John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. Khodorkovsky, the Economist writes, is a symbol of the injustices perpetrated by corrupt bureaucrats and members of the security services who epitomize the nexus between power and wealth. The article goes on to describe the staggering scale of corruption in Russia today. Shortly before his arrest Mr. Khodorkovsky estimated state corruption at around $30 billion, or 10% of the country's [gross domestic product]. By 2005 the bribes market, according to INDEM, a think-tank, had risen to $300 billion, or 20% of GDP. As Mr. Khodorkovsky said in a recent interview, most of this was not the bribes paid to traffic police or doctors, but contracts awarded by bureaucrats to their affiliated companies. I go on to quote from the Economist: Their wealth is dependent on their administrative power, rather than newfangled property rights. The profits are often stashed away in foreign bank accounts or quickly spent: on luxury property in European capitals, or on their children's education in British private schools. Unsurprisingly, surveys now show that the young would rather have a job in the government or a state firm than in private business. Over the past 10 years, the number of bureaucrats has gone up by 66%, from 527,000 to 878,000, and the cost of maintaining such a state machine has risen from 15% to 20% of GDP. Other figures point to the same conclusion as the Economist. In its annual index of perceptions of corruption, Transparency International ranked Russia 154 out of 178 countries--perceived as more corrupt than Pakistan, Yemen, and Zimbabwe. The World Bank considers 122 countries to be better places to do business than Russia. One of those countries is Georgia, which the World Bank ranks as the 12th best country to do business with. President Medvedev speaks often and at times eloquently about the need for Russia to be governed by the rule of law. Considering the likely outcome of Mr. Khodorkovsky's show trial, it is not surprising that President Medvedev himself has lamented that his anticorruption campaign has produced, in his words, ``no results.'' Russians who want better for their country and dare to challenge the corrupt bureaucrats who govern it are often targeted with impunity. One case that has garnered enormous attention both within Russia and around the world is that of Sergei Magnitsky, a tax attorney for an American investor who uncovered the theft by Russian officials of $230 million from the Russian treasury. Because of Mr. Magnitsky's relentless investigation into this corruption, the Russian Interior Ministry threw him in prison to silence him. He was deprived of clean water, left in a freezing cell for days, and denied medical care. After 358 days of this abuse, Sergei Magnitsky died. He was 37. Not only has the Russian Government held no one accountable for his death, several officials connected to Mr. Magnitsky's imprisonment and murder have actually received commendations. Then there is the tragic case of Russia's last remaining independent journalist. Last month, Russian journalist Oleg Kashin, who had written critically of a violent youth movement associated with the Kremlin, was beaten by attackers who broke his jaw, both his legs, and many of his fingers--a clear political message to other writers. No one has been charged for this crime, and writing in the New York Times this Sunday, Mr. Kashin suggests that no one ever will. ``[I]t seems indubitable,'' he writes, ``that the atmosphere of hatred and aggression, artificially fomented by the Kremlin, has become the dominant fact in Russian politics, the reset in relations with the United States and talk of economic modernization notwithstanding. . . . A man with a steel rod is standing behind the smiling politicians who speak of democracy. That man is the real defender of the Kremlin and its order. I got to feel that man with my own head.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this entire article be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we are discussing the New START treaty at this time. I look forward to continued debate and discussion on this vital and important national security issue. I wish to, however, remind colleagues that, as with any other issue that relates to this treaty and the Russians, it can't be totally considered in a vacuum. Events that have transpired in the last several years in Russia should bring great concern and pause to all of us. I will speak about the situation in Russia today and specifically the continued imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and his associate, Platon Lebedev, and the imminent verdict by a Russian judge to likely extend that imprisonment which was delayed from yesterday to December 27. If we needed any more reason to know what verdict is coming, this is it. The Russian Government seems to be trying to bury some inconvenient news by issuing it 2 days after Christmas and after this body will probably be finished debating the possible ratification of a treaty with the Russian Federation. Some may see this as evidence that the Russian Government is accommodating U.S. interests and desires. I would be more inclined to believe that if these prisoners were set free. Until that time, I will continue to believe that when Prime Minister Putin says Khodorkovsky should sit in jail, as he said yesterday, that this is exactly the verdict the Russian court will deliver. The fact is, the political fix has been in for years on this case. Mr. Khodorkovsky built one of the most successful companies in post- Soviet Russia. And while I am under no illusions that some of these gains may have been ill-gotten, the subsequent crimes committed against him by the Russian State have exceeded the boundaries of human decency, equal and lawful justice, and the God-given rights of man. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article in Yahoo from yesterday that says ``Russia's Putin: Khodorkovsky `should sit in jail'.'' That is what the Prime Minister of Russia said about an ongoing judicial situation.

