,000, and this is another 9,000. I don't enjoy bringing this up all the time, but the fact is, there is another article this morning in RollCall with the headline ``Abramoff Case Keeps On Going.'' Quoting from the article, it says: Disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff may one day see an end to the scandal that he largely created--at least in his scheduled release from prison in 2011--but the complex criminal investigation spurred by his activities shows no sign of winding down any time soon. It talks about former Senate aides who are either under indictment or in prison or, according to this article, going to be indicted. But that is what happens when you are able to put in an earmark without anybody knowing about it, without any scrutiny, without any oversight, but directly related to the influence of the individual Member or staff member. You can't make up these stories. You can't make them up. We have various staff members who became lobbyists, and obviously, as we know, we have former Members of Congress now residing in Federal prison. So I come to my opposition to these earmarks because it makes good people do bad things. A colleague from the other body, who was a great American hero, ended up making a list of the appropriations that he would get and the money that he would get in return, and now he resides in Federal prison. May I also say we continue to hear that the President will do something about this. Last week Mr. Gibbs said we will see and hear the President outline a process of dealing with this problem in a different way and that the rules of the road going forward for those many appropriations bills that will go through Congress and come to his desk will be done differently. There is an easy way of doing that, Mr. President. Just authorize them. Just send these requests through the authorizing committees and have them authorized and you will never see the Senator from Arizona on the Senate floor again complaining about earmarks because then they will have done what we did for most of this Nation's history, and that is to authorize projects and then have the appropriators fund the projects. It is the way that the Congress should do business and the way we have gotten away from in recent years. So I say to the President, if you really want to see something different, veto this bill. Just simply veto this bill and say: I am sending it back to you. Authorize those earmarks, don't put them in, all 9,000 of them. I don't know if they are good or bad projects. I continuously see Members come to the floor on both sides of the aisle saying: This is a good project. This is a good project. As you know, Mr. President, we are twittering over the top 10 every day--the top 10--and the responses we get are from local authorities to Members of Congress saying: This is a good, worthwhile project. Fine, get it authorized. Get it authorized and you will not hear a word of criticism from me. Here we are, unemployment at 8.1 percent in February, the highest since late 1983--when we didn't do earmarks, 25 years ago--and employers having cut another 65,000 jobs. The Labor Department also reported that job losses in December were the biggest monthly decline in jobs since October 1949. So we are going to spend $1.7 million for pig odor research--that has been bandied about a lot--and $6.6 million for termite research, $1.9 million for the Pleasure Beach Water Taxi Service Project in Connecticut, $951,000 for Sustainable Las Vegas. And the list goes on and on. I have talked about many of them. The message is this: As we are in the most dire economic times since the Great Depression, in the view of many experts we are going to continue business here as usual with 9,000 earmarks for things which certainly do not have a priority for the American people at this time. So if the President really wants to change Washington, as soon as this bill reaches his desk he should veto it and send it back and say: Clean it up. Clean it up. Then let's fix the system, which is obviously badly broken. I would remind my colleagues that back in January of 2007 we passed a pretty tough reform bill through the Senate, and then 7 months later, I believe it was, we then finally passed a much watered-down effort to bring in the porkbarrel earmark spending under control. In the last week or so, the Senator from Wisconsin and I have introduced legislation which we call a line-item veto, which is more understandable but, frankly, is really an enhanced rescission. The President would issue a rescission and then the Congress would have to vote in order for it to take place. There is another aspect of this, because I see my colleague from Alabama is here: policy changes. Policy changes have been enacted in an appropriations bill. Appropriations, as is the title, is funding for the Government. So what have we done? We have made changes in health care in both the stimulus package and in the omnibus bill; welfare changes, a number of changes that have been made in Government policy. There are several provisions that would weaken U.S. sanctions against the Castro regime in Cuba. That is a legitimate subject of debate. Why should it be put in an appropriations bill? The DC school vouchers, why should the vouchers for the District of Columbia schools, which provide financial assistance to 1,800 students in the District of Columbia who want to attend private elementary and secondary schools, why should that policy be changed under this bill? NAFTA and trucking--you can argue whether we should allow Mexican trucks into the United States of America or not. It was part of the North American Free Trade Agreement many years ago. You could have that debate. But how can you rationalize a process that puts it into what is supposed to be an appropriations bill without debate or anything else? We need to end this earmarking practice. We don't have the votes probably. I can count fairly well, not as well as some, but I can count fairly well. But I can tell you that this week's debate has aroused a lot of Americans. We have heard from them. We have heard from them. They voted for change. They voted for change, and they are not getting change. They are getting business as usual. They are getting 9,000 porkbarrel earmark projects that have not received scrutiny nor authorization nor what they deserve if we are going to spend nearly $8 billion of the taxpayers' money. I would also like to respond to what one of my colleagues said-- little porky projects. Another one said: Well, that is the way business is done. I would argue that it is time to do business differently. An article appeared in the Chicago Tribune today entitled ``Some Odor.'' The article said: The bill may still pass this week and if it does, President Barack Obama is likely to sign it. But maybe, with the benefit of a few more days to digest how much this thing smacks of Washington business as usual, Democrats in Congress and the White House will feel some pangs of responsibility. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this morning's Chicago Tribune article entitled ``Some Odor,'' along with the Washington Post editorial this morning entitled ``Truck Stop.''

