John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I reserve the right to object.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Maine. I will not take all of the 10 minutes. I would like to begin by thanking her and Senator Lieberman for their very hard work and their dedication to trying to fix a problem that perhaps some of my colleagues may not be aware of, and that is our reputation as a body is suffering rather significantly in the view of the American people. I view this amendment by the Senator from Maine as a way to help the Ethics Committee do its job because the questioning has been: Why haven't people been investigated? If you had a body that would help them determine whether a case is worthy of further investigation and pursuit or not, it seems to me it would relieve the Ethics Committee of some of the onus of making tough decisions when we are talking about our colleagues. I was interested in the comment by the Senator from Ohio that he won't investigate until after the Abramoff thing is done by the Justice Department. The Abramoff thing would not have been investigated by the Justice Department if it had not been for the Indian Affairs investigation; and while the Justice Department began and continued the investigations, we continued our hearings on the Abramoff case. If I may say, with a bit of ego, the Indian Affairs Committee contributed quite a bit to the information they needed in order to pursue this not unprecedented but egregious case of corruption of the system, staff, and Members. Really remarkable things happened under Mr. Abramoff. So somehow we on the Indian Affairs Committee were able to have an investigation--the little, obscure Indian Affairs Committee. But the fundamental point is that we need to restore the confidence of the American people in the way we do business. Hardly a day goes by, or at least a week, that there is not a major story about influence of special interests, wrongdoing, or certainly ethical questions that are raised. That is the kindest way that I can describe it. We need to fix the problem. So why not give this to the body of the Senate that is charged with these onerous obligations. I sympathize with anybody who is a member of the Ethics Committee because tough decisions have to be made and most of us are friends here. That is very tough. So why would it be harmful? And why would it not be helpful to have an Office of Public Integrity with a mission that would be carefully circumscribed, which, if they made a decision, could be overruled by a vote of the Senate, and would be helpful in clearing up sometimes a cloud of investigations such as those that characterized the 1980s and 1990s, particularly in the other body where there were charges launched and there were partisan vendettas which many people called ``the criminalization of partisan differences.'' Mr. President, I hope my colleagues recognize that when our approval ratings are down around 25, 26 percent, and there are people who continue to be deeply disturbed about the way we do business--whether or not it is legitimate, the perception is out there; you can look at any public opinion poll--should we not do what we can to help fix either a real or imagined problem that we have with the people we serve? It seems to me that an Office of Public Integrity that would recommend appropriate action taken by the Ethics Committee, not by the Office of Public Integrity such as has been recommended by this amendment, would be helpful to the Ethics Committee process, helpful in carrying out and determining whether these are partisan, unwarranted charges, or whether those are legitimate. I want to point out again that this is a legitimate difference of opinion. The Senator from Maine and I, and others, including Senator Lieberman, have a view that this is necessary. Others think it is not. Can we calm down a little bit? This is a legitimate subject of debate on whether we need it. I hope we can discuss this, but I also believe that if you don't do this, what are we going to do? What are we going to do to try to restore some of the confidence that the American people have clearly lost in us? Obviously, a functioning Ethics Committee, with a level of credibility with the American people, is something I think would contribute to healing this breach that has developed between us and the people we represent. I thank the Senator from Maine and Senator Lieberman and others for this bipartisan effort. I would like to say a word about the so-called watchdog groups. I think they do a lot of good. They have done a lot of good for this body and for this Nation. There are people who are concerned about public integrity. There are people who bring issues before us and the American people. They are legitimate. I may not agree with them all the time, but I think to view them as adversaries, frankly, in my dealings with them they have been helpful. They certainly were in various investigations in which I and my committee have been involved, and also with reform efforts in which I have been involved. I, for one, appreciate their work and the dedication they have to giving a better Government to the American people. Again, I thank Senator Collins for her hard work, and I appreciate her efforts. I appreciate her and Senator Lieberman's bipartisan stewardship of one of the most important committees in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Tuesday, March 28, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 1439, the Indian Trust Reform Act of 2005, Titles II through VI. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, March 29, at 9:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting on the following bills: 1. S. 2078, Indian Gaming Regulatory Act Amendments. 2. S. 1899, Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act Amendments. 3. S. 2245, Indian Youth Telemental Health Demonstration Project Act. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, 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 dollars' 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. Almost 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 use 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.'' Last week, President Bush rightly renewed Ronald Reagan's call for line-item veto authority by sending to Congress a legislative proposal for a form of line-item veto authority known as expedited rescission. That proposal was introduced as the Line Item Rescission Act of 2006 shortly after the President offered it. I am an original cosponsor of that legislation, which would authorize the President to propose spending and targeted tax benefits that would ultimately have to be approved by a majority of each House of Congress. The Line Item Rescission Act is one way to give the President more authority to impose fiscal restraint, and if it were enacted it would constitute a significant move in Washington, DC, towards fiscal discipline. Today, I am introducing the Separate Enrollment and Line Item Veto Act of 2006 to present what I believe is a stronger approach to granting the President true line-item veto power. Under this proposal, which is crafted to ensure its constitutionality, each item of every appropriation measure and authorization measure containing new direct spending or new targeted tax benefits passed by Congress would be separately enrolled. The President would then be able to consider each item as a separate bill and would have the power to veto items that, as President Bush has said, constitute unneeded spending that reflects special interests instead of the people's interest. 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 line-item veto authority 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 line-item veto legislation, and I trust that Congress will act on such legislation soon.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, 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 dollars' 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. Almost 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 use 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.'' Last week, President Bush rightly renewed Ronald Reagan's call for line-item veto authority by sending to Congress a legislative proposal for a form of line-item veto authority known as expedited rescission. That proposal was introduced as the Line Item Rescission Act of 2006 shortly after the President offered it. I am an original cosponsor of that legislation, which would authorize the President to propose spending and targeted tax benefits that would ultimately have to be approved by a majority of each House of Congress. The Line Item Rescission Act is one way to give the President more authority to impose fiscal restraint, and if it were enacted it would constitute a significant move in Washington, DC, towards fiscal discipline. Today, I am introducing the Separate Enrollment and Line Item Veto Act of 2006 to present what I believe is a stronger approach to granting the President true line-item veto power. Under this proposal, which is crafted to ensure its constitutionality, each item of every appropriation measure and authorization measure containing new direct spending or new targeted tax benefits passed by Congress would be separately enrolled. The President would then be able to consider each item as a separate bill and would have the power to veto items that, as President Bush has said, constitute unneeded spending that reflects special interests instead of the people's interest. 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 line-item veto authority 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 line-item veto legislation, and I trust that Congress will act on such legislation soon.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, March 15, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 1899, the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act Amendments of 2005. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee. subcommittee on water and power

