John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I am an enthusiastic supporter of robust American engagement with the world, and I believe current circumstances demand such a presence. We must also resolve to back our commitment with the financial resources to support the range of our interests overseas. For this reason, I am particularly disappointed by the long list of unrequested and unnecessary earmarks in the FY 2002 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, which total $186.2 million. This figure represents $30 million more than was contained in last year's Foreign Operations bill for programs neither requested by the Administration nor authorized by Congress through the regular, merit- based process for allocating scarce resources. It is the task of America's leaders to make the case for meaningful foreign operations funding in the face of public skepticism about the flow of American tax dollars overseas. It is incumbent upon those of us who serve in elective office to uphold the bipartisan tradition of enlightened American leadership around the world. In this era of globalization, international affairs touch the lives of average Americans in unprecedented ways. And as we wage a global campaign to purge from the world the terrorist threat against our very way of life, the assistance we provide to friendly governments and impoverished peoples across the globe supports our ability to sustain an international coalition to fight terror and retain the popular goodwill necessary to this task. Unfortunately, the excessive and unwarranted earmarks in this bill do not inspire confidence that all our tax dollars are being spent in a manner most conducive to the advancement of our shared national concerns. Indeed, it may shock some Americans to know that parochial interests, not the national interest, have driven a disturbing proportion of the spending allocations contained in this bill. Fragile allies suffering from civil unrest and economic decay will not be helped by this bill's provision of $2.3 million in ``core support'' for the International Fertilizer Development Center, or the report language's recommendation of $4 million for its work. Peanuts, orangutans, gorillas, neotropical raptors, tropical fish, and exotic plants also receive the committee's attention, although it's unclear why any individual making a list of critical international security, economic, and humanitarian concerns worth addressing would target these otherwise meritorious flora and fauna. The committee has disturbingly singled out for funding a laundry list of American universities some with multi-billion dollar endowments in contravention of the usual merit-based process of allocating scarce foreign assistance dollars to the most worthy causes. Although disappointing, it is perhaps not surprising that there is a correlation between the geographic locations of many of the universities targeted for special treatment and the home states of those on the Appropriations Committee and members of the Senate leadership. Those left out of this correlation predicated on patronage rather than value to American national interests are, of course, the very people we would like to help overseas, and the programs of liberalization and reform we would otherwise use the money to encourage. Given the unprecedented war we are in, we should be redoubling our efforts to target as many resources as possible to win it. To this end, we should all heed the words of Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels, who said, ``Everything ought to be held up to scrutiny. Situations like this can have a clarifying benefit. People who could not identify a low priority or lousy program before may now see the need.'' America will go on, and we will continue to lead the world as only we can. The security and prosperity of our people demand it. Our wish to see our values flourish universally requires it. But we are handicapping ourselves in refusing, even in these times, to abandon the parochialism that infected congressional spending decisions long before our compelling international responsibilities provided us with a higher calling. Perhaps some of this parochial funding could be spent in a better way, helping more people and further advancing the virtuous causes we aspire to lead. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following documentation be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to address the Senate once again on the subject of military construction projects added to an appropriations bill that were not requested by the Department of Defense. This bill contains $900 million in unrequested military construction projects. Every year, I come to the Senate floor for the express purpose of highlighting programs and projects added to spending bills for primarily parochial reasons. While I recognize that many of the projects added to this bill may be worthwhile, the process by which they were selected violates at least one, if not several, of the criteria set out several years ago to limit just this sort of wasteful spending. I find particularly offensive the usual Buy America restrictions included in this bill. Rather than providing the best value to our service members by buying the best products at the best prices, these restrictions require DOD procurement decisions to be driven by protectionist impulses that frequently provide inferior value to our troops. ``Buy America'' restrictions cost the Department of Defense and the U.S. taxpayer $5 billion annually, money that is spent not on our good people in uniform but to line the pockets of American producers of goods that could otherwise be purchased at the same value for lower prices overseas. I am also at a loss as to the rationale for including in this bill certain site-specific earmarks and directive language, including a provision urging the Department of Defense to make the consolidation of four Guard and Reserve facility renovation projects in northeastern Pennsylvania a priority, and to program this requirement in the Future Years Defense Plan; a provision directing the Navy to accelerate design of the Kingsville Naval Air Station Airfield Lighting project, and to include construction funding for it in the budget request for fiscal year 2003; a provision directing the Air Force to accelerate design of Offutt Air Force Base's Fire/Crash Rescue Station, and to include funding for it in next year's budget request; and similar language inappropriately directing scarce resources on a non-competitive basis to Warren Air Force Base, Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base, and Selfridge Air National Guard Base. In