John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to remind my colleagues there are a number of Senators waiting to propose amendments, and I think this amendment has been very much debated. I look forward to Senator Bunning and Senator Grassley and other Senators who are waiting to present amendments.

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, I think 5 minutes on this side and 10 minutes on your side.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask the manager, do we have a time agreement on this amendment?

Mr. McCAIN. Could the parties agree to a time agreement?

Mr. McCAIN. I yield, Mr. President.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask, again, is there a time agreement that would be reasonable?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I probably will not object, if I understand the Senator from Montana, we most likely will have a vote about 5 o'clock.

Mr. McCAIN. I have no objection.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Nebraska, followed by the Senator from Iowa, will have 5 minutes. If I can ask the distinguished manager, my understanding is that after the 20 minutes, there will then be a period for filing amendments and debate.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the manager.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the manager. I tell my colleagues that if it looks as if we will not vote until 1, there will be time to come over and speak.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I yield to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. McCAIN. I recognize the Senator from Nebraska for 3 minutes.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, after I speak, my side will speak relatively briefly: Senators Kyl, Thune, Coburn, and Senator Graham. I have had some kind of Orwellian experiences in the Senate over the years I have been here, but this one ranks up near the top in the word ``bipartisanship'' that is being thrown around as far as this package is concerned, this $1.1 trillion package. Let's have no doubt about that. There are 178 Members of the House of Representatives who are Republicans. They all voted against the bill, plus 11 Democrats. There are 40 Republican Senators here. We now have two--count them, two--who have decided behind closed doors, without consultation with the other 38, to come to an agreement, which you can call a lot of things but bipartisan is not one of them, unless you say that two individuals and possibly a third, but no more than that, out of 40 are in agreement. I have been involved in a lot of bipartisan legislation around here, but I guarantee this is not bipartisan. So let's make sure we understand that to start with. Second of all, let's talk about how much it costs. There has been a lot said about reduction in the cost. The fact is, they say it is $780 billion. If you include the amendments that were already passed and are going to be included in this bill, it is now $827 billion. That is $7 billion more than the House of Representatives passed, the debt service being $348 billion, bringing us to a total of $1.175 trillion. Then you add that to, on Monday, the new Secretary of Treasury is going to announce a new TARP--$500 billion, $1 trillion. Waiting in the House is another Omnibus appropriations bill of $400 billion. We just spent $750 billion--or are in the process of spending another $750 billion--in the form of TARP I and II. My goodness, it is a moment in history of spending the likes of which this Nation has never seen. By the way, let's suppose it is only $827 billion we are going to pass here. That only costs around, according to the Congressional Budget Office--and I urge every one of my colleagues to read it--on February 4 they said the bill, as passed and proposed, would have created between 1.3 million and 3.9 million jobs. At $827 billion, if you create 1.3 million jobs, that is $636,000 per job. If it creates 3.9 million jobs, which is the high estimate of the Congressional Budget Office, then you now are only paying $212,000 per job. So let's have no doubt. As to the elimination of unnecessary, wasteful projects, I have already submitted for the Record page after page after page of porkbarrel projects which were put in on a partisan basis, not a bipartisan basis. Let's make sure we understand that. Mr. President, there is $150 million for honey bee insurance. Some have said: $150 million, $200 million, that is not much. Mr. President, $300 million to bring USDA facilities into workplace safety compliance--the list goes on and on. This is a Christmas tree done by appropriators. And we proved when we tried to eliminate the earmarks that there are three kinds of Senators in the Senate: Republicans, Democrats, and appropriators. The fact is, we turned down--although we got 44 votes--what would have given us at least some shred of confidence that we will be addressing this terrible deficit we are laying on future generations of Americans, and that would have been a trigger that when we have two quarters of GDP growth, we would be on the automatic path to reducing spending and bringing us a balanced budget. That was rejected by this body. Why? Why in the world, once the economy recovers, wouldn't we want to put this country on the path to a balanced budget and stop laying--we have already done $10 trillion. Now there are more trillions coming, not to mention Social Security and Medicare. So let's have no doubt--let's have no doubt--this is not bipartisan. This is two Republican Senators who decided to join after meetings behind doors, in which almost all of the rest of us were not present. It is as expensive or more expensive than the legislation passed by the House if you count the amendments that have already been passed, which we are told would be included in this bill. There is no provision-- there is no provision--whatsoever, once our economy recovers, to somehow begin to reduce this multitrillion-dollar debt we have laid on future generations of Americans. If this legislation is passed, it will be a very bad day for America.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, how much time remains?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Montana for a brief period of time to talk about the disposition of this amendment.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask the pending amendments be set aside and ask consideration of an amendment that I have at the desk.

Mr. McCAIN. I would like for my colleagues to conclude the debate, since we have been on it since 9:30 this morning. I understand the vote may be set for this and other amendments at 3:30. But unless there is someone who wants to speak on this amendment, the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, are the only ones additionally who want to speak on it. I would encourage my colleagues who want to speak on other amendments to come to the floor because there will apparently very likely be a vote on at 3:30.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, can we propound the unanimous consent request? It has not been cleared.

Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield to me for one comment. We are still working on a UC for setting up votes, and for the benefit of my colleagues, we think it is roughly sometime shortly after 4 p.m., but we haven't completed the unanimous consent agreement as yet. But for the information of colleagues, we are working on a series of 13 votes at least. Thanks.

Mr. McCAIN. I will speak for a couple of minutes about what the Senator from Montana talked about, the Congressional Budget Office report today. Basically, it says that this present legislation before us, the stimulus package, would increase employment at that point in time by 1.3 million to 3.9 million jobs. I did the math on that, and 1.3 million jobs by the end of 2010 comes to $680,769 per job. If the most optimistic estimate of 3.9 million new jobs created between now and the last quarter of 2010, it is only $226,923 per job. Interesting comments by the Congressional Budget Office, which says on page 5: In principle, the legislation's long-run impact on output also would depend on whether it permanently changed incentives to work or save. However, according to CBO's estimates, the legislation would not have any significant permanent effects on these incentives. They go on to say: CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. That is easy to understand because we will be paying interest on a huge debt of multitrillions of dollars as a result of this legislation. As the CBO says: To the extent that people hold their wealth as government bonds rather than in a form that can be used to finance private investment, the increased debt would tend to reduce the stock of productive capital. In economic parlance, the debt would crowd out private investment. Again, what we are doing is mortgaging our children's and our grandchildren's futures. The President today said: They [talking about those of us who support my amendment] are rooted in the idea that tax cuts alone can solve all of our problems. They are rooted in the idea that tax cuts alone can solve our problems. I urge someone to tell the President of the United States that we have $421 billion of tax cuts and spending in this proposal, and spending that is meaningful and creates jobs, not loaded down with porkbarrel projects and certainly not one that approaches over $1 trillion on future generations of Americans. We ought to change Washington. We ought to change the way we are conducting this legislation, especially in partisan, nonconsultative fashion. If the leadership can peal off two or three Republicans, that is an accomplishment they will make, but it is not bipartisanship. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the stimulus package would be a disaster for our children and our grandchildren. According to CBO, it would create 1.3 million to 3.9 million jobs between now and the end of the year 2010. That is a huge expenditure. It has fundamental policy changes, and it is the biggest spending bill probably in the history of this country. We have legislation which creates jobs, which cuts taxes and spends on infrastructure, more on Defense and the reset, and I believe that is the best for this country. Madam President, we all know we have to stimulate this economy and create jobs. The question is how you do it: profligacy versus, I believe, a mature and responsible approach to reversing and saving our economy. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.