John McCain

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.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as we all know, yesterday the President issued a letter that said he was agreeing on ``four policy priorities identified by Republican Members at the meeting'' that we had. And he said, ``I am exploring. I said throughout this process,'' I quote from the President's letter, ``that I'd continue to draw on the best ideas from both parties, and I'm open to these proposals in that spirit.'' So he mentioned several of them. In it, he talks about the four areas he would be considering: One by Senator Coburn, a proposal; another one that a number of people had discussed concerning demonstration projects through Health and Human Services for resolving medical malpractice disputes; one on Medicaid reimbursements; and then expanded health savings accounts. He said: ``That's why my proposal does not include the Medicare Advantage provision, mentioned by Senator McCain at the meeting, which provided transitional extra benefits for Florida and other States. My proposal eliminates those payments, gradually reducing Medicare Advantage payments across the country relative to fee-for-service Medicare,'' et cetera. Then he says, ``In addition, my proposal eliminates the Florida FMAP provision, replacing it with additional federal financing'' in all States. Of course, this raises, I think, first of all, the legitimate question: How did this stuff get in there to start with? How did it take weeks of examining a 2,400-page bill? What about the other sweetheart deals that were included behind closed doors in this 2,400- page legislation? What about the deal for Vermont, a 2.2-percent Medicaid bonus for 6 years for their Medicaid Program? What about the Massachusetts deal, a .5-percent Medicaid bonus for 3 years? Hawaii? It adds money for Hawaii hospitals. Hospitals in Michigan and Connecticut have the option to benefit from higher payments; Connecticut, $100 million for a university hospital. The Senate beneficiary of this provision was not originally known. Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming had increased Medicare payments for those States. What is unique about those States? Libby, MT, Medicare coverage for individuals exposed to environmental health hazards, asbestos mining. That may be a worthy cause, but shouldn't it be the subject of an authorization and debate and appropriations? Then, of course, we had the special deals that were cut with the special interests, not just PhRMA. The White House negotiators--the White House negotiators not congressional negotiators--extracted an $80 billion deal to gain more offsets from the drug industry, and their $2- million-a-year lobbyists confirmed the deal in news reports. In exchange for PhRMA supporting the Democratic Senate bill, PhRMA spent $150 million in advertising support. And to further lock in the deal, the White House and Senate Democrats agreed to oppose drug reimportation and a shorter pathway for generic biologics. To sum all this up, there is no better description of it than what is by the majority leader of the Senate, who, on Christmas Eve, when these deals became known as we examined the 2,400 pages, Senator Reid, the majority leader, said--this, I think, encapsules, summarizes the entire process they went through: A number of States are treated differently from other States. That's what legislation is all about. That's compromise. I want to repeat that. I want to repeat that quote from Senator Reid. A number of States are treated differently from other States. That's what legislation is all about. That's compromise. That is not compromise. That is not the word. ``Compromise'' is an agreement between two parties on both sides of the aisle who reach an agreement. This is backroom wheeler dealing, special interest influence, and vote buying. That is what this was. Why would a State be treated differently from another State? Why would we have disparate impact on different States? One of the reasons I have focused a lot of my attention on the 800,000-person carve-out in the State of Florida, as the President has said that would be changed, is because there are 330,000 Medicare Advantage enrollees in my State. Why should it ever happen that the residents of one State who are in the same program, the exact same Federal program, have different advantages over another State? I am pleased the President's letter concerning the issue of the 800,000 people in Florida who will receive different coverage, that that would be fixed. But I also point out, as I just chronicled, that is one of many proposals, many sweetheart deals, many backroom deals. It has to be put in the context of the fact that the President of the United States promised the American people that we would change the climate in Washington. Eight times the President of the United States said all of these negotiations on health care reform will take place with C-SPAN cameras in the room. My understanding of the process now is that there is going to be a vote in the House on the Senate bill and then there will be a reconciliation of 51 votes, which, of course, is offensive to the American people. But I assume, then, the Senate bill as passed will have all of these provisions in it that are these secret, backroom, unsavory deals that were made. So let me just say it is disappointing, the contrast of the President's statement, when we have learned that last week's health care summit was not really a true effort. In other words, the summit at the Blair House did not reflect what the overwhelming majority of the American people are demanding; that is, we start over and we stop what has been done. One of the reasons they want it stopped is because they have become aware of these special deals for special interests