Mr. McCAIN. Quoting: I believe that a thief should sit in jail. With more than a touch of sarcasm, Khodorkovsky's lead lawyer, Vadim Klyuvgant, thanked Putin for speaking his mind ``because it directly and clearly answers the question of who, with what aims and with what powers is putting pressure on the court as the judge is deliberating.'' In 2003, when Mr. Khodorkovsky became increasingly outspoken about the Russian Government's abuses of power, its growing authoritarianism, corruption, and disregard for the law, he was arbitrarily arrested and detained under political charges. His company was stolen from him by authorities, and he was thrown in prison through a process that fell far short of the universal standards of due process. Mr. Khodorkovsky was held in those conditions for 7 years, and when his sentence was drawing to a close, new charges were brought against him which were then even more blatantly political than the previous ones. Mr. Khodorkovsky, along with Mr. Lebedev, was charged with stealing all of the oil of the company that had been so egregiously stolen from them. The trial has now concluded. So what will happen next? It seems rather clear. After spending 7 years in prison, Mr. Khodorkovsky will likely face many more, which I fear is tantamount to a death sentence. This case is a travesty of justice for one man, but it is also a revealing commentary on the nature of the Russian Government today. Yesterday, the Senate voted to take up the New START treaty. To be sure, this treaty should be considered on its merits to our national security. But it is only reasonable to ask--and I ask my colleagues this question--if Russian officials demonstrate such a blatant disregard for the rights and legal obligations owed to one of their own citizens, how will they treat us and the legal obligations, be it this treaty or any other, they owe to us? What is worse, the sad case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky now looks like one of more modest offenses of corrupt officials ruling Russia today. I would like to quote from a recent article in the Economist dated December 9, 2010, entitled ``Frost at the core,'' which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. An earlier New York Times news story, dated May 17 of this year, and entitled ``Russian Journalists, Fighting Graft, Pay in Blood,'' describes the fate of other independent journalists in Russia. One is Mikhail Beketov, who exposed corruption in a Moscow suburb. This is what happened to him. "Last spring, I called for the resignation of the city's leadership,'' Mr. Beketov said in one of his final editorials. ``A few days later, my automobile was blown up. What is next for me?'' Not long after, he was savagely beaten outside his home and left to bleed in the snow. His fingers were bashed, and three later had to be amputated, as if his assailants had sought to make sure he would never write another word. He lost a leg. Now 52, he is in a wheelchair, his brain so damaged that he cannot utter a simple sentence. No one has been charged or held responsible for this crime either. The same article mentions another journalist, Pyotr Lipatov, who was attacked while covering an opposition rally. As he was leaving, the article says: [T]hree men pushed him to the ground and punched him repeatedly on the head. ``Even when I was unconscious, they didn't let me go,'' Mr. Lipatov said. This beating was recorded on video by protesters. Mr. Lipatov's colleagues used the video to track down the men who beat him. They were police officers. While Mr. Lipatov, 28, was recovering in the hospital, he said two other police officers visited and urged him to sign a statement saying that he had provoked the attack. . . . Officials later acknowledged that police officers had been involved in the attack, but they still brought no charges. Instead, they raided Mr. Lipatov's offices, seized computers and brought a criminal extremism suit against him. They asserted that he had sought to foment ``negative stereotypes and negative images of members of the security forces.'' Fearing for his safety and more criminal charges, he quit. Sadly, I could go on and on like this, to say nothing of the many unsolved murders. So I ask unanimous consent that the entire article be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Russia's beleaguered political opposition, unfortunately, fares no better than its journalists. I have met a few times this year with former Deputy Prime Minister Boris Nemtsov, who organizes peaceful political rallies to protest a lack of democracy in Russia, a right granted under the Russian Constitution. But these rallies are often targeted and violently broken up by Russian authorities. Considering that this is how Russian officials treat their fellow citizens, it is not hard to see a profound connection between the Russian Government's authoritarian actions at home and its aggressive behavior abroad. The most glaring example of this remains in Georgia. Over 2 years after its invasion, Russia not only continues to occupy 20 percent of Georgia's sovereign territory, it is building military bases there, permitting the ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia, and denying access to humanitarian missions--all in violation of Russia's obligations under the cease-fire agreement negotiated by President Sarkozy. In a major recent step, President Saakashvili even renounced the use of force to end Russia's occupation, pledging only to defend nonoccupied Georgia in the event of a Russian attack. And yet Russian officials responded hostilely and dismissively. I ask my colleagues, when the Russians illegally, in violation of all international law, occupy a sovereign nation--a sovereign nation--and have recognized these two provinces within the international boundaries of Georgia as independent nations, how in the world are we going to trust them to adhere to a treaty? I have met with the people in Georgia who have been displaced from their homes--the sorrow and the misery inflicted on them. President Sarkozy of France flew in and arranged for a cease-fire. The Russians agreed to it. They are in total violation of it. They are occupying 20 percent of the country of Georgia. I think Nicaragua and one other country have also recognized these two ``independent'' states in which the Russians are now carrying out ethnic cleansing and stationing Russian