John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator has a question, I would be glad to respond. Otherwise, I do not want to use the time of the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator for her question, and I appreciate the Senator from Alaska allowing that time. It is still premature and I think that to order a study of the background within a period of a couple months would be most appropriate. I yield back the remainder of my time to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. McCAIN. I am sure it will not be long, but since my colleague Senator Kyl wants to speak on it, I would like to wait before entering a time agreement.

Mr. McCAIN. It should not be more than 15 or 20 minutes.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as I said yesterday during the debate on the supplemental, I hope we can consider the bill that did not include a host of add-ons and provisions not requested by the administration. Today, with many of our young men and women in harm's way, we should be considering a measure to support the ongoing war efforts and our Nation's homeland security needs free of earmarked or unauthorized provisions. Unfortunately, that is not the case with the bill before the Senate. I wonder why we could not once--especially with a war going on--bring forward a bill that was free of unnecessary provisions in wasteful earmarks. I hoped we could do it just once. The amendment offered by Senator Kyl and myself is intended to improve the bill to achieve that goal. This amendment would not provide funding for a number of items in the bill that are not associated with the stated purpose of the bill. If there is discussion by other Members, I make it fully understood this amendment is proposed in the framework of the title of the bill which I may repeat several times, which is: Making supplemental appropriations to support Department of Defense operations in Iraq, Department of Homeland Security, and related efforts for the fiscal year ending September 20, 2003, and for other purposes. Clearly, this legislation is to pay for the war in Iraq and other homeland security needs. It is not here to pay for agricultural facilities, for loan guarantees, for sea lamprey control in Lake Champlain, for the Mental Health Association in Tarrant County, Forth Worth, TX, or AIDS research at the University of California, for the study of treatment of autism at the Geisinger Health System, Harrisburg, PA. None of those, even in one's wildest imagination, relates to the title of this legislation. What Senator Kyl and I have done is propose an amendment, rather than drag the Senate through each individual measure and forcing votes on it--which we could have done--but lump them all together and find out whether the Senate is going to continue its porkbarreling ways, which has become, to me, a national scandal, or we are going to draw the line somewhere. Let me go specifically through what our amendment would not fund. It would not fund $98 million for buildings and facilities under the Agricultural Research Service to continue construction for USDA research facilities. Of course, it is designated in Ames, IA. The very first lines in the emergency supplemental bill include $98 million in funds that are intended to be used to continue modernization work on the animal and inspection services facility near Ames, IA. I note this facility received favorable attention from the appropriators previously when a $50 million earmark for the same facility was included in last year's supplemental bill that was intended to fight the war against terrorism. An additional $33 million was also earmarked in the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill. The administration has previously stated additional funding as suggested in last year's supplemental bill was not an essential priority at that time. As a further demonstration of the nonemergency nature of this project, the administration's 2004 budget does not request any funding to supplement this effort. Certainly, the study of farm animal diseases and controlling known and unknown animal diseases are clearly important to national public health issues. As part of the Government's effort to improve its knowledge of disease agents and mechanisms, this research facility and other related facilities do serve an important purpose. However, this work is already underway. Adding an additional $98 million as part of this essential war spending measure is simply not required or necessary. Finally, this ongoing project will clearly be the subject of additional appropriations in future years through the routine appropriations process. These particular renovations are not scheduled to be completed for at least a few more years. I find it difficult to believe removing this $98 million earmark at a time when it is not needed will jeopardize its continued planning and construction. We will not fund $50 million for the Maritime Administration's title XI loan guarantee program. Chapter 10 of title I provides $50 million in funding to the Maritime Administration's title XI guaranteed loan program for shipbuilders and shipyards. As I said yesterday, this funding is not justified as part of an emergency supplemental to fund the ongoing war. Not only is the program riddled with problems, but the administration did not propose funding it, either in its 2004 or 2003 budget. The Title XI program does not serve any defense or homeland security purpose. It should not receive funding under the guise of a wartime need. The title XI program is without question one of the most wasteful and mismanaged guarantee programs in the Federal Government. Since 1998, loan defaults have totaled $490 million. On Monday of this week, the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General released a report that details the multiple problems with the program's administration. Moreover, how can this provision be aimed at supporting the current war when vessels take years to be built? It simply cannot. I take a moment to respond to some of the comments made by my colleagues yesterday on the floor in defense of the title XI Maritime Loan Guarantee Program that warrant clarification to ensure there is no misconception about the program. First, it was asserted that this program is a critical need for the auxiliary maritime capacity during time of war. Yet based on information provided by the Maritime Administration, nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is, as I indicated in my statement yesterday, out of the 51 vessels currently being used