[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 22780-22784]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. McCAIN. I rise to address the issue of the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010, which is the pending business 
before the Senate.
  The funding provided in this legislation is very crucial. We need to 
support our commanders as they lead operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, 
and elsewhere, and care for the men and women who are in the military, 
including making sure they are provided for, as well as our wounded 
warriors. But I also note with great concern and alarm, dismay, and 
even disgust that billions of dollars in wasteful earmarks, 
unrequested, unauthorized, have again found their way into this

[[Page 22781]]

legislation. As I have said before, these are serious times, and we as 
a Congress are required to make serious decisions, tough decisions, 
that may go against the special interests.
  I need not remind my colleagues that we are at war or that the 
national debt is growing ever larger. Recently, there was a reestimate 
of the deficit for the next 10 years from $7 trillion to $9 trillion. 
We are facing deficits of unprecedented proportions. Yet the spending 
goes on here like, as some people have said, a drunken sailor. I do not 
use that phrase anymore because I never knew a sailor, either drunk or 
sober, with the imagination Members of Congress have, which is best 
epitomized in this bill, as I will point out in several provisions. We 
cannot afford the waste. We cannot afford it. It is our duty to fully 
support the funding for our national defense and ensure that each 
dollar we spend is spent wisely in delivery of the stated need and not 
on special interests.
  The Appropriations Committee has provided $626 billion in total 
funding for the Department of Defense--$498 billion for the base budget 
and $128 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Interestingly, it is $3.9 billion less than the 
President's budget request, and the bill further reduces the Defense 
programs requested by the Pentagon to make room for $2.5 billion in C-
17 cargo aircraft slated for termination by the administration and 
about $2.7 billion--I repeat, $2.7 billion--in earmarks and special 
interest items.
  I have long talked about the broken appropriations process and the 
corruption it breeds. I remain deeply concerned over the damage done to 
our country and the institutions we are so proud to serve in by their 
continued abuse.
  While we have made some progress on the issue in the last couple of 
years, we certainly have not gone nearly far enough. Legislation we 
passed in 2007 provided for greater disclosure of earmarks, and that 
was a good step forward. But the bottom line is, we simply do not need 
more disclosure of earmarks, we need to eliminate them. We need to 
eliminate them. We should adopt the practice that was the practice here 
for a long time, up until recent years, that we didn't appropriate 
unless it was authorized.
  In the years that I have been here, I have seen a tremendous shift in 
the authority and responsibility from the authorizing committees to the 
appropriating committees and a commensurate rise in earmarks and 
corruption. I know my colleagues do not like to hear me use the word 
``corruption,'' but we have former Members of Congress residing in 
Federal prison. We had a Congressman from California who used to list 
the appropriations he was able to get in one column and in the other 
column the amount of money he received for earmarking those 
appropriations. That is corruption.
  It is not responsible for us to continue to load up appropriations 
bills with wasteful and unnecessary spending. Americans all over this 
country are hurting. People are losing their jobs, their savings, their 
homes. So what are we doing? We continue the disgraceful earmarking 
process, elevating parochialism and patronage politics over the true 
needs and welfare of this Nation. I will be pointing out during the 
course of this debate a number of examples of that corruption, which I 
think is really unacceptable to the American people. By the way, that 
is one of the reasons the American people have risen up in an 
unprecedented manner in demonstrations against the way we do business 
here in Washington.
  So I want to be clear, disclosure is good. But it was not inadequate 
disclosure requirements which led Duke Cunningham to violate his oath 
of office and take $2.5 million in bribes in exchange for dolling out 
$70 to $80 million of taxpayers' funds to a defense contractor. It was 
his ability to freely earmark taxpayer funds without question.
  A lot is said during campaigns. A lot of promises are made. 
Unfortunately, some are not kept. The President of the United States 
pledged during his campaign that he would work to eliminate earmarks. 
The Speaker of the House promised to ``drain the swamp.''
  Just last month, the President of the United States 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 he reaffirmed that 
he was leading the charge to kill off programs like 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.

  If the President means those words, this legislation should be vetoed 
in its present form by the President of the United States.
  He went on to say:

       We will do right by our troops and taxpayers.