military. But not to worry, we can trust the Russians to adhere to solemn treaties and abide by international law. When we consider the various crimes and abuses of this Russian Government, it is hard to believe that this government shares our deepest values. This does not mean that we cannot or should not work with the Russian Federation where possible. The world does not work that way. What it does mean is that we need a national debate about the real nature of this Russian Government, about what kind of a relationship is possible with this government, and about the place that Russia should realistically occupy in U.S. foreign policy. The Senate's consideration of the New START treaty offers a chance to have this debate, as does Russian accession to the WTO. Some may want to avoid it, but we cannot. I believe we need a greater sense of realism about Russia, but that is not the same as pessimism or cynicism or demonization. I am an optimist, even about Russia. I often find sources for hope in the most hopeless of places. Mikhail Khordokovsky has languished in prison for 7 years, and on December 27, he will likely be forced to endure many more. Yet, in a final appeal to the judge in his case, Mr. Khordokovsky gave one of the more moving speeches I have heard in a long time. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. This is how Mr. Khordokovsky saw the broader implications of his trial: I will not be exaggerating if I say that millions of eyes throughout all of Russia and throughout the whole world are watching for the outcome of this trial. They are watching with the hope that Russia will after all become a country of freedom and of the law. . . . Where supporting opposition parties will cease being a cause for reprisals. Where the special services will protect the people and the law, and not the bureaucracy from the people and the law. Where human rights will no longer depend on the mood of the tsar--good or evil. Where, on the contrary, the power will truly be dependent on the citizens and the court, only on law and God. For me, as for anybody, it is hard to live in jail, and I do not want to die there. But if I have to I will not hesitate. The things I believe in are worth dying for. That there are still men and women of such spirit in Russia is a cause for hope. Eventually maybe not this year, or next year, or the year after that, but eventually these Russians will occupy their rightful place as the leaders of their nation--for equal justice can be delayed, and human dignity can be denied, but not forever. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I appreciate the regular order. This may be a seminal moment in the recent history of the Senate. This may be a seminal moment that stops the practice which has moved power all to the appropriators in this body--a few--and taken it away from the rest of us and may return us to an authorizing and then appropriating process. But most importantly, I think it is a seminal moment because for the first time since I have been here, we stood up and said: Enough. Stop.

Mr. McCAIN. Thank you. Mr. President, I yield the floor

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to note that we just saw a rather extraordinary event on the floor of the Senate. I first came to the U.S. Senate in 1987, and I saw the practice of earmarking and porkbarrel spending grow and grow and grow, to the point where last November 2 the American people overwhelmingly rejected this practice of out-of-control spending and debt that we have laid on our children and our grandchildren. I also, along with the Republican leader, would like to thank our members of the Appropriations Committee, who clearly heard that message and heard the outcry when the American people began to become aware of what was contemplated to be done in the Congress of the United States. This outcry reverberated all over America, including the State of Arizona. And the outcry was finally heard by at least 42 Members on this side of the aisle. So I appreciate the fact the majority leader has agreed to a continuing resolution. But have no doubt as to why it happened. It happened because the majority leader didn't have the votes. He didn't have 60 votes that would have then allowed for this monstrosity to be foisted off on the American people. So I wish to thank Members here on this side of the aisle, and some on the other side, who also said they were ready to stand up against this. But most of all, I wish to thank the American people. I thank those who made the calls, those who sent the e-mails, those who stood up and called in to the talk shows all over America and said: We have had enough. Haven't they listened to the message we were trying to send on November 2? So I think this is a great victory for the American people today because we would have spent $1.1 trillion, at least $8 billion of it, $8.3 billion, in earmarks that had never had a hearing, that had never had any scrutiny, had never seen the light of day, but had been put in by very powerful Members of this body on the Appropriations Committee. So I would like to extend my gratitude to the American people, the tea partiers, those who have aligned themselves with the cause to stop the spending and the mortgaging of our children's and grandchildren's future. We have amassed a $40,000 debt for every man, woman, and child in America. The latest commission that reported out clearly indicated we are on a collision course that could bring down the very economy of this country. So I am encouraged greatly by the action taken tonight to do away with this monstrosity and go back to maybe a one-page continuing resolution to keep the government in business until the new Members of Congress and the new Members of this body who were elected last November can have their voices heard in the deliberations of this body and how their tax dollars are dispensed with and how those that are borrowed are dispensed. I see the Senator from Missouri is about to speak. I wish to thank her for her efforts in trying to bring about an end to this spending spree. So I again wish to express my gratitude to all Members, including especially the tough decision made by the Republican members of the Appropriations Committee, to stand so we could stop this thing in its tracks. I want to thank the American people whose voices were heard in this body, and that forced the decision that was made today.

