John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, over the last few years, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Levin and I have developed a number of initiatives that reform various aspects of the defense procurement process. Our hope is that, in the aggregate, those initiatives, including those that help control the proliferation of non-essential requirements; have the Department of Defense move towards more fixed price-type contracts while incentivizing performance; and subject major systems to a more evolutionary, knowledge-based procurement process, will have a beneficial effect on the process--as a system. I am under no delusion that a single ``silver bullet'' will remedy a fundamentally broken defense acquisition system. The Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, which I am pleased to introduce with Chairman Levin today, is an important next step in efforts to reform the system. Consensus has emerged that a key to defense acquisition programs' performing successfully is getting things right from the start--with sound systems engineering, cost-estimating, and developmental testing early in the program cycle. Doing so helps the DoD understand and mete out costly technology-and integration-risk out of programs early-- before the DoD makes important go/no-go decisions on the program that effectively out it ``on rails''. We have learned this lesson the hard way--at great cost to the taxpayer. Typically, major weapons have been procured with insufficient systems engineering knowledge about critical technologies. But, with those weapons programs having, by a certain point, acquired often overwhelming political momentum, Nunn-McCurdy, basically only a reporting requirement, has done very little to bring costs associated with those originally underappreciated risks under control. We now know that when a program is predictable, that is, when decision milestones are being met; estimated costs are actual costs; and performance to contract specifications and key performance parameters are achieved, the acquisition process can be relied on as providing the joint warfighter with optimal capability at the most reasonable cost to the taxpayer. The bill that I am introducing with Chairman Levin today appreciates that fact--by focusing on starting programs right. It does so by emphasizing systems engineering; more effective upfront planning and management of technology risk; and growing the acquisition workforce to meet program objectives. A particularly important feature of the bill includes a provision that puts Nunn-McCurdy ``on dynamite.'' That provision requires, among other things, that programs currently underway, post-Milestone B, experiencing ``critical'' cost growth either be terminated or enter the new defense acquisition system, which the DoD recently and fundamentally restructured to help it manage technology and integration risk. In so doing, Chairman Levin and I hope to transform Nunn-McCurdy from a mere reporting requirement into a tool that can help the DoD manage out-of-control cost growth. While I am pleased to be introducing this legislation with Chairman Levin, we certainly must, and will, do more. That having been said, the primary responsibility to reform the process falls on the DoD itself. No amount of legislation can substitute for a true commitment to acquisition reform within the Pentagon. I look forward to seeing the White House convey that commitment--through deeds--going forward.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, over the last few years, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Levin and I have developed a number of initiatives that reform various aspects of the defense procurement process. Our hope is that, in the aggregate, those initiatives, including those that help control the proliferation of non-essential requirements; have the Department of Defense move towards more fixed price-type contracts while incentivizing performance; and subject major systems to a more evolutionary, knowledge-based procurement process, will have a beneficial effect on the process--as a system. I am under no delusion that a single ``silver bullet'' will remedy a fundamentally broken defense acquisition system. The Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, which I am pleased to introduce with Chairman Levin today, is an important next step in efforts to reform the system. Consensus has emerged that a key to defense acquisition programs' performing successfully is getting things right from the start--with sound systems engineering, cost-estimating, and developmental testing early in the program cycle. Doing so helps the DoD understand and mete out costly technology-and integration-risk out of programs early-- before the DoD makes important go/no-go decisions on the program that effectively out it ``on rails''. We have learned this lesson the hard way--at great cost to the taxpayer. Typically, major weapons have been procured with insufficient systems engineering knowledge about critical technologies. But, with those weapons programs having, by a certain point, acquired often overwhelming political momentum, Nunn-McCurdy, basically only a reporting requirement, has done very little to bring costs associated with those originally underappreciated risks under control. We now know that when a program is predictable, that is, when decision milestones are being met; estimated costs are actual costs; and performance to contract specifications and key performance parameters are achieved, the acquisition process can be relied on as providing the joint warfighter with optimal capability at the most reasonable cost to the taxpayer. The bill that I am introducing with Chairman Levin today appreciates that fact--by focusing on starting programs right. It does so by emphasizing systems engineering; more effective upfront planning and management of technology risk; and growing the acquisition workforce to meet program objectives. A particularly important feature of the bill includes a provision that puts Nunn-McCurdy ``on dynamite.'' That provision requires, among other things, that programs currently underway, post-Milestone B, experiencing ``critical'' cost growth either be terminated or enter the new defense acquisition system, which the DoD recently and fundamentally restructured to help it manage technology and integration risk. In so doing, Chairman Levin and I hope to transform Nunn-McCurdy from a mere reporting requirement into a tool that can help the DoD manage out-of-control cost growth. While I am pleased to be introducing this legislation with Chairman Levin, we certainly must, and will, do more. That having been said, the primary responsibility to reform the process falls on the DoD itself. No amount of legislation can substitute for a true commitment to acquisition reform within the Pentagon. I look forward to seeing the White House convey that commitment--through deeds--going forward.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. How much time remains on both sides?

Mr. McCAIN. What is the disposition of the Senator from Illinois?