in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, only 1 was built using a title XI maritime loan guarantee. Furthermore, when the Maritime Administration reviews such loan applications, it does not evaluate them to determine if the proposed vessels have any military applicability. Second, the proponents of this funding claim that the program strengthens our shipbuilding industrial base in support of our defense needs. This argument has been used time and time and time and time again in an attempt to justify this porkbarrel program. Appropriators have claimed for years that commercial ship construction keeps shipyards open and reduces the costs associated with defense ship construction. I cannot argue against the claim that providing subsidies helps to keep shipyards open. There is little, if any, evidence that commercial ship construction reduces the costs associated with defense ship construction. In fact, recent evidence shows just the opposite. In February, the Department of Justice filed suit against Newport News Shipbuilding for knowingly mischarging the U.S. Navy for more than $72 million of costs related to the design and development of commercial tankers which were passed through as overhead on major Navy shipbuilding contracts. This is one case, but clearly more investigation is needed to determine how other yards are doing their work. I point out again, $490 million in defaults over the last 5 years is a lot of money. Speaking of a lot of money, I point out the $98 million for building facilities under the Agricultural Research Service and $50 million for the Maritime administration is about $150 million that is being added. So we are not talking about small amounts of money. Mr. President, $500,000 for another program that will not be funded is $500,000 for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Title 11, Chapter 2 of the bill earmarks $500,000 for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to be used for sea lamprey control in Lake Champlain. This funding was not requested by the administration and the sea lamprey does not, in my opinion, pose a clear and present danger to our national security. I hope my colleagues will agree that a wartime supplemental is not an appropriate vehicle to fund an earmark of this nature, which has absolutely nothing to do with fighting the war in Iraq or meeting our homeland security needs. One million dollars for the Jobs for America's Graduates (JAG) school-to-work program for at-risk young people for Training and Employment Services under the Employment and Training Administration of the Department of Labor. The supplemental appropriations bill provides $1 million for the Department of Labor's Jobs for America's Graduates school-to-work program for at-risk youth people. This program is a school-to-career program implemented in 1,000 high schools, alternative schools, community colleges, and middle schools across the country and United Kingdom. Its mission is to keep young people in school through graduation and provide work-based learning experiences that will lead to career advancement opportunities or to enroll in a post-secondary institution that leads to a rewarding career. No one disputes that the goals of this program are worthwhile and that this may be a valuable and effective program. But what is it doing in a appropriations bill whose purpose, by its stated title, is to ``support Department of Defense Operations in Iraq, Department of Homeland Security, and Related Efforts . . .''? Can someone tell me how this program is so related to our war effort and homeland security that we must provide funding for it today in this bill? If it is so urgent, then why was it not included in the President's supplemental appropriations request? When we consider the Labor/HHS appropriations bill for the next fiscal year, we should debate funding for this program at that time. The Labor/HHS appropriations bill is the proper legislative vehicle for debate about this program--not this war supplemental. We are doing a disservice to our young men and women fighting the war in Iraq by attaching this unrelated program to a bill designed to support their efforts. Mr. President, there is $225,000 for the Mental Health Association of Tarrant County, Ft. Worth, TX to provide school-based mental health education to schools in Tarrant County; $200,000 for the IDS Research Institute at the University of California, San Francisco for Developing County Medical Program to facilitate clinician exchange between the United States and developing countries; and $1,000,000 for the Geisinger Health System, Harrisburg, PA to establish centers for excellence for the treatment of autism. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) portion of the emergency supplemental spending bill to fund the war in Iraq contains several earmarks. Such funding may be for worthy health endeavors. However, these provisions are earmarks and they do not belong within the text of an emergency bill devoted to funding the war. These earmarks are funded from monies allocated by the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill which I understand were earmarked in the accompanying report. But now, the appropriators are seeking to earmark them in statute. There is directive language that would allow West Point cadets to receive flight training during the summer at The University of North Dakota. Last year's appropriations Senate Report--I emphasize ``report,'' which does not have the effect of law--earmarked $2 million in Army Operation and Maintenance account for the University of North Dakota ROTC program, known as ``Air Battle Captain.'' On this supplemental bill, there is directive language which would authorize--for the first time--a new program to teach flight training to West Point cadets during summer training at the University of North Dakota. This sounds like a good program, but shouldn't this aviation training program be competitively bid? Perhaps cadets could be better trained at the Army aviation school at Fort Rucker in Alabama. Arizona also has a very good aviation school in Prescott, AZ--Emory Riddle University. These schools should be afforded the same opportunity to train West Point cadets. At the very least, there should be competition, to determine the most cost-effective means to provide this type of initial pilot training to West Point cadets. I don't know. However, I do know the appropriations bill should not direct the West Point Superintendent to send his cadets only to The University of North Dakota, without consideration of other pilot training capabilities. That is wrong. That is