  He is right. We should do right by our troops and taxpayers.
  The bill has at least $5.2 billion in programs the Pentagon does not 
need and did not ask for--$5.2 billion.
  The President last month put on an all court press to terminate the 
F-22 program in the face of congressional determination to continue 
funding the production of the aircraft. So why was the President so 
adamant about terminating the F-22 while at the same time possibly 
giving a free ride to 10 unrequested C-17s in this bill at a cost of 
$2.5 billion? How can one differentiate between a fighter aircraft that 
the Pentagon says further production is unnecessary from a cargo 
aircraft that the Pentagon says the current fleet, coupled with those 
on order, is sufficient to meet the Pentagon's needs, even under the 
most stressing situations? Why has the administration, including the 
Secretary of Defense, been silent on $2.7 billion in Member-requested 
earmarks? These are questions for which I do not have a good answer.
  What I do know is that the appropriators did not add $5.2 billion to 
the bill to pay for the unrequested additions but, rather, secured this 
additional funding by offsetting programs in other parts of the bill.
  So what did the appropriators decide to cut to make room for most of 
these unrequested earmark and porkbarrel projects?
  They reduced $900 million from the President's request for the 
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund at a time when the one thing we are in 
agreement on is that we need to increase the size of the capability of 
the Afghan Army and security forces. It is a key component of the U.S. 
strategy in Afghanistan. So they cut it by $900 million. Reducing 
funding in the account runs counter to our ground commanders' plan for 
the Afghan forces to assume a greater share of responsibility for 
security as quickly as possible.
  Equally as incredible, the bill reduces over $3 billion in operations 
and maintenance accounts through direct cuts and cuts mandated in other 
provisions in the bill based on economic assumptions and excess cash 
balances.
  The administration strongly opposes these cuts and in their Statement 
on Administration Policy said, ``These reductions would hurt force 
readiness and increase stress on the military people and equipment.''
  This account is the lifeblood for our military. The operations and 
maintenance of our men and women in the military and the equipment they 
use is absolutely vital. So what did we do? We took $3 billion out of 
operations and maintenance and put it in those porkbarrel projects, 
including the C-17. The account provides for services with funds to 
carry out day-to-day activities such as recruitment and fielding of a 
trained and ready force, all military training and exercises, food, 
weapons, spare parts, equipment repairs, depot maintenance, ship 
overhauls, transportation services including aviation fuel, Navy and 
Marine Corps steaming days, civilian personnel management and pay, and 
childcare and family centers.

[[Page 22782]]

