[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 142 (Monday, October 5, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10090-S10092]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the 2010 Defense 
appropriations bill and the three amendments that will be called up 
tomorrow on C-17s, for-profit earmark competition, and a particularly 
egregious earmark on hypersonic wind tunnel development.
  Tomorrow the Senate will resume consideration of the 2010 Department 
of Defense Appropriations Act. This must-pass bill provides $626 
billion for the day-to-day operations of our military, including the 
critical resources that support our commanders as they lead operations 
in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  The bill also contains billions of dollars in wasteful spending, 
including $2.7 billion in Member-requested earmarks and billions of 
dollars in unrequested weapons systems, which is where you will find 
$2.5 billion for the C-17 cargo aircraft. In order to stuff these 
programs into the bill that the Pentagon did not request and does not 
want, and to enable Members to continue in their porkbarreling ways, 
the appropriators cut over $3 billion in the military service operation 
and maintenance account.
  This account is the lifeblood of our military forces. The account 
provides the military with funds to carry out day-to-day activities, 
such as the recruitment and fielding of a trained and ready force, all 
military training, exercises, food, weapons, spare parts, equipment 
repair, ship overhauls, transportation services, civilian personnel 
management and pay, and childcare and family centers.
  At a time when stress on our force and their families is significant, 
we are cutting funds from this account to put into this bill unwanted 
C-17s and Members' pork projects. There were plenty of lobbyists around 
for the C-17s last week. They were here in abundance. There are others 
who are seeking these porkbarrel projects.
  Unfortunately, there are no lobbyists for the men and women serving 
in the military. There are no lobbyists to provide them with the much-
needed funds in order to conduct the training and the operation and the 
maintenance and the repair of the equipment and their pay and all of 
the things that are so vital to maintaining our great military of 
today.
  There are no lobbyists for them. So let's cut $3 billion out of their 
training, out of their exercises, out of their weapons and spare parts 
and equipment repairs, ship overhauls, civilian personnel management 
and pay, childcare and family centers. Cut all of that out and put in 
$2.5 billion for a C-17 that the military neither needs nor wants.
  Just last month, the President spoke in Phoenix, AZ, to the Veterans 
of Foreign Wars. In that speech, the President's words were quite 
compelling about waste and porkbarrel spending in Defense bills. In 
that speech the President promised an end ``to special interests and 
their exotic projects'' and reaffirmed that he was leading the charge 
to kill off programs such as the F-22, the second engine for the Joint 
Strike Fighter, and the outrageously expensive Presidential helicopter.
  The President went on to say:

       If a project does not support our troops, we will not fund 
     it. If a system does not perform well, we will terminate it. 
     And if Congress sends me a bill loaded with that kind of 
     waste, I will veto it.

  Well, we will now see if the President is willing to follow through 
on that bold declaration. On April 6, 2009, Secretary Gates personally 
issued his highly touted statement on the 2010 defense budget. In that 
statement, he recommended, among other things, ending production of the 
F-22, terminating the Presidential helicopter, and completing 
production of the C-17 cargo aircraft. Secretary Gates said with the 
205 C-17s already in the force and currently on order, the Department's 
analysis was that the military had enough C-17s.
  While we may have won a small victory against the defense industrial 
complex in July, when the Senate voted 58 to 40 to kill the F-22, it 
appears the administration has thrown in the towel on reining in 
spending on the C-17. In May, the House appropriators added eight C-17s 
into the 2009 supplemental appropriations bill at a cost of $2.2 
billion. The Pentagon did not even blink. In July, the House 
appropriators again added three more C-17s to the 2010 Defense 
appropriations bill, and with the White House apparently having given 
up on any kind of fight with Congress on the C-17, and believing they 
had a green light, the Senate appropriators upped the number of C-17s 
to 10 aircraft, $2.5 billion.
  Beneath the President's Phoenix rhetoric and with $2.5 billion in 
unrequested C-17s, $2.7 billion in member earmarks and a significant 
cut in operation and maintenance funding, one would have expected the 
President and Secretary Gates to be outraged. However, we have heard 
barely a word of opposition from them. Although the Statement of 
Administration Policy raised opposition to the additional C-17s and the 
cuts to operation and maintenance funding, it appears the President is 
not getting out his veto pen to