Mr. McCAIN. Would the Senator wish to go now or wait for me?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, we are, obviously, about to vote affirmatively on the legislation before us. I want to say that I think the debate has been good and respectful. I congratulate the Members on the other side of the aisle and the President for their success in achieving the timetable that they laid out for the passage of this legislation. I point out that the allegation that this is a bipartisan piece of legislation is simply not accurate. A total of three Republican Members in the entire Congress will be voting for this bill--only three. That is not a bipartisan approach, by any measure. I think there are some hard facts we should not ignore as we address and dispose of this issue and move on to others. I remind my colleagues that the current national debt is $10.7 trillion. The 2009 projected deficit is another $1.2 trillion. The cost of this legislation before us is $1.124 trillion; that is, $789 billion plus interest. The expected omnibus spending bill, which will be coming shortly, is roughly $400 billion. The expected supplemental request for Afghanistan and Iraq will be an additional $80 billion. We will be addressing appropriations bills for 2010 that will be over a trillion dollars. We are already spending $700 billion on TARP I and II. And estimates, according to the media, are that TARP III will be somewhere around $1.5 trillion. We are on a spending spree of unprecedented and historic proportions. We are committing what some of us have called generational theft because we are laying this debt on our children and our grandchildren. My colleagues--and the Senator from Illinois who has been here constantly and has argued his side effectively--will point out that Republicans did the same thing. I agree, and Republicans were punished in the last election for doing so. What grieves me the most about this process we have been through is that it started out with a phrase by the Speaker of the House that ``we won, we wrote the bill.'' I think I understand the lesson. That is the process that it has been through, without Republican involvement and without Republican negotiations, which I think are necessary to achieve the consensus that is necessary when we are addressing an issue of this magnitude. This has not been a bipartisan effort. The other side will emerge victorious in a few minutes, but we have to face additional challenges. I mentioned TARP III--$1.5 trillion--and the expected war supplemental request. There are all of these new challenges--not to mention national security challenges and policy challenges. I think I understand the message from the 2008 election. I think I understand it very well. That message is that the American people don't want business as usual. They do want us to sit down together. We want to be in on the takeoff, so that we can be in on the landing. We want to work together with the other side. This is not the example that I think the American people want us to exercise as we address the enormous challenges. We need a stimulus package, we need to address the war in Afghanistan, and we need to provide for the much-needed services to Americans as revenues decline with a bad economy. I end my remarks and yield back the balance of my time by saying again: Congratulations to those who will succeed in passing this legislation. The next time--and it will be soon, because I understand there will be an omnibus appropriations bill, TARP III and others--let us sit down and negotiate and work together. When we come out with a solution and legislation, we can tell the American people that we learned the lesson but, most importantly, we will reflect their wishes that we have worked together to address some of the most difficult challenges of anyone's lifetime. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, in keeping with the previous unanimous consent agreement, I believe this point of order and final passage are both combined in one vote.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, pursuant to section 294(a) of the 2008 budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 21, of the 110th Congress, I raise a point of order against the emergency designation in section 5(a) of the conference report.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, while the leaders are on the floor, I would like to mention, I hope we will continue to observe the one side speaking and then the other side that we have been going through in the last few days. I think a lot of people have been able to voice their views on this very important issue before the Senate. I reiterate, if my colleagues who would like to speak on this issue would call the cloakroom and also indicate how long they plan to speak, it would help us arrive at a time for a vote today.

Mr. McCAIN. Certainly.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I object to the 10-minute time restraint. This is a very difficult issue. We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars of stimulus. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would understand that more than 10 minutes may be required for some statements.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend. I ask we keep track of the timing on both sides as both sides talk so we can try to make sure there is parity on timing throughout the day. Obviously, it will be dictated by the number of speakers who want to speak on either side, but we should try to preserve parity throughout the day. I thank the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. McCAIN. I would agree with the Senator from Illinois, but I think it is pretty clear there are going to be more speakers on this side than that side. I would like to have our leader, the Republican leader, agree to that before I could.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Illinois. Mr. President, today the Senate will pass a $789 billion bill, $1.1 trillion with interest added in--and we do, when we calculate the costs of these appropriations bills, count in the interest. It is the so- called stimulus bill, and it is under the guise of a bipartisan compromise. Let me reiterate what I have so often stated during the past 2 weeks: The Nation needs a stimulus bill. The Nation expects the Congress and the President to act in a truly bipartisan manner to address this crisis. But, unfortunately, this measure is not bipartisan. It contains much that is not stimulative and is nothing short--nothing short--of generational theft. At times of great challenge, history tells us our Nation will work collectively to remedy the problems we face. Working on this measure together was that opportunity. Republicans offered a good-faith alternative to the measure that is before us. Our alternative provided the American taxpayers with a stimulus bill devoid of porkbarrel projects and excessive spending programs that fail to create jobs. Our bill was not simply to advocate