Mr. McCAIN. The Washington Post article I just referred to states: When the U.S. economy needs all the help it can get, this legislation perpetuates inefficiency and invites Mexican retaliation against U.S. exports. To a world looking for signs that Democratic rule in Washington would not mean revived protectionism, this can only be a disappointment. So I object to this legislation on grounds that there are fundamental policy changes which should be debated and be the subject of separate legislation. I also object to the 9,000 earmarks that are in this legislation, which sends the message to the American people that we are doing business as usual. I am encouraged to continue to hear the news that the President will issue rescissions. He will say we are not going to do business like this anymore. Well, the best way that the President can send the message is, after we pass this legislation, to veto it and send it back and ask for clean legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment, which separates this 1,844 pages, which was supposed to be originally just a statement of the managers but is now full of thousands of earmark projects, and at least not have those have the force of law. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 593, which is at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent for its consideration, understanding that under a previous unanimous consent agreement the vote on the amendment will be on Monday.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple and straightforward. It would prohibit funds to be spent on the thousands of earmarks that are listed in the statement of managers but that are not included in the bill text. We have seen a remarkable evolution over the past number of years here in the Senate and House as to how we do business, and I think there is no greater example of it than what we are considering and have, fortunately, not passed. This is the legislation. In itself, it is 1,122 pages. You can thumb through it anywhere, and you will find moneys to be spent on various projects, none of which--or very few of which have ever been authorized or examined by the committees that have jurisdiction. That in itself is interesting. This is a funding mechanism to keep the Government in business. It also happens to be an 8-percent increase in spending over last year. It also happens that the majority, the Democrats on the majority side last year, chose not to pass these appropriations bills because they knew, or expected, that they would have a larger majority in the Senate and House and they would be able to increase spending, which is exactly what happened--an 8-percent increase. Here on the other side of my desk is ``statement of managers.'' That statement of managers is 1,844 pages. Guess what it is filled with. The same earmarks and porkbarrel projects that are in the bill itself. The statement of managers used to basically just be a statement of the managers of the bill saying this is a bill that is being put forward and the reasons for it, the rationale for it. It used to be just a few pages. Now it is 1,844 pages. Remarkable. And guess what it is filled with. It contains part of the 9,000 earmarked porkbarrel projects in this bill, none of which have been authorized--or very few have been authorized, let me put it that way. I am sure there are some funds in here that have been authorized. But the earmarks in it are exactly that: they are unauthorized projects. What does that mean to the average citizen? They hear about earmarks and pork, but they do not really understand what it means. Well, the way the Congress is supposed to work is, there are two parts to legislating. One is to review legislative proposals--both policy and funding by committees--and they say: OK, we will authorize this project, we will authorize $1.7 million for a honey bee factory in Weslaco, TX. I don't particularly think that is necessary, but at least it is authorized. And then it is supposed to go to the appropriating committee, and they figure out how much money there is and then they appropriate the money. That system is completely broken. It is completely short-circuited. Now we have bills this size, statements of managers this size, and no one has ever seen or heard of many of these projects until it appears on the Members' desks. The system is completely broken. So when I hear my colleagues stand up and defend these ``porkbarrel projects,'' when they defend $300,000 for the Montana World Trade Center, which may be necessary, why didn't they ask for it to be authorized because of the need and then compete with all other projects that are necessary and that Members of the Senate and the House believe are necessary for their districts or States? Mr. President, 20 or 25 years ago, I can tell my colleagues, an earmark was an unusual event. It was an unusual occurrence. But the evil grew and grew and grew. Like any other evil, it grew and grew and grew, so that now we are presented with legislation such as this, with 9,000 of them. And I can guarantee you that none of my colleagues fully read this bill or the statement of managers. Now, some people say: Well, it is not very much. It is not very much. Well, our estimates are that it is about $8 billion. Now, $8 billion to the average citizen is a fairly good sum of money. Another egregious pattern of behavior which has crept into this is that there are policy changes that are put in, again fundamental changes in policy written in, which, of course, the Senate does not then have an opportunity to debate. One example is to do away with the voucher system in the Washington, DC, school