John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Let me explain his objection to using reconciliation to pass controversial health care legislation by quoting from Senator Robert Byrd: The Democratic leadership pleaded with me at length to agree to support the idea that the Clinton health care bill should be included in that year's reconciliation package. President Clinton got on the phone and called me also and pressed me to allow his massive health care bill to be insulated by reconciliation's protection. I felt that changes as dramatic as the Clinton health care package, which would affect every man, woman child in the United States would be subject to scrutiny. I said, Mr. President, I cannot in good conscience turn my face the other way. That's why we have a Senate. To amend and debate freely. And that health bill, as important as it is, is so complex, so far-reaching that the people of this country need to know what's in it. Let me note here what the Speaker of the House said on March 9: We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it. Now, continuing to quote from Senator Robert Byrd: And, moreover, Mr. President, we Senators need to know what's in it before we vote. And he accepted that. He accepted that. Thanked me and said good bye. I could not, I would not, and I did not allow that package to be handled in such a cavalier manner. It was the threat of the use of the Byrd rule. Reconciliation was never, never, never intended to be a shield, to be used as a shield for controversial legislation. I might also point out that the Senator from Tennessee mentioned the process. I don't think the American people understand that if the House passes the Senate bill, every one of these sweetheart deals that were included behind closed-door negotiations in the majority leader's office and in the White House will remain in that bill. We Republicans have all signed a letter, 41 votes, that we will not accept any change or amendment, whether it is good or bad, because we oppose the use of reconciliation, as Robert Byrd did so eloquently back in 2001.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the C-SPAN cameras be in those meetings, I would ask my friend?

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article entitled ``Health-Care Reform's Sickeningly Sweet Deals'' by Kathleen Parker, which appeared in the Washington Post on Wednesday, March 10.

Mr. McCAIN. I think Kathleen Parker says it best, and let me quote from her article: Skipping through the Candy Land of the health-care bill, one is tempted to hum a few bars of ``Let Me Call You Sweetheart.'' What a deal. For dealmakers, that is. Not so much for American taxpayers, who have been misled into thinking the sweetheart deals have been excised. That is why I say to my friend from Tennessee, it is important the American people understand that the Senate bill cannot be changed without coming back to the Senate. Therefore, all these deals they have pledged to remove will be in the bill that will be voted on by the other body--the ``Cornhusker kickback,'' which, by the way, had to secure 100 percent Federal funding for Nebraska's Medicaid expansion in perpetuity, among other hidden prizes to benefit locally based insurance companies. When other States complained about the unfair treatment, President Obama and Congress fixed it by increasing the Federal share of Medicaid to all States through 2017, after which all amounts are supposed to decrease. But they didn't fix it. Anyway, I think it is important for us to understand that these sweetheart deals have not been removed and that we are in opposition to this entire reconciliation which would lead to the erosion and eventual destruction of the 60-vote procedure that has characterized the way the Senate has operated. I have been in the majority, and I have been in the minority, and when I have been in the majority, we have been frustrated by the 60- vote rule and vice versa. Some of the people who are doing the greatest complaining and arguing about the fact that we have a 60-vote rule are the same ones who were the most steadfast defenders of it in past years when they were in the minority. That alone is enough argument for us to leave the process alone. I believe historians will show that there are times where the 60-vote rule, because of the exigency of the moment, averted us from taking actions; and later on, in perhaps calmer times, we were glad that we did not act at that time.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, may I ask the Senator from Wyoming if is he aware of a letter written to House leadership, representing, I believe, 85,000 physicians who oppose this legislation?

Mr. McCAIN. Let me quote a little for my colleague, Dr. Barrasso: The undersigned state and national specialty medical societies--representing more than 85,000 physicians and the millions of patients they serve--are writing to oppose passage of the ``Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.'' The changes that were recently proposed by President Obama do not address our many concerns with this legislation, and we therefore urge you to draft a more patient-centered bill that will reform the country's flawed system for financing healthcare, while preserving the best healthcare in the world. At this point, I want to ask my friend, the doctor, isn't it true that included in this legislation remains the so-called doc fix, and that there will be a 21-percent cut in doctors payments for treatment of Medicare enrollees? There is no one in America who believes that cut will actually be enacted, which then makes the comments by supporters of this bill false on their face--just that alone. I believe that is $371 billion; is that correct?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3475.

