John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to yield for a question.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, a lot of these I don't understand. A lot of them no one understands, and yet the money is disbursed. I am a little bit embarrassed to note there are two additional unrequested porkbarrel projects at Camp McCain in Mississippi: Camp McCain Simulator Center, trainer upgrades; and the Camp McCain Training Site, roads. I also am happy to see Camp McCain functioning with efficiency in defending our Nation. But I am curious why they couldn't have requested this funding. Several at least warrant inquiry: Rock Island Bridge Repairs; Memorial Tunnel, Consequence Management; Pacific Server Consolidation, $10 million; Wind Energy Fund; $500,000, Elmendorf Air Force Base transportation infrastructure; Clara Barton Center, $1.5 million; Multimedia Classroom, $850,000; Distance Learning, $30 million; Bangor International Airport repairs--I don't believe Bangor International Airport is a military base--that is $10 million; oil debris detection and burn-off system, $5 million; Aluminum Mesh Tank Liner, $7.1 million. All of these may be worthwhile projects. The Department of Defense did not find them worthwhile enough to request them. National Guard Distance Learning Courseware, $8 million; Smart Truck--that has always been one of my favorites--$4 million. The old brown tree snake is in here; Spine Research, $20.5 million; Heat Actuator Coolers, $2 million; Starstreak whatever that is--$16 million; 3-D Printing Metalworking Project, $3 million. None of these that I mention was requested nor given any consideration in the authorizing process. Auto Research Center, $3 million; Bug to Bug Identification and CM-- Bug to Bug--that is only $3 million; Hawaii Federal health care network, $18 million; Brown Tree Snakes, $1 million; Coastal Cancer Control, $5 million; Pacific Island Health Care Referral Program, $5 million. There are many, and for some of them we still haven't been able to figure out exactly what they mean. One of them is the Gwitchyaa Zhee Corporation lands; leasing of the Boeing 767s. Enactment of S. 746 means more money for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, UT. Then there are huge amounts of money for Commerce, and others, including, as I mentioned, $29 million for the Woodrow Wilson project; $22 million for the Pipeline Safety Program; U.S. 61 Woodville widening project; Interstate Maintenance Program for the City of Trenton-Port Quendall, WA. It is quite remarkable.

Mr. McCAIN. I would ask the Senator if it is not true that there is no legislative approval. The legislature has not been consulted. You were not consulted on this, as I understand it. I am asking if that is true. The congressional delegation was not consulted and the local people have not been consulted. Is it true that only in the last 48 hours this agreement was made, and in only 48 hours we are expected, without a hearing, without any consultation or advice or information provided to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, we are taking on this appropriations bill an issue that entails billions of dollars of Illinois taxpayers' money and billions of dollars of national taxpayers' money? Is it true we are going to try to push this through in order that it can be done on a Defense appropriations bill, I ask my colleague?

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

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Illinois has the floor. I ask for the regular order.

Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield for a couple more questions, perhaps you can explain the importance of this NPIAS list. Many of our colleagues who are not on the committee would like to know the significance of that list and whether you have ever heard of an airport project being taken off a list of that importance. And my additional question is, since it seems that one of the arguments against the Durbin amendment that the Senator from Illinois has is that this is being done in a fairly precipitous fashion, has the Illinois State legislature had any input into this? Have they made an agreement? Is there opposition? Is there support? Also, what is the situation with our friends on the other side of the Capitol in the other body? I think all of our colleagues should know, as the Senator from Texas earlier described--and you did--that this is really the so-called placeholder that will allow in conference, basically, a mandate to start funding a multibillion-dollar project. Although it is wonderful that the mayor and the Governor have been in agreement--and I think that is a remarkable step forward; all of us applaud it--aren't there other significant players here, not only in the State legislature but our colleagues from the other side of the Capitol as well? My other question is, why would there be a reason for such haste to put something such as this on a Defense appropriations bill?