system. Another one has been noted this morning in the Washington Post, called ``Truck Stop.'' When we signed a free-trade agreement with Mexico--I believe it was 14 years ago--part of the deal was that Mexican trucks, provided they met all the safety standards and all the requirements, would be able to come into the United States, with reciprocal access to each other's markets. Thanks to the influence of the unions and others, there is an amendment in this bill that basically kills that. Now, you can take either side of that issue. Maybe there are a lot of Americans saying-- even though these Mexican trucks are inspected, even though they meet the safety standards, even though we promised in the North American Free Trade Agreement that they would have access to our markets--maybe we shouldn't do that. But should we be doing it in an appropriations bill, in a bill this thick, in a statement of managers this thick? Should we be making policy changes in here? By the way, I will talk a little more about this later on, but the Mexican Government is in an existential threat with the drug cartels in Mexico. Phoenix, AZ, has now become the kidnapping capital of America. There is violence on the south side of our border which is spilling over onto our side of the border. The President of Mexico, President Calderon, has staked everything on taking on the drug cartels, and the corruption he is fighting is at the highest levels of Government. So what have we done in this appropriations bill? We have just sent a signal to the Mexicans that we are not going to keep our agreements with them. We are not going to stand by our solemn pledges to them. And, by the way, we are going to do it in an obscure provision in one of these either 1,122 pages or 1,844 pages. So I hope the American people and our colleagues understand what it is that is so badly broken here. They say: How in the world do we--when unemployment today is at 8.1 percent and people can't afford their health insurance premiums, are losing their jobs, are being moved out of their homes--afford $951,000 for Sustainable Las Vegas; how do we afford $819,000 for catfish genetics research in Alabama? You will note that there are always locations associated with these earmarks. I had a discussion with a Member of Congress about one of the provisions having to do with tattoo removal--tattoo removal--because it helps when combating gangs. Maybe tattoo removal needs to be funded, but, of course, this earmark was directed to a specific geographic part of the country. So while the American people are suffering under the worst recession since the Great Depression, we here in Congress not only are doing business as usual, we are wasting taxpayer money at an incredible rate, and these 9,000 earmark projects are part of that. By the way, there are also 13 projects in this bill, which total approximately $9 million, that were the result of the efforts of an outfit called PMA. PMA is a lobbying group, the head of which was a former staff member in the U.S. Congress, and PMA has been raided and shut down by the FBI. They are under active investigation for corruption, and they were ``listed'' as those responsible for these 13 projects. We can't even take those out. We can't even take those out. It is really remarkable. On Thursday, the media reported that in discussions with Majority Leader Reid, Speaker Pelosi took the position that if a single amendment to this omnibus bill was made by the Senate, she would refuse to resubmit the bill as amended to the House but would, instead, put the rest of the Federal Government under a continuing resolution for the remainder of the year. I think we should be on a continuing resolution as we have been and examine each one of these appropriations bills individually, debate them, and decide what various appropriations should be and how they should be funded and what the priorities are. By the way, we also have proved that we can pass another continuing resolution because we just did. The insistence that not a single change could be made or it would shut down the Government and jeopardize even the most essential Government services was high drama at its best, used to sway Members to oppose even the most commonsense proposals, such as insisting contracting be fair and subject to open competition and restricting funding that was achieved through a lobbyist organization. By the way, it is my understanding that last year this same organization, PMA, which has shut its doors, was raided by the FBI. The home of the head of it was raided by the FBI, and last year they got $300 million worth of earmarks in an appropriations bill. What I am saying is, this system has become a corrupt practice. That is why we have former Members of Congress now residing in Federal prison. That is why we have continuing indictments of people who were involved in the Abramoff scandal, which all had to do with obtaining these earmarks in appropriations bills which were not authorized and nobody knew anything about. We even had a situation last year where a couple of items were put into an appropriations bill after the President signed it--after the President signed the bill. They were inserted. Investigation of that is still going on. It seems to be the Speaker's position that the Senate should have no voice in a $410 billion appropriations bill that funds every agency in the Federal Government other than Defense, Homeland Security, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. I have been deeply disappointed by many things this new Congress and this new administration have begun. After all the campaign promises of