[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 28138-28140]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           CONGRESSIONAL PORK

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to address an article that 
appeared on the front page of Roll Call on Thursday, November 8. The 
title of the article was ``McCain Breaks Own Pork Rule,'' and it 
addressed my efforts, as a member of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, to secure authorized funding--I emphasize authorized--for 
land acquisition at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona. Sadly, the headline 
was misleading and the article itself was simply inaccurate.
  As my colleagues know--and I see my colleague from West Virginia in 
the Chamber--for many years I have made it a point to carefully 
scrutinize the annual appropriations bills which are, in my view, 
wasteful porkbarrel spending. I have specific criteria for identifying 
these projects which are very clear. Simply put: If an item is 
requested by the administration or properly authorized, I do not object 
to it and I do not consider it a porkbarrel project. Having said that, 
let me address the situation discussed in the Roll Call article.
  The authorization for funds for the land acquisition at Luke Air 
Force Base was included in both the House

[[Page 28139]]

Armed Services Committee markup of the fiscal year 2003 Defense 
authorization bill and the fiscal year 2003 authorization conference 
report, and in the Senate Armed Services Committee markup of the fiscal 
year 2004 authorization bill. As a member of the authorizing committee, 
I readily admit I worked hard to procure the authorized funds necessary 
for the land acquisition. As all of my colleagues are aware, 
authorizing the expenditure of Federal funds before appropriating them 
is the proper process. It is the way we are supposed to do things in 
this body.
  As no one disputes, the authorization bill includes a provision for 
the Luke land acquisition. It will be adopted by both Chambers and 
signed into law by the President. I cannot recall a Defense 
appropriations or Military Construction appropriations markup occurring 
after the Defense authorization bill conference report was signed into 
law. As my colleagues know, appropriators have only the Senate-passed 
authorization bill to use in determining whether projects proposed for 
inclusion in their markup are authorized.
  Simple fact and not my opinion--I emphasize, it is a fact, not my 
opinion--rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate expressly 
acknowledges that Senate bills that were previously passed in the 
current session authorize appropriations. The rule states in part that:

       The term unauthorized appropriation means an appropriation 
     (i) not specifically authorized by law or Treaty stipulation 
     unless the appropriation has been specifically authorized by 
     an Act or resolution previously passed by the Senate during 
     the same session. . . .

  That is exactly what happened with the authorization bill. Therefore, 
the Senate considers it authorized when the authorization bill passes 
the Senate, not when the conference report is signed into law. Again, 
this is a standing rule of the Senate, not an arbitrary decree of my 
own. I have never objected to an appropriation on the grounds that 
while it was authorized in the Senate-passed bill and was accepted by 
House and Senate conferees, the conference had yet to finish its work. 
I consider such an appropriation to be authorized while consistent with 
Senate rules and the fact that the report had yet to be voted only a 
technical formality.
  The article also suggested that I requested from the Military 
Construction Appropriations Subcommittee an unauthorized earmark for 
Luke Air Force Base. That suggestion is simply not true. I 
categorically deny ever approaching any member of the Appropriations 
Committee in order to request funding for this project, or any other 
project for that matter. It just simply didn't happen.
  If there is any member of the Appropriations Committee who will come 
forward and say that I did, I would be very interested, because it 
didn't happen.
  The fact is, when I was approached by the chairman of the Senate 
Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, who informed me that 
if I wanted the money authorized for Luke included in her 
subcommittee's markup, I would have to send her a letter requesting it, 
I firmly refused to do so, noting only in conversation with the 
chairman that the money had been authorized and that the appropriators 
should follow that instruction.
  I believe strongly, as every Member of the Senate knows, that 
appropriators should follow the instructions of the authorizing 
committees. And no one should have to write a letter requesting it. I 
never have.
  It has come to my attention that three different members of the 
Appropriations Committee told the Roll Call reporter responsible for 
this article that I approached them and requested this funding. Again, 
this is not true. I challenge any member of the House or Senate 
Appropriations Committee to come forward and prove I made any such 
request.
  I have with me a letter to the editor of Roll Call from Tom Schatz, 
president of Citizens Against Government Waste. As my colleagues know, 
Citizens Against Government Waste is a very well respected and 
nonpartisan government watchdog organization. I have worked with them 
for many years, and I am proud of our joint efforts to combat wasteful 
spending. In the letter Mr. Schatz says:

       Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) is concerned about 
     the accuracy of the article, ``McCain Breaks Own Pork Rule,'' 
     that Roll Call published on November 6. [Citizens Against 
     Government Waste] is dedicated to hunting down pork-barrel 
     projects in every appropriations bill. In fact, CAGW's fiscal 
     Congressional Pig Book contained 9,362 pork-barrel projects. 
     Senator John McCain has been the leading voice in the Senate 
     trying to stop this egregious practice. As for the $14.3 
     million for Luke Air Force Base mentioned in your article, 
     Sen. McCain has assured us he did not request any 
     unauthorized fund from any member of the appropriations 
     committee.
       We have worked closely for many years with Senator McCain 
     in our joint effort to combat wasteful government spending. 
     He believes that spending provisions, particularly defense-
     related projects, be contained in the Department of Defense 
     authorization bill. Senator McCain serves on the Senate Armed 
     Services Committee, and he readily admits that he worked hard 
     to ensure that funding for Luke AFB was included in the 
     Senate DOD authorization bill. The timing of the 
     authorization versus appropriations bills is a red herring in 
     this story, designed to make it appear that Senator McCain 
     has violated his own rules on pork barrel spending.
       Sincerely,
       Tom Schatz, President, Citizens Against Government Waste.

