John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I return to the floor to talk about this bill before us which includes 9,000 earmarks and a 1,844-page statement of managers that accompanies this 1,122 page bill. When the Congress establishes its funding priorities, it should do so decisively without cause for subjective interpretation or reference to material outside the bill passed by Congress and signed by the President. These funding priorities should have the binding force of law, subject only to the President's veto power. Yet here we are with a statement of managers that totals 1,844 pages, including 775 pages identifying over 9,000 Members' earmark requests that are expected to be funded, although most of them are not contained in the bill text. Because they are conveniently not listed in the bill text, Members who question the merits of specific earmarks are unable to offer an amendment to specifically strike them. They are wasteful. They should not be funded. I ask unanimous consent that the list be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, examples of earmarks on this list include $870,000 for wolf-breeding facilities in North Carolina and Washington--not anyplace else but North Carolina and Washington State; $1,427,250 for genetic improvements of switchgrass; $100,000 for the central Nebraska World Trade Center; $819,000 for catfish genetics research in Alabama; $250,000 to enhance research on ice seal populations; $47,500 to remodel and expand a playground in Ottawa, IL; $285,000 for the Discovery Center of Idaho in Boise; $632,000 for the Hungry Horse Project; $380,000 for a recreation and fairground area in Alaska; $190,000 to build a living science museum in New Orleans, LA; $7,100,000 for the conservation and recovery of endangered Hawaiian sea turtle populations; $900,000 for fish management; $381,000 for jazz at Lincoln Center, New York; $238,000 for the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra for curriculum development; $95,000 for Hawaii Public Radio; $143,000 for the Dayton Society of Natural History in Dayton, OH; $193,000 for the Guam Public Library; $143,000 for the Historic Jazz Foundation in Kansas City, MO; and $950,000 for a convention center in Myrtle Beach, SC. The list goes on and on. The fact is, this has been stated by members of the administration, including, incredibly, the President's Budget Director as ``last year's business.'' This is this year's business. This is funding that will be provided this year. This is 1,122 pages of a bill accompanied by 1,844 pages of porkbarrel earmark projects. It is not last year's business; it is this year's business. If it is last year's business, then if it is passed by the Senate and the House, send it down to Crawford, TX, and have it signed by last year's President. It won't be. It will be signed by this year's President, when it should be vetoed by this year's President. I wish to remind my colleagues, again, that over the course of the last campaign I talked about earmarks. I have been fighting against them for years, and I was severely critical of Republicans who were in charge and frittered away our responsibilities as fiscal conservatives and paid a very heavy price for it. The then candidate and now President of the United States also stated repeatedly his opposition to earmarks, and he had stopped asking for earmarks, even though his first 2 years he had many millions of dollars in earmarks. The President should veto this bill and send it back to Congress and tell them to clean it up. Last week, President Obama commented on the fiscal 2010 budget blueprint after the Democratic-controlled Congress passed a $1.2 trillion stimulus bill. He said he had inherited a $1 trillion budget deficit from the prior administration. Again, I say, the Republican Party lost its way in recent years because we gave in to higher Government spending and porkbarrel spending and it bred corruption. We have former Members of Congress residing in Federal prison. As a result, the Republican Party paid a price for it at the polls. That said, I think we have to be honest about the bill that is before us. It is a massive bill, here for our consideration because the House Democratic leadership--specifically, the Speaker and House Appropriations Committee chairman--made a calculated decision last year. They were faced with a threat from President Bush to veto each of these combined appropriations bills that exceeded his budget request. As a result, they decided to put the Federal Government under a continuing resolution and wait for the outcome of the election in hopes that a new administration would be more willing to go along with the pork-laden projects that have been inserted into every aspect of this swollen, wasteful, egregious example of out-of-control spending. Their wish came true. Elections have consequences and this bill is one of them. As I said earlier, a mere 6 months ago, Candidate Obama vowed he would not support earmarking business as usual when he said during the debate in Oxford, MS: ``We need earmark reform and when I am President, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.'' Let's start going line by line on this 1,122 pages. Let's start going line by line with this 1,844 pages. It is loaded with billions of dollars of unnecessary and wasteful spending. Sadly, based on recent comments by some of his top advisers, including the Chief of Staff and the Director of OMB, it doesn't sound as if he is willing to put his veto pen to use to back up his vow. The majority party has presented us and the new President with an outrageous example of a massive spending bill of more than $410 billion that, I repeat, includes over 9,000 wasteful earmarks. This bill is one of the first examples, among what will be many, of whether this Congress and this new President are serious about fiscal responsibility. I am not encouraged by this bill, to say the least. If we can't reform earmarking, the best thing to do is to provide the President with a line-item veto authority. Yesterday, Senator Feingold and I, along with Congressman Paul Ryan, introduced legislation to grant the President specific authority to rescind or cancel congressional earmarks, including earmark spending, tax breaks, and tariff benefits. Granting the President the authority to propose rescissions which then must be approved by the Congress could go a long way toward restoring credibility to a system ravaged by congressional waste and special interest pork. Yesterday, there were comments made by some of the leaders of Congress who basically said that if the President tries to eliminate wasteful and porkbarrel spending, that they can't do it. We hear the majority leader of the Senate who said: Since we have been a country we have had the obligation as a Congress to direct spending . . . Defending a new spending bill that is bursting with congressional earmarks. We cannot let spending be done by a bunch of nameless, faceless bureaucrats buried in this town someplace. I am asking that we authorize these programs the way this Congress did business for many, many, many, many years--many years. We authorized programs. Then we appropriated. That is why we have the authorization committees we have today. Unfortunately, bills such as this completely bypass the authorizing committees and are put in quite often without any consideration, without any authorization, and are directly related to the influence of the Member of Congress. Somebody pays for all this. Somebody pays for all of it, and it is our kids and our grandkids. That is what is going on. The President of the United States should veto it. I agree with the Senator from Indiana, Evan Bayh, who had an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal saying: The Senate should reject this bill. If we do not, President Obama should veto it. I understand that Senator Evan Bayh's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal of March 4 was printed in the Record yesterday. So what has happened here? What has happened here, as I have watched over the years, is the system got more and more out of control. Yes, we have made a little progress. Now it is easier to identify who put the earmark in and who the lobbying group was, but if there is any testimonial to the fact that we have made no progress in the effort to reform, it was the vote yesterday on an amendment offered by Senator Tom Coburn that said we would eliminate 13 earmarks, worth about $9 million, which were put in by a lobbying organization that is now shut down and under FBI investigation. Remarkable. Remarkable. We couldn't even take out porkbarrel projects that were inserted through the influence of a lobbying organization that has been raided and shut down by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Remarkable. Remarkable. So it is a fight worth having, my friends. I would imagine the Senate will vote and probably this legislation will pass, but it is a very bad signal to send to the American people, and it is a very bad precedent for this administration to begin its first 100 days with the President of the United States signing a bill that has 1,844 pages of pork on the one hand and 1,122 pages of pork on the other. One of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle came to the floor yesterday and said Republicans were guilty as well as Democrats. I agree. I agree. I have always said there are three kinds of Members of Congress: The Democratic members, Republican members, and appropriators. A number of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have voted consistently against eliminating these porkbarrel earmarks. So my prediction is, the American people will not stand for this much longer. The American people are beginning to figure out we are mortgaging their children's and their grandchildren's future. The American people are fed up with this kind of a system that breeds corruption. The American people, I don't think, will stand for it, and I think sooner rather than later, you are going to see a rejection of this kind of practice, which does such damage to our credibility, to our ability to serve, and the ability of us to take care of future generations of Americans, as well as this one. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to briefly discuss the amendment that has been proposed by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, to prohibit funding for PMA-related earmarks. A lot of Americans don't know who PMA is, Mr. President. In fact, I didn't until recently, but it is very interesting. The Coburn amendment, by the way, would strike 13 projects where funding is directed to clients of the PMA Group, a lobbying firm currently under Federal investigation for corruption. Today, we have before us a massive omnibus spending bill totaling nearly $410 billion that contains over 9,000 earmarks. Perhaps even more troubling than the number of earmarks is to whom and how some of this funding is being directed. Contained within this legislation are 13 earmarks totaling over $10 million directed to clients of the PMA Group. Mr. President, the PMA Group is a lobbying firm that was recently forced to close its doors after the home of its owner and offices were raided last November by the FBI for suspicious campaign donation practices. That investigation continues to this day. Well known for its deep ties to Capitol Hill, the PMA Group has a long and lucrative history for securing earmarks for its clients, including approximately $300 million in the fiscal year 2008 Defense appropriations bills--none of them authorized, by the way--$300 million. There have been many accusations against the PMA Group, including using straw donors to further spread their wealth to curry favor with influential Members of Congress. A February 14, 2009, Washington Post article examined campaign contributions reportedly given by members of the PMA Group and found ``several people who were not registered lobbyists and did not work for the lobbying firm,'' including a 75-year-old California man who, despite being listed in financial disclosure documentation as a donor and PMA employee, had never even heard of the firm. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record that complete article.

