The McMonnell/McCain Debate

MR. McCONNELL. Now, the Senator from Arizona, I see, is on the floor. And I'm just interested in engaging in some discussion here about what specifically he may -- what specific senators he feels have been engaged in corruption.

Now, I know he's said from time to time the process is corrupted. But I think it is important to note for there to be corruption somebody must be corrupt. Someone must be corrupt for there to be corruption. And so I would just ask my friend from Arizona what he has in mind here in suggesting that corruption is permeating our body and listing these projects for the benefit of several states as examples. . . .
 
MR. McCAIN. Mr. President, recently there was a book written by Elizabeth Drew called "The Corruption of American Politics." I would commend it to the reading of the Senator from Kentucky. In Chapter 4, entitled "The Money Culture," she says: "Undisputably the greatest change in Washington over the past 25 years and its culture and the way it does business and the ever-burgeoning amount of business transactions that go on here have been in the preoccupation with money.

"Striving for and obtaining money has become the predominant activity, and not just in electoral politics. And its effects are pernicious. The culture of money dominates Washington as never before. Money now rivals, or even exceeds, power as a preeminent goal. It affects the issues raised and their outcome. It has changed employment patterns in Washington. It has transferred politics. And it has subverted values. It has led good people to do things that are morally questionable, if not reprehensible. It has cut a deep gash, if not inflicted a mortal wound in the concept of public service." . . .

More than ever, Washington has become a place where people come or remain in order to benefit financially from their Government service. . . .

For 10 years I have reviewed annual appropriations bills to determine whether they contain items that are low-priority, unnecessary or wasteful spending. In this process, I've used five objective criteria to identify programs and projects that have not been appropriately reviewed in the normal merit-based prioritization process.

These criteria are: unauthorized appropriations; unrequested locality-specific earmarks, research-faculty-specific earmarks, facility-specific earmarks and other earmarks that would circumvent the normal competitive award process; budget add-ons that would be subject to a budget point of order; transfer or disposal of Federal policy or items under terms that circumvent existing law, and new items that are added in conference that were never considered in either bill in either house. . . .

Now, I refuse, and would not in any way, say that any individual or person is guilty of corruption in a specific way, nor identify them, because that would defeat----
 
MR. McCONNELL. Would the Senator yield?
 
MR. McCAIN. ----that would defeat-- -- I'd like to finish. That would defeat the purpose because, as I've said many times before, this system makes good people do bad things -- makes good people do bad things. And that is to go around the process which is prescribed for the Senate and the Congress of the United States to operate under.

(New York Times, 10/15/99)

return to What's happening now?