  One thing in this debate about Afghanistan that almost everyone is in 
agreement on is that our equipment is wearing out and that we are way 
behind in the repair and replacement of spare parts, equipment--all 
that is necessary for our Active-Duty Forces and our Guard and Reserve, 
who are practically, for all practical purposes, Active Duty. And we 
are looking at--and I have guarded confidence that the President will 
agree to General McChrystal's and Petraeus' and Admiral Mullen's 
recommendation. We will need more money for operations and maintenance 
because we will be sending more men and women and equipment to 
Afghanistan. So what did they do? What is in this bill? A $3 billion 
reduction. Well, what is in its place? I will be going over some of the 
projects that are in its place.
  One of the more egregious items in the legislation we are considering 
today is the addition of $2.5 billion for 10 C-17 Globemaster cargo 
aircraft.
  First, let's have a little background.
  Recognizing that the Department's total requirement for 180 C-17 
aircraft has been well been exceeded for 3 consecutive years, the Bush 
administration had actively tried to close down the production line for 
the C-17s. Nonetheless, earlier this year, the House Appropriations 
Committee Defense Subcommittee, added eight more C-17s for $2.25 
billion to the 2009 supplemental spending bill, a bill that is supposed 
to be used to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The final version 
of that bill included all eight of these aircraft. When the 
subcommittee met later to consider the 2010 Defense appropriations 
bill, it went ahead and added three more.
  This is a little hard to see, this chart, but it is an interesting 
one. These are the C-17s that were originally in the Air Force budget. 
These are the C-17s, in red, that have been added by Congress. Each 
year--each year--the Department of Defense and the administration have 
said: Enough. We have enough C-17s. Obviously, that has not been the 
case.
  It brings us to where we are now--well in excess of requirements, 
continuing to spend billions of dollars for aircraft we do not need. 
Including the 8 C-17s in the 2009 supplemental, the Department has 
bought now a total of 213 C-17s. The original requirement was 180.
  According to the most recent Statement of Administration Position, 
the administration ``strongly objects'' to the addition of $2.5 billion 
in funding for 10--count them: 10--unrequested C-17 airlift aircraft. 
The Department's own analyses show that the 205 C-17s in the force and 
on order, together with the existing fleet of C-5 aircraft, are more 
than sufficient to meet the Department's future airlift needs even 
under the most stressing conditions.
  In no uncertain terms, Secretary Gates has stated that the military 
has no need to buy more C-17s. So here we are, my friends, with a $3 
billion cut in operations and maintenance, which any observer, much 
less the administration, the Secretary of Defense, and the Joint 
Chiefs, says, is vital to continuing our operations and the well-being 
and protection of the men and women in the military, and we are adding 
$2.5 billion for more C-17s. What kind of a tradeoff is that?
  Secretary Gates has stated the military has no need to buy more C-
17s. While Secretary Gates called the C-17 ``a terrific aircraft''--and 
I agree--he stressed earlier this year that the Air Force and the U.S. 
Transportation Command ``have more than necessary [strategic airlift] 
capacity'' for airlift over the next 10 years. Nonetheless, continuing 
C-17 production would cost about $3 billion per year from 2010 onward.
  In connection with the fiscal year 2010 budget request, the President 
not only requested no funding for additional C-17s but also recommended 
this program for termination. Particularly in light of today's 
financial constraints, continuing to spend billions of dollars for more 
C-17s we do not need is becoming increasingly unsustainable. For these 
reasons, I will be offering an amendment to strike the additional 10 
aircraft.
  Given how much our airlift capacity currently exceeds operational 
requirements, I see no reason why we should buy more of these 
aircraft--at a minimum, before key analyses on the subject, such as the 
Institute for Defense Analyses' review and the Department of Defense 
Mobility Capabilities and Requirements Study are completed.
  I will be proposing an amendment shortly that I hope will correct 
this egregious action on the part of the Appropriations Committee. The 
men and women in the military, who are fighting and putting their lives 
on the line, deserve a lot better than that.
  I want to talk for a few minutes about earmarks. The practice of 
earmarking is detrimental to the Department and, with increasing 
frequency, to Members themselves. The guilty pleas of former Members of 
Congress, congressional staffers, and lobbyists illustrate how earmarks 
have been used to corrupt the legislative process. Check the polls. The 
trust and confidence on the part of the American people in the Congress 
of the United States is at an all-time low, and deservedly so.
  By my preliminary count, there are almost 700 unrequested earmarks in 
this bill, over 400 of which are not authorized in the fiscal year 2010 
National Defense Authorization Act. That represents more than $1.3 
billion in funding for unrequested, unauthorized, Member-interest 
items. It is unacceptable. It is the constitutional duty of Congress to 
provide the Department of Defense the resources it needs while 
providing the oversight our constituents demand. We have a fiduciary 
obligation to the American taxpayer, and every time we tuck pork into 
an appropriations measure, we shun that responsibility.
  One of the great untold stories of earmarking is that the money, 
which is diverted to special-interest projects, would have otherwise 
been used to address the stated needs of our military services. The 
money does not come from anywhere but the taxpayers' wallets and 
purses. But the service chiefs, who are in the best position to advise 
Congress of their priorities, are routinely shortchanged so that 
Senators and Congressmen can fund their pet projects.
  A sampling: $9.5 million is in this bill to fund research in Montana 
on hypersonic wind tunnels, called MARIAH--M-A-R-I-A-H. This self-
licking ice cream cone has been with us, earmarked and unrequested, 
since 1998. The Air Force, leader in hypersonic testing and technology, 
lost interest in 2004, so appropriators moved the program to the Army. 
The Army has no official requirement for this capability and published 
a report in 2005 stating their disinterest in the program.
  To date, the Army has no plans to fund the MARIAH wind tunnel effort, 
as they have stated in their budget documents. That has not kept the 
Congress from pouring more than $70 million into it--more than $70 
million--with no discernible return. One group has done very well in 
the deal, however. Of course, I am referring to lobbyists, including 
Gage LLC, whose CEO, coincidentally, had been a senior staffer to an 
appropriator from Montana. I intend to offer an amendment to strike 
this earmark in the bill, and I can assure you, you will hear more from 
me on this.
  We have spent more than $70 million on a project that has had no 
return, that the military has said they have no interest in pursuing.
  Another earmark is $5 million to the battleship USS Missouri Memorial 
Association. This is a private organization which owns and operates 
this battleship as a museum in Pearl Harbor. I am aware that the 
association plans to put the Missouri in drydock and refurbish it, and 
also aware it was not part of the donation agreement that the Defense 
Department would pay for required maintenance.
  I am all for Navy ships being placed in places where Americans can 
see and appreciate the great service and sacrifice of the men and women 
in the military, the Navy and Marine Corps in particular. The deal was 
that the Defense Department would not, that they would take care of the 
maintenance of