Mr. McCAIN. An article from the Congressional Quarterly on February 19 noted another curious statistic from the PMA Group's financial disclosure forms. Somehow during the course of the last four election cycles, PMA's political action committee reported expenses of $18. Now, I have heard of businesses trying to cut overhead costs, but spending $18 over 8 years doesn't pass the smell test. I don't use the word ``corruption'' lightly, Mr. President. I don't. But we have seen the abuses of the appropriations process before, and we obviously haven't learned. Whether it was Jack Abramoff bilking millions of dollars from numerous Indian tribes or Duke Cunningham steering high-value defense contracts to firms that curried his favor through bribes and extravagant trips around the world, we have a broken system that breeds this sort of behavior. Let me remind you there are former Members of Congress and staff members who now reside in Federal prison. The allegations against the PMA Group are serious and troubling, and we in Congress should treat them as such. How in the world do we approve 13 earmarks that were obtained by a group that has been raided and shut down by the FBI? How do we tell the American people we did such a thing--$10 million and over $300 million in last year's Defense appropriations bill? Mr. President, the American people, sooner or later, are going to hold us accountable. Why should we approve earmarks from an organization that is clearly in violation of numerous laws, including having the FBI raid them and shut them down? They have all said they are no longer in business anymore, and clearly there are people listed in campaign finance reports--and I will quote again from the Washington Post article: . . . giving $30,000 to lawmakers and being part of the PMA Group team are not Washington lobbyists at all. They live and work in the Florida resort community of Amelia Island, where PMA founder Magliocchetti has a beachfront condominium. Both are listed as directors of PMA. And the article goes on and on, Mr. President. "John Pugliese had been a sommelier at the posh Ritz- Carlton Hotel on the island,'' his family said. John C. Walker is in charge of golf marketing at the neighboring Amelia Island Golf Club, according to club personnel and its Web site. They each donated identical amounts to the same lawmakers, in 12 installments each, almost always on the same date. I will talk some more about this before this is over because the American people are beginning to figure it out. The American people are rising up in strenuous objection to this kind of process, with 9,000 porkbarrel earmark projects on them. Some of them are of value. Some are not. We do not know because it did not go through the authorization process these projects need to go through to be properly vetted and authorized by the authorizing committees. We are not through with this bill, I am happy to say. I will be talking a lot more about it, and the American people are talking a lot more about it. There have been some statements made that I am angry. I am angry, but I am not nearly as angry as the taxpayers are. I am not nearly as angry as the people who see that we are going to give $10 million in earmarks that were obtained by a company, a lobbying outfit, that has been raided and shut down by the FBI. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Coburn amendment to remove at least the $10 million from this porkbarrel bill that was obtained through an organization of questionable credentials, questionable donors, and certainly--according to the FBI, having shut them down--being people who do not deserve to be able to have $10 million of the taxpayers' dollars. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Coburn amendment concerning the removal of line item appropriations from the bill that were sponsored by a group called PMA is pending before the Senate. I think it would be of interest to my colleagues to have some additional information about this organization. I have mentioned before this organization's offices were raided in November in connection with an FBI investigation into its campaign contribution practices. According to multiple news accounts, the Associated Press reported Tuesday that the home of the founder of the PMA group, former House appropriations aide Paul Magliochetti, was also raided. Also, by doing some cursory research, we became aware that CQ reported last week that 104 Members of the House sponsored or cosponsored earmarks for clients of the PMA group in a single bill--the fiscal 2008 Defense appropriations bill. That set of lawmakers got $1.8 million in campaign contributions from the PMA group and its employees between 2001 and 2008. I also pointed out earlier today there was a Washington Post story as well as others reporting that there are campaign contributors who are listed as being contributors who have no knowledge, nor have ever been involved, in making campaign contributions. I also noted that the payment for inserting the 14 appropriations-- the 14 projects--in this bill to PMA Group comes to a total of $2.185 million. That is not a bad business for 1 year, to get paid $2.185, nearly $2.2 million of the taxpayers money--for getting porkbarrel projects inserted in appropriations bills. It is another reason why we should take these projects out. Many of these projects have been going on for some time and have been receiving very large amounts of Federal dollars for a long period of time. Most of them are doing the business that could be done by the National Science Foundation or done by the Department of Defense in competitive bidding, and many other ways that funding for these various companies and projects could have been implemented. Instead, they were inserted in an appropriations bill without authorization, without hearings, and without scrutiny. It is a very large amount of money--over $10 million which is being appropriated--and I am sure the payment to that lobbying group comes out of the money they are able to secure through this process. So a cursory examination of the 14 projects identified revealed over $2 million paid to PMA as a fee for their services of a lobbying group that secured the earmarks. I think it is another reason why the Coburn amendment should be adopted. If the Coburn amendment is not adopted, then clearly, it is not only business as usual in Washington, but it indicates without a doubt that even if the FBI raids your headquarters, even if the home of the head of the lobbying group is raided by the FBI, your projects will still be inserted into appropriations bills without authorization, without scrutiny, and without competition. This is a very important vote that is coming up. It is only--when I say ``only''--$10 million, but this organization, PMA, has been able to secure hundreds of millions of dollars over the years for various entities. If we go ahead and do not remove these projects, then it is not only business as usual in Washington, it has hit a new low. I wish to thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his courage. I am aware, as he is, that it is not the most popular thing to do, to come to the floor and try to eliminate these projects and help work to reform the system that is obviously badly broken. I note the presence of the majority leader on the floor. I did note his quote today where he said that the amendment is ``a nice try, but there's no lobbying organization I know of that is earmarked.'' Well, they are identified in the bill as according to the legislation or rule we passed last year. It may be a nice try, but I want to assure the majority leader that as long as I am here, I will come to this floor and I will go to the American people and try to stop this terrible waste of their tax dollars at a time when Americans are experiencing the most difficult of times. With that, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma again for his courage and his hard work. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am honored to once again be joining my friend, colleague, and partner in reform, Senator Feingold, in introducing the Congressional Accountability and Line-Item Veto Act. Additionally, I would like to thank Republican Paul Ryan from Wisconsin for introducing this legislation in the House of Representatives. I applaud my two colleagues from Wisconsin for their leadership on this important issue. Our bill does a number of things. First, it provides the President with a constitutional line item veto authority. This legislation would ensure timely consideration of earmark rescission requests by the President, which must be submitted to Congress within 30 calendar days of signing a bill into law. It gives the House and Senate 12 legislative days to act after the President sends a rescission. It respects and preserves Congress's constitutional responsibilities, as it requires both the House and Senate to pass a rescission request before it can become law. This bill limits the number of rescission requests per bill to guard against gridlock in Congress due to multiple rescission proposals. Finally, it sunsets at the end of 2014 in order to review how the authority is working after the administration has had the opportunity to work with Congress to employ this tool to control spending and to determine if it should be renewed. Why do we need to grant the President a line-item veto authority? Currently the Senate is debating a pork-filled $410 billion, 2,967 page Omnibus appropriations bill to fund the Federal Government through the second half of the fiscal year. Not surprising, the measure is chock full of over 9,000 unnecessary and wasteful earmarks. We need serious reform and we need it now--this Omnibus appropriations bill is a perfect example of what is wrong with this system. Here are some examples of the earmarks contained in the omnibus legislation: $1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa; $2 million for the promotion of astronomy in Hawaii; $6.6 million for termite research in New Orleans; $2.1 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York; $650,000 for beaver management in North Carolina and Mississippi; $1 million for mormon cricket control in Utah; $332,000 for the design and construction of a school sidewalk in Franklin, Texas; $870,000 for a wolf breeding facilities in North Carolina and Washington, $300,000 for the Montana World Trade Center; $1.7M ``for a honey bee factory'' in Weslaco, TX; $951,500 for Sustainable Las Vegas; $143,000 for Nevada Humanities to develop and expand an online encyclopedia; $475,000 to build a parking garage in Provo City, Utah; $200,000 for a tattoo removal violence outreach program in the LA area; $238,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Honolulu, Hawaii; $100,000 for the regional robotics training center in Union, SC; $1,427,250 for genetic improvements of switchgrass; $167,000 for the Autry National Center for the American West in Los Angeles, CA; $143,000 to teach art energy; $100,000 for the Central Nebraska World Trade Center; $951,500 for the Oregon Solar Highway; $819,000 for catfish genetics research in Alabama; $190,000 for the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, WY; $209,000 to improve blueberry production and efficiency in GA; $400,000 for copper wire theft prevention efforts; $250,000 to enhance research on Ice Seal populations; $238,000 for the Alaska PTA; $150,000 for a rodeo museum in South Dakota; $47,500 to remodel and expand a playground in Ottawa, IL; $285,000 for the Discovery Center of Idaho in Boise, ID; $632,000 for the Hungry Horse Project; $380,000 for a recreation and fairground area in Kotzebue, AK; $118,750 for a building to house an aircraft display in Rantoul, IL; $380,000 to revitalize downtown Aliceville, AL; $380,000 for lighthouses in Maine; $190,000 to build a Living Science Museum in New Orleans, LA; $7,100,000 for the conservation and recovery of endangered Hawaiian sea turtle populations; $900,000 for fish management; $150,000 for lobster research; $381,000 for Jazz at Lincoln Center, New York; $1.9 million for the Pleasure Beach Water Taxi Service Project, CT; $238,000 for Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra for curriculum development; $95,000 for Hawaii Public Radio; $95,000 for the state of New Mexico to find a dental school location; $143,000 for the Dayton Society of Natural History in Dayton, OH; $190,000 for the Guam Public Library; $143,000 for the Historic Jazz Foundation in Kansas City, MO; $3,806,000 for a Sun Grant Initiative in South Dakota; $59,000 for Dismal Swamp and Dismal Swamp Canal in Virginia; and $950,000 for a Convention Center in Myrtle Beach, SC; This waste is outrageous, and the President should veto this omnibus spending bill. The process is clearly broken, and the American public deserves better. We need to curtail earmarks, not just disclose them. Again, the examples I have just mentioned are earmarks that are among the over 9,000 contained in the omnibus legislation currently being considered in the Senate--so it is clear that the lobbying and ethics reform bill that was enacted in August 2007 has done nothing to curb this process--even though it continues to be touted for its ``tough'' and ``historic'' earmark reform provisions. Perhaps even more troubling than the number of earmarks is to whom and how some of this funding is being directed. Contained within the Omnibus appropriations legislation are 14 earmarks, totaling nearly $9.7 million, directed to clients of the PMA Group, a lobbying firm recently forced to close their doors after being raided last November by the FBI for suspicious campaign donation practices. That firm remains under investigation today. I have long spoken of a broken appropriations process, vulnerable to corruption and abuse, and the allegations against the PMA Group and some Members of Congress stand as a testament to the urgent need for reform. It is wholly inappropriate for Congress to allow these provisions to move forward while their principal sponsor is under Federal investigation. Together with my colleague from Oklahoma, Dr. Coburn, we offered an amendment to strip these earmarks from the omnibus. If our amendment fails we will effectively be giving our tacit approval to the abuses we have repeatedly declared our intention to eliminate. Six months ago, in a debate in Oxford, MS, President Obama stated that ``We need earmark reform, and when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.'' I fully agree. All one needs to do is read the Omnibus appropriations bill pending before the Senate to know that we need serious, comprehensive earmark reform and we need to grant the President a constitutional line-item veto authority so that he can go line by line through these bloated, earmark filled appropriations bills and send rescission requests to Congress. Our current economic situation and our vital national security concerns require that now, more than ever, we prioritize our Federal spending. But our appropriations bills do not always put our national priorities first. The process is broken and it needs to be fixed. We have entered the second year of a recession. Record numbers of homeowners face foreclosure. The national unemployment rate stands at 7.2%--the highest in 16 years--with over 1.9 million people having lost their jobs in the last 4 months of 2008. Additionally, we learned just Friday that the GDP sank 6.2 percent in the last quarter of 2008--far worse even than what was expected--with the economy contracting by the fastest pace in a quarter century. Even when faced with these tremendous difficulties, Congress's appetite for pork seems bigger than ever. When are people going to wake up and truly grasp the seriousness of the economic situation confronting us? We cannot afford, literally, to continue to operate under the same Washington status quo. Let's consider some cold, hard facts: current national debt: $10.7 trillion; 2009 projected deficit: $1.2 trillion; total cost of the economic stimulus enacted two weeks ago: $1.124 trillion; ($789 billion plus interest; TARP I and II: $700 billion; TARP III: $250 billion-$750 billion, or more; President's Budget Request for 2010: $3.6 trillion. I was encouraged in January 2007 when the Senate passed, by a vote of 96 to 2, an ethics and lobbying reform package which contained real, meaningful earmark reforms. I thought that, at last, we would finally enact some effective reforms. Unfortunately, that victory was short lived. In August 2007, we were presented with a bill containing very watered down earmark provisions and doing far too little to rein in wasteful earmarks and porkbarrel spending. We can change that and enact reforms that will help to restore the faith and confidence of the American people in their elected representatives--and passing this bill should be the first step we take. Again, the bill we are introducing today will ensure timely congressional consideration of earmark rescission requests by the President. This will enable the President to propose the removal of wasteful earmarks from legislation that arrives on his desk for signature and send these earmarks back to Congress for expedited votes on whether or not to rescind funding; give the House and Senate 12 legislative days after the President sends a rescission request to Congress to bring a rescission bill to consideration on the floor of the full House and Senate; respect and preserve Congress's constitutional responsibilities, as it requires both the House and Senate to pass a rescission request before it can become law. If either the House or Senate votes against a rescission by a simple majority, it is not enacted; require the President to submit earmark rescission requests to Congress within 30 calendar days of signing a bill into law; limit the number of rescission requests per bill, to guard against gridlock in Congress due to multiple rescission proposals. Under this legislation, the President can propose one rescission package per ordinary bill, or two rescission packages for omnibus legislation. Each rescission package may include multiple earmarks; sunset at the end of 2014, providing a President this tool to control spending over the portions of two different Presidential terms. The sunset provision would give Congress the ability to review this legislation and decide whether to renew it. As my colleagues are well aware, for years I have been coming to the Senate floor to read list after list of the ridiculous items we have spent money on--hoping enough embarrassment might spur some change. And year after year I would offer amendment after amendment to strip porkbarrel projects from spending bills--usually only getting a handful of votes each time. Earmarks are like a cancer. Left unchecked, they have grown out of control. And just as cancer destroys tissue and vital organs, the corruption associated with the process of earmarking is destroying what is vital to our strength as a Nation, that is, the faith and trust of the American people in their elected representatives and in the institutions of their Government. We must keep in mind that even strong line-item veto authority will not solve all of our fiscal problems. We also desperately need to reform our earmarking process and our lobbying practices--and we must remember that it is ultimately Congress's responsibility to control spending. However, granting the President the authority to propose rescissions that then must be approved by the Congress would go a long way toward restoring credibility to a system ravaged by congressional waste and special interest pork. I look forward to the Senate's consideration of this legislation. It is abundantly clear that the time has come for us to eliminate the