Mr. McCAIN. I understand that is the process right now. However, I will discuss the amendment. It is very simple. It would place a moratorium on all earmarks in years in which there is a deficit. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my good friend from Indiana Senator Bayh. I thank him for his leadership and courage. I am sure I don't need to remind my colleagues about our Nation's fiscal situation. But let's review the facts anyway. This morning the Treasury Department announced that the government racked up a record high monthly budget deficit of $220.9 billion last month. We now have a deficit of over $1.4 trillion and a debt of over $12.5 trillion. I recently have seen a bumper sticker in Arizona that says: Please don't tell the President what comes after a trillion. Unemployment remains close to 10 percent. According to Forbes.com, a record 2.8 million American households were threatened with foreclosure last year. That number is expected to rise to well over 3 million homes this year. Even with all of this, we continue to spend and spend and spend. Every time we pass an appropriations bill with increased spending loaded up with earmarks, we are robbing future generations of their ability to obtain the American dream. I believe that is immoral. That is why I have been pleased and somewhat surprised over the last several days to hear about the renewed bipartisan interest in banning earmarks. I am thankful for the attention. I welcome the Democratic House leadership to the fight against earmarks. According to today's Washington Post: Facing an election year backlash over runaway spending and ethics scandals, House Democrats moved Wednesday to ban earmarks for private companies, sparking a war between the parties over which would embrace the most dramatic steps to change the way business is done in Washington. I applaud the Democrats in the other body for this step. It is a small step, but it is a step in the right direction. As House Appropriations Committee Chairman Obey pointed out, the fiscal year 2010 budget included more than 1,000 earmarks for private companies. So the effect of the moratorium proposed by the other body would be a reduction of about 1,000 earmarks. The problem with this is that there were over 9,000 earmarks loaded onto just one of the bills we passed last year. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, last year's earmarks funded by Congress but not requested by the administration totaled $15.9 billion. So we spent $15.9 billion on earmarks while we are facing the highest national debt in history. Additionally, according to today's Congressional Quarterly, ``there are several significant catches'' to the House Democrats' earmark moratorium. They note: If a program is not formally considered an earmark, according to congressional rules, for instance, it could escape any ban. Billions of dollars in spending for the defense industry could end up slipping through that caveat alone, analysts say. So why am I not surprised. Thankfully, the House Republican caucus recognized the fact that the Speaker's proposal did little to seriously address the problem so they upped the ante and voted unanimously to impose an across-the-board earmark ban on their conference. I congratulate Mr. Boehner and especially Congressman Flake of Arizona for taking this bold step. It was the right thing to do. Unfortunately, this newfound zeal for attacking earmarks is not shared by their Senate counterparts. According to today's Congressional Quarterly: Senate Democrats signal that they would not follow suit, even as senior House Republicans responded that all earmarks should be banned. Congressional Quarterly also noted: It is not clear where Majority Leader Harry Reid stands. His office declined to comment on the House appropriations move. But the Senate appropriators' opposition does not bode well for a ban's prospects in that body. Again, I am not surprised. The Washington Post article I cited earlier also noted that: The latest earmark reform efforts follow a wave of investigations focusing on House appropriators' actions. The Justice Department has looked into the earmarking activities of several lawmakers and, relying on public documents, the House Ethics Committee investigated five Democrats and two Republicans on the Appropriations defense subcommittee, finding that the lawmakers steered more than $245 million to clients of a lobbying firm under federal criminal investigation. The lawmakers collected more than $840,000 in political contributions from the firm's lobbyists and clients in a little more than two years. The battle over earmarks has been waged over many years--I have been engaged in it for 20 years--and I am under no illusions that it will end anytime soon. I was encouraged in January 2007 when the Senate passed, by a vote of 96 to 2, an ethics and lobbying reform package which contained, meaningful earmark reforms. I believed that at last we