Mr. McCAIN. Yes.

Mr. McCAIN. I think there is very little doubt. The majority leader of the U.S. Senate would not have taken the action he just took if he didn't have 41 votes to stop this monstrosity.

Mr. McCAIN. A 1,924-page bill just died.

Mr. McCAIN. Yes. I feel badly about some of those earmarks because I had so much fun with them.

Mr. McCAIN. I have no doubt.

Mr. McCAIN. I am not finished. Do I have the floor?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend rule XXII for the purpose of proposing and considering amendment No. 4758 to H.R. 4853.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, according to my calculations, it has been 42 days since the people of this great Nation of ours spoke, and they spoke in a very strong fashion. It was described by the President of the United States as a ``shellacking.'' It was described by others as a tsunami. The House of Representatives, as we know, passed to Republican hands. In this body there were six additional Members from my side. I thought the message was pretty clear--that the American people said: Enough with the spending. Enough with the porkbarrel earmark spending. Enough of mortgaging our children and our grandchildren's futures. I do not know of a single pundit or observer of the chattering class who did not say the message was clear from the American people. The phenomena of the tea party was ``taxed enough already,'' but they were against the spending, the earmarking. The approval rating of Congress is somewhere at, depending on which poll you look at, 10, 12, 14, 16 percent--overwhelming disapproval of the way we do business. At 12:15 today my office received this appropriations bill, 1,924 pages long, and containing funding for all 12 of the annual appropriations bills, for a grand total of $1.1 trillion. It is important to note of this 1,924 pages is only the legislative language and does not include the thousands of pages of report language which contains the details of the billions of dollars in earmarks, and I am sure major policy changes written without a hearing, written without scrutiny, written without the input of the majority of the Members of this body, written by a handful of Senators who happen to be members of the Appropriations Committee. The American people said just 42 days ago: Enough. Are we tone-deaf? Are we stricken with amnesia? What is going on? We have just begun to look at this monstrosity, and we are beginning to uncover which earmarks the appropriators decided to fund. Thanks to a new online data base, we at least know what earmarks were requested by Members and how much those projects would cost the American people if they were all funded. Organizations such as Taxpayers Against Earmarks, Washington Watch.Com, and Taxpayers for Common Sense joined forces to create a database. According to the data they compiled for fiscal year 2011, Members requested over 39,000 earmarks totaling over $130 billion--those were requested. I encourage every American to go to the Web site, endingspending.com, study it, and make yourselves aware of how your elected officials seek to spend your money. In the short time I have had to review this massive piece of legislation, we have already identified approximately 6,488 earmarks totaling nearly $8.3 billion when we are running record deficits. When there is a $40,000 debt for every man, woman, and child in America, we are going to have 6,488 earmarks totaling nearly $8.3 billion. Here is a small sample: $277,000 for potato pest management in Wisconsin-- you will notice there is a location for every one of these earmarks-- $246,000 for bovine tuberculosis in Michigan and Minnesota; $522,000 for cranberry and blueberry disease and breeding in New Jersey; $500,000 for oyster safety in Florida. One of my favorites that pops up all the time is $349,000 for swine waste management in North Carolina. Another one of my all-time favorites that is always in there, $413,000 for peanut research in Alabama; $247,000 for virus-free wine grapes in Washington; $208,000 for beaver management in North Carolina; $94,000 for blackbird management in Louisiana; $165,000 for maple syrup research in Vermont; $235,000 for noxious weed management in Nevada. That is another one that, when you total it up over the years, comes into millions. One hundred thousand dollars for the Edgar Allen Poe Cottage Visitor's Center in New York. Another of my all-time favorites that is always on here every year, $300,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Hawaii. If some people are watching, you are thinking I am making this up. I am not making it up. Three hundred thousand dollars for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Hawaii; $400,000 for solar parking canopies and plug-in electric stations in Kansas. Additionally, the bill earmarks $720,000 to compensate ranchers in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan whenever endangered wolves eat their cattle. As my colleagues know, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Grey Wolf Program is under intense scrutiny for wasting millions of taxpayers' dollars every year to ``recover'' endangered wolves that are now overpopulating the West and Midwest. My State of Arizona has a similar wolf program. But ranchers in my State are not getting $727,000 in this bill. I will have a lot more to say about this bill this week. I assure my colleagues, we will spend a lot of time talking about this bill and the outrageous number of earmarks it contains. But let me say this: It is December 14, 22 days away from the beginning of a new Congress, and nearly 3 full months into fiscal year 2011. And yet we have not debated a single spending bill or considered any amendments to cut costs or to get our debt under control. Furthermore, the majority decided that they did