corrupt, wasteful practice of earmarking. In his final State of the Union Address, President Reagan stood for the last time before both Houses of Congress and asked for line-item veto authority for future Presidents. On that evening, the President had with him three pieces of legislation: an appropriations bill that was 1,053 pages long and weighed 14 pounds; a budget reconciliation bill that was 1,186 pages long and weighed 15 pounds; and a continuing resolution that was 1,057 pages long and weighed 14 pounds. President Reagan slammed down on the lectern the 43 pounds of paper and ink, which represented $1 trillion worth of spending. He did so to emphasize the magnitude of wasteful spending in the bills--spending that the President could not stop unless he was willing to veto each piece of legislation in its entirety. In the case of the continuing resolution, that would have meant that the Federal government would shut down. More than 20 years later we are in exactly the same situation we were in when President Reagan said to Congress, ``Let's help ensure our future of prosperity by giving the President a tool that, though I will not get to use it, is one I know future Presidents of either party must have. Give the President the same authority that 43 Governors use in their States: the right to reach into massive appropriation bills, pare away the waste, and enforce budget discipline. Let's approve the line- item veto.'' The time has come to heed Ronald Reagan's call for line-item veto authority.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on either side?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank you. It is entirely possible all the time may not be used. As I discussed at length yesterday, this amendment would provide for a long-term continuing resolution to fund the Federal Government through the end of this fiscal year at the fiscal year 2008 level; in other words, the same level as last year. Obviously, funds can be shifted around within agencies, and the allegations that somehow we cannot do business this year at the same level as last year, when American families are clearly not doing business this year as they did last year, I think are an example of being out of touch with the challenges the American people face. I think it is important for us to look at what this amendment is trying to do, which is simply maintain the same level of funding as last year, in the context of what the American people are facing today. Unemployment in the previous speaker's State is now at 10 percent, home values continue to plummet, the stock market yesterday took another serious dive, as more and more of Americans' savings, 401(k)s are dramatically reduced, with massive job layoffs, in a very serious economic situation. I want to state again, America will recover from this. It is tough. It may be long and hard. But America will recover because we are still the greatest nation in the world. But in the meantime, Americans are having to tighten their belts all across this great Nation of ours. They are having to reduce or eliminate spending they have wanted to engage in for a new car, for whatever they feel the necessities of their families are. They watch as their health insurance premiums continue to go up and that are less and less affordable for many families. What we are asking here, obviously in this very simple 1-page resolution, is that we maintain the same funding level as last year. I will tell you, there are millions of American families who would like to stay on the same funding level as last year. So instead of that, we have a statement of managers, 1,844 pages, which no Member has read. We have the bill itself, 800, 700-some pages, whatever it is. And, obviously, we have dramatic increases, an 8-percent increase in spending over last year. We have been through many of these earmarks. We have put them out. We have twittered them. And we will continue with our top ten. We have many top ten lists for this bill. It will be passed. It will be passed. Then it will be on the President's desk, and the President will have a choice as to whether to accept all of these thousands and thousands of unnecessary, wasteful earmark projects, and business as usual in Washington, or take out his veto pen. By the way, in all spirit of candor, the last President should have taken out his veto pen and vetoed these bloated, pork-barrel, project-laden bills. He should have. He did not, and he lost the confidence of the American people because we were not careful stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. So we went through a Presidential campaign, and we said we would stop business as usual here in Washington. The President stated very clearly at the debate in Oxford, MS, a mere 6 months ago: We need earmark reform. And when I am President, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely. I want to give the President of the United States a line item veto. I want him to be able to go line by line and veto each unnecessary and wasteful spending project. I will be introducing, with my friend from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, a line item veto again. But right now, this bill deserves the President's veto. By vetoing this bill, the President could send a message to America and the world that for the enormous economic difficulties every American family is facing, we will show them that we will be, for a change, careful stewards of their tax dollars. But there is no justification for, at these difficult times, $1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa, $2 million for the promotion of astronomy in Hawaii, termite research, $1.9 million for the Pleasure Beach water taxi service project in Connecticut, $95,000 for the State of New Mexico to find a dental school location, $1.7 million for a honey bee factory, $951,500 for a sustainable Las Vegas, a parking garage in Provo City, UT, tattoo removal, $167,000 for the Autry National Center for the Indian American West in Los Angeles, a rodeo museum in South Dakota. These things may be nice. They may be nice to have, a Buffalo Bill historical center in Cody, WY, but right now Americans cannot afford health insurance, they cannot keep their jobs. I am not only angry about it, my constituents are angry. And Americans are angry. It is being reflected in the polls of the lack of confidence in the future of this country because we continue business as usual here in our Nation's Capital. I know I will not be elected ``Ms. Congeniality'' again this year in the Senate. For many years I have fought to try to eliminate a great deal of this. Sometimes I have succeeded; most times I have failed. The previous chairman of the committee used to call me the sheriff. But the fact is, there is no time more important than now for us to show the American people that we are willing to tighten our belts, that we are willing to stop this practice, which, yes, has corrupted people. That is why we have former Members of Congress now residing in Federal prison, and staffers under indictment. This process is wrong. It is wrong because we do not give it the scrutiny and the examination and the authorizing it deserves before we appropriate the money. That is why Americans are angry at the way we do business and our approval ratings continue to be very low. Our approval ratings are something that is somewhat ephemeral. But this practice has grown and grown and grown over the years that I have been a Member of Congress and the Senate. It has continued to grow, and it has continued to waste the American taxpayers' dollars. So I ask Americans, along with me, to ask the President to veto this bill and have him send one back that is truly reflective of the tough times America is in today, that we cannot afford any longer this wasteful spending practice, this spending on projects that appear in the middle of the night, and sometimes, as in one of last year's appropriations bills, they were projects added after the President signed the bill into law. No one knows where it came from. What kind of a process is that? What kind of a process is it that we have legislation that is this high, that no Member has read? The whole process has to be fixed. For the President's budget director to say: This is last year's business, we want to move on, and the President's Chief of Staff, who has said: Mr. Obama was not happy with the large number of earmarks in this bill but, ``The President had kept lawmakers from adding a single earmark to the $787 billion stimulus package, and a $32.8 billion State Children's Health Insurance Program,'' I find to be a very disingenuous statement on its face. The President's pledge 6 months ago wasn't that he would claim to keep two bills earmark free and then let there be a feeding frenzy of pork barrel. His pledge was: ``We need earmark reform'' and, as President, he would do it. I read today an article in the Chicago Tribune that Mr. Emanuel is tied to as many as 16 earmarks in this legislation, totaling $8.5 million, $900,000 for Chicago's Adler Planetarium and Astronomy Museum, and the list goes on. When do we turn off the spigot? Haven't we learned anything from the calls and letters, meetings with our constituents who pour their hearts and souls out and share their fears about keeping their jobs and homes as they struggle to put food on their families' tables? Bills such as this jeopardize their future. One of my greatest fears about the President's budget is that at no point in his budget does there seem to be a balanced budget, nor is there any triggering mechanism, such as this side proposed in the stimulus bill, that once our economy recovers--and it will recover--we embark on reductions in spending. Right now we are laying a huge debt on our children and grandchildren which is not in keeping with our responsibilities. I urge colleagues to vote for this amendment. I doubt it will be passed. I hope the American people understand what is at stake. I hope all Americans will urge the President to veto the bill when it gets to his desk, send it back, save billions of their tax dollars, and come back with a bill that Americans can say is truly reflective of the challenges we face. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