addition, sections of this bill designed to preserve depots, and to funnel work in their direction irrespective of cost, are examples of the old philosophy of protecting home-town jobs at the expense of greater efficiencies. And calling plants and depots ``Centers of Excellence'' does not constitute an appropriate approach to depot maintenance and manufacturing activities. Consequently, neither the Center of Industrial and Technical Excellence nor the Center of Excellence in Service Contracting provide adequate cloaks for the kind of protectionist and parochial budgeting endemic in the legislative process. Last year, the Defense appropriations bill included a provision statutorily renaming National Guard armories as ``Readiness Centers,'' a particularly Orwellian use of language. By legally relabeling ``depot-level activities'' as ``operations at Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence,'' we further institutionalize this dubious practice, the implications of which are to deny the American public the most cost-effective use of their tax dollars. When will it end? There are 28 members of the Appropriations Committee. Only six do not have projects added to the appropriations bill. Those numbers, needless to say, go well beyond the realm of mere coincidence. Of 96 projects added to this bill, 53 are in the States represented by the Senators on the Appropriations committees, totaling over $503 million. We are waging war against a new enemy with global operations and the messianic aspirations to match; we are undertaking a long-term process to transform our military from its cold war structure to a force ready for the challenges of a new day. A lack of political will had previously hamstrung the transformation process, but the President and his team have pledged to revolutionize our military structure and operations to meet future threats. The reorganization of our armed services was, of course, an extremely important subject before September 11, and it is all the more so now. The threats to the security of the United States, to the very lives and property of Americans, have changed in the last decade. The attacks of September 11 have made more urgent the already urgent task of reorganizing our military to make sure that we have the people, weapons and planning necessary to ensure not only the success of our world leadership, international peace and stability and the global progress of our values, but to safeguard the survival of the American way of life. In the months ahead, no task before the administration and the Congress will be more important or require greater care and deliberation than making the changes necessary to strengthen our national defense in this new, uncertain era of world history. Needless to say, this transformation process will require enlightened, thoughtful leadership, not pork-barrelling of military funds, if we are to best serve America in this time of rapid change in the global security environment. I believe I have made my point. As usual, I labor under no illusions regarding the impact my comments will have on the way we do business here. I have in the past attempted legislative recourse to pork-barrel spending, and I will do so again.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Montana, who I have had the privilege of working with for many years on the Commerce Committee, I think this is a good amendment. One of the reasons I think it is a good amendment is because we are trying to address a major issue with this legislation, and that is to restore confidence on the part of the American people in the belief that they can fly on airliners and be in airports with a sense of security. I think the Senator's amendment, by putting these responsibilities into the Department of Justice, will increase that confidence factor rather dramatically. I don't think right now that most Americans know who is in charge of the airport screening procedures. I have often asked that question myself. I don't think Americans believe that one agency that is in charge has done a very good job, whoever is responsible for it. We see continued breaches of airport security--even after September 11. So I think the amendment of the Senator from Montana is a good one. I think it will move the process in the direction we are seeking for this legislation. I thank Senator Burns for his active participation and involvement in this issue. I know Mr. McConnell, the Senator from Kentucky, wants to speak on this amendment as well. If the chairman wants to speak, perhaps we can wait a few minutes for Senator McConnell after he finishes. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, unless the Senator from New Hampshire would like to speak again, we yield back the remainder of our time and urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. It will be my pleasure.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, it is clear a majority of the Senate wants to act in favor of taking some action for those directly affected by the shutdown of America's airlines after September 11. So if a majority of the Senate has expressed their will, I strongly suggest we sit down and negotiate a reasonable package. We did take care of the airlines in a very generous package. Now we need to move forward with an agreement that would get at least 60 votes so we can address the needs and plight of 100,000 employees, at least, who have been rendered unemployed by the September 11 events. I voted to not invoke cloture on this amendment. I intend to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle so we can come up with a reasonable package to compensate individuals who were directly affected by an act of the Federal Government. That is what we are talking about. That is what we are talking about. I always thought one of the obligations of government was to care of those who were affected by events and decisions beyond their control. It was a decision of the Federal Government, and a right one, to shut down the airlines of America, including 3 weeks at Reagan National Airport. I want to work with my colleagues and get this legislation in a package that can be agreed to by, hopefully, all, including the administration. I believe very strongly we need to act on it. I don't want to be repetitive except to say we should have a sense of urgency about 100,000 employees who were rendered unemployed just as we did over the plight of the airlines and their shareholders and executives, as well as the American flying public. Very shortly we will hopefully move to an amendment from Senator Smith and Senator Murkowski. In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time. Cloture Motion