wrong. In the Senate report--not in bill language--there is an earmark for $12 million from Defense-Wide Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation for airfield improvements in Alaska that may be associated with the ground-based mid-course missile defense program. Because this is report language, I can not strike it in my amendment, however it is equally as appalling. According to the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget: ``Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation covers the costs of developing and testing new systems and subsystems.'' My staff advises me that, this may have been included in previous appropriations tables in some form--but I could not find it. However, I question the merit of this earmark. If this was a valid program, why would we take critical dollars from research, development, testing, and evaluation funding--which Republicans and Democrats alike, understand is underfunded according to defense budget experts--to pay for airfield improvement in Alaska? Why are we robbing critical defense Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation funds to pour concrete? Why not use Military Construction money? Mr. President, $12 million is a lot money for airfield improvements. The Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee provides Airport Improvement Program funding for airports in the United States for planned maintenance and construction. This is a lot of money to refurbish the airfield. Because it is report language--it is a Senate Appropriations Committee recommendation only--the Department of Defense does not need to apply the $12 million in this way, so it could simply ignore the Committee recommendation as it does not have the force of law. Similarly, there are two other earmarks--that my colleagues will explain are not new earmarks. In fact, they were included in the Senate Appropriations Report language last year. We have a new kind of routine that is going on here by the appropriators that certainly is a testimony to imagination, but I think it is something that is a new opening for porkbarrel spending. In an appropriations bill, you put in money for a general fund and it is in the report language, not having the force of law, so, therefore, those of us who want to eliminate it cannot do so because it is in the report language. Then in the following appropriations bill, they earmark from that report language in the law the porkbarrel project. It is wrong. It is wrong. In any case, there is no doubt this year--the war supplemental to support Department of Defense operations in Iraq--includes directive bill language specifically to provide $6.8 million from Air Force Operation and Maintenance accounts to build and install fiber optic and power upgrades at the 11th Air Force Range in Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska. Furthermore, there is $3 million earmarked in the Operation and Maintenance accounts directing the Army to build a rifle range for the South Carolina National Guard. Why not use Military Construction funding, if this was a worth-while project. Why hide it in Operation and Maintenance funding? For the benefit of my colleagues, operations and maintenance money is used to train people. This is what we could use to provide spare parts. This is the heart and soul of the movement and readiness of our military. So we are, in report language, saying they should take money from operation and maintenance accounts to build fiberoptic and power upgrades at Elmendorf Air Force Base and to build a rifle range for the South Carolina National Guard. The one thing many of us have worried about, and worried about for years and years, is operation and maintenance. We always shortchange them because they are nonsexy items. There is no contract let, generally speaking, for operation and maintenance--to provide the spare parts, the maintenance of the high-tech equipment, the fuel, all of those things. Now, where is this directed money coming from for fiberoptic upgrades, for building a rifle range? Out of operation and maintenance. Again, according to the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget: ``Operation and Maintenance (O&M) includes spending on fuel, spare parts, and overhauls of military equipment. O&M also includes spending on such items as health care, environmental programs, the maintenance and repair of buildings, roadways, runways, and base operating support including telephone systems and computers.'' Report language does not have the force of law. The war supplemental bill language does however. There will now be no doubt in any Pentagon general counsel's mind because the Iraqi war supplemental says: Spend the money or you will be breaking the law. Mr. President, let me also express my deep concern about a pattern that seems to be developing. It seems to becoming a practice in which funding is provided in one appropriations bill, and then earmarked, under the guise as technical corrections, in a subsequent measure. In fact, this is the very situation that is taking place with the above mentioned earmarks under the Department of Health and Human Services. Funding was authorized and now we are expected to not even question the fact that the pending bill proposes a number of provisions to earmark the previously authorized funds. Again, I will never underestimate the imagination and creativity of the Appropriations Committee. This is one pattern that must be halted. I hope we can vote in favor of this amendment. It is not a huge amount of money when we are talking about the size of this overall bill. I believe all of these provisions from which we are trying to eliminate the money would probably be restored in a normal appropriations process--whether I happen to agree with it or not. But how do we tell our constituents, who are paying their taxes--and understanding they have difficult times now with unemployment high, with cutbacks, and people being laid off--that we are going to take their tax dollars, in the name of funding the war on Iraq and homeland security, and spend it on these projects? I do not think we should be doing this. I hope my colleagues will consider voting in favor of the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. I mention to my colleague, I tried to get a handle on it. My colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, I know wants to speak on it, but I am not sure there is a lot of other significant debate on the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN. After that, return to the Ensign amendment or return to the McCain amendment?