Mr. McCAIN. Is the Senator aware that we even had a hearing in the Commerce Committee in Chicago where representatives of the airport, the mayor, the Governor and a number of Members of Congress testified that this is a very big issue in the State of Illinois and in Chicago? But it is also a very big issue for those of us who have to go through Chicago O'Hare Airport on many occasions when we are going west to our homes. I wonder if the Senator knows that there seems to be an agreement now between the mayor and the Governor. I have no idea what that agreement is all about. I don't know the ramifications. I don't have any idea of the cost to the Federal Government. Here we are on a Defense appropriations bill. I must say, is the Senator a bit amused that the Senator from Illinois refers to the transportation pork that has been put in this bill that has nothing to do with defense and there is a rationale for putting this on? That is really entertaining. But the fact is, I think it may be a good agreement. I really don't know. But the Commerce Committee has the oversight. The committee is called Commerce, Science and Transportation. That is the name of the authorizing committee. I wonder if the Senator knows that he could probably argue that they are disregarding every other committee in this bill, including the Commerce Committee, on a variety of issues. But this is a big issue. You have the other Senator from the State of Illinois who does not agree at this time to consider it. If it were a piece of legislation that affected my State, and I didn't want it to go forth at this particular time, particularly when no one has had a chance to look at it, I would certainly try to honor the wishes of my colleague. I am surprised that the Senator from Illinois on the other side of the aisle is trying to shove this thing through without the agreement of his colleague from the same State. I know Senator Kyl would never do that to me. He would never do that to me. We have never had a hearing on this--we have certainly addressed the issue in the Commerce Committee--in fact, even a field hearing. I think the wishes of the other Senator from your own State ought to be seriously considered at a time such as this. I know I respect that same courtesy of my colleague from Arizona. I wonder if Senator Nickles is aware that this issue is certainly one which is not deserving consideration at this time on the Department of Defense appropriations bill.

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN. I recommend it highly. Because of the situation the American special forces were in, they had to kill thousands. They killed thousands as they fought their way out. I would not like to see those Americans before a tribunal composed of Somali Government people.

Mr. McCAIN. Has the Senator read a book, which is being made into a movie, ``Black Hawk Down?''