not feel like doing a budget this year. How is that responsible leadership? This is the ninth omnibus appropriations bill we have considered in this body since the year 2000. That is shameful. We should be embarrassed by the fact that we care so little about doing the people's business that we continuously put off fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities until literally the last minute. One thing is abundantly clear. The majority has not learned the lessons of last month's election. The American people could not have been more clear. They are tired of the wasteful spending. They are tired of big government. They are tired of sweetheart deals for special interests. They are tired of business as usual in Washington. And they are certainly are tired of massive bills, like this one, put together behind closed doors, and rammed through the Congress at the last minute, so that no one has the opportunity to read them and no one knows what kind of waste that is in them. Let me be clear about one thing: If the majority leader insists on proceeding to this monstrosity, the American people will know what is in it. I will be joined by many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle to ensure that every single word of this bill is read aloud here on the Senate floor. I encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle to rethink their strategy. Let's move forward with a clean, continuing resolution, keep the government in operation for 45 days, let the new Congress, that reflects the will of the American people, address these issues in the long term. Let's not go out the door of this Congress with a whole bunch, 6,800-some earmark projects that the rest of us have not read. I encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle to rethink their strategy. Let's move forward with a short-term continuing resolution, 45 days. Senator Gregg has an amendment pending to do that. The majority may be able to strong-arm enough Members into voting for this omnibus, but they will not win in the end. The American people will remember, and I predict we will see a repeat of last November 2 in the very near future. Here we are on December 14, after last year being in session on Christmas Eve. Apparently we may be in session again on Christmas Eve. If I might point out, having not been in session a single Friday the entire year--not being in session a single Friday the entire year--yet this afternoon the majority leader said, well, we can be here on Christmas and New Year's and that we could be in session until January 4, before the new Congress is sworn in. Obviously the majority leader and the majority can do that. But I do not think the American people think very much of what we are doing here. In fact, I think they are going to be deeply disappointed and greatly angered because we have, with the consideration of this bill, repudiated all they thought they were standing for and voting for: an end to this kind of behavior, an end to the earmarking and porkbarrel spending, an end to the mortgaging of our children and our grandchildren's future. So it is with great regret that I again have to come to the floor, as I have for many years, and be critical of my colleagues who are good and honorable and decent Americans. But this process, this process of earmarking, which this is an example of, is not honorable behavior. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I think it is very clear the vote today will result in a significant majority vote for the pending legislation--the so-called tax extenders--and I will be one of those who will be voting for it as well. But I must say, in the brief time I have, there is almost an Orwellian experience on the floor of the Senate as compared with the rest of America. Here we are, about to pass these necessary tax extenders--necessary to give some kind of certainty to businesses across America, small and large, and to give tax breaks to people in these most difficult times, including my home State of Arizona. But rather than just extending the tax breaks, which is what a majority of Americans want, we have engaged in the continuing practice--a practice that has alienated the majority of American people--of loading up with unneeded, unnecessary, unwanted sweeteners in order to, I guess, get votes or satisfy special interests. The Wall Street Journal, this morning, had an article entitled ``The Hawkeye Handouts,'' stating the tax bill is becoming a ``favor festival,'' starting with ethanol. It goes on to talk about the ethanol extension being the bipartisan handiwork of people who direct subsidies and trade protectionism plus mandates that force consumers to buy ethanol. This is a trifecta of government support and for an industry that is 30 years old and that even Al Gore now admits serves none of its advertised environmental purposes. I would like to quote for my colleagues on this side of the aisle what the Wall Street Journal says: The greater political risk is for Republicans, who should worry that the tax bill is turning into a special interest spectacle. The bill revives a $1 a gallon biodiesel tax credit at a cost of nearly $2 billion, and there is $202 million for ``incentives for alternate fuel,'' $331 million for a 50 percent tax credit for maintaining railroad tracks, and so on. These credits are a form of special interest spending via the tax code, which is precisely the business- as-usual behavior that Republicans told tea party voters they wouldn't engage in. These business subsidies are grease for Senate votes in favor of the deal, so the only chance to remove them would be the kind of public outcry that attacked the Cornhusker Kickback and other ObamaCare fiascoes. Call these ethanol favors the Hawkeye Handouts. That is what this bill is all about. I say to my colleagues, I