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for her very eloquent remarks. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his hard work on behalf of shaping legislation and bringing to the Senate amendments that we can help bring about a restoration of confidence on the part of the American people in the way we do business. I also congratulate the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, who has worked so closely with Senator Collins, as Senator Dodd has worked closely with Senator Lott. There are a group of Senators from both sides of the aisle--Senator Obama, myself, Senators Lieberman, Collins, Lott, Pryor, a number of other Senators--who, on an ad hoc basis, sat down for many hours to discuss the various measures we believe need to be taken. Also, there is another group of Senators that is very concerned about the whole earmarking process which, in the view of any objective observer, has lurched completely out of control, and which is the source of a lot of the problems we are facing with the need for lobbying reform because we have a system that makes it so vulnerable to the exploitations of a few unscrupulous people--to wit, the Congressman Cunningham case, as well as others. I have never come to the Senate in the years I have been here to talk about this institution. One, I didn't believe I had a need to, much less have a right to. I have only been here since 1987. There are a number of other Members who have been here a lot longer. But what I saw happen yesterday and what I have seen transpire makes me very concerned, and even to a degree saddened at the way the Senate has degenerated and deteriorated from an atmosphere of a willingness to address issues in the fashion that the Senate has to, which has to do with sitting down, discussing, agreeing, and moving forward. We are not the other body. Every Senator not only has individual rights, but, thank God, 40 or 41 of them can prevent action from being taken. I see a degree of partisanship and bitterness and mistrust permeating this place which is not good not only for the institution of the Senate but for the United States of America. When I first arrived here, the leaders at that time, whether the other side was in the majority or minority, and various more senior Members would sit down and settle on an agenda that the Senate would pursue which, first and foremost, was in the interests of the American people and, secondarily, was in the interests of the respective parties. Now we cannot move forward in the simplest fashion on issues that we are all in agreement on, much less come to some agreement as to how we can address an issue that is more contentious. A lot of my colleagues say they love the institution of the Senate. I don't love the institution of the Senate, but I respect it. I respect it more than any institution I have ever been associated with. When I travel around the world, usually at taxpayer expense, I am even more proud of the institution of the Senate because it epitomizes what America is all about: participatory democracy, the ability of one another to fully debate and ventilate issues and come to consensus without taint of corruption or illegitimacy in any way. Now I see this institution deteriorating and degenerating to a point where sometimes I am not only embarrassed but sometimes a little ashamed. Yesterday, we had a procedure going on to address a major concern of the American people, and that is the lobbying practices and the ethics rules with which we conduct our business. This was a product of a bipartisan effort, both formal and informal, for many weeks. This was an agreement. Of course, there was a tinge of partisanship, as there always is, but 95 percent of it involved Members sitting down, recognizing that American people do not approve of what we are doing. A majority of the American people believe we do not share their priorities. Only 25 percent of the American people approve of Congress; 75 percent disapprove. The major concerns the American people have is they fear there is corruption in our institutions. When we see the conviction of a Member of Congress, when we see continued allegations concerning special favors and the influence of special interests, there is at least smoke, if not fire, in those associated with those allegations. Yesterday, thanks to a bipartisan effort, we were moving forward with an agenda. We had considered amendments. We had voted on one concerning gifts. There was another one coming up that was going to be contentious, and that is the use of corporate jets by Members of Congress, for paying first-class fare instead of the charter rate which every other citizen is required to do. Obviously, I will not get into that debate. And then we had a schedule of some other amendments. Then the Senator from New York came to the Senate and said just before the vote, ``Reserving the right to object . . . '' because he was reserving the right to object to a unanimous consent agreement, as we do business here by unanimous consent agreement, ``before we set it aside, on this amendment.'' On this amendment, that was his statement. It is part of the Record. Then when he was recognized, he reached into his pocket and pulled out an amendment. It is the right of every Senator under the rules to propose an amendment. It is not the right of every Senator to mislead his colleagues. It is not the right of every Senator. How can we do business in this Senate if our colleagues mislead us? The current Presiding Officer, who happened to be the Chair at the time, was surprised, as were the rest of us. Fortunately, we keep a transcript of our remarks, and I went back and I quoted from it again. I do not in any way criticize the right of any Senator to propose an amendment at any time that is under the parliamentary rules. But to stand up on the floor of this Senate and say you are going to do one thing and then you do another is not only inappropriate, but it risks--it risks--a breakdown of the kind of courtesy we have to extend to each other if we are going to function as a body. So now the larger issue. The Senator from Nevada and the Senator from New York are dead set on an amendment to negate the agreement concerning the leasing of terminals in the United States by the United Arab Emirates. I understand the passion they feel on that issue. I respect their views on that. But do we have to--knowing full well it would tie up the Senate--the Senator from Nevada has been around here as long as I have. Knowing full well it would tie up the Senate, bring to a halt any action we might take on ethics and lobbying reform, still we are insistent upon that. Now, the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Nevada will stand up: It is our right, it is our right to propose any amendment that is in a parliamentary fashion acceptable. I agree with that. I do not dispute their right. I do dispute stopping--which it has; now we are not going to move forward until after the cloture vote--stopping our progress on the issue which is more important to the American people or as important in an orderly fashion. The Senator from Nevada knows full well if we are going to act legislatively in this body he is going to have an opportunity to propose this amendment. If we are going to act legislatively, we could stop, we could not do anything in the Senate for 45 days or a month or until the upcoming elections. But my point is--and I want to, in fairness, say I see a lot of the same thing on this side of the aisle quite occasionally, quite frequently, that we will propose amendments to gain some kind of political advantage. That has always been part of the way we have done business. But hasn't it gotten out of proportion to our first obligation, and that is to do the people's business? Isn't that the reason why only 25 percent of the American people approve of what we do and how we do it? Aren't we concerned? Aren't we concerned about how the American people feel about us, the people we purport to represent? What we need to do here is for the leaders on both sides, with others, to sit down and map out an agenda we can all agree to. But to bring this process of ethics and lobbying reform and earmark reform to a halt for the sake of an amendment that has nothing whatsoever to do with the businesses at hand, which is highly contentious, I think is not doing the people's business. I want to emphasize again, I do not dispute the right of the other side of the aisle to act in a parliamentary fashion. There is nothing illegal they are doing. But I would hope that perhaps the greater good would prevail here, and we could sit down and work these things out, which would require concessions made on both sides, which has been the case of the way the Senate functions. So I must say, I have only been here since 1987, but I have never seen anything like I saw yesterday in the years I have been here. But it is also symptomatic of the bitter partisanship that prevails here, which prevents us from doing anything meaningful or doing very much meaningful for the American people. If my friends on the other side of the aisle want to give this side of the aisle some of the blame for this partisanship we experience here, I accept it. I accept it. I do not debate it. My point is, it is time we sat down and mapped out an agenda we can all agree to, and start doing the business of the people of this country first and our parties' business and political advantage second. I do not mean to be contentious in these remarks. I do not mean to be too critical. But I did happen to be on the floor yesterday and see something, as I said, I have never seen before. We have to stop, take a deep breath, sit down together, and start working together. That sounds a bit utopian or Pollyannaish, but it is not. And in the many years I have been here, I saw people able to sit down--even if they had strongly held feelings--together and work things out. We are not able to do that today. It is time we changed course. I thank my colleagues for their patience. I hope I was not in any way condescending in my remarks concerning my concern about this body. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

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

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, March 8, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 2078, Indian Gaming Regulatory Act Amendments of 2005. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Feingold in introducing the Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2006. This legislation is designed to take a post-Katrina approach to Army Corps of Engineers projects. It would provide for a more effective system for selecting and funding Army Corps projects that help to protect our citizens against damage caused by floods, hurricanes and other natural disasters. Last August this Nation witnessed a horrible national disaster. When Hurricane Katrina hit, it brought with it destruction and tragedy beyond compare; more so than our Nation has seen in decades. Some six months later, the Gulf Coast region is still largely in the early stages of attempting to rebuild and recover and there is a long road ahead. As our Nation continues to dedicate significant resources to the reconstruction effort, we must be vigilant in our oversight obligations and take appropriate actions based on the many lessons learned from this tragedy. One area that most would agree deserves needed attention concerns the Army Corps system. Funding is distributed in a manner that is not always awarded the most urgent projects. Because of this, citizens can end up paying for unnecessary and irresponsible Army Corps projects with their tax dollars and their safety. It is time for us to take a new approach to how the Army Corps does business. With lessons learned from Katrina, we can and must shepherd in a new era within the Army Corps that prioritizes critical projects and allows the American taxpayers to know that their money is being spent in an effective and efficient manner. The Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act is the only Corps related measure that has been introduced in the Senate since Katrina tragically struck that truly takes a lessons-learned approach. Any measure acted upon by this Congress regarding the Corps simply must account for the most up to date information available. We owe it to the American public. Historically, Congress has considered water projects costing many billions of taxpayer dollars as essential expenditures--regardless of the environmental costs or public benefits. That is why the modernization procedures in this bill are designed to achieve more critical and cost-effective expenditures for Corps water projects that will yield more environmental, economic, and social benefits. The need for these changes has been acknowledged by many for some time, but never has the need to spend scarce taxpayer dollars wisely been as crucial as it is now. The Corps procedures for planning and approving projects, as well as the Congressional system for funding projects, are broken, but they can be fixed. The reforms in our bill are based on thorough program analysis and common sense. I commend Senator Feingold for his efforts to build on and improve upon the legislation we have previously introduced. Corps modernization has been a priority that Senator Feingold and I have shared for years but never before has there been such an appropriate atmosphere and urgent need to move forward on these overdue reforms. Provisions of the legislation we are introducing today provide for a process to modify and modernize the Corps planning and approval procedures to consider economic, public, and environmental objectives. Independent review of Corps projects and a clear national prioritization of Corps projects would ensure that the most beneficial projects are constructed. Effective measures for mitigation of environmental and other damage caused by projects would be required and monitored. With support from Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, American Rivers, National Wildlife Federation, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense, Republicans for Environmental Protection, Sierra Club, and the World Wildlife Fund, the bill has broad interest and impact. Water projects that provide economic and environmental benefits to our Nation's citizens--the hardworking American taxpayers--serve the common good and reflect our common interest in fiscal responsibility. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Feingold in introducing the Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2006. This legislation is designed to take a post-Katrina approach to Army Corps of Engineers projects. It would provide for a more effective system for selecting and funding Army Corps projects that help to protect our citizens against damage caused by floods, hurricanes and other natural disasters. Last August this Nation witnessed a horrible national disaster. When Hurricane Katrina hit, it brought with it destruction and tragedy beyond compare; more so than our Nation has seen in decades. Some six months later, the Gulf Coast region is still largely in the early stages of attempting to rebuild and recover and there is a long road ahead. As our Nation continues to dedicate significant resources to the reconstruction effort, we must be vigilant in our oversight obligations and take appropriate actions based on the many lessons learned from this tragedy. One area that most would agree deserves needed attention concerns the Army Corps system. Funding is distributed in a manner that is not always awarded the most urgent projects. Because of this, citizens can end up paying for unnecessary and irresponsible Army Corps projects with their tax dollars and their safety. It is time for us to take a new approach to how the Army Corps does business. With lessons learned from Katrina, we can and must shepherd in a new era within the Army Corps that prioritizes critical projects and allows the American taxpayers to know that their money is being spent in an effective and efficient manner. The Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act is the only Corps related measure that has been introduced in the Senate since Katrina tragically struck that truly takes a lessons-learned approach. Any measure acted upon by this Congress regarding the Corps simply must account for the most up to date information available. We owe it to the American public. Historically, Congress has considered water projects costing many billions of taxpayer dollars as essential expenditures--regardless of the environmental costs or public benefits. That is why the modernization procedures in this bill are designed to achieve more critical and cost-effective expenditures for Corps water projects that will yield more environmental, economic, and social benefits. The need for these changes has been acknowledged by many for some time, but never has the need to spend scarce taxpayer dollars wisely been as crucial as it is now. The Corps procedures for planning and approving projects, as well as the Congressional system for funding projects, are broken, but they can be fixed. The reforms in our bill are based on thorough program analysis and common sense. I commend Senator Feingold for his efforts to build on and improve upon the legislation we have previously introduced. Corps modernization has been a priority that Senator Feingold and I have shared for years but never before has there been such an appropriate atmosphere and urgent need to move forward on these overdue reforms. Provisions of the legislation we are introducing today provide for a process to modify and modernize the Corps planning and approval procedures to consider economic, public, and environmental objectives. Independent review of Corps projects and a clear national prioritization of Corps projects would ensure that the most beneficial projects are constructed. Effective measures for mitigation of environmental and other damage caused by projects would be required and monitored. With support from Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, American Rivers, National Wildlife Federation, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense, Republicans for Environmental Protection, Sierra Club, and the World Wildlife Fund, the bill has broad interest and impact. Water projects that provide economic and environmental benefits to our Nation's citizens--the hardworking American taxpayers--serve the common good and reflect our common interest in fiscal responsibility. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, last Congress I introduced a rules change proposal to allow points of order to be raised against unauthorized appropriations and policy riders in appropriations bills and conference reports in an effort to reign in wasteful pork barrel spending. Today I am introducing a modified version of that proposal. I am pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort today by Senators Feingold, Coburn, Bayh, Sununu, Graham, Ensign, DeMint, and Kyl. According to data compiled by the Congressional Research Service, in 1994, there were 4,126 Congressional earmarks added to the annual appropriations bills. In 2005, there were 15,877 earmarks, the largest number yet, that's an increase of nearly 300 percent! The level of funding associated with those earmarks has more than doubled from $23.2 billion in fiscal year 1994 to $47.4 billion in fiscal year 2005. Our bill, entitled the Pork-Barrel Reduction Act, would establish a new procedure under Rule XVI, modeled in part after the Byrd Rule, which would allow a 60-vote point of order to be raised against specific provisions that contain unauthorized appropriations, including earmarks, as well as unauthorized policy changes in appropriations bills and conference reports. Of importance is that successful points of order would not kill a conference report, but the targeted provisions would be deemed removed from the conference report, and the measure would be sent back for concurrence by the House. To ensure that Members are given enough time to review appropriations bills, our proposal would also require that conference reports be available at least 48 hours prior to floor consideration. It also prohibits the consideration of a conference report if it includes matter outside the scope of conference. Additionally, our bill includes the provisions of S. 1495, the Obligation of Funds Transparency Act, which Senator Corburn and I introduced last July, to prohibit Federal agencies from obligating funds for appropriations earmarks included only in congressional reports, which are unamendable. To promote transparency, our bill requires that any earmarks included in a bill be disclosed fully in the bill's accompanying report, along with the name of the Member who requested the earmark and its essential governmental purpose. Additionally, our bill would require recipients of Federal dollars to disclose any amounts that the recipient expends on registered lobbyists. In summary, this proposed rules change, if adopted, would allow any member to raise a point of order in an effort to extract objectionable unauthorized provisions from the appropriations process. Our goal is to reform the current system by empowering all members with a tool to rid appropriations bills of unauthorized funds, pork barrel projects, and legislative policy riders and to provide greater public disclosure of the legislative process. I would like to highlight just a few examples of recent earmarks, many of which clearly do not belong in the measures that they were included: From the Defense Conference Report for FY 2006: $500,000 to teach science to grade-school students in Pennsylvania. $900,000 for ``Memorial Day'' out of the Army Operations and Maintenance account. $4.4 million for a Technology Center in Missouri. $1 million to a Civil War Center in Richmond, Virginia. $850,000 for an education center and public park in Des Moines, Iowa. $2 million for a public park in San Francisco. $500,000 for the Arctic Winter Games, an international athletic competition held this year in Alaska. $1.5 million for an aviation museum in Seattle, $1.35 million for an aviation museum in Hawaii, $1 million for a museum in Pennsylvania, and $3 million for the museum at Fort Belvoir. There's also $1.5 million for restoring the Battleship Texas. Funding for farm conservation. A provision protecting jobs in Hawaii and Alaska. A provision transferring as a direct lump sum payment to the University of Alaska the unobligated and unexpended balances appropriated to the United States-Canada Railroad Commission. And, of course, the ANWR provisions. From the FY06 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill Conference Report Statement of Managers: $500,000 for the Burpee Museum of Natural History in Illinois. $500,000 for Chesapeake Bay submerged aquatic vegetation research. $600,000 to study fish passage in Mud Mountain, Washington. $3 million to study the beneficial uses of dredged material for Morehead City, North Carolina. $1.25 million for the Sacred Falls demonstration project in Hawaii. $2 million for the Desert Research Institute, Nevada. $3.5 million for the Iroquois Bio-Energy Consortium Ethanol Project, Indiana. $500,000 for the Washington State Ferries Biodiesel Demonstration Project, WA. $1 million for the Canola-based Automotive Oil R&D, PA. $1 million for the Mt. Wachusett Community College Wind Project, MA. $7 million for the Arctic Energy Office, Alaska. These Energy and Water projects that I just mentioned are just a few examples of report language earmarks, none of which are subject to an amendment to strike. From the FY 2002 and 2003 Defense Appropriations Conference Reports: During conference negotiations on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002, unprecedented language was inserted into the final bill to allow the U.S. Air Force to lease 100 Boeing 767 commercial aircraft and convert them to tankers. The total cost to taxpayers, about $30 billion. However, Congress did not authorize these provisions in the Act, or in any other bill for that matter. In fact, the Senate Armed Services Committee was not even advised of this effort by the Air Force Secretary during consideration of the authorization measure. Moreover, these aircraft were not in the President's budget, the joint chiefs' unfunded priority list, or the pentagon's long range defense budget. Additionally, the purportedly compelling need for these aircraft (which the air force repeatedly cited for having taxpayers pay $6 billion more for leasing these tankers than they would if the air force simply bought them outright) was, and continues to be, wholly unsupported by any serious study or analysis of alternatives. Nonetheless, legislative language was again included in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2003 to modify the previous year's bill language on the Boeing 767 tankers. And, once again, the sweeping changes in procurement policy was made by the Appropriators without the input of the authorizing committee. Ultimately, it was discovered that the Air Force broke a number of Federal budgetary and leasing rules; that the lease terms were fiscally irresponsible; that this deal would have set a horrible precedent for the procurement of major defense systems; and that folks at the Air Force conspired with Boeing to break the law to make this deal happen in the first instance. Mr. President, with some people, as a result, not only losing their jobs, but also serving time in jail, I think all of my colleagues know what an egregious mistake this turned out to be. From Supplemental for War on Terror Conference Report (April 2005): A provision directing the Secretary of the Interior to analyze the viability of a sanctuary for the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow in Rio Grande Valley, TX. A provision stating that the $40 million set forth in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 for construction of a Port of Philadelphia marine cargo terminal ``be used solely for the construction by and for a Philadelphia-based company.'' From the FY 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report: The conference report contained provisions which allow a subsidiary of the Malaysian-owned ``Norwegian Cruise Lines'' the exclusive right to operate several large foreign-built cruise vessels in the domestic cruise trade. This provides an unfair competitive advantage to a foreign company at the expense of all other cruise ship operators, and creates a de facto monopoly for Norwegian Cruise Lines in the Hawaii cruise trade. Interestingly, this provision stems from another earmark in 1998 that went awry. The fiscal year 1998 Department of Defense Appropriation Bill granted a legal monopoly for American Classic Voyages to operate as the only U.S. flagged operator among the Hawaiian islands. After receiving the monopoly, American Classic Voyages secured a $1.1 billion loan guarantee from the U.S. Maritime Administration's, MARAD, Title XI loan guarantee program for the construction of two passenger vessels known as Project America. Project America's subsequent failure 4 years later resulted in the U.S. Maritime Administration paying out over $187.3 million of the American taxpayers' money to cover the project's loan default, and recovering only $2 million from the sale of some of the construction materials and parts. It is one hull and miscellaneous parts from these never-completed ships which cost the taxpayers nearly $200 million which are now going to be used in a foreign shipyard for building the Norwegian Cruise ships that will operate in Hawaii under this latest special interest provision. The conference report included an agriculture policy change to make catfish producers eligible for payments under the livestock compensation program, even though hog, poultry, and horse producers are not eligible. Despite the fact that the U.S. Department of Agriculture had implemented new organic food standards after lengthy negotiations, language was added to the conference report to permit livestock producers to certify and label meat products as ``organic'' even if the animals had not been fed organic grain. Without any consideration or debate, this last-minute rider was added to override these standards. Interestingly, a few months later, the Congress approved legislation as part of the War supplemental to repeal this provision and restore the prior organic food labeling standards. Obviously, I could go on and on and on citing examples of unauthorized earmarks and policy riders in appropriations bills. But I think you've got the picture. And I hope that we have finally reached the point that we are going to do something to reform this very broken system of legislating. 