[[Page S10091]]

take a stand behind his own strong rhetoric on earmarks and government 
waste.
  I know these words will fall on deaf ears, but it is certainly not 
responsible for Congress to continue to load up appropriations bills--
and, yes, authorization bills--with wasteful and unnecessary spending. 
Americans all over the country are hurting. People are losing jobs, 
their savings and their homes. Yet we continue the disgraceful 
earmarking process, elevating parochialism and patronage politics over 
the true needs and welfare of our men and women in uniform and the 
taxpayers.
  If Senators think that all sounds too familiar, they are right; it is 
business as usual. When push comes to shove, nobody seems to really 
mind. The appropriators know what they need to do to keep the President 
from threatening to veto a defense spending bill. They know that $2.5 
billion in unrequested C-17s, $2.7 billion in Member-requested 
earmarks, and cuts of over $3 billion to the lifeblood account of our 
military services won't cause the President to pause a moment before 
signing such a bill into law. The idea of vetoing a defense 
appropriations bill that funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is 
unimaginable, and that is exactly the protection sought by Members when 
they subscribe to unrequested, costly weapons systems and earmarks.
  Servicemembers who defend our Nation around the globe are making 
great sacrifices. Their families back home are making sacrifices. 
Because we ask these heroes to forfeit so much, we in Congress should 
also be ready to make sacrifices. Sometimes that means doing what is 
best for the Nation instead of doing what is best for one's campaign. 
Our Nation's security and the welfare of our servicemembers are higher 
priorities than the favor of special interests or the opportunity to 
tout the bacon we are bringing home.
  Despite what I think is going to happen, I believe that if the 
President wants to send a message that we are serious about cutting out 
wasteful and unnecessary and corrupting spending in Congress, he should 
veto this bill, and we could send it back to him in a New York minute 
without the pork it is so full of.
  I wish to discuss the three amendments.
  Tomorrow, the Senate will vote on my amendment to strike the addition 
of 10 unrequested C-17 aircraft. As I discussed before, the 
administration strongly objects to the addition of the $2.5 billion in 
funding for those 10 unrequested C-17s. That brings up a very 
interesting question: Why would the administration threaten to veto the 
bill if it included the F-22s, yet strongly object to the $2.5 billion 
for the 10 unrequested C-17s? It is very interesting. Given how much 
our airlift capacity currently exceeds operational requirements, I see 
no reason we should buy more aircraft. It is not just an additional 
$2.5 billion for these 10 C-17s, it is an additional $100 million a 
year to maintain and operate them.
  One of the great, untold stories of earmarking is that money that is 
used to fund special interests' projects would otherwise have been used 
to address the stated needs of our military services. The service 
chiefs who are in the best position to advise Congress of their 
priorities are routinely shortchanged so that Senators can fund their 
pet projects. Each earmark requires departmental administration, and 
each draws manpower and resources away from critical issues facing a 
nation at war. I have heard that the impact of these many small 
earmarks is akin to death by 1,000 cuts. By my preliminary count, there 
are almost 700 unrequested earmarks in this bill, over 400 of which are 
not authorized in the National Defense Authorization Act. This 
represents more than $1.3 billion in funding for unrequested, 
unauthorized Member interest items, $1.3 billion that would have gone 
to service priorities. Some have merit. None are military priorities. A 
few are actually detrimental to the Defense Department. I am referring 
to earmarks that endure year after year, siphon funding from legitimate 
programs, and provide no discernable benefit to servicemembers.
  Tomorrow, the Senate will cast scrutiny on one such project when we 
vote on my amendment to strike $9.5 million for the MARIAH hypersonic 
wind tunnel research program in Montana. It has never been requested in 
the President's budget. It has never been authorized. Yet it has been 
appropriated every year since 1998. To date, total Defense 
appropriations for MARIAH account for $68.5 million. The total would be 
$74 million if we include unrequested earmarks through NASA; $83.5 
million if this year's earmark for MARIAH remains in the bill.
  Here we are, Congress has appropriated millions for an unrequested, 
unauthorized program that is objectionable enough, but the MARIAH 
program and the contractor that supports it are case studies in the 
fundamental problems with the congressional appropriations process.
  Let me shed a little light on that. MARIAH is a research program 
intended to develop technologies that would be required to build a 
national high-speed wind tunnel. Congress originally funded the project 
through NASA earmarks during the 1990s. NASA responded that they had no 
interest in the program. From 1998 to 2003, MARIAH was an Air Force 
program. The Air Force, the leader in hypersonic testing and 
technology, begged off the program in 2004. So the appropriators moved 
it to the Army. The Army has no official requirement for this 
capability and published a report to Congress in 2005 stating their 
disinterest in the program. Here is an excerpt:

       The U.S. Army believes it is premature to include the 
     MARIAH wind tunnel concept within their budget as a program 
     of record due to the lack of information and technical data 
     to show that the concept is feasible. Further, the U.S. Army 
     has yet to establish an operational requirement to justify 
     the need for such expenditures in the Future Years Defense 
     Program. Therefore, the U.S. Army does not plan to fund the 
     MARIAH wind tunnel effort . . .

  Priorities change over time. I asked the Army to detail their current 
investment in MARIAH and explain how the Army might use this research 
to develop new capabilities. I received a response yesterday. Here is 
what the Army said:

       There are no current operational requirements for a 
     hypersonic missile program within the Army. No Army missions 
     currently require hypersonic flight technologies. The Army 
     does not plan to budget for hypersonic wind tunnel 
     development in the [current or future years] since the Army 
     does not have an operational requirement for a hypersonic 
     missile.

  Finally, when asked whether the MARIAH program provides value-added 
capabilities, the Army's answer was ``no.''
  So the Army's official response and explanation sounds like their 
2005 response. Unfortunately, Congress hasn't been listening. We have 
poured more than $70 million into it with no sign of stopping and with 
no discernable return on investment. Let me repeat that: no end date, 
no return on investment.
  One group has made out well in the endeavor. Of course, I am 
referring to lobbyists, including Gage LLC, whose CEO, coincidentally, 
had been a senior staffer to an appropriator from Montana.
  The other big winner is the contractor, a company called MSE 
Technology Applications located, astonishingly, in Butte, MT. MSE is 
part of a former Department of Energy facility created in the 1970s to 
conduct energy research. In 1996, MSE had an agreement with DOD to 
privatize over the course of 5 years, and DOD provided funding to 
assist the privatization effort. Simultaneously, MSE executives began a 
pattern of hiring lobbyists, participating in fundraisers for elected 
Members of Congress, and taking millions of dollars in earmarks. So 
much for privatization. In fact, MSE itself has claimed it was entirely 
dependent on Federal earmarks following the so-called privatization 
effort.
  More than a decade later, not much has changed. The Montana Standard, 
the local newspaper, reports that 75 percent of MSE's current business 
comes from Federal earmarks. According to their CEO:

       Earmarks can have a negative connotation, but what they 
     mean is we have contracts.

  So this is a company that would not exist without government 
earmarks. What did MSE pay for these earmarks? Over $2 million in fees 
to Washington lobbyists and tens of thousands of dollars in campaign 
contributions. We have the filings. MSE has perfected the

[[Page S10092]]

process of using lobbyists to secure Federal funding.
  Here is the most outrageous part. In 2000, MSE executives pled guilty 
to making illegal campaign contributions to Federal candidates. Let me 
explain. According to a report provided to Congress by the Department 
of Justice:

       MSE, Inc., an engineering corporation headquartered in 
     Butte, Montana, pled guilty on April 27, 2000, to making 
     contributions to federal candidates through conduits and 
     making corporate contributions to federal candidates in 
     violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act. The 
     corporation agreed to pay a criminal fine of $97,500 and a 
     civil penalty to the Federal Election Commission of an 
     additional $19,500. In addition, the corporation's two 
     principal officers agreed, as part of the corporation's 
     probation, to perform community service by lecturing business 
     groups throughout Montana on the prohibitions of the [Federal 
     Election Campaign Act], and to implement a corporate 
     compliance agreement aimed at ensuring that the company did 
     not violate the [Federal Election Campaign Act] in the 
     future. The corporation was sentenced on April 27, 2000, in 
     accordance with the plea agreement.

  This company has a criminal record. Yet it still receives 
congressionally approved earmarks, apparently on the basis of 
connections between it, its lobbyists, and the offices of Members for 
whom those lobbyists used to work.
  MSE and its MARIAH project are a black hole for Federal funding. MSE 
executives have benefited financially on the backs of the taxpayers for 
many years, and the Department of Defense has needlessly wasted over 
$70 million on MARIAH research that no one wants. Taxpayers' dollars 
put toward MARIAH were met with resistance from each Federal agency 
compelled to fund it by previous earmarks. These earmarks have produced 
no discernible return.
  In light of this sordid story--$70 million wasted over 11 years and 
the prospect of continuing funding for a program no one wants--I ask my 
colleagues to support my amendment to strike the $9.5 million MARIAH 
earmark from the fiscal year 2010 Defense appropriations bill.
  Finally, I have spoken for many years about the earmarking process 
and the corruption it breeds. I am deeply concerned over the damage it 
has done to our country and this institution by its continued abuse. We 
have made some progress in the past couple years but not nearly enough. 
Legislation we passed in 2007 provided for greater disclosure. While 
that was a good step forward, the bottom line is that we simply need 
more disclosure of earmarks. We need to reduce them, with the final 
goal of eliminating them entirely. The corruption which stems from the 
practice of earmarking has resulted in former Members of both the House 
and Senate either under investigation, under indictment, or in prison. 
Let's be clear. It wasn't inadequate disclosure requirements which led 
Duke Cunningham to violate his oath of office and take $2.5 million in 
bribes in exchange for doling out $70 to $80 million of the taxpayers 
funds to a defense contractor. It was his ability to freely earmark 
taxpayer funds without question.

  Tomorrow, Senators will have an opportunity to vote on an amendment I 
have offered that requires earmarks intended for for-profit entities 
included in the Defense appropriations bill be competitively bid. I 
repeat: requires earmarks intended for for-profit entities included in 
the Defense appropriations bill be competitively bid. That does not 
seem like it should be too tough. Just competitively bid these 
earmarks.
  By requiring full and open competition, Congress can make the process 
of public funding more transparent and bring to bear the benefits of 
competition. The results will be lower costs to the government, 
innovation among contractors and suppliers, and better outcomes for the 
American taxpayer.
  I am not the first person to think this is a good idea. The President 
and the Appropriations Committee in the House of Representatives are 
both on record endorsing it. Unfortunately, to date, and despite our 
good intentions, Congress has not been able to make it happen.
  President Obama has promised to fight ``the special interests, 
contractors and entrenched lobbyists'' that have bloated past 
appropriations and distorted military priorities. In March of this 
year, he called the awarding of earmarks for private companies ``the 
single most corrupting element of this practice'' and said funding for 
such projects should be evaluated with a higher level of scrutiny and 
subject to the same competitive bidding process as Federal contracts. I 
agree, but I would have gone further by calling for the elimination of 
earmarks altogether.
  I was pleased to see our House counterparts expressed interest in 
competing earmarks intended for private industry. But the Senate 
Appropriations Committee balked at the suggestion that funding for 
special interest programs be subject to competition, and the result of 
recent Senate-House negotiations is that earmarks in the fiscal year 
2010 appropriations bills will not have to be competitively bid.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. We must not allow this 
body to go back to the old ways of doing business.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________