policies we could not otherwise pass; our bill, in fact, was a real stimulus proposal. Instead, partisan legislation was pushed through. Sadly, when we could be uniting to assist hurting Americans, we have exacerbated our differences and burdened our children and grandchildren with a debt the proportions of which have never been seen before. Mr. President, before I go too much further, the bill is 1,071 pages. We got it last night, I believe, at 10:20 p.m. That was the first moment a copy was made available. It was not numbered correctly. At 11 p.m. we received notification it had just become available on the House Web site. Compare the process that we have been through with the Web site that is from the Obama campaign. The Web site of the Obama campaign stated, and I will quote in a second--this is a quote from the Obama Web site: End the practice of writing legislation behind closed doors. As President, Barack Obama will restore the American people's trust in their Government by making Government more open and transparent. Obama will work to reform congressional rules to require all legislative sessions, including committee markups and conference committees, to be conducted in public. What happened in the last few days--law and sausages--it is certainly a long way from the Obama Web site that said: Reform congressional rules to require all legislative sessions, including committee markups and conference committees, to be conducted in public. All day yesterday the media made different reports about the process that was going on, in which, by the way, there was no Republican leadership anywhere in the vicinity. I recognize this will be greeted as a victory for the administration and the Democrats today. I recognize that, and it is a victory. But I am not sure it is the right kind of victory. I think words which will haunt us for a long period of time were uttered by the Speaker of the House: ``We won, we write the bill.'' ``We won, we write the bill.'' I think on both sides of the last campaign there was a commitment not to use those words: ``We won, we write the bill.'' That commitment was to sit town together in a bipartisan fashion and work together to come up with solutions to the enormous domestic and foreign policy and national security challenges we face. I understand who won. I think I understand it about as well as anybody in this body. I have often said elections have consequences. This is one of the consequences of my side of the aisle losing. But it was not the promise that was made to the American people. I understand the other side of the aisle--and many in the media--will say: Well, Republicans are recalcitrant. Republicans are trying to block it. Republicans don't want anything. We had a provision, we had a proposal of over $420 billion. We had a proposal that got 44 votes for a trigger that, once our economy begins to recover and is in recovery, the spending stops. One thing that Milton Friedman said, among many others I have always appreciated, was: Nothing is so permanent as a temporary Government program. There is nothing more permanent than a temporary Government spending program. So I think we had an opportunity and, hopefully, there will be opportunities in the future, to sit down, Republican and Democrat together--and at the beginning, not the end. If you are not in on the takeoff, then you are certainly not going to be in on the landing. This bill took off with the Speaker of the House saying: We won, we write the bill. That was repeated on several occasions by the President of the United States. Now, I want to say again, my side of the aisle, for 8 years, did not include the other side of the aisle. We were guilty. We were guilty of not observing the rights and privileges of the minority party. I do not excuse it, nor do I rationalize it. But I do believe that some Members did work in a bipartisan fashion and that times are different. The times are different. The American people spoke. So yesterday, not the Republican leadership, not the majority of my colleagues sat by while the bill was finally written, and that is why the final legislation here will have three Republican votes, probably, out of all of the Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Senate. It may pick up a couple in the House. But to call this bipartisan is clearly an inaccurate and false description of the legislation that will pass sometime this evening. So we passed up an opportunity. I hope we will, in the future, since there will be TARP III somewhere--some estimates, $500 billion; some estimates, $1 trillion; no one knows. The Secretary of the Treasury testified the day before yesterday before the Senate. He had no idea. He could give us no clue as to how much the next TARP was going to be. But I hope that will then present us with another opportunity to work together from the beginning, not at the end. Again, this side of the aisle is not blameless on partisanship. But this was an opportunity for all of us to join together. USA Today stated in an editorial: Republican opposition seems more like partisan positioning than a sincere effort to reach compromise with the White House at a time of severe economic distress. I cannot speak for all of my colleagues, but I can, I know, speak for the majority of them. That is a false statement. That is a false statement. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every Senator here wants a reasonable, workable stimulus bill that will help turn our economy around and put people to work. That is why 40 Republican Senators voted for an alternative that sought to fix our housing crisis--remember, it was housing first, and it is housing that is going to restore our economy. The stimulus package has not a lot of it to start with and comes out of the ``conference'' with less-- invest in our Nation's infrastructure through effective and restrained spending; put money immediately back in the hands of all Americans through a payroll tax holiday; allow businesses to keep more of their profits to hire new employees, invest in capital, or expand their businesses; finally begin to focus our attention on entitlement reforms; and then, most importantly, put a halt to the spending once our economy turns around. And the total cost of our alternative proposal was about half the cost of this conference report. There are a couple of cautionary tales. One was a study by John Taylor of Stanford and the Hoover Institution that showed that the last time we gave Americans a paycheck--and that is one of the big parts of this stimulus package, checks of $400 to $800--it had no effect on the economy. It is also a cautionary tale as to what the Japanese did over the last decade, and I am afraid some of this stimulus package repeats that. We missed an enormous opportunity to rein in excessive spending despite the support of 44 Senators eager to get our fiscal house in order when our amendment that would have required unobligated funding to be returned to the