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. In his farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower reflected on the spending he believed to be excessive. His words then are all the more powerful in today's out of control environment: ``As we peer into society's future,'' he said, ``we--you and I, and our government--must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.'' And yet, if we cannot change, if we will not change, we risk precisely that--becoming the insolvent phantom of tomorrow. I wonder what President Eisenhower would think of this mess. But, then, perhaps others have contemplated the same question. After all, the Defense Appropriations bill we passed in December included a $1.7 million earmark for a memorial on the National Mall that would honor none other than * * * Dwight D. Eisenhower. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, last Congress I introduced a rules change proposal to allow points of order to be raised against unauthorized appropriations and policy riders in appropriations bills and conference reports in an effort to reign in wasteful pork barrel spending. Today I am introducing a modified version of that proposal. I am pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort today by Senators Feingold, Coburn, Bayh, Sununu, Graham, Ensign, DeMint, and Kyl. According to data compiled by the Congressional Research Service, in 1994, there were 4,126 Congressional earmarks added to the annual appropriations bills. In 2005, there were 15,877 earmarks, the largest number yet, that's an increase of nearly 300 percent! The level of funding associated with those earmarks has more than doubled from $23.2 billion in fiscal year 1994 to $47.4 billion in fiscal year 2005. Our bill, entitled the Pork-Barrel Reduction Act, would establish a new procedure under Rule XVI, modeled in part after the Byrd Rule, which would allow a 60-vote point of order to be raised against specific provisions that contain unauthorized appropriations, including earmarks, as well as unauthorized policy changes in appropriations bills and conference reports. Of importance is that successful points of order would not kill a conference report, but the targeted provisions would be deemed removed from the conference report, and the measure would be sent back for concurrence by the House. To ensure that Members are given enough time to review appropriations bills, our proposal would also require that conference reports be available at least 48 hours prior to floor consideration. It also prohibits the consideration of a conference report if it includes matter outside the scope of conference. Additionally, our bill includes the provisions of S. 1495, the Obligation of Funds Transparency Act, which Senator Corburn and I introduced last July, to prohibit Federal agencies from obligating funds for appropriations earmarks included only in congressional reports, which are unamendable. To promote transparency, our bill requires that any earmarks included in a bill be disclosed fully in the bill's accompanying report, along with the name of the Member who requested the earmark and its essential governmental purpose. Additionally, our bill would require recipients of Federal dollars to disclose any amounts that the recipient expends on registered lobbyists. In summary, this proposed rules change, if adopted, would allow any member to raise a point of order in an effort to extract objectionable unauthorized provisions from the appropriations process. Our goal is to reform the current system by empowering all members with a tool to rid appropriations bills of unauthorized funds, pork barrel projects, and legislative policy riders and to provide greater public disclosure of the legislative process. I would like to highlight just a few examples of recent earmarks, many of which clearly do not belong in the measures that they were included: From the Defense Conference Report for FY 2006: $500,000 to teach science to grade-school students in Pennsylvania. $900,000 for ``Memorial Day'' out of the Army Operations and Maintenance account. $4.4 million for a Technology Center in Missouri. $1 million to a Civil War Center in Richmond, Virginia. $850,000 for an education center and public park in Des Moines, Iowa. $2 million for a public park in San Francisco. $500,000 for the Arctic Winter Games, an international athletic competition held this year in Alaska. $1.5 million for an aviation museum in Seattle, $1.35 million for an aviation museum in Hawaii, $1 million for a museum in Pennsylvania, and $3 million for the museum at Fort Belvoir. There's also $1.5 million for restoring the Battleship Texas. Funding for farm conservation. A provision protecting jobs in Hawaii and Alaska. A provision transferring as a direct lump sum payment to the University of Alaska the unobligated and unexpended balances appropriated to the United States-Canada Railroad Commission. And, of course, the ANWR provisions. From the FY06 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill Conference Report Statement of Managers: $500,000 for the Burpee Museum of Natural History in Illinois. $500,000 for Chesapeake Bay submerged aquatic vegetation research. $600,000 to study fish passage in Mud Mountain, Washington. $3 million to study the beneficial uses of dredged material for Morehead City, North Carolina. $1.25 million for the Sacred Falls demonstration project in Hawaii. $2 million for the Desert Research Institute, Nevada. $3.5 million for the Iroquois Bio-Energy Consortium Ethanol Project, Indiana. $500,000 for the Washington State Ferries Biodiesel Demonstration Project, WA. $1 million for the Canola-based Automotive Oil R&D, PA. $1 million for the Mt. Wachusett Community College Wind Project, MA. $7 million for the Arctic Energy Office, Alaska. These Energy and Water projects that I just mentioned are just a few examples of report language earmarks, none of which are subject to an amendment to strike. From the FY 2002 and 2003 Defense Appropriations Conference Reports: During conference negotiations on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002, unprecedented language was inserted into the final bill to allow the U.S. Air Force to lease 100 Boeing 767 commercial aircraft and convert them to tankers. The total cost to taxpayers, about $30 billion. However, Congress did not authorize these provisions in the Act, or in any other bill for that matter. In fact, the Senate Armed Services Committee was not even advised of this effort by the Air Force Secretary during consideration of the authorization measure. Moreover, these aircraft were not in the President's budget, the joint chiefs' unfunded priority list, or the pentagon's long range defense budget. Additionally, the purportedly compelling need for these aircraft (which the air force repeatedly cited for having taxpayers pay $6 billion more for leasing these tankers than they would if the air force simply bought them outright) was, and continues to be, wholly unsupported by any serious study or analysis of alternatives. Nonetheless, legislative language was again included in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2003 to modify the previous year's bill language on the Boeing 767 tankers. And, once again, the sweeping changes in procurement policy was made by the Appropriators without the input of the authorizing committee. Ultimately, it was discovered that the Air Force broke a number of Federal budgetary and leasing rules; that the lease terms were fiscally irresponsible; that this deal would have set a horrible precedent for the procurement of major defense systems; and that folks at the Air Force conspired with Boeing to break the law to make this deal happen in the first instance. Mr. President, with some people, as a result, not only losing their jobs, but also serving time in jail, I think all of my colleagues know what an egregious mistake this turned out to be. From Supplemental for War on Terror Conference Report (April 2005): A provision directing the Secretary of the Interior