[[Page 22783]]

it, that they would take care of whatever the needed expenses are. So 
here is $5 million.
  Another earmark is $25 million for the National World War II Museum 
in New Orleans, to help pay for the construction of new facilities as 
part of a $300 million expansion. This privately funded museum opened 
in 2000 and, through the help of the Louisiana delegation, has already 
received $13 million in Department of Defense funds tucked into 
previous appropriations bills.
  Again, if the members of the Appropriations Committee wish to go 
through the authorization process and have this project authorized, I 
would be more than willing to consider it.
  Another appropriation is $13.8 million for five different earmarks 
pertaining to nano-tuber research. Of the almost 800 earmarks I 
mentioned earlier, hundreds are for high-tech research or devices. I 
ask my colleagues whether they are capable of weighing the merits of 
specific technologies they fund in this bill.
  Another earmark is $20 million for a center at the University of 
Massachusetts ``dedicated to educating the general public, students, 
teachers, new Senators, and Senate staff about the role and importance 
of the Senate.'' This center was neither requested in the President's 
budget nor authorized by Congress. Certainly a legitimate question 
should be whether $20 million should be appropriated for a project that 
has nothing to do with the defense of this Nation. It may be a 
worthwhile project. Why couldn't we get it authorized?
  Another earmark is $10 million, as usual, to the University of Hawaii 
for a program called the Panoramic Survey Telescope and Raid Response 
System, Pan-STARRS. On the surface, this program seems like a 
reasonable need for the Air Force as a part of its Space Situational 
Awareness efforts. Unfortunately, the Air Force will not be getting 
much return on this investment since it will only be allowed to use the 
telescope 5 percent of the time.
  Let's get that straight. The Air Force is paying $10 million so the 
telescope could be developed and maintained, and they are going to get 
to use it 5 percent of the time. In dollar figures, the Air Force pays 
$10 million to the university and receives $500,000 in return. What is 
more, the Air Force has not, in the 9-year life of this earmark, 
requested a single dollar for this program. So since 2001, the Air 
Force has been forced to spend more than $75 million of its budget 
allocation on a program it does not want--but might be able to use--
only to be denied use 95 percent of the time.
  I do not dispute that some of the earmarks listed in the bill have 
value. I am sure they do. But I protest the process by which Congress 
ignores priorities of the armed services so that Members can deliver 
tax dollars to their constituents for programs which may have nothing 
to do with the defense of our Nation, and at a time when we can least 
afford to misuse resources. We all know the economy has taken a beating 
over the last year. Unemployment is just under 10 percent, and the 
national debt is $11.8 trillion. So we are going to provide $20 million 
to a center with a purpose to extol the virtues of the Senate?
  The issues we face as a nation require all of us to make sacrifices--
all of us. It is about time we started setting an example.
  In today's Washington Post is an article written by Jeffrey Smith, 
entitled ``Defense Bill, Lauded by White House, Contains Billions in 
Earmarks.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that article be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Sept. 29, 2009]