will vote for it, but it is not what the people said they wanted done on November 2. I understand that unless online gaming, poker playing, gambling legalization comes up, we will probably go to an omnibus bill, and that omnibus bill will be loaded down with earmarks and porkbarrel spending, which is a direct--a direct--betrayal of the majority of the voters on November 2 who said stop the earmarking, stop the spending, stop the outrageous porkbarrel projects. If this omnibus bill comes up loaded down with porkbarrel spending, we owe it to the American people to stop it. What we owe the American people is a clean continuing resolution, with no additional spending on it, that would be good for 45 days so the new Congress, in response to the American people, will act in a responsible fashion. This bill we are going to pass contributes to the debt and the deficit, it contributes to the mortgaging of our children's futures. I say to my colleagues, we should rise against any Omnibus appropriations bill, and we should only enact a continuing resolution. To my colleagues on this side of the aisle who may not have gotten the message of November 2, vote to have a clean continuing resolution. That is what the American people have said they want and that is what they deserve. The American people deserve to be heard. Let us reconnect Washington and the American people. I thank my colleague from Iowa for the time, and I yield whatever remaining time I have.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about a friend and colleague whom I will miss very much when he leaves the Senate after we adjourn, Senator Russ Feingold. I cannot thank him for his service without mentioning the outstanding work of his capable staff: Mary Irving, his chief of staff; Sumner Slichter, his policy director; Bob Schiff, chief counsel; and Paul Weinberger, his legislative director, a loyal and outstanding team. Without intending it as a commentary on his successor, I have to confess I think the Senate will be a much poorer place without Russ Feingold in it. I know that in my next term I will experience fewer occasions of inspiration because of the departure of Russ Feingold, a man whose courage and dedication to the principles that guided his Senate service often inspired me. I will also miss the daily experience of Russ Feingold's friendship, and the qualities that distinguish his friendship, his thoughtfulness, kindness, humor and loyalty. I have treasured that friendship all the years we have served together, and while friendship does not end with a Senate career, I will sorely miss his presence. I will miss seeing him every day. I will miss traveling with him. I will miss the daily reminder of what a blessing it is to have a true friend in Washington. Our first encounter with one another was in a Senate debate in which we argued about an aircraft carrier, somewhat heatedly, if memory serves. Russ thought the U.S. Navy had one too many. I thought we did not have enough. It was, I am sorry to admit, not a very considerate welcome on my part to a new colleague, whom I would soon have many reasons to admire. But to Russ's credit, he did not let my discourtesy stand in the way of working together on issues where we were in agreement. And to my good fortune, he did not let it stand in the way of our friendship either. We are of different parties and our political views are often opposed. We have had many debates on many issues. But where we agreed on wasteful spending, ethics reform, campaign finance reform and other issues, it was a privilege to fight alongside and not against Russ Feingold. We do not often hear anymore about Members of Congress who distinguish themselves by having the courage of their convictions; who risk their personal interests for what they believe is in the public interest. I have seen many examples of it here, but the cynicism of our times, among the political class and the media and the voters, tends to miss examples of political courage or dismiss them as probable frauds or, at best, exceptions that prove the rule. In his time in the Senate, Russ Feingold, every day and in every way, had the courage of his convictions. And though I am quite a few years older than Russ, and have served in this body longer than he has, I confess I have always felt he was my superior in that cardinal virtue. We were both up for re-election in 1998. I had an easy race. Russ had a difficult one. As many of our colleagues will remember, Russ and I opposed soft money, the unlimited corporate and labor donations to political parties that we believed were compromising the integrity of Congress, and we were a nuisance on the subject. Russ 's opponent in 1998 was outspending him on television, and the race became tighter. It reached a point where most observers, Democrats and Republicans, expected him to lose. The Democratic Party pleaded with Russ to let it spend soft money on his behalf. Russ refused. He risked his seat, the job he loved, because his convictions were more important to him than any personal success. I think he is one of the most admirable people I have ever met in my life. We have had a lot experiences together. We fought together for many things, important things. And we have fought many times on opposite sides. We have been honored together and scorned together. We have traveled abroad together. We could not be farther apart in our views on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we traveled there together as well, to gain knowledge that would inform our views and challenge them. We have listened to each other; debated each other; defended each other; joked and commiserated together. And in my every experience with Russ Feingold, in agreement and disagreement, in pleasant times and difficult ones, in heated arguments and in the relaxed conversation of friends, he was an exemplary public servant; a gentleman; good company; an irreplaceable friend; a kind man; a man to be admired. I can not do justice in these remarks to all of Russ's many qualities or express completely how much I think this institution benefited from his service here and how much I benefited from knowing him. I lack the eloquence. I do not think he is replaceable. We would all do well to keep his example in our minds as we serve our constituents and country and convictions. We could not have a better role model. I have every expectation we will remain good friends long after we have both ended our Senate careers. But I will miss him every day. And I will try harder to become half the public servant he is. Because his friendship is an honor and honors come with responsibilities. God bless my friend Russ Feingold. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Coburn. I also express my appreciation to Senator McCaskill and Senator Udall for joining in this very important amendment. As the Senator from Oklahoma mentioned, this issue has been debated many times on the floor of the Senate. There have been efforts to repeal certain most egregious earmarks. A ``bridge to nowhere'' in Alaska was one of those that became more famous than others. I have to say to my colleagues that I have seen with my own eyes--and I say this with great regret--the influence of money and contributions in the shaping of legislation. I have seen that come in the form of earmarks. One of the individuals I admired a great deal, a former Member of the House of Representatives, now resides in Federal prison because of earmarking. Another Member of Congress recently got out of prison. It was earmarking. We just saw that the former majority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives was convicted in court in Texas, and earmarking played a major role. The system of rewards for campaign contributions was an important factor in that conviction. So for many years I have been coming to this floor to express my frustration with this corrupt practice. It has been a lonely fight and hasn't won me many friends in this body. I understand that. But I also want to point out that my criticisms have not been directed just from the other side of the aisle. Earmarking is a bipartisan disease, and it requires a bipartisan cure. After so many years in the trenches to eliminate this practice, I am pleased the American people are demanding that they stop this practice. As my colleagues know, earlier this month the Senate Republican caucus unanimously adopted a nonbinding resolution to put into place a 2-year earmark moratorium. I applaud my fellow Republicans in the Senate for joining our Republican colleagues in the House in sending a message to the American people that we heard them loud and clear in the election on November 2 that we will get spending under control and we will start by eliminating the corrupt practice of earmarking. Mr. President, I have had a lot of communications and relations with and even attended tea party rallies across my State. There is very little doubt that a real revolt is going on out there. I can't call it a revolution because I don't know how long it is going to last. I don't know how it is going to be channeled. I don't know exactly where this movement will go. But I do know it involved millions of Americans who had never been involved in the political process before because of their anger and frustration over our practices here, and they believe earmarking is a corrupt practice. They believe their tax dollars should not be earmarked in the middle of the night, without any authorization, without hearings. The Senator from Oklahoma just pointed out $380 billion in earmarks. Some of those earmarks are worthy. If they are worthy, then they should be authorized. So what has happened? What we have seen in the last 30 years or so is an incredible shift from the hands of many to the decisions of a few. We don't do authorization bills anymore. We don't do an authorization bill for foreign operations. We don't do an authorization bill for all of these other functions of government for which there are requirements because, what do we do? We stuff them all into the appropriations bills. Then the members of the Appropriations Committee make decisions that are far-reaching in their consequences, with incredibly billions of dollars, without the authorizing committees carrying out their proper role of examination, scrutiny, and approval. The way the system is supposed to work--and did for a couple hundred years--is that projects, programs, whatever they are, are authorized, and then the appropriators appropriate the certain dollars they feel necessary to make this authorization most effective and efficient. So we don't authorize anymore. We only appropriate. That is wrong. That really puts so much power in the hands of a very few Members of this body and, inevitably, it leads to corruption--inevitably. The Heritage Foundation wrote a report I urge my colleagues to read. It is entitled ``Why Earmarks Matter.'' The first point they make is this: They invite corruption. Congress does have a proper role in determining the rules, eligibility and benefit criteria for federal grant programs. However, allowing lawmakers to select exactly who receives government grants invites corruption. Instead of entering a competitive application process within a federal agency, grant-seekers now often have to hire a lobbyist to win the earmark auction. Encouraged by lobbyists who saw a growth industry in the making, local governments have become hooked on the earmark process for funding improvement projects. There are small towns in my State that feel obligated to hire a lobbyist to get an earmark here through the Appropriations Committee. They