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

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

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we are looking right now at a $410 billion piece of legislation approved by the House last week, largely on party lines, that we are beginning to debate today. It is 1,123 pages. It is interesting that it is accompanied by a 1,844-page statement of managers. Put them together, and we have 2,967 pages of legislation. Not surprisingly, the measure has unnecessary and wasteful earmarks. So much for the promise of change. So much for the promise of change. This may be--in all the years I have been coming to this floor to complain about the earmark, porkbarrel corruption that this system has bred, this may be probably the worst--probably the worst. I just went through a campaign where both candidates promised change in Washington; promised change from the wasteful, disgraceful, corrupting practice of earmark, porkbarrel spending. We have former Members of Congress residing in Federal prison. We have former congressional staffers under indictment and in prison. So what are we doing here? Not only is this business as usual, but this is an outrageous insult to the American people. Today we find out that the unemployment rate in the great State of California just went over 10 percent. It just went over 10 percent. So what are we going to do? We are going to spend $1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa. We are going to spend $2 million for the promotion of astronomy in Hawaii. Why do we need--I ask the Senator from Hawaii: Why do we need to spend $2 million to promote astronomy in Hawaii when unemployment is going up and the stock market is tanking? Do we really need to continue this wasteful process? This includes $6.6 million for termite research in New Orleans; $2.1 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York. You will notice there is a State or a district or a town or a location associated with all of these projects. You will notice that because that is what it is: $1.7 million for a honey bee factory in Weslaco, TX. Forgive me if I mispronounced the name of the town in Texas. So here we are. Here we are promising the American people hope and change, and what do we have? Business as usual. What does the administration say? What does the administration say? Mr. Peter Orzag-- an individual I don't know--brushed off questions during his appearance on ``This Week'' about whether the President would sign a spending bill that contains 9,000 earmarks--9,000 earmarks. Noting that during the campaign President Obama said he would work to limit earmarks and make them more transparent, his response was: This is last year's business. We want to just move on. Last year's business? The President will sign this appropriations bill into law. It is the President's business. It is the business of the President of the United States. It is the business of the President of the United States to do what he said. When we were in debate seeking the support of the American people, he stated he would work to eliminate--eliminate--earmarks. Last September, President Obama said during the debate in Oxford, MS: We need earmark reform and when I am President, I will go line-by-line to make sure we are not spending money unwisely. That is the quote of the promise the President of the United States made to the American people in a debate with me in Oxford, MS. So what is brought to the floor today? Nine thousand earmarks, billions and billions of dollars of unneeded and wasteful spending, and the President's budget person says: This is last year's business. We want to just move on. That is insulting to the American people. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel appeared on ``Face the Nation.'' According to the New York Times, Mr. Emanuel said: Mr. Obama was not happy with the large number of earmarks in this bill, but-- Mr. Emanuel said-- the President kept lawmakers from adding a single earmark to this $287 billion stimulus package and a $32.8 billion plan to the State Children's Health Insurance Program. By the way, that statement is disingenuous on its face. So I guess we are doing last year's business. Does that mean last year's President will sign this porkbarrel bill? I wish to freely acknowledge--I wish to freely acknowledge that Republicans were guilty of this as well. I have said time after time there are three kinds of Members of Congress: Republican Members, Democrat Members, and appropriators. If it sounds as if I am angry, it is because I am. The American people today want the Congress to act in a fiscally responsible manner, and they don't want us to continue this corrupting practice. My colleague from Oklahoma is here. He calls it a gateway drug--a gateway drug. I am not going to pick up this managers' package. Look at this. Look at this. Look at this. Have we had a single one of these projects authorized? Has any of them gone through the authorizing committee? Have any of these projects been examined for whether they are better or worse or more meritorious than others? No. They are in there because of the political clout and seniority of Members of Congress. That is what this is all about--political influence. Maybe one could argue when this economy was good and we were in a surplus this kind of wasteful spending could be brushed aside; that it was somehow, in the view of some, acceptable. It is not now. It is not now. There are millions of Americans out of work, unemployment is climbing, and the stock market is tanking. So what do we do in response to that, as every American family is having to tighten their belts, sitting around the kitchen table figuring out how they are either going to keep a job or get health insurance, keep their families together and stay in their homes? We are going to spend $333,000 for the design and construction of a school sidewalk in Franklin, TX. Now, maybe that Franklin, TX, school needs a sidewalk. Maybe other places need a sidewalk too. We are going to spend $951,500 for a sustainable Las Vegas. What does that mean? What does sustainable Las Vegas mean? We are going to spend $143,000 for Nevada Humanities to develop and expand an online encyclopedia. Is there no place besides Nevada that they need to expand an online encyclopedia? There hasn't been a lot of coverage on the $200,000 for a tattoo removal violence outreach program in the L.A. area. Is that program also needed in other areas? Why did we pick out L.A.? There is $238,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Honolulu, HI. We have $238,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Honolulu, HI, when people are out of a job. There is $100,000 for the regional robotics training center in Union, SC. There is $238,000 for the Alaska PTA. There is $150,000 for a rodeo museum in South Dakota. Americans are angry, Mr. President, and they are going to know a lot more about this bill before we have a final vote. They are going to know a lot more about it. Americans are going to be angry. Americans are angry now at what we have done. The approval rating of Congress is incredibly low. So we will be going through a lot of this. By the way, there is an outfit called PMA. A lot of Americans haven't heard of PMA. It is a lobbying organization. Contained within this legislation are 14 earmarks that the managers of the bill put in, and these 14 earmarks total nearly $9.7 million. Guess to whom they are directed--clients of the PMA Group. The PMA Group, for the benefit of my colleagues, is a lobbying group, a firm recently forced to close its doors after being raided by the FBI for suspicious campaign donation practices. The firm is under investigation. So what did they do? They went out and got $9.7 million worth of your taxpayer dollars, totaling $9.7 million, after being raided by the FBI for suspicious campaign donation practices. They remain under investigation. Do you think maybe we could take that out? I have long spoken about a broken appropriations process, vulnerable to corruption and abuse, and the allegations against the PMA Group and some Members of Congress stand as a testament to the urgent need for reform. How could we allow these provisions to move forward while their principal sponsor is under Federal investigation? How do we do that? Mr. President, we will be talking a lot more in the days ahead as we go through this legislation. I hope the American people will rise up and demand that what we need to do is just have a continuing resolution, continue with the spending levels that were part of the continuing resolution. If this is a ``change,'' then let's start implementing change. If there is any testament to business as usual here in the Congress of the United States, it is this bill before us. Americans all over this country hope for change. They hope the corruption, earmarking, and porkbarrel practices will stop. What are we giving them? We are giving them a slap in the face, that is what we are giving them. I know my colleague from Oklahoma is here. I will be glad to hear the explanation from my colleagues, the distinguished managers of the bill, as to why 14 earmark projects obtained by the PMA Group, which has been shut down and is under FBI investigation, why we need $1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa, and why we have 1,100 pages of the managers' statement. A managers' statement is supposed to be a description of the bill. What has happened over the years is that we have stuck in more and more provisions in the managers' statement which then, according to the agencies of Government, have the force of law. So we get tens of billions of dollars of unnecessary and wasteful earmarks. So much for the promise of change. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, this amendment is very simple and straightforward. Instead of the bloated, earmark-filled $410 billion Omnibus appropriations bill and statement of managers totalling 2,967 pages that no Member could possibly have read given the sheer volume, this amendment would provide for a long-term CR to fund the Federal Government through the end of this fiscal year. It is a one-page amendment. It approaches fiscally responsible discipline in an expeditious way which is why just 2 years ago we agreed to nearly the exact same approach when we agreed by a vote of 81 to 15, on February 14, 2007, to revise the continuing appropriations resolution 2007. I note no Member of the majority voted in opposition to that approach which, similar to the amendment I am proposing, funded nearly all the agencies of the Federal Government, except the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security which had been enacted as regular appropriations bills. The only difference today is the MILCON- VA funding was approved last year and is not part of this continuing resolution, that and the fact that the majority is in control of the House, Senate, and White House. When are we going to grasp the seriousness of the economic situation confronting us? We learned Friday that the GDP sank 6.2 percent in the last quarter of 2008, far worse than what was expected. With the economy contracting by the fastest pace in a quarter century, this needs to serve as a wakeup call. We cannot afford literally to continue under this same status quo. Let's consider some cold, hard facts. The current national debt is $10.7 trillion. The 2009 projected deficit is $1.2 trillion. The total cost of the economic stimulus enacted 2 weeks ago is $1.24 trillion. That is $789 billion plus interest. TARP I and II, $700 billion; TARP III, $250 billion to $750 billion or more; the President's budget request for 2010, $3.6 trillion. And now here we are debating a pork- filled $410 billion Omnibus appropriations bill to fund the Federal Government through the second half of the fiscal year at a funding level that is nearly 10 percent greater than spending for the last fiscal year, which, according to the ranking minority of the House Appropriations Committee, represents the largest increase in annual discretionary spending since the Carter administration. Combine the total costs of this omnibus with the Defense and Homeland Security and Military Construction bills passed last year, and spending for fiscal year 2009 will top $1 trillion. Now let's consider the impact of the funding increases in this bill, combined with the billions of dollars provided to these agencies in the stimulus. According to a document prepared by the House Appropriations Committee minority, the combined cost of the omnibus and the recently passed stimulus bill results in the following increases in this year's spending in billions of dollars: Agriculture, the percent increase over last year is 45 percent. That is $26.1 billion. Commerce, State and Justice--this is with the stimulus and the bill before us, with its 1,100 pages of managers' statement--is a 41 percent increase. Energy and water, a 151 percent increase; financial services, 43 percent; Interior, 45 percent; Labor-HHS, 91 percent; legislative branch, 12 percent; State and foreign ops, 13 percent; Transportation, 139 percent--a total of an 80-percent increase over last year's spending. We are committing generational theft because we are going to ask our kids and our grandkids to pay this bill. While I wish to say it is time to put a halt to business as usual, I find myself thinking this level of funding defies that description. It is beyond anything I have ever witnessed and is extremely alarming. That is why we should adopt this long-term continuing resolution that will effectively freeze spending to last year's level and eliminate wasting an additional $7.7 billion on more than 9,000 wasteful earmarks. Just as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, said during the February 2007 debate on a continuing resolution, it is a fiscally disciplined resolution, and so is this one. During the week, there will be many discussions on the floor about the questionable funding contained in this omnibus spending bill. It is difficult even for me to grasp the level of unnecessary spending proposed in this bill. It may be the most egregious pork-barrel spending I have witnessed in all my years here. Over the past few days, I have been listing a top 10 each day of some of the most stunning provisions. I have been twittering. Remarkably, it would take me almost 3 years to list every earmark--if I continued to list the top 10--until all the more than 9,000 were mentioned. I state this to put some perspective on the enormity of this level of earmarking. I have been through some of them before, but they make you laugh and they make you cry: $190,000 for the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, WY; $951,500 for the Oregon Solar Highway. Some of these projects may be worthwhile. They may be projects we all need. If they are, they should go through the process of authorization and appropriation. They are not. They are inserted in an appropriations bill in a fashion that no Member of this body has read this managers' statement or this bill. That is what is wrong with it. There will be arguments in favor of a certain earmark. There will be an argument for $6.6 million for termite research in New Orleans. Then why didn't it go through the proper authorizing committee and then have the funds appropriated? That is what is required by the procedures of the Senate, which have been violated more and more and more. And unfortunately, what happens when you commit any egregious breach, when you engage in activities that are unethical, they grow and they grow. And I say--and I say again--this is serious stuff. We have former Members of Congress and their staffs residing in Federal prison. The Senator from North Dakota and I spent a couple of years investigating Mr. Abramoff, and we did so under the authorizing committee of the Indian Affairs Committee--what some view as an obscure committee--and we uncovered these egregious activities of ripping off Native Americans of millions of dollars; of the incestuous relationship between staffers and Members of Congress and this process. We confined our activities to Native Americans. There was much more evidence of wrongdoing. But because we were the Indian Affairs Committee, we kept our investigation to those. I don't know how many people are now in prison, but I know recent indictments have come down. So this is not trivial stuff we are talking about. This is corruption. And when we do things such as this, then it encourages a practice. I asked earlier in my comments how in the world could we appropriate items which had been lobbied for by a group called PMA, whose offices were raided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation? How can we insert their earmarks into an appropriations bill? I don't get it. My amendment is simple. It goes back to a continuing resolution and funds the activities of the Government at last year's levels, which obviously were sufficient last year. We need to do some belt tightening, I don't think there is any doubt about that. We are asking every American family to do that today. And every American family is having to do it today as we face an unprecedented economic distress which is affecting literally every family in America. It is a great and ongoing tragedy. It seems to me that we, as a Congress, can at least not increase the spending over last year's level as Americans have lost at least half of their savings in the stock market in the last year. I hope we will approve this amendment, and I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand the Senate is in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I rise to address the President's plan to withdraw American troops from Iraq that he will announce today in Camp Lejeune, NC, as has been widely reported in the media. Yesterday afternoon, I participated in a White House briefing with other Members of Congress, during which the President and his national security team described the contours of a plan to withdraw troops from Iraq. As he described it, this plan would aim to remove the bulk of combat troops by August of 2010, approximately 19 months, leaving up to 50,000 troops in place. That is a little over a third of the present troop level in Iraq. Most combat forces would remain in place for the duration of this year, ahead of national elections likely to take place in December. National elections in December are of the utmost importance. To have security and the ability of the Iraqi people to take part in that election is a vital part of the progress Iraq will make toward freedom and democracy. The President noted that he reserves the right to revisit the timeline currently envisioned based on conditions on the ground. It is encouraging that the dramatic success of the surge strategy has enabled us to move from a discussion about whether the United States could bear the catastrophic consequences of failure in Iraq to planning the way in which to consolidate the success. Thanks to the leadership of GEN David Petraeus, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, GEN Ray Odierno, and the many brave men and women who have served under them, the failing situation in Iraq has been arrested and reversed. It is important to point out that the President's plan is not without risk. We have not yet completed the mission in Iraq, and the gains we have made there remain