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

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator is aware there are German military and civilians working right now, helping in the reconstruction and peacekeeping in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan?

Mr. McCAIN. And have these Germans perhaps been associated with some firm that may also be in the work of reconstruction and peacekeeping in Bosnia and Kosovo and Afghanistan? Does my friend from Delaware believe somehow we should prevent any company, corporation, or individual who may have a contract in those three parts of the world from doing so?

Mr. McCAIN. One more question: As the ranking member and senior and former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, suppose in the case of Kosovo, where Germany contributed enormously in the force of peacekeeping, medical care, other provisions of sustenance, particularly in Kosovo and Bosnia, where there was enormous devastation, suppose we had passed a law like this with regard to Bosnia or Kosovo: Do you think we would have gotten the kind of assistance from the German government and the people we have received to date, including leadership of the peacekeeping forces?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will not waste the time of this body responding to the statement of the Senator from Iowa except to say I agree with him. It is more than an embarrassment. It is more than an embarrassment that we would be putting $98 million into a project that already received $50 million before an additional $33 million in the 2003 omnibus appropriations bill and for which there was not any additional funding requested by the administration. There is a reason there was not any request for this money by the administration when they asked for this funding which is supposed to be for the war. As I say, I will not waste time except to say it is more than an embarrassment to me to tell my constituents that when we are supposed to be funding a war that is going on right now when young Americans are fighting and dying and badly need the equipment and materiel and the help that is in this bill that we are going to try to stuff in a $98 million porkbarrel project for an agricultural research facility which is already more than adequately funded, rather than put it into an emergency supplemental. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.

Mr. McCAIN. I will take ten seconds. I oppose the amendment, but I assure the Senator from California we recognize this is a threat; we recognize this is a danger. I hope we defeat this amendment, but I commit to her we will work to try to address this clear and present danger, through studies and work with TSA and other agencies of government. I look forward to working with the Senator.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, could we, in this body, strike these nonessential and unnecessary projects from this bill so we can focus on the intent of the language? I don't want to debate the merits or demerits of projects that are included in the bill. They are clearly nonemergency and nonwar related. I ask my colleagues in the Senate to consider striking them. They can come in future appropriations bills, but they are certainly not appropriate at this time on this bill.

Mr. McCAIN. Regular order, Madam President.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask for the regular order.

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Ten minutes.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, approximately 40 minutes ago, maybe a half hour ago, we were given a ``managers' package.'' The managers' package, the first group was--we haven't yet received the second group of amendments in the managers' package--27 amendments. There is $10 million for the South Pole station in the managers' package; $10 million for NOAA; $600 million for the Department of Agriculture expert assistance; $500 million for the DOJ and FEMA; $281 million for the Department of Energy; $5 million earmarked for a Kentucky public safety communications system. I haven't finished compiling the list because we haven't even had a chance to review these amendments. I ask my colleagues again: How do you accept a managers' package--in this case worth billions, B as in billions--worth billions of dollars without any debate, without any vote, without any discussion that I know of of any kind? How do you do that? How do you do that? I intend to have votes on parts of the managers' package. I don't know why we need in this bill $10 million for the South Pole station. I did not know that al-Qaida had reached the South Pole. More importantly, how can we appropriate $500 million for the Department of Justice and FEMA without even talking about it? Couldn't we debate it? Maybe it won't be absolutely necessary. Do we need $281 million additional for the Department of Energy? I don't think the Department of Energy is on the frontline in the war in Iraq. I am told by the Senator from Alaska--I have the greatest respect and, believe it or not, a great deal of affection for him--that, well, they would pass anyway and this is the best way to treat it because then he will be able to reduce it in the conference. I am not a member of the conference. Most of us are not conferees. Most of us are just ordinary Senators who have a responsibility to our constituents, not to approve of a managers' package worth billions of dollars that none of us have ever seen or read--and you would not have seen or read it if I had not demanded that the managers' package be shown to us. Is this the way to govern? Is this the way to spend the taxpayers' dollars? It cannot be. It cannot be the right thing to do. I have great sympathy for what the Senator from Alaska is trying to achieve by getting this bill done, paying for the war, paying for the war on terror. But how do we sit here and accept billions of dollars in a managers' package that none of us--excuse me, all but a few of us have ever seen, debated, discussed, voted on, or will ever have anything to do with? I trust the judgment of those who go to the appropriations conference, but I don't give them the responsibility that I have to the taxpayers of my State. I am sure many of these amendments in the managers' package will pass. I have already seen that today. When we had an amendment to take out the totally extraneous provisions, we only got 39 votes. I am sure they will pass. At least I will be able to go back and tell my constituents that I didn't support $10 million for the South Pole Station in the name of fighting the war on terrorism and the war on Iraq. I have greater respect for the men and women in the military who are doing the fighting than to vote for $10 million for the South Pole in the name of helping them fight the war. I will yield the remainder of my time, and I will object to the managers' package, and we will have a series of votes. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I do not want to prolong the debate. The Senator from Alaska just mentioned there are six amendments still being cleared. This cannot be the way to spend the taxpayers' dollars--to pack 25, or how ever many amendments there are, into a managers' amendment accumulating billions of dollars. The Senator from Alaska said ``the appropriate people were notified and these amendments were discussed with them.'' I do not like to indulge in a show of hands, but I guarantee you, Mr. President, most of the Members of this body were not consulted on most of these amendments that are in the managers' package because I have been here most of the day and I have never heard them discussed or debated. The only reason I am seeing them now for the first time, as I say, 40 minutes before we would have had final passage on the bill is because we demanded to see them. Again, I am not a member of the Appropriations Committee. I believe there are 20 some members of the hundred of us who are members of the Appropriations Committee. For us to simply say, I will accept a $600 million amendment; don't worry, we will work it out in conference--I am supposed to go back to my constituents and say: I spent $600 million of your money, but do not worry, we left it up to another Senator to work it out in conference. We cannot govern this way. We cannot. We cannot have this kind of procedure. I apologize to my colleagues for this, but I am not the one who ran this procedure. I warned the Senator from Alaska time after time that the managers' package was the most egregious of everything that is done in the appropriations process. I will never forget a couple years ago when I asked the manager of the bill: What is in the managers' package, as everybody was standing in line to vote. He said: I don't know. I let it go because I did not want to anger my colleagues and upset the schedules of my colleagues. Do you know what we found? We found about $50 million in absolutely unnecessary and unrelated projects added in a ``managers' amendment.'' We cannot do that. We cannot do business this way. I agree with the Senator from Alaska that he will win on every one of these votes because we just saw earlier today that if we are not going to reject $93 million for an agriculture research center and $50 million for maritime administration guaranteed loans, which is a totally failed program--and I have forgotten some of the others--we certainly are not going to turn down amendments that have as much as $600 million. Here is another one. An amendment described as town meetings. Interesting, town meetings. It removes a 250,000-person threshold for Senate funding of town meetings. What is that all about? It may be, as the Senator alleges--I did not know they had more severe winters than others at the South Pole, but there may be a very legitimate reason to lift the cap on a 250,000-person threshold for Senate funding of town meetings. We do not know. We do not know, I say to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. McCAIN. All I am saying is we do not know. There may be good reasons or there may be bad reasons. There may be good reasons, when we are trying to fight the war on terrorism and the war on Iraq, to lift the 250,000-person threshold for funding for town meetings. There may not be also. We do not know. Mr. President, I would like to make two points. One, I propose a vote on the Kohl amendment, which is amendment No. 455, which gives an additional $600 million for agriculture. At the conclusion of that vote, then I will be ready to go to final passage, but I want to tell my colleagues for the last time, I will not--I will not--we cannot govern this way. It is not right. We are not carrying out our duties to the people who send their hard-earned tax dollars to us to handle with care and deliberation. So if it is agreeable with the Senator from Alaska, we will have a vote, which he will win, adding $600 million, which was in the managers' package and never debated or discussed that I know of, and I bet most of my colleagues never knew of, and we will probably adopt it, giving an additional $600 million to help I guess feed the troops in Iraq, and then we will go to final passage. But I tell my colleagues who are here on the floor, I will not do this managers' package routine ever again. If the Senator from Alaska feels he will not carry something in conference because it is a losing vote, then that is how it should be, but at least every Senator will be on record and their constituents will know how they stood on town meetings and the South Pole and all of these others--Louisville/ Jefferson County Public Safety Communications System, et cetera. If it is agreeable with the Senator from Alaska, I will agree to a unanimous consent request to do that.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Wisconsin mentioned Saudi Arabia; I did not know the people of Saudi Arabia were in need. But, again, it is unrequested by the administration. I am sure it is worthwhile. There is not an amendment that has come before us that is not worthwhile, but it was not felt urgent at this time by the administration. I yield the floor.