to analyze the viability of a sanctuary for the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow in Rio Grande Valley, TX. A provision stating that the $40 million set forth in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 for construction of a Port of Philadelphia marine cargo terminal ``be used solely for the construction by and for a Philadelphia-based company.'' From the FY 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report: The conference report contained provisions which allow a subsidiary of the Malaysian-owned ``Norwegian Cruise Lines'' the exclusive right to operate several large foreign-built cruise vessels in the domestic cruise trade. This provides an unfair competitive advantage to a foreign company at the expense of all other cruise ship operators, and creates a de facto monopoly for Norwegian Cruise Lines in the Hawaii cruise trade. Interestingly, this provision stems from another earmark in 1998 that went awry. The fiscal year 1998 Department of Defense Appropriation Bill granted a legal monopoly for American Classic Voyages to operate as the only U.S. flagged operator among the Hawaiian islands. After receiving the monopoly, American Classic Voyages secured a $1.1 billion loan guarantee from the U.S. Maritime Administration's, MARAD, Title XI loan guarantee program for the construction of two passenger vessels known as Project America. Project America's subsequent failure 4 years later resulted in the U.S. Maritime Administration paying out over $187.3 million of the American taxpayers' money to cover the project's loan default, and recovering only $2 million from the sale of some of the construction materials and parts. It is one hull and miscellaneous parts from these never-completed ships which cost the taxpayers nearly $200 million which are now going to be used in a foreign shipyard for building the Norwegian Cruise ships that will operate in Hawaii under this latest special interest provision. The conference report included an agriculture policy change to make catfish producers eligible for payments under the livestock compensation program, even though hog, poultry, and horse producers are not eligible. Despite the fact that the U.S. Department of Agriculture had implemented new organic food standards after lengthy negotiations, language was added to the conference report to permit livestock producers to certify and label meat products as ``organic'' even if the animals had not been fed organic grain. Without any consideration or debate, this last-minute rider was added to override these standards. Interestingly, a few months later, the Congress approved legislation as part of the War supplemental to repeal this provision and restore the prior organic food labeling standards. Obviously, I could go on and on and on citing examples of unauthorized earmarks and policy riders in appropriations bills. But I think you've got the picture. And I hope that we have finally reached the point that we are going to do something to reform this very broken system of legislating. 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. In his farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower reflected on the spending he believed to be excessive. His words then are all the more powerful in today's out of control environment: ``As we peer into society's future,'' he said, ``we--you and I, and our government--must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.'' And yet, if we cannot change, if we will not change, we risk precisely that--becoming the insolvent phantom of tomorrow. I wonder what President Eisenhower would think of this mess. But, then, perhaps others have contemplated the same question. After all, the Defense Appropriations bill we passed in December included a $1.7 million earmark for a memorial on the National Mall that would honor none other than * * * Dwight D. Eisenhower. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, February 1, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an Oversight Hearing on Off-Reservation Gaming: The Process for Considering Gaming Applications lands eligible for gaming pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for her remarks and her strong support of this very decent American and the continued leadership she exercises in our party and in our caucus. We know that elections have consequences. When President Bush ran for reelection, he stated plainly and often that if given the opportunity, he would nominate judges to the U.S. Supreme Court who strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States. True to his promise, the President nominated John Roberts to become the 18th Chief Justice of the United States. Just as true to his promise, he nominated Samuel Alito to serve as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. I was pleased that President Bush nominated Judge Alito, as were many other Members of this body. I reserved final judgment, as most of us did, until we saw the confirmation process proceed. I don't take the Senate's advice and consent role lightly. I didn't want to encourage a rush to judgment. The hearings have occurred, and I believe Judge Alito has performed admirably. There were 18 hours and 700 questions, and there probably would have been a lot more questions if there had not been the length of the questions, sometimes lasting as long as a half hour. Anyway, I believe he is worthy of our support. As has been stated time after time on the floor, he earned the highest ratings of the American Bar Association. Let me tell you what impresses me, Mr. President, probably as much as anything else. It is the strong endorsement Judge Alito got from the people who used to work for him. There is nobody who knows people better than those who work for you. There is a very impressive list of former law clerks of Judge Alito writing to urge the Senate to confirm him. As they state in their letter: Our party affiliations and views on policy matters span the political spectrum. We have worked for Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and have actively supported and worked on behalf of Democratic, Republican, and Independent candidates. And they go on to say in their letter: What unites us is our strong support for Judge Alito and our deep belief that he will be an outstanding Supreme Court Justice. That impresses me, when the clerks, the people who work alongside these judges every single day--and it is a very long list; it looks to me like there are 60 to 75 names on there--are all supporting him. As they state, they are of all beliefs and party affiliations. There is no person or persons who know a judge better than those who clerked for him. Finally, they go on to say: It never once appeared to us that Judge Alito had prejudged a case or ruled based on political ideology. To the contrary, Judge Alito meticulously and diligently applied controlling legal authority to the facts of each case after a full and careful consideration of all relevant legal arguments. It is our uniform experience that Judge Alito was guided by his profound respect for the Constitution and the limited role of the judicial branch. That is what Judge Alito is all about from the people who know him best, other than his family. Frankly, that has a significant effect on my view of him. I will make one other comment. We are dragging out this process for no good reason. We all know what the outcome of the vote is going to be. We have other pressing business, including lobbying reform, which needs to be taken up by this body. We have pending the issue of the PATRIOT Act. There are many issues we should be addressing and at least beginning to work on, rather than dragging out this process. I wish my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would see fit to bring this process to a close and let us vote on Judge Alito and move on to other pressing issues. The fact that there will probably be a large number of votes on that side of the aisle against Judge Alito doesn't upset me as much as it saddens me. I didn't agree with the judicial philosophy of Justice Breyer or Justice Ginsburg. I knew that Justice Ginsburg worked for the ACLU and held liberal views. But I also believe that elections have consequences. The President of the United States--at that time, President Clinton--nominated them as his selection. There were very few--a handful of votes against either Justice Breyer or Justice Ginsburg. When there is a large number of votes against this highly qualified individual, it is a symptom of the rather bitter partisanship that exists in this body today, and I regret that very much. There are pressing issues, such as Iran and their rapid acquisition of nuclear weapons, which spring to mind. We have to sit down in an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect and work on these things. I will be very sad when I see this large vote against this good and decent American, but, more importantly, I will be upset because we continue to engage in the kind of partisanship which has even been ratcheted up lately on lobbying reform, when we should be working out a common approach and a common cure for a significant illness that afflicts this body and the Capitol today. I hope we can finish this debate as soon as possible, vote on Judge Alito, and then move forward. I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their untiring work to bring