would finally enact some effective reforms. Unfortunately, that victory was short lived. In August 2007--some 8 months later--we were presented with a bill containing very watered-down earmark provisions and doing far too little to rein in wasteful earmarks and porkbarrel spending. I find myself encouraged by what I have heard over the last several days, but I have been around here long enough to know not to get my hopes up. I do not look at this as being cynical, just practical. Let's take a look at some of the things we have spent hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars on over the last several years: $165,000 for maple syrup research in Vermont; $150,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Honolulu; $250,000 for turtle observer funding; $500,000 for the Bellevue Arts Museum in Washington; $2 million for the algae research in Washington; $500,000--one of my all-time favorites; it comes back all the time--to the National Wild Turkey Federation in Nebraska; $799,000 for soybean research; $349,000 for pig waste management in North Carolina; $819,000 for catfish genome research in Alabama; $250,000 for gypsy moth research in New Jersey; $1 million for potato research at Oregon State University--and the list goes on--a $250,000 earmark for the Iowa Vitality Center at Iowa State University. The list goes on and on. For over 20 years, I have fought vigorously against the wasteful practice of earmarking. The fight has been a lonely one and has not won me friends in this town over the years. But it is an important fight, and I am confident that, in the end, the opponents of this practice will be victorious. The corruption which stems from earmarking has resulted in current and former Members of both the House and the Senate either under investigation, under indictment, or in prison. Again, I was pleased to see that the Speaker of the House and the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee have recognized earmarks for what they are: a corrupting influence that should not be tolerated in these times of fiscal crisis--or ever. I applaud my Republican colleagues in the House and Senate, especially Senators Coburn and DeMint, who have called for a yearlong moratorium on all earmarks. I fully support and join them in those efforts. But I also think we need to do more. We need a complete ban on earmarks until our budget is balanced and we have eliminated our massive deficit. This amendment, if considered--and I will make it considered at one point or another--will have a proposal to do just that, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort. It is what the American people want, and we have an obligation to give it to them. We, as Members of Congress, owe it to the American people to conduct ourselves in a way that reinforces, rather than diminishes, the public's faith and confidence in Congress. An informed citizenry is essential to a thriving democracy, and a democratic government operates best in the disinfecting light of the public eye. By seriously addressing the corrupting influence of earmarks, we will allow Members to legislate with the imperative that our government must be free from corrupting influences, both real and perceived. We must act now to ensure that the erosion we see today in the public's confidence in Congress does not become a complete collapse of faith in our institutions. We can and we must end the practice of earmarking. I have traveled around the country and all around my home State of Arizona. I have seen the Tea Party participants. I have met citizens in my State who have never ever been involved in the political process before. They are angry, they are frustrated, and they want change. They want the change that was promised them last November, which they have not gotten. They want us to act as careful stewards of their tax dollars. Just the other night, my colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, and I were on a teleconference call to the citizens of our State, and many thousands of them were on the call, and we responded to their questions. A guy on the phone--he was from Thatcher, AZ--said: I've never been involved nor cared much about politics before. But you have gotten me off the couch. ``You have gotten me off the couch.'' We have lots of people ``off the couch'' because they are saying: Enough. They are saying: Enough of a $1.4 trillion debt this year and an increase in that debt for next year of some $1.5 trillion and an accumulated debt of $12.5 trillion. They believe we have spent too much and we have taxed too much. So I hope we can send a message by completely banning earmarks and go through the appropriate process for the funding of sometimes much needed projects; that is, the authorization and then appropriation route. Many people believe I am saying--I and those of us who oppose earmarks--that we are against any projects for anyone's State or much needed help. It is not the case. What we