fragile. We will need to be cautious as we withdraw troops so as not to jeopardize these achievements and listen closely to commanders on the ground as the administration determines the pace of withdrawals. The greatest risk will be present ahead of the December elections, and conditions could worsen before or even after they take place. With these factors in mind, I believe the President's withdrawal is a reasonable one. The plan is reasonable. Given the gains in Iraq and the requirements to send additional troops to Afghanistan, together with the significant number of troops who will remain in Iraq and the President's willingness to reassess based on conditions on the ground, I am cautiously optimistic that the plan, as laid out by the President, can lead to success. The American people should be clear. The President's plan, even after the end of its withdrawal timeline is reached, will leave in place up to 50,000 U.S. troops. All will be in harm's way. Some will continue to conduct combat operations. They will play a vital role in consolidating and extending the remarkable progress our military has made since early 2007. That is why I believe the administration should aim to keep the full complement of 50,000, as briefed by Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, and not succumb to pressures, political or otherwise, to make deeper or faster cuts in our force levels. The President's plan, as briefed yesterday, is one that can keep us on the right path in Iraq. I worry, however, about statements made by a number of our colleagues indicating that, for reasons wholly apart from the requirement to secure our aims in Iraq, we should aim at a troop presence much lower than 50,000. We have spent enormous amounts of American blood and treasure in Iraq. We all know that. After all the tragic losses of life, after the hundreds of billions of dollars spent, after all the other costs our country has absorbed as a result of the conduct of the war, we are finally on a path to success. Let us have no crisis of confidence now. Instead, let us welcome home our fighting men and women, not only thanking them for serving in Iraq, not just for ending the war in Iraq but thanking them for bringing us victory in Iraq. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in consultation with the managers, the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Arizona, I make a constitutional point of order against this bill on the grounds that it violates article I, section 2, of the Constitution, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand that now the motion is debatable.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have a statement on this issue, and I look forward to debating it and a vote at the wishes of the majority and Republican leader on this constitutional point of order.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, through whose committee this legislation is proceeding. I appreciate the frustration felt by the residents of the District of Columbia at the absence of a vote in Congress. I fully understand and appreciate that. I also believe it is important that we look back at both the Constitution itself and the intention of our Founding Fathers, which was to create the District of Columbia as a base of Government. According to many experts, the District of Columbia is not a State, so therefore is not entitled to that representation. Also, one has to raise the obvious question: If the District of Columbia is entitled to a Representative in the U.S. House of Representatives, then why isn't it also entitled to two Senators? If the District of Columbia is entitled to a Member of Congress, why isn't Puerto Rico, which would probably entail 9 or 10 Members of Congress? Why are other territories of the United States not entitled to full-fledged Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and, indeed, the U.S. Senate? After great deliberation and debate, our Founding Fathers enshrined in the Constitution, 222 years ago, a unique form of government that proposes a distribution of power and checks and balances on each branch. So, too, the Founding Fathers considered and provided for a unique Federal city to serve as our Nation's seat of government. No single Member would represent the interest of the District but all Members of Congress would share responsibility for the city's well- being. I believe that when you look at distribution of tax revenues and when you look at other measurements, the District of Columbia has been well represented by all Members of Congress. The Framers specifically limited voting representation in the House of Representatives to States. Article I, section 2, of the Constitution provides unequivocally: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the People of the several States. If they had wanted the District of Columbia to have the representation, they would have designated so in the Constitution. Asked to opine on the meaning of the word ``States'' in the context of House representation, Federal courts have consistently accorded that word its plain meaning, concluding that the word ``States'' does not include territories or possessions or even the District of Columbia. Again, I express my sympathy for the residents of the District of Columbia. But to now act in direct contravention to the intent and words of our Founding Fathers, I believe, is a violation of the Constitution of the United States. And to somehow work a deal that includes the State of Utah having an additional seat in return for that is an incredible violation. I will talk more about that. First, I wish to say that it is very clear the Congress simply cannot amend the Constitution by legislation--no matter how noble the cause. Congress has once before pursued an appropriate constitutional resolution to this issue. In 1978, Congress passed a joint resolution proposing to amend the Constitution to provide for the representation for the District of Columbia in Congress. Seven years later, that resolution failed to obtain the required approval of the 38 States necessary for ratification under article V of the Constitution. There is no reason proponents of voting rights for the District can't pursue this process again. There is a process for amending the Constitution of the United States. There is no reason why those residents of the District of Columbia, and other supporters, should not pursue the legitimate process of amending the Constitution of the United States. It should not be done and, in my view, cannot be done. The courts will decide, if we don't decide here, that it is unconstitutional to do so. I welcome such a process, rather than the consideration of this bill, which is clearly unconstitutional--not only in my judgment but in the overwhelming body of legal opinion. In addition to being unconstitutional, as I said, I am concerned that this bill is more a product of politics than of principle. Look at what this legislation before us does. It doesn't simply grant the District of Columbia a voting seat in the House; it adds another congressional seat for the State of Utah. The obvious question is, Why Utah? Why not Arizona or Nevada or New Jersey? As a representative of the people of the State of Arizona, who, I believe, legitimately and continuously, as one of the fastest growing States, have been deprived of additional seats because of the way the census was conducted--and now we are going to give a seat to the State of Utah on the grounds that the census was not accurate. I don't know of any fast-growing State in America that doesn't believe we were undercounted--and legitimately--in the census. Now, as I understand it--and maybe the proponents of an additional seat for Utah can more eloquently and convincingly describe it than I can--they are saying it is because they came closest in the census to being eligible for another seat in the Congress. The State of Nevada is the fastest growing State in America. Arizona has been among those that are fast growing. But why Utah? What in the world does an additional seat for Utah have to do with representation for the District of Columbia? It can only be interpreted in one way, and that is an attempt to buy votes. We are talking about the Constitution of the United States here, about representation in the Congress of the United States of America, not some political deal. I have sympathy for the State of Utah if they think they were undercounted in the census. I have sympathy for all States that were undercounted in the census. What some supporters of the bill argue is that Utah is the next State in line to receive a House seat after the last census in 2000 and reapportionment. Nevada was the fastest growing State from 1986 to 2004, until Arizona overtook Nevada as the fastest growing State in 2006, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Nevada, once again, regained this title for its high growth between 2006 and 2007. For the first time in over 25 years, Utah was listed this year as the fastest growing State, as its population climbed 2.5 percent, with Arizona being second, with a population growth of 2.3 percent. Despite this percentage growth, Texas, California, North Carolina, and Georgia added more people than Utah, Nevada, or Arizona between 2007 and 2008. Mr. President, we are getting on a slippery slope here. Do you judge it by percentage of growth, numbers of votes? It brings us back to a final question: What in the world would awarding an additional seat to another State have to do with voting rights for the District of Columbia? I have provided those statistics to illustrate there are other States that have experienced far more phenomenal growth than Utah. I love Utah. It is a wonderful State. But the wheels were greased for Utah to receive an additional seat well before it was listed as the fastest growing State this year. And if the State of Utah or any other