taxpayer upon two consecutive quarters of economic growth greater than 2 percent of inflation-adjusted GDP was defeated. We have seen time after time stimulus packages at other times when we were in fiscal difficulty, financial difficulty--not to the degree of this one--but much of the spending has taken place after the economy recovered and contributed enormously to the deficit and consequently putting burdens on future generations of Americans. Why would we not agree that once the economy has recovered, we should proceed on a path to a balanced budget and stop some of these spending programs that are going to be adopted tonight in the way of stimulus? Why wouldn't we bring them to a stop? Could it be that some want these spending programs to be permanent? I repeat, Milton Friedman said, ``There is nothing so permanent as a temporary Government program,'' and I am sure we will see many of these programs in the stimulus live a long, long life. In a recent Washington Post op-ed entitled ``$800 billion Mistake,'' Martin Feldstein, an economic professor at Harvard University and president emeritus of the National Bureau of Economic Research, wrote: The fiscal package now before Congress needs to be thoroughly revised. In its current form, it does too little to raise national spending and employment. It would be better for the Senate to delay legislation for a month or even two if that is what it takes to produce a much better bill. We cannot make an $800 billion mistake. Of course, it is a $1.1 trillion mistake. We cannot make that mistake. By passing this conference report, we are essentially engaging in an act of generational theft. How can anyone ignore the cold hard facts? The current national debt is $10.7 trillion. The 2009 projected deficit is $1.2 trillion. The cost of this stimulus is $1.124 trillion; that is, $789 billion plus interest. The expected omnibus spending bill to fund the Federal Government through September 30, 2009, is $400 billion. The expected supplemental request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the Armed Forces Committee staff estimates at $80 billion. The appropriations bills for 2010 that we will consider this year are untold billions. Tarp I and II are $700 billion, and TARP III is possibly upwards of $1.5 trillion. These numbers are staggering. These numbers are staggering. We have never dealt with numbers such as this, not in the Great Depression, not in any other era in time of our country. Every dollar of spending in this conference report will be added to our national debt, which now stands, as I said, at $10.2 trillion or 70 percent of GDP. According to the Center for Data Analysis, if Congress borrows the funds for its economic stimulus package--which, of course, it will do-- total debt could grow to $13 trillion in fiscal year 2009 or 92 percent of our gross domestic product. By 2010, the total debt could grow to $14 trillion or 95 percent of our GDP. The center further finds that the stimulus package will add about $30,000 in new Federal debt per American household. Remarkably, while we are on the brink of saddling our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren with this enormous debt load, the conference report before us does little to actually address the core issue that brought us to the point of needing a stimulus bill in the first place, and that is the housing crisis. I would remind my colleagues that history shows us that if you run up enough debt, the answer to it is to print more money, which is the basis of the currency, which inevitably leads to inflation, which is the greatest enemy of the middle class in America. I see my colleague from New York who is going to talk on many things, including the terrible tragedy that has taken place in the crash of the airliner in New York. But I also want to, while he is on the floor, strongly disagree with his comment that the American people do not care about little porky projects. Americans care. I can only speak for my constituents in Arizona, who have flooded my office with calls. They care about little porky projects that are to the tune of millions of their tax dollars. Just yesterday, the National Association of Realtors reported the largest drop in home prices--12.4 percent--since the Association started gathering such data in 1979. Prices declined in almost 9 out of every 10 cities. Despite the fact that this extremely sobering statistic was released yesterday, this bill cuts almost half of the only significant housing provision in the conference report. This provision, written by Senator Isakson, a former real estate agent, and approved by all Republicans and Democrats would have allowed any homeowner to take a nonrepayable tax credit of $15,000 or 10 percent of the purchase price of a house used as a principal residence. Senator Isakson argued that such a generous tax credit would help the market recover swiftly. As a real estate agent during the economic crisis of the 1970s, he saw tax credits spur the purchase of many homes, which served to reduce the glut of vacant homes in the market, thereby allowing home values to stabilize, the housing inventory to drop, and the market to recover. We could have achieved a similar result here, I believe. But, instead, it was cut--the only housing provision in the report that was roundly supported by both Republicans and Democrats and millions of potential home buyers. Instead, they decided to cut the tax break to $8 thousand and limit it to only first- time buyers. My belief is that this will not produce any real change to our sagging housing market. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the stimulus bill would create anywhere from 1.3 million to 3.9 million jobs. At $789 billion, 1.3 million jobs would work out to cost $506,923 per job, and for 3.9 million jobs, the cost would be $202,308 per job. If you add the cost of interest to the price tag, it comes to $1 trillion. Every economic estimate I have seen lately falls within the category of 1.3 to 3.9 million jobs. The administration says it could be 4 million or more. In a new letter from CBO dated February 11 providing a year-by-year analysis of the economic effects of spending of the pending stimulus legislation, CBO finds: Beyond 2004 the legislation is estimated to reduce GDP by between 0 and 0.2 percent. The reduction in GDP is therefore estimated to be reflected in lower wages rather than lower employment. The increased debt would tend to reduce the stock of productive private capital. In economic parlance, the debt would ``crowd out'' private investment. Workers will be less productive because the capital stock is smaller. The legislation's long-run impact on output also would depend on whether permanently changed incentives to work are saved. The legislation would not have any significant permanent effects on those incentives. I know my colleagues are going to say we are going to do other things. And we need to do other things--reform entitlements. We