are saying is that we want any project and expenditure of taxpayers' dollars authorized and then appropriated. That way, by authorizing, the authorizing committees can compare all the virtues or the necessities of every project and match them up against one another rather than an appropriation being added in the middle of the night that is directly related to a position on the Appropriations Committee or a position of influence rather than merit. We cannot afford to continue that practice which has led to the anger and cynicism of the American people, and also has led over time to the investigation, sometimes indictment, and even incarceration of Members of Congress in Federal prison. So I urge my colleagues to now stand up and do the right thing; that is, to ban the earmarks, at least until we can tell the American people we have eliminated this debt we have laid on our children and our grandchildren. I say to the distinguished chairman of the committee, I did have an amendment on bicycle storage facilities, and one other. Perhaps at the appropriate time--I will be glad to brief the chairman and his staff-- it would be appropriately in order. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, these are days when we Senators take to the floor to express our anger and criticism of actions or events we disagree with. But then there are days we rise happily to pay tribute to great and noble achievements. Today is such a day. The people of Iraq went to the polls yesterday and struck a blow for freedom and democracy that has resounded across the world. As opposed to Iraq's last national elections in 2005 which saw the country rigidly divided along sectarian lines, with most Sunnis refusing to participate altogether, the election yesterday was broadly inclusive, with a host of cross-sectarian lists competing for the vote. Early reports indicate turnout was high among Iraq's nearly 19 million registered voters. Over 50,000 polling stations were up and running across the country with more than 200,000 Iraqis observing the election. Loud speakers in mosques that once implored Iraqis to take up arms and kill Americans appealed to them yesterday with a different purpose: to express their desire for a better Iraq--not with bullets but with ballots, not with bombs but with ink-stained fingers. Tragically, as most of us feared, yesterday's events did not proceed without incident. Al-Qaida and other terrorists lashed out with acts of barbaric violence against innocent Iraqis--women and men, fellow Muslim and fellow Arabs, even young children. Although these criminals did take the lives of at least 37 people, Iraqis were not deterred. They voted by the millions anyway, and in so doing they defied the enemies of their great nation. The Iraqi people deserve the lion's share of the credit for making yesterday's election such a resounding triumph for democracy. Iraq's Government, its High Electoral Commission, and its security forces all conducted themselves with distinction. I congratulate them all. It has been Iraqi courage, Iraqi sacrifice, and Iraqi endurance over many years of hardship that are now bringing about the country's emergence as an increasingly free society. Yet Iraqis have been fortunate to have committed allies in their struggle for justice. I thank America's civilians and diplomats, as well as those of our coalition partners and the United Nations for supporting our Iraqi friends in this election and throughout the countless challenges that preceded it. Most of all, I want to express my deepest gratitude to America's men and women in uniform who have given more to our mission in Iraq than could ever be asked of them. As our troops return home in the months ahead, as they must, it will be with the knowledge that their mission has been worth fighting for, with the thanks of a grateful nation, and with an honor won for themselves that time will not diminish. Our fellow citizens who have served in Iraq these past several years have done what many once believed to be impossible. It was once assumed that Iraq was unfit for democracy, that Iraq's people could not practice it, and Iraq's culture would not allow it. It was once assumed that America was trying to ``impose'' democracy on Iraq, or perhaps ``export'' it to Iraq. It was once assumed that no manner of additional U.S. troops could succeed in helping Iraqis to secure their country. These were all popular assumptions, especially in this town--popular but wrong. Thankfully, the United States followed a different course. Because we did, Iraqis are showing that freedom and democracy are Iraqi dreams and, increasingly, Iraqi realities. Iraqis are choosing to resolve their differences through cooperation and dialogue not violence and repression. They are demonstrating that Iraqis share the same basic aspirations as you and me: safe neighborhoods, opportunity for themselves and their children, equal access to justice, a chance to elect those