  Mr. President, I regret I had to take the time of the Senate to 
address this issue. I feel it is important for my colleagues to know 
the truth. I know very well if I violated my own rules, it would get a 
lot of publicity and longevity. I have not done that in 17 years, and I 
will not. That is why I come to the floor today to correct what was 
written in that article.
  I have been very diligent in ensuring my office never violates the 
same standards for appropriations to which I have long insisted my 
colleagues adhere. I did not do so in this case and I will not do so in 
the future. I appreciate the indulgence of my colleague from North 
Dakota.
  I yield the floor.


                                Tankers

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I commend the Chairman of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, the senior Senator from Virginia, Senator John 
Warner for putting the Committee on Armed Services back on the map of 
relevancy and like any sea captain with a steady hand decisively 
changing the course of the committee from just a debating society. I 
believe that the Appropriations Committee will think twice before they 
try to pull this off again. This began in September 2001 when Secretary 
Roche, the Boeing Company and the Appropriations Committee decided to 
lease 100 Boeing 767 tankers and go around the traditional budget 
process at the Pentagon, go around the Secretary of Defense, go around 
the Office of Management and Budget, go around the authorizing 
committee--(SASC)--and insert a $30 billion new start lease of 100 
Boeing 767 aerial refueling tankers into the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002--without a single hearing, 
debate, or vote.
  However, late yesterday afternoon Secretary Wolfowitz sent a letter 
to the defense committees which would enable the SECAF to sign a 
contract for the requisition of 100 tankers now, and to buy 80 of them 
on delivery.
  This language has negative financial and budgetary implications. 
Importantly, it will provide that lease-unique disbursements, such as 
construction financing--$7.5 million per plane--lease administration 
costs--costing up to $5.5 million per plane; FAA certification--which 
would be considerable and yet unnecessary when the Air Force owns the 
planes; and other costs such as operating expenses for any special-
purpose entity extend to the order of 80 tankers--which the SECAF will 
buy.
  In addition, the USAF will not be required to set aside money now for 
the purchase of these tankers. So, when the tankers are built, the USAF 
will have to come up with the cash to pay for them. But, at that point, 
the temptation will be simply to extend the lease and not convert to a 
buy when the time comes to do so. So, this proposal puts no pressure on 
the USAF to

[[Page 28140]]

make choices before starting to build planes number 21-100. Instead, it 
will have Congress over a barrel to pay for planes already built under 
the tanker lease regime. Thus, as is the case under the original lease 
proposal, the USAF will get its tankers in a way that defers the 
payment burden to someone else at some unspecified point in the future.
  This is what we were trying to originally avoid.
  The language we agreed to late last night is clear and would 
unequivocally prevent the USAF from leasing more than the 20 tankers.
  And more importantly will prevent ``costs that are unique to this 
lease arrangement . . . costs for issuing the bonds required to finance 
the lease or the construction of the tankers, operating expenses for 
the special-purpose entity, lease administration fees, FAA 
certification costs, etc.'' apply to the subsequent 80 aircraft.
  The Air Force will be forced to, just like the other military 
services do, obtain budget authority before placing an order for the 
purchase of tankers or before Boeing spends any money for the 
construction of those planes. Because this will require the USAF to pay 
at the time of order, make progress payments and acquire the tankers 
under two separate contracts, as it should, potential savings could be 
as much as $5.2 billion according to unofficial CBO estimates.
  Remarkably, the key threshold issue of corrosion remains an open 
issue. CRS still believes that, to date, the DOD has not provided a 
thorough corrosion assessment as the SASC asked for. And, the two 
reports that Secretary Roche cited as updating the Economic Service 
Life Study, ESLS, which concluded that the current fleet is viable to 
2040, are in no way comparable in sophistication, depth or scope. So, 
to date, the DOD has produced, despite numerous requests, any data or 
analysis that invalidates the conclusions of the ESLS.
  The November 5, 2003, letter from the Deputy Secretary of Defense to 
Chairman Warner is disturbing. In this letter, the DOD describes how it 
intends to proceed acquiring tankers under the legislative language 
agreed upon by the conferees 2 days ago. In particular, it indicates 
that the DOD intends to sign the current contract for the acquisition 
of all the tankers now and not obtain requisite budget authority until 
the out-years to fund the purchase of the tankers.
  According to the letter, the DOD will fund its purchase of the 80 
tankers by adding $3.8 billion in the out-years to ``achieve[] an 
immediate start to the program and allow [for the] purchase [of] the 
last 80 aircraft at time of delivery.''
  There are several problems with this:
  It seems inconsistent with the plain language of the bill that the 
conference has agreed upon--that the USAF buy up to 80 aircraft under a 
multi-year procurement/incremental funding methodology.
  It will likely result in the proposals being scored as a $18 billion 
``direct purchase.''
  It suggests that taxpayers will be stuck with unnecessarily having to 
pay for construction financing costs at a premium open-market rate and 
other lease-unique disbursements.
  It is unabashedly similar to what the USAF intended to do under the 
original contract to lease 100 tankers, and I appreciate that we now 
have a commitment, as Senator Warner said on the floor of the Senate, 
that would put this program back into the traditional procurement 
process, this program back into the traditional budget process, and 
this program back into the traditional authorization process.
  I yield.

                          ____________________