should have, in this legislation, put ourselves on a path to entitlement reform by setting up commissions for both Social Security and Medicare reform, but we did not, just as we should have had a trigger to stop spending and put us on a path to a balanced budget once our economy recovers. It is unfortunate that even in these difficult economic times, Members of Congress couldn't resist the temptation to lard up this bill with billions of dollars in unnecessary spending that will do nothing to stimulate the economy. What makes this most disturbing, in order to include these questionable provisions in the final measure, the conferees cut some of the few truly important spending provisions that had been included in the House and Senate bills. For example, I don't understand how, on the one hand, the conferees can cut close to $3 billion from the Senate bill for Department of Defense and veterans hospital and medical facilities and, on the other hand, add funding above either House- or Senate-passed bills for State Department information technology upgrades, totaling $290 million. Information technology may be worthwhile, but I am dumbfounded as to the conferees' rationale for adding funding for information technology programs that exceeds either Chamber's recommendations and cuts defense and veterans. We all talk about our commitment to veterans. Certainly VA hospital and medical facilities are badly needed, as we found in the scandal of Walter Reed. Just as egregious, the conference report provides $1 billion for prevention and wellness programs that were previously struck by the Senate and reported to be for smoking cessation programs and STD prevention. Why is this added back in, even though it may be worthy, at the expense of military members, families, and veterans whose funding was cut? The conference report provides more funding for grants to provide high-speed Internet to Americans, $7.2 billion, than it does for military and veterans affairs construction--again, at the expense of our Nation's bravest and most worthy. The conference report falls short in addressing the needs of our military and veterans who have given so much in support of this country and our democratic values. Again, these are not tiny, porky amendments. The American people do care what we are talking about. If the American people don't care, then on behalf of the American people, we should take out these little tiny, porky items that will provide questionable stimulative effects. I have a long list, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Among these are $200 million to consolidate the DHS headquarters in Washington, DC; $15 million for historic preservation of Historically Black Colleges and Universities; $25 million for the Smithsonian; $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts; $5.55 billion for the Federal Buildings Fund, including $750 million for Federal buildings and U.S. courthouses. The list goes on: $300 million for new energy-efficient vehicles for the Federal Government; $100 million for grants to small shipyards; $7.2 billion to accelerate broadband deployment in unserved and underserved areas and to strategic institutions. By the way, certainly the Presiding Officer knows we cannot spend within the next year $7.2 billion or anything like it to accelerate broadband deployment because of the nature of the challenge. There is $50 million to upgrade the computer systems at the Farm Service Agency; $50 million for aquaculture producers; $300 million in grants for a diesel emission reduction program; $50 million to build biomass plants; $150 million for USGS stream gauges and volcano monitoring systems; $200 million to repair leaking underground storage tanks under the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund; $1 billion for the Bureau of the Census. We will be talking more about this issue. We can't have the census taken from the Department of Commerce and put in the White House. We can't politicize the process of the system. We will be talking more about that later on. There is $230 million for operation, research, and facilities at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. You can make arguments for all these programs as worthwhile. You cannot make arguments that they stimulate the economy in a short period. There is $150 million for aeronautics at NASA; $2.5 billion for the National Science Foundation, of which $300 million is for the Major Research Instrumentation Program and $200 million for academic research facilities modernization; $275 million for the Mississippi River and tributaries; $10 million for program direction funding in fossil energy research and development; $1.6 billion for DOE science program; $2.25 billion to install new windows and furnaces in HUD homes; $8 billion for high-speed rail. The high-speed rail program is very interesting. It started out at $2 billion and now has been raised to $8 billion, a remarkable increase in funding, when we think about it. There are media reports that state this could probably be used for the Las Vegas-Los Angeles high-speed rail. The list goes on. The fact is, there are also policy provisions. The conference report still includes the protectionist ``Buy American'' provisions that will damage the ability of U.S. corporations to export and create jobs at home. If passage of this bill triggers retaliatory trade action by foreign countries against the United States, Congress will have succeeded in deepening one of the worst recessions of our time. There is an article in this week's Economist magazine entitled ``The return of economic nationalism, A specter is rising. To bury it again, Barack Obama needs to take the lead.'' It talks about the ``Buy American'' provisions. At the end it states: Once again, the task of saving the world economy falls to America. Mr. Obama must show that he is ready for it. If he is, he should kill any ``Buy American'' provisions. If he isn't, America and the rest of the world are in deep trouble. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Of course, we know about Davis-Bacon that will inflate the construction costs of the bill by $17 billion. Section 604 requires that only domestic apparel and textile products may be procured by the Department of Homeland Security, unless the Secretary of DHS determines the quality and quantity cannot be procured in the United States at market prices, whatever ``market prices'' means. There is a provision which states that within 45 days of enactment, the Governor of each State shall certify that they will request and use taxpayer funds provided in the bill. It goes on to say that if any of the money provided by this bill is not accepted by the Governor, then that State's legislature can simply pass a resolution to bypass the Governor and receive those funds. I have never seen a provision such as that in the Congress. I repeat, if the Governor of a State says his State doesn't need the money, then the State's legislature can simply pass a resolution to bypass the elected Governor of the State and receive the funds. What does that say about States rights and States electing their Governors to lead. It is remarkable. Every Governor in America should be on notice that we may have established a precedent that if you don't want to take taxpayer money, then you can be bypassed by your legislature. It is unconstitutional and should be challenged in court. It adds a new far-reaching policy with respect to unemployment compensation entitled ``Unemployment Compensation Modernization''--an interesting description. The new policy would allow a person to collect unemployment insurance for leaving his job to care for an immediate family member's illness, any illness or disability as defined by the Secretary of Labor. This provision stems from legislation introduced in the Senate during the 110th Congress that was not approved. Each State would need to amend their unemployment insurance in order to receive a portion of the $7 billion added to the bill for this additional unemployment compensation program. It provides a total waiver of cost savings related to inland waterways projects; 50 percent of the cost is supposed to be carried by private companies that utilize the waterways. The report establishes the Federal Coordinating Council for comparative effectiveness research. The bill text does not use the term ``clinical'' when referring to comparative effectiveness research, leading to the possibility that the bill does not protect against the research being used to make coverage decisions based on cost- effectiveness rather than clinical effectiveness. It includes the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, a massive overhaul of our health IT infrastructure that deserves more consideration. It is 1,071 pages and a 41-page statement of the managers, a total of 1,492 pages. It was negotiated in a partisan fashion, behind closed doors, in direct contradiction to President Obama's commitments during the campaign. I understand his spokesman yesterday said it was ``an emergency.'' It may have been an emergency, but that was not mentioned during the commitments made by then-candidate Obama. Among other things, the conference report contains $450 million for Amtrak security grants through the Department of Transportation. It wasn't in the House bill, wasn't in the Senate bill. It duplicates a program that already exists. I urge my colleagues, when they have a few spare moments, to look at the history of Amtrak, a railroad that was taken over by the Federal Government with the intent to turn it over to the private sector in a short period. We have propped it up with billions and billions of taxpayer dollars, funding that will never become profitable. A provision recreates the slush fund that was unanimously rejected by both the House and Senate. The slush fund allows agency heads to move money around between programs as they see fit without any real oversight by Congress. I mentioned high-speed rail. That is $8 billion. The Senate included $2 billion for these programs, and the House didn't include anything. The conference now has added $6 billion. I mentioned earlier the veterans and military construction spending has been cut by over $3 billion below both the House and Senate bills. Of course, the conference report, among many other items, contains $50 million for NEA, a worthwhile endeavor, but I don't see how you can make the argument it creates jobs. A commitment was made that the spending would be done quickly. The conference agreement drops provisions that require all funds in the bill to be awarded within 30 to 120 days of enactment. Instead, the report allows numerous programs to have 3 years or more to actually begin spending the funding. I know many of my colleagues, including my friend from Illinois, are here. I don't want to take too much time, as many of my colleagues wish to discuss the legislation. I wish to mention there is $2 billion for a neighborhood stabilization program which could go for money for groups such as ACORN. You could make arguments about whether ACORN should be funded. I do not see how that possibly creates jobs. I understand this bill will be passed this evening. I hope the next time--maybe with TARP--because there are going to be other issues of enormous consequence that the Congress and the President of the United States will face in the coming weeks and months. I do not believe things are going to get better in the world real soon. We see activities around the world, from the behavior of the Russians to the Iranian testing of a missile, to renewed aggressive rhetoric by North Korea, to others, including developing a strategy for Afghanistan. But there are also enormous economic challenges here at home. The American people would like us to, and the message they have sent us is, that they want us to sit down and work together. As I said, this bill began with a statement by the Speaker of the House: We won. We write the bill. We need to sit down together before the bill is written, outline the principles, turn those principles we share into concrete legislation, and work together. I hope we never again have a repetition of a bill that has such enormous consequence that would pass through both bodies with literally no Republican support--three Senators out of 178 Members in the House and 40 in the Senate. That is not bipartisanship. I think we passed up an opportunity this time. I hope the American people will respond again by sending us the message. They want us to address the economic woes we face, but they want us to address them together. This legislation, in my view, is very bad for the economic future of America. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from New York that all of us join in expressing sympathy and sorrow at the loss of these wonderful Americans. Thank you for your eloquent words. They are deeply appreciated. Mr. President, I would like to mention to my colleagues that so far we have speaking requests from Senators Coburn, Enzi, Roberts, Bennett, Hutchison, Barrasso, Ensign, Thune, Kyl, Cornyn, Sessions, and then Alexander, Grassley, Brownback, and Graham. So I would urge my colleagues to come over so we can move forward with this process.