who would govern them, and to live under laws of their own making. Yesterday the citizens of Iraq once again reaffirmed that a nation's past need not determine its future when citizens of courage are devoted to a just cause that is greater than themselves. I will be the first to admit that Iraq still faces many difficulties: a limited but lethal terrorist threat, the unhelpful meddling of some of its neighbors, weak political institutions, a still developing economy, and a culture of distrust that will take a long time to heal. There is much hard work still to be done in Iraq, and the United States must remain fully seized with it. In the weeks ahead, we must support our Iraqi friends in the arduous task of forming their new government. In the months ahead, as U.S. troops return home, we must deepen and expand America's diplomatic and economic engagement with Iraq. In the years ahead, the United States, especially our Congress, has a responsibility to continue providing the critical support, including the necessary resources to strengthen Iraq's young democracy. We have given much to this effort already, but now is not the time to scale back. Although our military mission is ending, our commitment to Iraq will endure, and must endure, for a long time to come. The fruits of this commitment are already becoming evident for the United States. We have not seen eye to eye with the current Iraqi Government at all times. I am fairly certain that we will have our share of disagreements with future Iraqi Governments. But this does not change the fact that Iraq has transformed in just 8 years from a principal enemy of the United States to a rising partner in the fight against violence, extremism; from a generator of insecurity to an emerging source of stability in the midst of a volatile region; and from one of history's most reprehensible tyrannies to a growing inspiration for people across the Middle East who still yearn for freedom and justice in their own countries. When Iranians look at a democratic Iraq today amid violent and bloody military crackdowns in their own country, they must be thinking: Why not us? When Syrians look at a democratic Iraq today among the stifling climate of oppression in their own country, they must be thinking: Why not us? And when our friends in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other nations in the region, where liberty is not assured, watch a peaceful transition of power in Iraq from one freely elected government to another, they must also be thinking: Why not us? The citizens of Iraq are now writing a new and hopeful chapter for their country, but also for the region as a whole, whose people are increasingly looking to emulate Iraq, its freedoms, its rule of law, its security of human dignity, its equal rights, and equal justice. This is the start of something new and wondrous in the Middle East, a renaissance of sorts, and Iraq is at the very forefront. The war in Iraq is ending, but America's partnership with the new Iraq is only just beginning. No matter where any of us stood in the old debates of the past, Americans should all be able to agree now that the emergence of a free and democratic Iraq is one of the greatest strategic opportunities in all of U.S. foreign policy. America and our allies have created this opportunity. Iraqis have expanded it and seized it. Now let's all come together to usher in a new era of liberty not just for Iraq but for the entire Middle East. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, now that my two favorite doctors are on the floor, I wish to refer them to and ask a question of both of them about a statement that the President just gave. He said: I believe it's time to give the American people more control over their own health insurance. I don't believe we can afford to leave life-and-death decisions about health care to the discretion of insurance company executives alone. I believe that doctors and nurses like the ones in this room should be free to decide what's best for their patients. By the way, I hope from now on our doctors will wear white coats on the floor. It would be impressive to me. But that is neither here nor there. Isn't it true that on page 982 there is created a new board of Federal bureaucrats--the Independent Payment Advisory Board, it is called--required to make binding recommendations to reduce the costs of the Medicare Program? How does that work if the President is saying give the American people more control and there is an independent payment advisory board that is making binding recommendations, I ask my two doctor friends.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask Dr. Barrasso, if these provisions were operative at this time, how would that have affected his practice?

Mr. McCAIN. So a patient comes to you with a certain orthopedic requirement that requires a certain level of treatment, and what does that do to you as a physician, as well as the patient?