changing the culture of Washington, bringing hope for a new era, bridging differences between people, parties, and ideology, what we have actually seen and what has been delivered to the American people is far different: first, in the $1.2 trillion stimulus bill and now in this massive $410 billion appropriations bill, which would, in a normal year, be the largest appropriations bill the Congress would pass. There has been no serious effort at bipartisanship. There is no serious effort to hear opposing views, to have an honest debate, to balance carefully the policy implications of our actions. We should engage in serious debate and vote on amendments without the false threat of a shutdown of the Federal Government or an out-of-the-hand rejection of all amendments. The President has said, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget has said, this bill is last year's business. This bill is to fund the functions of Government this year--not last year, this year. To say somehow that this is ``last year's business'' because we are voting on funding for the operations of Government for this year is disingenuous at best. I have talked to Members on both sides. I have talked to people who said: Yes, we need to do something about this earmarking, and we would like to sit down and do something about it. We would like to reduce it. That is like saying you would like to reduce any other evil. You want to eliminate it. There is a simple way, I say to my friends who say they are unhappy with the way this explosion of earmarking and porkbarrel spending is taking place. There is one simple solution: Authorize it. Send it through the authorizing committees. Then, if I have a problem with the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, WY, for which I am going to spend $190,000 of our taxpayers' dollars, then fine. I may not like it, but at least we will have gone through a process of scrutiny, of proposal, of authorization, and the Buffalo Bill Historical Center would be in competition with other proposals for other historical centers throughout the country if they are needed. Maybe we need to improve blueberry production and efficiency in Georgia. It is $209,000 to improve blueberry production and efficiency--in Georgia. Maybe not in Maine, maybe not other places where blueberries are grown, but in Georgia. We want to spend $400,000 for copper wire theft prevention efforts. I would like to prevent copper wire theft as well, but maybe it should happen across the country. And I am sure the Alaska PTA needs $238,000, but so do PTAs all over this country. Why should we earmark $238,000 for the Alaska PTA? The list goes on and on. As some of my colleagues may know, I have begun to twitter. We have been tweeting for the last week with ``Top Ten Earmarks,'' every day. We could go on for days and days. I would like to mention some of them. We began last Friday. No. 10 was $1.7 million for a honeybee factory in Weslaco County, TX; $300,000 for the Montana World Trade Center; $870,000 for wolf breeding facilities in North Carolina and Washington; No. 7 was $332,000 for the design and construction of a school sidewalk in Franklin, TX; No. 6 is $1 million for Mormon cricket control in Utah; No. 5 was $650,000 for . . . management in North Carolina and Mississippi; No. 4, $2.1 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York; No. 3 was $6.6 million for termite research in New Orleans; No. 2 was $2 million for the promotion of astronomy in Hawaii; and No. 1, on our first day, was $1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa. Yesterday, the Chicago Tribune had an editorial entitled ``Whoa.'' It goes on to say: The Obama administration and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate are blowing the lid off of spending restraint. But they're finally meeting some resistance within their own party. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), in an essay published Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal, ripped a spending bill passed by the House last week as ``a sprawling $410 billion compilation of nine spending measures that lacks the slightest hint of austerity from the federal government or the recipients of its largesse.'' He said he will vote against it, and he urged President Barack Obama to veto it if it passes the Senate. We second that motion. Politico.com reported Tuesday that 15 senators--14 Democrats and one independent--met behind closed doors this week to share concerns over the cost and reach of Obama's proposed $3.55 trillion budget for 2010. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Obama team are pushing a gaudy expansion of deficit spending. A $787 billion ``stimulus'' package. A $410 billion spending bill. A $3.55 trillion budget. Their reasoning: we need to do this in response to the economic crisis. But it's sure sounding like business as usual in Washington. When in doubt, spend. When not in doubt . . . spend. The $410 billion bill hikes discretionary spending by 8 percent and includes at least 8,570 earmarks worth $7.7 billion. ``Such increases might be appropriate for a nation flush with cash or unconcerned with fiscal prudence, but America is neither,'' wrote Bayh. ``Families and businesses are tightening their belts to make ends meet--and Washington should too.'' The Obama folks have tried to dismiss this huge spending bill as a little cleanup work. ``Last year's business,'' said Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Last year's business? No, this is the nation's business right now. We're going to borrow this money right now and carry the debt for decades. The administration