Mr. McCAIN. I hope my distinguished friend and colleague from South Carolina did not include me in that group.

Mr. McCAIN. No. The Senator from Delaware is correct, but I would like to emphasize that we do have a safety and security problem with the railway system in America. It isn't just Amtrak; it is railway, railroad stations, it is railway centers and hubs all over America. So we need to take care of security and safety requirements so that people can ride on railroads just as we are attempting with this aviation legislation so that people can ride on airplanes in safety and security. Yes, I am sorry to say, the Senator from Delaware is correct. I would support an appropriation for safety and security, but I certainly would, as usually has been my custom, resist the appropriations that would have to do with other matters, including additional track, rail, salary, pay, union, and almost anything that can ever be imagined is usually proposed on one of these bills. I thank the Senator. I thank my dear friend from Delaware.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Thompson, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, how many minutes would the Senator want?

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that we temporarily set aside the amendment and the Senator from Maryland be allowed to speak for 5 minutes on the legislation.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Virginia, I appreciate his cooperation on this issue, particularly his appreciation of the fact that this is an airport/airline security bill, and the issue, as compelling as it is, that the Senator from Virginia raises is related to the compensation--well-deserved compensation--of the people who live and work at National Airport and who, because of an order of the Federal Government, have been deeply harmed economically and, unfortunately, in other ways as well. So I appreciate the sensitivity of the Senator from Virginia to the parameters of this bill. The distinguished chairman and I have had to turn back a number of amendments because they were not related-- liability, and a number of others--to airport security. But that does not change the fact that there is still a compelling problem out there. It is an issue that must be addressed. I believe the stimulus package is a place where it would be very appropriate. I do not think anyone who is aware of what happened at National Airport--a 3-week shutdown by direct order of the Federal Government--does not realize that we have some responsibility. The size of that responsibility, and how, I think can be the subject of negotiations and discussion with the administration, the Finance Committee, members of the Appropriations Committee, et cetera. But I do not know of a Member of this body who isn't totally sympathetic and appreciative of the leadership of the Senator from Virginia--in fact, both Senators from Virginia--in their commitment on this issue. Since this has happened, I know both Senators have made it their highest priority to address this issue, so that these people who are innocent--innocent of any wrongdoing, and are victims in a very real way of a terrorist attack on America, and who need to receive compensation--receive compensation and help. I am very grateful for your leadership, as I am sure the people in the northern part of Virginia are very appreciative of the Senators' efforts. So I would like to join with all of my colleagues in saying we want to help, we want to assist, and we think there are ways that must be implemented--not later, but sooner rather than later--to address this compelling problem. I thank the Senator from Virginia and yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment by the Senator from Georgia has been agreed to on both sides. I urge its adoption.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Nevada. We are in the process of continuing negotiations. I think we are very close to an agreement between myself and the principals. Amendment No. 1878

Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, I send a technical amendment to the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1881

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote on the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lieberman, this amendment requires expanded utilization of current security technologies, establishes short-term assessment and deployment of emergency security technologies, and for other purposes. This has been agreed to by both sides. I think it is a good amendment and, again, along with the amendment on the part of Senator Thompson, I think it would give an efficient reporting and accountability aspect to this amendment which was lacking in its original form. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe in just a minute we will move to final passage.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for his leadership and effort on this very important legislation, and all the staff who have been involved. I also thank Senator Rockefeller, particularly, and Senator Hutchison, as well, for her incredible efforts on this legislation. This is an appropriate day for this legislation and the antiterrorism legislation, given that it has been 1 month since the terrorist attack. We in the Senate are taking a major step in ensuring that this kind of thing can never happen again. All of us in this body can be pleased at the effort that has been put forth on this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on this solemn day, one month since the horrific terrorist attacks on American citizens, our institutions, and our way of life, memorial services were held today in New York City and Arlington, VA. President Bush, whom I commend for his leadership and strong efforts to unify our Nation at this difficult time in our history, spoke today at the Pentagon ceremony honoring the victims of these attacks. His remarks were eloquent and very moving to the families and members of our armed forces who attended the service. I was asked to submit the President's remarks for the Record, and I am privileged to do so. I have also included the remarks of the Secretary of Defense, the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard B. Meyers, USAF. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that the remarks of the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff be printed in the Record, following my remarks.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, I ask the Senator from Nevada, could he include in there that immediately after the vote, Senator Voinovich be given 15 minutes to speak as in morning business on the legislation just passed?