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to an American patriot, a man of the finest caliber, and a diplomat whose skills and determination have helped alter history's course for the better. In a few days, Ambassador Ryan Crocker will depart his post as the chief American diplomat in Iraq. His departure will mark the close of a storied career, one of nearly 40 years of distinguished service to our country. In dedicating his career to furthering America's interests and ideals in the far reaches of the globe, and in coupling his dedication with a tremendously adventurous spirit, Ryan Crocker has become known informally as our own ``Lawrence of Arabia.'' As a young man in Walla Walla, WA, Ryan Crocker decided to depart not for the beaches of southern California but, rather, abroad, hitchhiking from western Europe to Southeast Asia. By the time he graduated from Whitman College in 1971, Ambassador Crocker had already visited more of the world than most Americans will throughout their lifetimes. His extensive travel and interest in global politics and culture led him to join the Foreign Service in 1971. Ambassador Crocker quickly developed a reputation for incredible dedication in the face of challenges. From his early days at the State Department, he was assigned to some of the most difficult posts in the Foreign Service. He worked in Iran, Qatar, Egypt, and in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He was in the Embassy in Beirut in 1983, when a Hezbollah suicide bomber killed 63 people. Thrown against the wall by the blast, Ambassador Crocker immediately began helping others escape the rubble. He went on to serve as Ambassador to Lebanon, Kuwait, Syria, Pakistan, and Iraq. During his time in Damascus, demonstrators assaulted his residence and, in 2002, he reopened the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, which had been untouched by Americans since 1989. A newspaper account illustrates the spirit that animates this selfless patriot: He arrived to find a cobweb-strewn wreck full of 1989 newspapers, broken Wang computers and maps of the old Soviet Union. U.S. Marines outnumbered diplomats by 3 to 1, and all 100 Americans slept on cots and shared two working toilets. Yet Crocker was upbeat. ``The men and women of this mission are extremely proud to be a forward element,'' Crocker told [Secretary of State] Powell at the time. Throughout all these assignments, Ryan Crocker has approached his work with resolve, tenacity, and a unique ability to see the broader strategic issues in play. Had he never gone to lead the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, the American people would owe him deep gratitude. Had he not accepted the challenge in Baghdad, he would have nevertheless won the sincere appreciation and admiration of all Senators. Yet it was in his decision to become America's Ambassador to Iraq that Ryan Crocker has left his true mark on history, and we are all the better off for it. He was sworn in not here in Washington, as is customary, but in Baghdad, and in March 2007, as the surge of troops to Iraq was commencing, GEN David Petraeus had taken over as commander, and our Nation was making its greatest, and possibly final, push to avoid disaster in Iraq. Let us remember that in 2007, as public support for the war plummeted, we in Congress were engaged in a great debate about the way forward in Iraq. Sectarian violence was spiraling out of control, life had become a struggle for survival, and a full-scale civil war seemed almost unavoidable. Al-Qaida in Iraq was on the offensive and entire Iraqi provinces were under the control of extremists. Noting that ``here in Iraq, America faces its most critical foreign policy challenge,'' Ambassador Crocker did not sugarcoat the situation or present an overly rosy scenario. He never does. He stressed just how hard the path ahead would be but stressed also that it was not impossible. As he would later testify before the Armed Services Committee, ``hard does not mean hopeless.'' It was this combination--cold-eyed appraisal of the reality of Iraq combined with hope that things could change for the better--that was so refreshing every time I visited Baghdad. In a true partnership with General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker executed a civil military counterinsurgency plan for Iraq that turned the tide of violence in a timeframe and to a degree that surprised even the optimists. He ensured unprecedented cooperation between the military, the Embassy, and our allies. His decades of experience in the Middle East proved invaluable as he navigated an increasingly complex and contentious regional dynamic. His efforts, in coordination with the brave men and women of the military and State Department, are the reason we find ourselves in a situation many thought was not possible. Ryan Crocker's determination to succeed in a situation where many would have failed should inspire us all. Yet any who have followed the career of this skilled and extraordinary diplomat shouldn't be surprised. His creative and pragmatic approach to diplomacy has earned respect both at home and abroad. His list of awards and achievements is long and distinguished, including the Presidential Meritorious Service Award, the State Department Distinguished Honor Award, the American Foreign Service Association Rivkin Award, and most recently the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest civilian commendation. I am immensely grateful for the enormous contributions that Ambassador Crocker has made to the Department of State, to our Nation, and the people of Iraq. As he departs Baghdad, he will be sorely missed. We wish Ambassador Crocker and his family all the best as he enters the next chapter of his life. He has earned the respect and admiration of a grateful nation. I have had the great honor for many years to travel the world and encounter many of our wonderful Foreign Service personnel and the men and women who serve in posts throughout the world. They serve with dedication and most of the time without the appreciation they deserve. I have been so impressed with the people who have dedicated their lives to serving this Nation all around the world, in many cases in the most difficult of circumstances. I know of no one I have met in my life who epitomizes public service more than Ryan Crocker; a quiet demeanor, modesty, and, frankly, a knowledge of the issues and the complexities which would take many hours to describe that prevail in the Middle East. Ryan Crocker came at a seminal time to the Embassy in Baghdad, and in partnership with one of our great military leaders, General Petraeus--a true and equal partnership--those two individuals changed the course of history. Many in this body at that time had believed there was no hope for Iraq and that the situation could not be salvaged. Because of Ryan Crocker, David Petraeus, and many others, with their leadership we have just witnessed an election taking place in Iraq that was virtually without incident. Ambassador Crocker will be the first to tell us there is a long way to go in Iraq. There are many challenges ahead, but we do have an ally, a democratic nation, and the hope of a society free of the oppression and repression that unfortunately has characterized the situation in Iraq for centuries. So, again, I know in the future young Americans who serve this country will continue to be inspired by the performance and the dedication of Ryan Crocker. We will miss him. We will miss him enormously, but I know he will continue to serve this country in any way possible for as long as he lives. Thank you, Ryan Crocker. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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. McCAIN. With respect to the waiver, Mr. Orszag stated: The selection of Mr. Lynn came at the end of an extensive process that resulted in a consensus opinion that Mr. Lynn was the best qualified candidate for the job. He went on to say: Mr. Lynn's executive branch experience, combined with his legislative, think tank and private sector experience-- As you note, he did not mention a managerial role that he might have had in his career-- gives him the precise set of skills that are not only necessary to do the job, but are rare in their breadth and depth. I hope Mr. Lynn will be a rare exception to the new rule--you know, one of the things I had hoped would happen because of the deep disapproval the American people have in the way we do business is this kind of cycle of lobbyists to executive branch, to legislative branch, to lobbyists. It goes on in this town with enormous frequency and has led to scandals, indictments, and convictions of former staff members, former Members of Congress, and former members of the executive branch. I had hoped that somewhere in America there would be someone who had the experience and knowledge and background in running what probably, I believe, is the largest organization in the world, the Department of Defense, rather than again having to go inside the beltway. But as I mentioned, elections have consequences. The President has designated Mr. Lynn and others to positions which are in violation of the much heralded Executive order he made concerning not having lobbyists serve in Government. So I will give him at least, in my opinion, my vote, the benefit of the doubt, and will vote in favor of Mr. Lynn's nomination. He responded to, albeit belatedly, the questions I submitted to him. I wish him well. We face enormous challenges both in the way the Department of Defense operates, the acquisition programs--and many of them are completely out of control, with cost overruns that are staggering--to a lack of efficiency in a number of areas. I not only wish Mr. Lynn well, but I look forward to working with him as we do whatever we can to defend this Nation's vital national security interests as well as manage the functions of a bureaucracy which, in all candor, has defied sound management under both Republican and Democratic administrations. I know Senator Coburn and Senator Grassley will be over later on. I am confident that Mr. Lynn's nomination will be voted out overwhelmingly by the Senate. I hope Mr. Lynn will do well in his new position of responsibility. I pledge to work with him as much as possible, as I have done with Secretaries of Defense and Deputy Secretaries of Defense in Republican and Democratic administrations. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I intend to vote in favor of the nomination of Mr. Lynn to be the Deputy Secretary of Defense. Mr. Lynn has an extensive record of public service. He has served as the Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation in the Pentagon during the Clinton administration, and following that he was the Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, from 1997 to 2001. He served as, obviously, the chief financial officer for the Department of Defense. After his DOD service, Mr. Lynn, as we know, became a registered lobbyist and the Raytheon Company's senior vice president of government operations. In that position he led Raytheon's strategic planning and oversaw all of their Government relations activities. Mr. Lynn has served as I mentioned, but nowhere, I might point out, does he have in his resume any extensive managerial experience. One of the major functions of the Deputy Secretary of Defense is to make the Pentagon run. Mr. Lynn does not have that executive managerial experience. Having said that, elections have consequences, as we all know, and this is the selection that the President of the United States made, and the Secretary of Defense also supports his nomination. I do not view the fact that Mr. Lynn became a lobbyist for Raytheon as, per se, disqualifying. Mr. Lynn has indicated his willingness to comply with the ethical requirements of the executive branch aimed at preventing conflicts of interest, and he has agreed to the additional stock divestment obligations that the Committee on Armed Services has consistently required of nominees. I have been concerned, however, about the practical problems that would arise from Mr. Lynn's past lobbying activities and the legitimate concerns the American people would have if Mr. Lynn made decisions related to the programs for which he lobbied. I sent a letter to Mr. Lynn on January 26, with a follow-up letter on January 29, asking him to articulate in detail what specific matters would be affected. Mr. Lynn responded on January 30 indicating that he had worked on the DDG-100 surface combatant, the AMRAAM air-to-air missile, the F-15 airborne radar, the Patriot Pure Fleet Program, the Future Imagery Architecture, and the Multiple Kill Vehicle. He provided me with written assurances that he would refrain from participating in any decisions regarding those programs for 1 year if he is confirmed. I believe these assurances and with ongoing reviews within DOD that encompass rigorous screening Mr. Lynn will endeavor to perform effectively as the Deputy Secretary of Defense. I am aware, as I mentioned, that he has the support of Secretary Gates, and I obviously consider that to be an endorsement in Mr. Lynn's favor. President Obama, as we all know, signed an Executive order on January 21, 2009, that established a praiseworthy ``revolving door ban'' that would bar any lobbyist from working for an agency they lobbied within 2 years of an appointment. The Executive order included a provision for granting a public interest waiver, and Mr. Lynn was given a waiver. It is disappointing that President Obama, who pledged continuously throughout the campaign to change the culture of Washington and the influence of lobbyists, then almost immediately chose to nominate several individuals, including Mr. Lynn, who required a waiver. So after proudly trumpeting a new change and the new rules and regulations, several individuals--and a couple have had to withdraw their nominations--that Mr. Lynn required a waiver or exemption to that policy. Obviously, the American people were promised one thing but delivered another. My colleague, Senator Grassley, who will be speaking later, sent a letter on January 29 to OMB Director Peter Orszag asking for a justification for the granting of the waiver. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Orszag's response on February 3 be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. McCAIN. Can the Senator make that 5?

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask the manager, I assume we will continue the practice we have been pursuing of going back to either side and that any time in quorum call will come off the times of both sides?