   Defense Bill, Lauded by White House, Contains Billions in Earmarks

                         (By R. Jeffrey Smith)

       Sen. Thad Cochran's most recent reelection campaign 
     collected more than $10,000 from University of Southern 
     Mississippi professors and staff members, including three who 
     work at the school's center for research on polymers. To a 
     defense spending bill slated to be on the Senate floor 
     Tuesday, the Mississippi Republican has added $10.8 million 
     in military grants earmarked for the school's polymer 
     research.
       Cochran, the ranking Republican on the Appropriations 
     subcommittee on defense, also added $12 million in earmarked 
     spending for Raytheon Corp., whose officials have contributed 
     $10,000 to his campaign since 2007. He earmarked nearly $6 
     million in military funding for Circadence Corp., whose 
     officers--including a former Cochran campaign aide--
     contributed $10,000 in the same period.
       In total, the spending bill for 2010 includes $132 million 
     for Cochran's campaign donors, helping to make him the 
     sponsor of more earmarked military spending than any other 
     senator this year, according to an analysis by the nonprofit 
     group Taxpayers for Common Sense.
       Cochran says his proposals are based only on ``national 
     security interests,'' not campaign cash. But in providing 
     money for projects that the Defense Department says it did 
     not request and does not want, he has joined a host of other 
     senators on both sides of the aisle. The proposed $636 
     billion Senate bill includes $2.65 billion in earmarks.
       President Obama has repeatedly promised to fight ``the 
     special interests, contractors and entrenched lobbyists'' 
     that he says have distorted military priorities and bloated 
     appropriations in the past. In August, he told a convention 
     of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that ``if Congress sends me a 
     defense bill loaded with a bunch of pork, I will veto it.''
       But the White House instead sent a generally supportive 
     message to the Senate about the pending defense bill on 
     Friday, virtually ensuring that the earmarks will win final 
     congressional approval. For the most part, the White House 
     lauded the bill's proposed funding for the wars in 
     Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as its cancellation of three 
     programs that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has been 
     particularly eager to kill this year: the F-22 fighter plane, 
     a second engine for the F-35 fighter and a new presidential 
     helicopter program.
       The bill, however, would add $1.7 billion for an extra 
     destroyer the Defense Department did not request and $2.5 
     billion for 10 C-17 cargo planes it did not want, at the 
     behest of lawmakers representing the states where those items 
     would be built. Although the White House said the 
     administration ``strongly objects'' to the extra C-17s and to 
     the Senate's proposed shift of more than $3 billion from 
     operations and maintenance accounts to projects the Pentagon 
     did not request, no veto was threatened over those 
     provisions.
       The absence of such a threat provoked Winslow Wheeler, 
     director of a military reform project at the Center for 
     Defense Information, to describe Obama's stance as ``too 
     wimpy to impact behavior.'' Wheeler, who earlier criticized 
     the House for approving a version of the bill that includes 
     extra C-17 planes, $2.7 billion worth of earmarks and other 
     projects that Gates dislikes, said that ``as a long-time 
     Senate staffer who has read these documents for years, my 
     interpretation of it is that the House-Senate conference will 
     listen politely . . . and then do as it pleases.''
       Senior Obama aides responded that the White House never 
     sought to fix the problem of earmarks in one year. ``The 
     president has been clear from Day One: He wants to change the 
     way business gets done in Washington,'' Thomas Gavin, a 
     spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget, said 
     Monday. ``The results speak for themselves. Earmarks in the 
     defense appropriations bills are down 27 percent in the House 
     and 19 percent in the Senate. This is an important step 
     forward in the president's drive to shape a government that 
     is more efficient and more effective.''
       Those figures are the most flattering the White House could 
     have used: They refer to the number of earmarks in the bills, 
     not total spending. Total spending on military earmarks in 
     the Senate declined by only 11 percent from the $3 billion 
     approved by Congress last year.
       ``Despite the fact that earmarks are down, there's still 
     nearly 800 . . . for projects that rose to the top by dint of 
     political power rather than project merit,'' said Ryan 
     Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. ``The 
     president needs to take a harder line against waste and 
     political gamesmanship, particularly in the defense bill, 
     which is paying for two wars.''
       There is, however, wide bipartisan support in Congress for 
     diverting funds to political donors or home-state causes.
       Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), chairman of the Senate 
     Appropriations Committee, ran a close second to Cochran's 
     $212 million in earmarks this year, having added 37 earmarks 
     of his own worth $208 million, according to the tally by 
     Taxpayers for Common Sense.
       Almost all of Inouye's earmarks are for programs in his 
     home state, and 18 of the provisions--totaling $68 million--
     are for entities that have donated $340,000 to his campaign 
     since 2007. His earmarks included $24 million for a Hawaiian 
     health-care network, $20 million for Boeing's operation of 
     the Maui Space Surveillance System and $20 million for a 
     civic education center named after the late senator Edward M. 
     Kennedy.
       ``Many of my earmarks are intended to support investment in 
     small businesses working to hone new and innovative 
     technologies that will better protect and support