Mr. McCAIN. On the issue of coming between the doctor and the patient, this legislation, the 2,733 pages, has 159 new boards, bureaucracies, and programs created--159. When the President says you will be able to choose your health care, how in the world does that in any way comport with the fact that it requires every American to buy health insurance whether they want to or not, which, to me, raises a fundamental question, a constitutional question. Where in the Constitution does it say that we require every American to have a health insurance policy? Finally, I would say there were a lot of impressive statements made during the Blair House meeting. I thought, frankly, Dr. Barrasso gave one of the most impressive ones I have heard. The perspective from practicing physicians is something that has all too often been absent from this debate. I know my colleague paid attention when Congressman Paul Ryan gave his statement as far as the budgetary implications and the costs to Americans. It has been reprinted in the Wall Street Journal this morning. In 5 or 6 minutes, I think he encapsulated what this legislation does in laying out, in his view, a true 10-year cost of $2.3 trillion. He points out the gimmickry, and one of them, of course--the elephant in the room--is that you have 10 years of tax increases for $\1/2\ trillion and 10 years of cuts and $\1/2\ trillion to pay for 6 years of spending. Now, where in the world would you have a program that you pay for 10 years in taxes and cuts in benefits and have 6 years of benefits? So the true cost, the true cost over 10 years without the budget gimmickry is $2.3 trillion, and things such as $72 billion in claims and money from the CLASS Act--the list goes on and on. So what I would ask Dr. Barrasso--we all trust the Congressional Budget Office. There is no doubt we all trust these people and their estimates, but their estimates are only as good as the proposals that are given to them. And I might add--again, I would request Dr. Barrasso's comments on this--that the President's proposal that was online was really an 11-page statement, and the Congressional Budget Office said they could not give a cost estimate because they didn't have sufficient information. So it is very clear, when you delay revenues until the year 2016, that obviously has budgetary impacts. Finally, I would ask Dr. Barrasso to talk about this so-called doc fix which has been counted in the budget as reducing cost, and everybody knows we are not going to cut physician payments for treatment of Medicare patients. I think that would be an important one for Dr. Barrasso to discuss because I think it really encapsulates the kind of budget gimmickry that has gone on in the formation of this legislation.

Mr. McCAIN. For the benefit of our colleagues, could the Senator explain exactly what the doc fix means and how we got to it?

Mr. McCAIN. Which could not happen.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Wall Street Journal piece authored by Congressman Paul Ryan.

Mr. McCAIN. Finally, Madam President, I find it incredibly cynical to tell the American people that the cost of this reform is going to be I believe $371 billion less than we all know it actually will be. I ask Senator Barrasso, if those cuts were ever enacted, what is the prospect of any of the overwhelming majority of doctors just saying: I am not going to treat Medicare patients.

Mr. McCAIN. Well, I hope we will continue to be on the floor. Again, we need to talk about what the President said during his campaign about many things but including what I saw this morning on FOX News where he said you shouldn't govern with 50-plus-1 votes, that he was in opposition to that. I am sorry he does not remain in opposition to that. I thank Dr. Barrasso and the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside for the purposes of offering an amendment, and that, of course, the vote on the amendment be decided by the majority leader and the Republican leader.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the President of the United States and the majority in both Houses have now signaled that regardless of how clearly the American people oppose the pending legislation concerning health care in America, it will be attempted to be forced down their throats under the parliamentary process that is intended for our Nation's budgetary matters, whether they want it or not. This amendment that is pending would remove our important Medicare Program from the partisan procedural process known as budget reconciliation. We must protect the Medicare Program from being used as a piggybank to create the new health care entitlement proposed by Senator Reid and President Obama. In addition to increasing taxes by $500 billion, the health care ``reform'' bill cuts $500 billion from Medicare to put the government in charge of a new $2.3 trillion health care entitlement that we can't afford. My constituents in Arizona and Americans across the country know the partisan games that are being played here, and they are opposed to it. Our entitlement programs should not be the subject of reconciliation. In 1974, the Budget Act excluded Social Security from the 51-vote reconciliation process. That was intentional, by one of the major architects, Robert Byrd, one of the most revered Members of the Senate, who has also said that health care reform should not be the subject of reconciliation. That makes sense, because if you exclude Social Security because it is an entitlement program, then, obviously, Medicare should also be excluded. We have a crisis with our entitlement programs and they need to be reformed, but they shouldn't be subject to a 51-vote majority. This amendment removes the Medicare Program from the reconciliation process. Medicare reforms need to be made, and this amendment doesn't affect that, but what the amendment says is that reforms to