State was undercounted, that should be taken into consideration; we should fix the census in the year 2010 and make sure any injustice is corrected. But to somehow say we are going to award a State an additional seat not in keeping with the process of how reapportionment is conducted every 10 years is remarkable and certainly unconstitutional. In 2004, lawmakers began floating an idea of a compromise bill to balance a House seat for the District of Columbia, which obviously we assume would be won by a Democrat, with a seat for a congressional district in Utah, which most assume would be won by a Republican. The May 3, 2005, editorial in the Washington Post called this a ``win-win situation.'' While this may be a win-win situation for Washington, DC, and Utah, it is hardly a win for the millions of Americans who are living in high-growth States. In fact, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service, if the District was considered to be a State during the last apportionment, North Carolina would not have gained a seat. According to a study by the Republican policy committee, if this bill is enacted and the House of Representatives is expanded to 437 seats, then New Jersey would keep a congressional seat it would otherwise lose. Again, this illustrates there are winners and losers in an apportionment, but these districts should be chosen based on concrete data from the census, not by political parties attempting to craft legislation that flies in the face of our Founding Fathers' intentions. In a February 6, 2009, editorial, the Los Angeles Times states: This is obviously partisan horse-trading. The Los Angeles Times is right. Yes, partisan horse trading happens all the time, but this time partisan horse trading would do grave violence to our Constitution. A commentator wrote in the February 13, 2009, edition of the Washington Times: . . . the enactment of blatantly unconstitutional legislation to bypass the constitutional amendment process and give the District of Columbia a seat in the House of Representatives in a crass triumph of raw political power over the rule of law. I couldn't agree more. Again, I regret I am unable to support this legislation to provide the residents of the District voting representation in the House of Representatives. However, I took a solemn oath to defend our Constitution as a U.S. Senator. In testifying before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in 2007, Professor Jonathan Turley described this horse trading as ``the most premeditated unconstitutional act by Congress in decades.'' We, as Senators, cannot avoid the constitutional issue. While the Supreme Court may be the final arbiter of constitutionality, Congress, as the first branch of Government, has an independent duty to consider the constitutionality of the bills we pass, especially where, as here, our own independent Congressional Research Service advises that ``although not beyond question, it would appear likely that the Congress does not have authority to grant voting representation in the House of Representatives to the District of Columbia'' as contemplated by this bill. We really have two aspects of this legislation. First of all, does Congress have the constitutional authority to grant voting rights or an additional seat in the House of Representatives by legislation rather than amending the Constitution of the United States? As I pointed out earlier in my statement, the fact is, it was tried in 1978 in the proper fashion and did not receive the approval of the 38 States necessary to amend the Constitution. So now we are trying to basically amend the Constitution of the United States by legislation. That is not in keeping with the authority and responsibility of the Congress of the United States of America. The second is, of course, what in the world does granting voting rights to the District of Columbia have to do with granting another seat to another State? One can only interpret that, as one of the editorials did, as political horse trading. There is no constitutional basis for granting a seat to any State in the United States of America without it being backed up, as laid out by our Founding Fathers, by the results of a census. I will agree, as I have said before, coming from a State that has been consistently undercounted in our population, the census needs to be fixed to more accurately reflect the true population of every State in America, and that has not happened with the fastest growing States. But to grant a seat to a State because they were ``fastest growing'' and maybe closest to the requirement for an additional seat turns everything on its head. What kind of a precedent would we be setting by legislation allowing a State to have another seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, with thousands of votes that would be taken? I also would like to mention, again, if the District of Columbia deserves a voting representative in the U.S. House of Representatives, doesn't the District of Columbia also deserve two U.S. Senators? How intellectually do you make the argument they deserve a vote in the other body, a coequal body--although we certainly do not recognize that very often. But the fact is, it is a coequal body. They are going to have a vote over there, but they are not going to have representation over here. Finally, I would like to point out that we have territories in which citizens of the United States reside. Those who were born in those territories, according to a U.S. Supreme Court decision, are citizens of the United States. In fact, they are even eligible to run for President of the United States if they are born in a U.S. territory. What about Puerto Rico? What about the Virgin Islands? What about the Marianas? What about other territories that are part of the United States of America and in which our citizens also reside who then vote for Representatives in the other body, but those Representatives obviously do not have voting power? I conclude by saying this is a serious issue. It is a serious issue. It has been clouded by the understandable concern that Members of Congress have for the people who reside in the District of Columbia. We see their license plates every day: ``Taxation without Representation.'' But the way to give them those voting rights is through amending the Constitution of the United States, not a legislative act that clearly is not within the constitutional authority granted by our Founding Fathers to the Congress of the United States. I look forward to a spirited debate on this issue. I think it is an important one. If this DC voting rights bill does pass and this constitutional point of order is rejected by a majority of the Senate, I have very little doubt that the courts of the United States of America will reject this proposal. Again, I appreciate and admire and respect the manager of this bill, the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, and the senior ranking member, the Senator from Maine. But I think there is a huge credibility problem when you add on a provision for adding a seat to a State for which there is not any factual or, frankly, rational argument for except that perhaps this measure will gain more support. I urge my colleagues to take a very close look at what we are doing. The most sacred obligation we have is to respect and preserve the Constitution of the United States of America in everything we do. I have very little doubt this legislation before us violates the Constitution of the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am aware that the hour has expired. I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I cannot add to the persuasive argument presented by the most respected Member of the Senate on constitutional matters and other matters. I thank Senator Byrd for his opinion. I thank him for his many years of service. I know all of us, however we vote on this issue, respect and admire his views. Thank you, sir. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, Hilda Solis has a remarkable story of self-determination as the daughter of Mexican and Nicaraguan immigrants who has been nominated by the President to serve as our nation's 25th Secretary of Labor. Congresswoman Solis was the first from her family to graduate from college and then went on to earn a master's degree in public administration from the University of Southern California. In 1992, she began her career in public service when she was elected to the California State Assembly and has represented California's 32nd District in the House of Representatives since 2000. These are very tough economic times for all Americans. Today, the Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, said that he doesn't expect our labor markets to improve until 2011. We will see the end of this recession. However, as businesses fight to get back on their feet, we need to be preparing and training workers who have lost their jobs so they can continue to succeed in our world economy. I hope that Congresswoman Solis, once confirmed, will make as a top priority the availability of adequate worker training programs for our labor force. While I know that Congresswoman Solis and I have divergent views on many of the issues she will consider as Labor Secretary, I am proud of her nomination as the first Latina to be considered for the position of Secretary of Labor. I do believe her nomination could have been considered sooner if the Congresswoman had not submitted documents to the Committee and the House of Representatives that included errors and omissions, specifically regarding her position as Treasurer of a not- for-profit lobbying firm. However, I am pleased that the nominee worked with the Committee to correct these errors and omissions and hope this spirit of cooperation continues between Congresswoman Solis and the Congress when she serves as a member of the new administration.