[[Page 22784]]

     our soldiers during a time when our nation is at war,'' 
     Inouye said in a statement Monday.
       In Cochran's case, the proposed earmarks would benefit at 
     least two entities that hired his former aides. The manager 
     of Mississippi operations for Colorado-based Circadence is R. 
     Bradley Prewitt, whose biography on the company's Web site 
     states that he was counsel and campaign manager to Cochran 
     from 1997 to 2002. The University of Southern Mississippi, 
     which would receive $10.8 million in Cochran earmarks, paid 
     $40,000 to a firm that employs Cochran's former legislative 
     director, James Lofton, to help lobby on defense 
     appropriations, according to the firm's Senate registration.
       ``Senator Cochran takes his responsibilities on the 
     Appropriations Committee very seriously,'' spokesman Chris 
     Gallegos responded Monday. ``Senator Cochran does not, and 
     never will, base his decisions on campaign contributions.''

  Mr. McCAIN. Quoting from the article:

       President Obama has repeatedly promised to fight ``the 
     special interests, contractors and entrenched lobbyists'' 
     that he says have distorted military priorities and bloated 
     appropriations in the past. In August--

  As I mentioned--

     he told a convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that 
     ``if Congress sends me a defense bill loaded with a bunch of 
     pork, I will veto it.''

  Mr. President, this bill fits that description.
  It goes on:

       The bill, however, would add $1.7 billion for an extra 
     destroyer the Defense Department did not request. . . .

  It talks about the C-17s and ``the Senate's proposed shift of more 
than $3 billion from operations and maintenance accounts to projects 
the Pentagon did not request, no veto was threatened over those 
provisions.
  I want to say again, I am sure the managers of this bill will somehow 
try to justify this transfer out of operations and maintenance into the 
C-17. It is not a credible argument. It is not a credible argument.

       The absence of such a threat provoked Winslow Wheeler, 
     director of a military reform project at the Center for 
     Defense Information, to describe. . . .
       Senior Obama aides responded that the White House never 
     sought to fix the problem of earmarks in one year. ``The 
     president has been clear from Day One: He wants to change the 
     way business gets done in Washington''. . . .

  One thing I know about egregious practices, if you do not stop them 
early in an administration, you never will. It will be alleged that 
earmarks are down less than they were before, it is an important step 
forward, and the sponsors of the bill will say earmarks are down 27 
percent in the House and 19 percent in the Senate.

       Those figures are the most flattering the White House could 
     have used: They refer to the number of earmarks in the bills, 
     not total spending. Total spending on military earmarks in 
     the Senate declined by only 11 percent from the $3 billion 
     approved by Congress last year.
       ``Despite the fact that earmarks are down, there's still 
     nearly 800 . . . for projects that rose to the top by dint of 
     political power rather than project merit,'' said Ryan 
     Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. ``The 
     president needs to take a harder line against waste and 
     political gamesmanship, particularly in the defense bill, 
     which is paying for two years.''

  Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is not yet pending.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________