the Medicare Program should be treated differently just as the Social Security program is. A program as important as Medicare should not be cut or increased through a partisan 51-vote process. Something this important should be held to a higher standard and include bipartisan support. Let me remind my colleagues of the view of then-Senator Obama in 2007 when we were considering the ``nuclear option.'' He said at that time: You've got to break out of what I call, sort of, the 50- plus-one pattern of presidential politics. Maybe you eke out a victory of 50-plus-one, then you can't govern. You know, you get Air Force One, I mean there are a lot of nice perks, but you can't deliver on health care. We're not going to pass universal health care with a 50-plus-one strategy. On the use of reconciliation, then-Senator Obama went even further and said: You know, the Founders designed this system, as frustrating [as] it is, to make sure that there's a broad consensus before the country moves forward . . . And what we have now is a President who-- he was obviously referring to then-President Bush-- . . . [h]hasn't gotten his way. And that is now prompting, you know, a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate forever . . . And what I worry about would be you essentially still have two chambers--the House and the Senate--but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that's just not what the founders intended. I have been around this body for quite a while. Back a few years ago, when this side was in the majority and there was a movement toward the ``nuclear option''--in other words, 51 votes to confirm judges--I stood up as a member of the majority and said we should not erode the 60-vote majority rule that has prevailed here in the Senate for many years. At that time, that was not greeted on this side of the aisle, frankly, with approval by a lot of people. But what we did then was preserve the Senate tradition and process of 60 votes, and we should maintain that now. Certainly, having been in the majority and in the minority, I understand the frustrations of the majority. But I think history will show there have been numerous occasions where the requirement for a 60- vote majority has prevented the Congress of the United States from acting at the will of the moment or the fancy or the issue; that when time passes and cooler heads prevail, the 60-vote majority prevented the Congress from acting in a way that would have been harmful to the United States of America and its citizens. All of my other colleagues have also commented on this issue at different times, depending on whether they are in the majority or the minority. But I wish to point out again a fundamental fact of the way the Congress of the United States has done business in general, and the way the Senate of the United States has done business. We have never had in our history a major reform, whether it be the Civil Rights Act or whether it be the passage of Medicare, whether it be welfare reform or any other major reform made without a majority, and a significant majority, that was bipartisan in nature. That doesn't mean there was 100 percent, but there has always been, whenever major structural reforms have been made, a consensus that was a significant majority on both sides. So as we have time after time on this floor, we will be coming to the floor every day, my colleagues and I, to urge the majority and the President of the United States to start over and sit down and work together. Overwhelming majorities of the American people believe we should either stop or start over. Overwhelming majorities of the American people want us to reform the system. But they do not like this unsavory process of vote buying, and they certainly do not like the product. We will continue to carry the message to our constituents and to the American people. I believe there is still sufficient time for the will of the American people to prevail. Mr. President, the hour is late. I appreciate the patience of the Chair and his willingness to serve in the chair at this late hour, 7 o'clock at night. I appreciate him being here at this time. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that sets forth a clear, comprehensive policy for the detention, interrogation and trial of enemy belligerents who are suspected of engaging in hostilities against the U.S. This legislation seeks to ensure that the mistakes made during the apprehension of the Christmas Day bomber, such as reading him a Miranda warning, will never happen again and put Americans' security at risk. Specifically, this bill would require unprivileged enemy belligerents suspected of engaging in hostilities against the U.S. to be held in military custody and interrogated for their intelligence value by a ``high value detainee'' interagency team established by the President. This interagency team of experts in national security, terrorism, intelligence, interrogation and law enforcement will have the protection of U.S. civilians and civilian facilities as their paramount responsibility and experience in gaining actionable intelligence from high value detainees. These experts must, to the extent it is possible to do so, make a preliminary determination whether the detainee is an unprivileged enemy belligerent within 48 hours of a detainee being taken into custody. The experts then must submit their determination to the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General after consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General make a final determination and report it to the President and the appropriate committees of Congress. In the case of any disagreement between the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, the President will make the final call. A key provision of this bill is that it would prohibit a suspected enemy belligerent from being provided with a Miranda