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

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I say again on this issue that the Air Force has not made a formal request for this aircraft, No. 1. I am sure they would love to have it. It is not a bad deal. The most important point is, the Senator from North Dakota has some numbers which make it less expensive to lease than to buy. I accept the numbers from the Senator from North Dakota, although I still disagree. There is a huge difference. You buy the airplanes, and you have them forever. There is no 10-year lease. What would happen after 10 years? We would have to renew the lease or we would have to buy new airplanes. We are talking about a 10-year lease at practically the same amount of money it would take to buy them. That to me is absolute insanity. The U.S. Air Force has 60 priorities which they submit to Congress every year. September 11 couldn't have changed that priority list very much, since it will be 2004 or 2005 before the first one of those aircraft is delivered. This is a bailout for Boeing Aircraft--nothing more, nothing less. And there should at least be some competition. There should be a fair scrutiny of this issue. There should be hearings in the Senate Armed Services Committee when we are talking about $20 billion or $30 billion of the taxpayer moneys to be spent. That is really the reason and the compelling argument why this system has to be repaired, which is so broken that at the 11th hour we put $20 billion or $30 billion worth of the taxpayers' money on an aircraft with a major policy decision, without a single hearing and without a single input from the Senate Armed Services Committee, on which I am proud to serve. This is the wrong thing to do. And, clearly, we are going to spend $20 billion-plus over a 10-year period and 10 years from now have nothing to show for it. We could buy the airplanes. The average age for these tankers, regrettably, is 42 years. We could have them for another 30 years if we bought them. Instead, we are going to lease them for 10 years at practically the same price it would cost to buy them with no competition, no hearings, no scrutiny--no nothing but a request from the Secretary of the Air Force, to Norman Dicks. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I listened with interest to the comments, and I am sure there will be future comments, but these are the following facts on the airplane. One, on the acquisition of the 767, there is no formal request for it. Two, I had a conversation with the Secretary of Defense yesterday. He did not know about this. There has been no request from the administration, a formal request. Of course the Air Force would like it. We are talking about numbers. We can argue about how much it costs, but at the end of 10 years the planes go back to Boeing. At the end of 10 years, the planes go back to Boeing. How in the world can you justify such a thing? The average age of the tankers is 42 years. I am sure these tankers would be eligible for at least 20 or 30 years of service. Have some competition. Why isn't anyone else allowed to bid on this airplane? It is solely a bailout for the Boeing aircraft company. It is not in President Bush's defense request for the fiscal year. September 11 did not rearrange the priorities so it is a top 60 priorities. Of course, the Air Force will accept a gift. I am sure they would be glad to have it. They have other priorities they stated in testimony before the Armed Services Committee. I cannot understand why at least there shouldn't be a hearing on a $20 billion acquisition, which at the end of 10 years, after the reengineering and the $1.2 billion for a hangar, gives it all back to the Boeing aircraft company when we should keep tankers, and have been keeping them, for as long as 20 or 30 years. Remarkable. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. If I may interrupt, billions of dollars that have nothing whatsoever to do with defense.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from Arizona, who has been steadfast. But I would ask for the consideration of my colleague from Texas and my colleague from Arizona, and all others who are concerned about this. Perhaps it might not be a bad idea if we proposed a substitute, that we sheared all of the pork off it and proposed a substitute that was just the fundamental requests of the administration and all those projects that have gone through the normal authorizing and appropriations process. I think that would be a very interesting vote. I say to my colleagues that maybe we ought to try that, since none of these other things seem to be working--maybe just the bill that contains the requested and authorized and within the budgetary restrictions of the budget process.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague from Texas. I reserve the remainder of my time. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. McCAIN. If you look at No. 1 through No. 59 on the list of priority items, there is no request for Boeing 767s. I agree with the Senator from Texas, I have never seen anything quite like it. You would think that just the size of this leasing--the $20 billion deal, plus the $1.5 billion for the construction of the hangars, et cetera, not to mention the cost of reengineering the airplanes, which the taxpayers will pay for, and the deengineering of the airplanes--you would have thought at least there would have been a hearing--a hearing, some kind of a hearing in the Armed Services Committee when you are talking about this kind of an amount of money. But instead, we had to thumb through the appropriations bill, and all of a sudden it came upon us.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from Texas. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the prioritized list submitted by the Air Force.

Mr. McCAIN. It is my understanding it would take 6 years to acquire these 100 aircraft.

Mr. McCAIN. I have no idea. But I also point out to the Senator from Texas, these tankers have long lives--20, 30, 40 years--because we continuously maintain them and upgrade them. So after 10 years, Boeing would get these airplanes back. And it is really remarkable, it costs taxpayers $2 billion a year for a total pricetag of $20 billion over 10 years.

Mr. McCAIN. Yes.

Mr. McCAIN. Well, according to the people we talk to, it is actually about $10 billion more. I want to point out there is a provision in this bill that does not allow competition. In other words, if Airbus wanted to offer to lease their airplanes to the U.S. Air Force, they would be prohibited from doing so. So not only is it earmarked for at least $20 billion, we could purchase these aircraft outright for approximately one-third of the cost of what we are going to incur through this cockamamie leasing program.

Mr. McCAIN. I have looked at the Air Force's 6-year program top priorities and their top 60 priorities. These are not in their top 60 priorities, nor in the 6-year defense procurement plan for the Air Force. I would like to remind my friend that not long ago a major decision was made in a competition between Lockheed Martin and Boeing for the procurement of a new fighter aircraft. Lockheed Martin won that competition. Also, as the Senator from Texas knows, there have been many cancellations for orders from Boeing for new airliners because of the economy. If it is the judgment of the Senator from Texas and the majority of this body and the administration that Boeing Aircraft --which, by the way, has facilities in 40 States throughout America--needs to be bailed out, then I say OK. Maybe we could write them a check for $10 billion. Maybe it is a matter of national security. But to do it this way and take 20 percent of the entire budget for new projects from the Air Force is remarkable. I know the Senator doesn't agree with me, but this is living, breathing testimony for the need for campaign finance reform.

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, I don't understand the unanimous consent agreement.