the Defense authorization bill to closure. In doing so, Congress takes a major step in ensuring that America stays true to its fundamental values. By establishing uniform standards for the interrogation of Department of Defense detainees, and by ensuring that the United States will not subject any individual to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, we are better able to wage and win the war on terror. This would not have been possible without the work of the chairman, the ranking member, and other members of this committee, including most notably the Senator from South Carolina. I would also like to thank the President and the national security advisor for their efforts in resolving the difficult issues underlying the amendment. In reaching agreement, we make sure that the world knows that the United States does not--and by law cannot engage in torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. During our talks, the administration raised legitimate concerns about legal claims facing civilian interrogators. Based on these concerns, the bill includes language that will allow accused civilian interrogators--like military interrogators--a robust defense if a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have believed he was following a lawful directive. It further includes language providing legal counsel to interrogators. These provisions are modeled on provisions drawn from the Uniform Code of Military Justice. With the detainee treatment provisions, Congress has clearly spoken that the prohibition against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment should be enforced and that anyone engaging in or authorizing such conduct, whether at home or overseas, is violating the law. Sections 1402 and 1403 of Title XIV of this bill do not create a new private right ot action. At the same time, these provisions do not eliminate or diminish any private right of action otherwise available. It is our intent not to disable that in any way.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I applaud the Senator from Oklahoma for not only his statement but also for his continued commitment to fiscal discipline here and in trying to identify much of the wasteful and unnecessary spending. I wonder if the Senator from Oklahoma has had a chance to look at the Defense appropriations bill we are going to consider tomorrow and see some examples of the interesting earmarks out of a conference report. Is the Senator aware of $500,000 to teach science to grade school students in Pennsylvania or $3.85 million for the Intrepid Sea-Air- Space Foundation or $4.4 million for a Technology Center in Missouri or $1 million to a Civil War Center in Richmond, VA, or $850,000 for an education center and public park in Des Moines, Iowa, or $2 million for a public park in San Francisco or $500,000 for the Arctic Winter Games, an international athletic competition held this year in Alaska? Museums are popular this year, including $1.5 million for an aviation museum in Seattle, $1.35 million for an aviation museum in Hawaii, $1 million for a museum in Pennsylvania, $3 million for a museum in Fort Belvoir. There are more, I say to my friend from Oklahoma, and we are at war. I wonder how many MREs, flak vests, or bullets we could buy with all this money. I appreciate the Senator's support for this budgetary measure, but how do we tell people we are going to cut food stamps and reduce eligibility for welfare while we are taking the money that is for defense, in the tens of millions of dollars on this Defense appropriations bill, put in a conference report that none of us ever saw or read until right now, I ask the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Colorado yield me 30 seconds after he is recognized?

Mr. McCAIN. If I may continue, Mr. President, America is at war. We all know that, and that is why the measure we are debating today, the conference report to H.R. 2863, the 2006 Defense appropriations bill, is so very important. This conference report provides critical financing for our fighting men and women, the brave individuals we sent to fight in our name. We must support them, and, for that reason, I will vote in favor of its passage. But I do so under protest. The conference report appropriates nearly $408 billion, plus an additional $50 billion in emergency funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The non-emergency portion is approximately $4.5 billion under the administration's request, but is several billions higher than the Senate bill. As is the case with so many of the appropriations bills that come to the floor, this conference report and the joint explanatory statement contain earmarks and pork projects that were neither requested nor authorized. War means sacrifice--any student of history knows that--and Americans have sacrificed throughout our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our soldiers and their families have sacrificed, and this year other costs have spread throughout the Nation. Whether it is the victims of Hurricane Katrina, or those that have come to their aid or simply all those Americans who are paying higher gasoline prices, we see sacrifices of many kinds. And so in these difficult times, the American people are right to expect their elected leaders to sacrifice as well. But then we see a bill like the one on the floor today, and I am sure many Americans wonder if the spirit of sacrifice stops on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. During a war, in a measure designed to give our fighting men and women the funds they need, the Congress has given in to its worst pork-barrel instincts. Let's take a look at some of the earmarks that are in this Defense appropriations conference report: $500,000 to teach science to grade school students in Pennsylvania; $3.85 million for the Intrepid Sea- Air-Space Foundation; $4.4 million for a technology center in Missouri; $1 million to an Civil War center in Richmond, VA; $850,000 for an education center and public park in Des Moines, IA; $2 million for a public park in San Francisco; and $500,000 for the Arctic Winter Games, an international athletic competition held this year in Alaska. And museums are popular this year. There is $1.5 million for an aviation museum in Seattle, $1.35 million for an aviation museum in Hawaii, $1 million for a museum in Pennsylvania, and $3 million for the museum at Fort Belvoir. There is also $1.5 million for restoring the battleship Texas. We are at war. How many MREs, flak-vests, or bullets could we buy with all this money? How many dollars could we return to the taxpayers? I would note that these are just a small sampling of the many, many unrequested earmarks that fill this bill. But perhaps we are being too hard on ourselves. After all, the conference report includes a number of provisions that will rescind unobligated balances in Federal accounts, so we are offsetting a small portion of some of these needless costs. But wait a minute. There is always a catch. While the conference report rescinds $10 million from the Natural Resources Conservation Service Operations account, it also includes language to prevent any cuts to the projects and activities identified on pages 84 to 87 of the House report that accompanies the Agriculture appropriations bill. And if you review that report, you will find 108 earmarked projects totaling more than $103 million. A few examples of the projects that the appropriators are committed to protecting from any reductions, even for the sake of fiscal responsibility, include: $242,000 for a wildlife habitat education program in conjunction with the National Wild Turkey Federation in Illinois, which is dedicated to conserving wild turkeys and preserving our Nation's hunting heritage. $100,000 for the Trees Forever Program in Iowa--an organization with a laudable mission statement--it claims to be an organization that not only plants and cares for trees, but also addresses the challenges facing our communities and the environment--but hardly one that should be funded in a Defense appropriations bill. $400,000 for dairy waste remediation in Louisiana. $600,000 for conservation related to cranberry production in Massachusetts and Wisconsin. Conservation related to cranberry production. Remarkable. $200,000 for Weed It Now--Taconic Mountains--MA/NY/CT. Weed It Now, I am told, is an effort to remove invasive plants from the forest habitat of the Berkshire Taconic plateau. I am a strong supporter of the global war on weeds, Mr. President, but this earmark does not belong in this bill. Clearly, such projects should not be asked to spare a dime. Beyond the earmarks, Mr. President, it is a violation of Senate rules to legislate on an appropriation bill, unless, as is the case with several sections of the detainee provisions in title 10, they are added pursuant to a rule 16 defense of germaneness. And yet this rule is flouted far too often. This bill not only contains numerous authorizing provisions, but it also features dozens of provisions, both authorizing and appropriating, that are wholly outside of the scope of defense policy. Some of these are included to pursue laudable policy objectives; some are not. A sampling of the non- germane provisions includes: the hurricane supplemental: $29 billion for hurricane victims; the Gulf Coast Recovery Fund; avian flu vaccine limitation of