warning and being told he has a right to a lawyer and a right to refuse to cooperate. I believe that an overwhelming majority of Americans agree that when we capture a terrorist who is suspected of carrying out or planning an attack intended to kill hundreds if not thousands of innocent civilians, our focus must be on gaining all the information possible to prevent that attack or any that may follow from occurring. Under these circumstances, actionable intelligence must be our highest priority and criminal prosecution must be secondary. Additionally, the legislation would authorize detention of enemy belligerents without criminal charges for the duration of the hostilities consistent with standards under the law of war which have been recognized by the Supreme Court. Importantly, if a decision is made to hold a criminal trial after the necessary intelligence information is obtained, the bill mandates trial by military commission where we are best able to protect U.S. national security interests, including sensitive classified sources and methods, as well as the place and the people involved in the trial itself. It should come as no comfort to any American that nearly 8\1/2\ years after the attacks of 9/11 we still don't have a clear mechanism, legal structure, and implementing policy for dealing with terrorists who we capture in the act of trying to bring about attacks on the U.S. and our national security interests at home and abroad. What we saw with the Christmas Day bomber was a series of missteps and staggering failures in coordination among the most senior members of the administration's national security officials that have continued to be compounded by administration apologists who still don't seem to understand that repeating the same mistakes that were made in 2001 and 2002 is going to lead to the deaths of many more Americans. The vast majority of Americans understand that what happened with the Christmas Day bomber was a near catastrophe that was only prevented by sheer luck and the courage of a few of the passengers and crew. A wide majority of Americans also realize that allowing a terrorist to be interrogated for only 50 minutes before he is given a Miranda warning and told he can obtain a lawyer and stop cooperating is not sufficient. Let me be clear about where I think the fault lies with our current policy. I believe that the local FBI agents who were involved with investigating the Detroit attack are patriotic Americans who are experts in the field of law enforcement. I hold the FBI in the highest regard and believe they set the standard for law enforcement professionalism not only in the U.S., but internationally. But it is impossible for FBI field agents to know all the information that is available to the U.S. intelligence community worldwide during the first 50 minutes of interrogation of a suspected terrorist. We must ensure that the broad range of expertise that is available within our government is brought to bear on such high-value detainees. This bill mandates such coordination and places the proper focus on getting intelligence to stop an attack, rather than allowing law enforcement and preparing a case for a civilian criminal trial to drive our response. Deliberate mass attacks that intentionally target hundreds of innocent civilians is an act of war and should not be dealt with in the same manner as a robbery. We must recognize the difference. If we don't, our response will be hopelessly inadequate. We should not be providing suspected terrorists with Miranda warnings and defense lawyers. Instead, the priority and focus must be on isolating and neutralizing the immediate threat and collecting intelligence to prevent another attack. In closing, let me say that I hope that Congress and the administration support this legislation as part of a comprehensive solution for detaining, interrogating and prosecuting suspected enemy belligerents. However, there is a lot more work that must be done. I am continuing to work with Senator Graham, Senator Lieberman, and others to address other crucial aspects of detainee policy. As part of that effort, I believe we must establish a system for long-term detention of terrorists who are too dangerous to release, but who cannot be tried in a civilian court. While the law of war authorizes detention until the end of hostilities--something the Supreme Court has recognized and which is reinforced in this bill--I believe that a review system for the long-term detention of detainees should be set out in law. Additionally, both the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the D.C. Circuit Court have urged Congress to provide uniform guidelines to apply in the habeas corpus cases that have been brought by detainees. Currently, the outcomes in the Guantanamo detainee habeas cases are inconsistent because of different interpretations of novel questions of law the judges face in applying habeas to wartime prisoners for the first time in our history. I will continue to work on a bipartisan basis to improve this process to obtain better, more uniform results. I do not believe that we will have addressed all the necessary detainee policy challenges until we do so, and my efforts will not stop until we have addressed all the detainee issues in a comprehensive fashion. While other detainee policy challenges remain, I believe the handling of the Christmas Day bomber--including the law enforcement focus and the decision to read a Miranda warning after only 50 minutes of interrogation--demand that Congress and the administration first address the issue which is most crucial to our national security. For that reason, we must have a clear policy, legal foundation, and mechanism for the detention, interrogation and trial of enemy belligerents who are suspected of engaging in hostilities against the U.S. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.