says Obama will sign this bill. Hopefully, enough Democrats like Evan Bayh will join Republicans in the Senate to put the brakes on this. Let everyone catch their breath and rethink this spending spree. Right now, Democratic leaders look like they're getting dizzy from all the dollars they think they have to throw around. What we should be doing is not passing this legislation now. Go back to the drawing board. Go through the appropriations bills and authorize them as necessary and figure out how much we need to spend rather than have a bill that is like this and like this, which nobody has read. Also, if the Congress goes ahead and passes this bill, then the President should veto it. The President should abide by the commitment he made in the campaign, the debate in Oxford, MS. The President of the United States, then-candidate Senator Obama, stated it clearly. He said: I will go line by line through these bills, and I will veto the ones and scrub the ones that are not necessary. The President, then-Senator Obama, made a commitment to the American people. He can keep that commitment by vetoing this pork-laden bill. The list goes on and on of these projects. I mentioned the 13 projects of PMA. I want to return to something that is very disturbing, and that is the provision concerning free trade with Mexico. I would again like to quote from the Washington Post editorial today that says ``Truck Stop,'' entitled ``Congress Flashes a Yellow Light on Free Trade With Mexico.'' President Obama seems to have resolved, for now, an incipient dispute with Canada over ``Buy American'' rules in the stimulus package. The law would have hurt Canadian steel exports to the United States, but, at the White House's insistence, Congress appended language that blunted the worst protectionist consequences. Now, however, Congress has turned on Mexico, the United States' other partner in the North American Free Trade Agreement. A $410 billion omnibus spending bill contains a provision that would pretty much kill any chance that long-haul freight trucks from Mexico could operate in the United States, as had been promised under NAFTA. Economically, giving U.S. and Mexican trucks reciprocal access to each other's markets makes a lot of sense. Currently, Mexican rigs can drive in only a small zone on the U.S. side of the border, where they must offload their goods onto U.S. trucks. The process wastes time, money and fuel, harming the U.S. environment and raising the cost of Mexican goods to U.S. consumers. Yet access for Mexican trucks has been bitterly resisted by U.S. interests, most notably the Teamsters union--which claims that poorly regulated trucks from south of the border would be a menace on U.S. highways. In an effort to disprove that, the Bush administration promoted a pilot project under which Mexican trucks, screened by U.S. personnel, could operate freely within the United States. The Mexican trucks compiled a safety record comparable to that of American rigs. Mexican participation was limited, however, because of the political uncertainty. And safety was always a smokescreen for the Teamsters' real concern--economic turf--anyway. Now the Democratic majority on the Hill has slipped into the omnibus bill a provision killing the program. The provision seems certain to survive, given that the president supported such a measure when he was a senator; his transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, backed it as a member of the House. When the U.S. economy needs all the help it can get, this legislation perpetuates inefficiency and invites Mexican retaliation against U.S. exports. To a world looking for signs that Democratic rule in Washington would not mean revived protectionism, this can only be a disappointment. So you not only have these earmarks that are in the thousands, you not only have companies that are under FBI raids and shut down by the Government, adding porkbarrel projects, but you also have policy provisions in the bill which can damage relations with a country we need good relations with, given the fact that the drugs we are creating a demand for flow through their country. As I mentioned earlier, the Mexican Government, under the courageous leadership of President Calderon, is in an existential struggling with the drug cartels. He needs to win. He needs to win for a variety of reasons, including the direct effect the flow of drugs from Colombia and other places, through Mexico into the United States, has and the damage it does to our young people and others who are using drugs. This amendment, as I stated, simply says that all these provisions, which are in 1,884 pages, some thousands of earmarks that are in the ``statement of managers,'' not be prohibited from being spent because they are not included in the bill here. It is a pretty straightforward amendment. I hope my colleagues will approve it. Finally, I would like to say again, if the President of the United States wants to fulfill his promise to the people of this country if this bill is passed, he will veto the bill and he will send it back and tell us to clean it up. These are tough times in America. These are tough times. We cannot afford to do business as usual in the Senate and the House of Representatives. It is time the President led, veto this bill, if we pass it, and let's get down to the business of saving the taxpayers' dollars, rather than the profligate spending spree we have been on for so long which has mortgaged our children's futures and has committed generational theft. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

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