should not have to do that. They should not be spending thousands and thousands or tens of thousands of dollars for a lobbyist to come here to get an earmark. They should have their desires and their needs and their requirements considered on an equal basis with everybody else's, not only in their State but in this country. But now they believe the only way they will get their pork or their project done is through the hiring of a lobbyist. The Heritage Foundation goes on: They encourage spending. While there may not be a causal relationship between the two, the number of earmarks approved each year tracks closely with growth in federal spending. Then the Heritage Foundation says: They distort priorities. Many earmarks do not add new spending by themselves, but instead redirect funds already slated to be spent through competitive grant programs or by states into specific projects favored by an individual member. So, for example, if a member of the Nevada delegation succeeded in getting a $2 million earmark to build a bicycle trail in Elko in 2005, then that $2 million would be taken out of the $254 million allocated to the Nevada Department of Transportation for that year. So if Nevada had wanted to spend that money fixing a highway in rapidly expanding Las Vegas, thanks to the earmark, they would now be out of luck. So what we do is deprive the Governors and the legislators from setting the priorities they feel are the priorities for their States. And all too often, the earmark is not what the State or the local citizenry or town or county needs as their priorities because they are decided with the influence of lobbyists in Washington. I say, with all due respect to the appropriators, they don't know the needs of my State like I know the needs of my State, and not nearly as much as the mayor, the city council, the Governor, and the legislature. Let them make the decision where these moneys should be spent, and not on a bike path instead of improving a highway. Mr. President, I could go on and on. I come down here year after year and look at the porkbarrel projects and earmarks, and we discuss the ones that are the most egregious and then I am amused and entertained by Members who come down and defend many of these absolutely unneeded and unnecessary projects. I will not go into many of my favorites at this time. I know my colleagues are waiting to speak. I ask my colleagues to understand the voice of the people of this country. I just read today that more seats were gained by the Republican Party than in any election since 1938. Since 1938, there has not been such a political upheaval in this country. That is not because our constituents have now fallen in love with Republicans. That is not the case. The message is that all of our constituents are tired of the way both Republicans and Democrats conduct their business in Washington, frivolously and outrageously spending their hard-earned tax dollars. They believe we are not doing right by them, that we are not careful stewards of their tax dollars, that we are engaging in practices that need to stop which has disconnected us from the American people. We need to connect again with the American people. I am going to hear the arguments that it is only a few dollars, not much money, and we don't trust the Federal Government to do it. I have heard all of those arguments year after year. I have watched year after year the earmarks go up and up. I have seen the corruption. Senator Dorgan and I had hearings in the Indian Affairs Committee about a guy named Jack Abramoff. We saw firsthand the effects of unscrupulous lobbyists and the millions and millions of dollars they got in earmarks as a result of their corrupt influence. There are many Jack Abramoffs in this town; they just haven't gotten famous. Mr. President, again, I thank Senators Coburn, Udall, McCaskill, and others who support this amendment. As I said 20-some years ago, we will keep coming back and back and back to the floor of this body until we clean up this practice and restore the confidence and faith of the American people--the people who send us here to do their work, not our work. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. But isn't it also true that is the case for small business and people and entrepreneurs all over America except the unions? Isn't that true? Isn't this a carve-out again, part of this sleaze that went into putting this bill together, part of the ``Cornhusker kickback,'' the ``Louisiana purchase,'' the buying of PhRMA--all that went into this--the ``negotiations'' that were going to take place on C-SPAN that the President said during the Presidential campaign that went from one sweetheart deal cut to another. Part of one of those sweetheart deals was the unions are exempt; is that correct?

Mr. McCAIN. So what you are saying is that unless a health care policy provided by an employer is absolutely unchanged totally for an unspecified period of time, then that health insurance policy can be declared invalid by the Department of Health and Human Services, and they will have to go to a government-mandated health insurance policy or pay a fine. Is that a correct assessment?

Mr. McCAIN. So an employer, a small businessperson provides health insurance for their employees. That employer sees health care costs go up,--as everybody knows, and that is every objective estimate--so that employer says to its 10, 50, 60, whatever, employees: Look, we are going to have to increase your copay. We are going to have to increase your copay because, simply, the costs are prohibitive, and we would like to sit down, and I think you would probably agree to it given the overall situation across health care. And the employees agree with that and they change the copay, and then automatically they are finished. Is that correct?