liability provisions; a provision that directs funds from the Digital Transition and Public Safety Fund that are in excess of $12 billion to be spent on, among other things, the Tucson, Arizona Border Patrol sector, $30 million, the San Diego sector fence, $20 million, and to carry out the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, $50 million; 1.5 billion for home heating energy assistance; funding for farm conservation; a provision protecting jobs in Hawaii and Alaska; a provision transferring as a direct lump sum payment to the University of Alaska the unobligated and unexpended balances appropriated to the United States-Canada Railroad Commission; and, of course, the ANWR provisions, which I will discuss in a moment. Mr. President, some of these provisions are very important. Others clearly are not. But whether or not they are important, we should follow the standing rules of the Senate. We should debate these provisions and have the opportunity to offer amendments. Division C of this conference report authorizes the exploration, leasing, development, production, and transportation of oil and gas in and from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR. This provision does not belong in an appropriations bill to fund our troops who are fighting the war on terror. Drilling in ANWR is, of course, the reason we are here today. When conferees tried to add these provisions to the reconciliation measure, they could not get the votes to include it in the final agreement without putting passage of the whole package in jeopardy. So instead the conference managers have circumvented Senate rules and added this unrelated and controversial measure to the Defense conference report. Thanks to this additional language, enactment of the Defense funding bill has been needlessly delayed and continues at this moment to be the target of a filibuster. I strongly oppose this inclusion of this language in the DOD appropriations conference report, and I am appalled by the tactics that have been used to arm-twist and pressure Senators to choose between a drilling provision that they know is wrong and providing desperately needed funding for our Nation's troops. And the ANWR provisions didn't come free, of course. The proponents had to come up with a slew of sweeteners in an effort to win support for drilling in the Arctic. Let's look at a few of these. Division D directs an additional $1.5 billion, designated as emergency spending, for Low-Income Home Energy Assistance. The same division establishes a Gulf Coast Recovery and Disaster Prevention and Assistance Fund, which would be funded largely through ANWR oil and gas revenues. Another set of provisions addresses the Digital Transition and Public Safety Fund, established by the budget reconciliation conference report. The CBO estimates that this ``spectrum fund'' will generate $10 billion, but the conference report we are debating today figures out how to spend revenues in excess of $10 billion. After $10 billion, the next $2 billion will be directed to the Gulf Coast Fund. Already planning how to spend money that exceeds the level the CBO projects we will have. Sound familiar, Mr. President? So CBO says we can plan on $10 billion from the spectrum fund. If we somehow get to $12 billion in revenue, the excess goes to the Gulf Coast. So you think we would stop there. But, no, we go further, planning how to spend the next $4 billion on the chance that the spectrum fund generates still more money. The conference report directs that distributions over $12 billion be earmarked as: $900 million for conservation programs through the Department of Agriculture; $50 million to carry out the North American Wetlands Conservation Act; $50 million to protect grassland and wetland habitats; $1 billion for Interoperable Communications Equipment to assist State and local government preparation for a natural disaster or terrorist attack; $1 billion to assist State and local government preparation for a natural disaster or terrorist attack; $80 million to the Department of Homeland Security to replace and upgrade law enforcement communications; $30 million to replace Border Patrol vehicles; $490 million for Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance and Procurement to replace air assets, including $40 million for helicopter replacement; $372 million for Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance and Procurement to construct and renovate air facilities; $30 million for Tucson, AZ Border Patrol sector for tactical infrastructure; $20 million for San Diego, CA Border Patrol sector for the sector conference; $30 million for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to replace detention and removal vehicles; and $17.9 million for Federal Law Enforcement Training Center for construction of a language training facility. While the border security projects I have just mentioned are important, will they come to fruition? Not until the spectrum revenues exceed the CBO's estimate--first by $2 billion, and then by $4 billion on top of that. So only when the fund hits $16 billion would all these funds actually be distributed. This entire scheme reminds me of the saying by Wimpy, the hamburger-obsessed character from the Popeye comic, ``I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.'' In addition to everything I have described in the conference report, the statement of managers that accompanies it also includes hundreds of earmarks and questionable projects. Here are just a few examples: $1.6 million for Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Activities; $30 million for continued development of the Joint Common Missile--a program that DOD cancelled this year; $10 million to restructure the Advanced SEAL Delivery System--over half a billion dollars has been spent over the last 9 years, with no deployable vehicles yet fielded, U.S. Special Operations Command has cancelled plans for future boats; $3.2 million for Handheld High Intensity Searchlights; and $7 million for the Alaska Land Mobile Radio. Mr. President, despite high gas prices, despite a swelling budget deficit, despite our military operations overseas, and despite our domestic emergencies, pork continues to thrive in good times and bad. The cumulative effect of these earmarks is the erosion of the integrity of the appropriations process, and by extension, our responsibility to the taxpayer. We must do better, for our soldiers and for the American people. We have to fix this system, Mr. President. Our system is broken if we cannot pass a Defense bill in wartime without billions of dollars in pork. Our system is broken if we cannot fund our troops without tacking on legislation that opens ANWR to drilling. Our system is broken if our national security is at stake and we carry on spending for the special interests as if nothing were wrong. But there is something wrong, something very wrong. We want to have it all without making any sacrifices, so we simply borrow the money, pushing off the obligations to our children and our grandchildren. ANWR is a perfect example of that. We drill today in the false hope that doing so will solve our energy problems, but in doing so we leave future generations with a degraded environment and the same dependence on oil that we have today. In his farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower reflected on the spending he believed to be excessive. His words then are all the more powerful in today's out of control environment: ``As we peer into society's future,'' he said, ``we--you and I, and our government--must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.'' And yet, I say to my colleagues, if we cannot change, if we will not change, we risk precisely that--becoming the insolvent phantom of tomorrow. I wonder what President Eisenhower would think of this mess. But, then, perhaps others have contemplated the same question. After all, this bill includes a $1.7 million earmark for a memorial on the National Mall that would honor none other than Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have brought it up, I say to my friend from New Hampshire, because you cannot take away with one hand and give with the other. What we are doing in this very vital Defense appropriations bill, again, is larded down with unnecessary, unwanted, unessential, disgraceful spending that I find unacceptable. As the Senator from Oklahoma said, we are going to start doing something about it, and the sooner the better. I thank my friend from Colorado.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the Senator from Colorado to yield me 30 seconds.

Mr. McCAIN. Here we are again, I say to my colleague from Oklahoma, when everybody wants to get out of town examining bils that have all kinds of things in them that we never saw or heard of. In the Statement of Managers, there is $1.6 million for the Lewis and Clark bicentennial activities. The list goes on. There is $7 million for the Alaska Land Mobile Radio. I ask my friend from Oklahoma, don't you think the American people are fed up with this kind of stuff? And don't you think it is time a group of us, who have been meeting and talking about eliminating some of these practices, get together and make things tough on the floor of this Senate next year to reign in this out-of-control, disgraceful, obscene conduct that goes on on these appropriation bills?