and vote purchasing. That is what they have become aware of. So that is one of the major reasons they want us to start over. At the townhall meetings I have, people are as upset about the process we went through as they are the actual legislative outcome, although they are very unhappy about that. Let me just say I know a bit about working in a bipartisan fashion. I know people want us to get things done together. I know the approval ratings of Congress are extremely low, and there is a great disconnect between the people of this country and what we are doing in Washington, and they want us to work together, adhering to principle and addressing the enormous challenges that face them. But that means starting over. We did identify areas on which we could agree. We did identify the fact that there are some areas. But unless we start over, then how in the world can we put lipstick on a pig? It is still a pig. It is still a bad and unsavory process that we went through in order to reach the legislative package we have now. What we really need to do is start over and then we can get rid of all of these. We can get rid of the ``Louisiana purchase,'' and Vermont and Massachusetts and Hawaii and Michigan, Connecticut--Connecticut twice, one $100 million for a hospital and then higher payments-- Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming. We can get rid of all of these if we start over. I point out, finally, because we are going to be talking a lot about this--and I know other colleagues of mine are waiting to speak--I just point out again this whole issue of reconciliation. A lot of Americans had never heard that word before, certainly not in this context before this came up. But the word ``reconciliation'' means we would reconcile differences on small issues between the two bodies. It was the product of Senator Robert Byrd, who has said unequivocally that health care-- that Medicare and health care should not be included in this process. It was Senator Robert Byrd who specifically exempted Social Security from being a part of reconciliation. He said, and I quote from Senator Robert Byrd: I was one of the authors of the legislation that created the budget reconciliation process in 1974 and I am certain that putting health care reform and climate change legislation on a freight train through Congress is an outrage that must be resisted. That was the author. Of course, all during the time when the other side of the aisle was in the minority they complained bitterly, and I think with some justification, that reconciliation was used as a means of getting legislation through this body, bypassing the 60-vote requirement. I would like to point out--and it may be a bit self-serving, but I would like to point out that when the so-called nuclear option was up, we would move to a process that only 51 votes would be required in order to confirm judges in this body, I and 13 others joined in a bipartisan fashion, and we said no. We will have circumstances that will attend our votes on confirmation and, for the good of the body, we preserved the 60-vote majority rule that has been the custom in this institution of the Senate in modern times. The American people are watching very carefully what we are doing. There may be some belief that a lot of Americans are not appreciating what apparently is the plan, and that is to move serious legislation through the Senate with a 51-vote majority, legislation that would affect one-sixth of our gross national product. I urge my colleagues, as I did when we were considering the ``nuclear option on judges,'' that this nuclear option also be rejected and go back to the 60 votes and maintain the 60-vote majority requirement that basically governs our proceedings in the Senate. Let's start over. Let's listen to Warren Buffett, a strong supporter of the President of the United States. He noted that this legislation includes nonsense, backroom deals for special interests. He said: Democrats should cut off all the kinds of things like the 800,000 special people in Florida or the Corn Husker kickback, as they called it, or the Louisiana Purchase, and we are going to get rid of the nonsense. We are just going to focus on costs and we are not going to dream up 2,000 pages of other things. I hope we will heed the words of Warren Buffet, which basically is that he and the American people want us to start over. They certainly do not want to have legislation enacted by a bare majority. Again, I would remind my colleagues of history. Every major reform that has been enacted by this body, whether it be the Civil Rights Act, whether it be Medicare, whether it be other major reform, it has always been done with overwhelming bipartisan support. It is not too late. Let's go back to the beginning. Let's start over. We have identified areas we can work together on and certainly reject this idea of 51 votes governing the way this body functions. I think it poses great danger to the future of this institution that all of us who have the privilege of serving here love as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I missed rollcall vote No. 24, the motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2847, with the Reid amendment No. 3310. I was regrettably detained due to the fact that I was serving as the ranking member at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. If I had been present, I would have voted to sustain the point of order.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, February 11, 2010, was the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Republic of Iran. For most Iranians, the Islamic Republic is the only government they have ever known, and unfortunately, it is a record that many would rather forget-- 31 years of economic potential lost and the resources of a great and proud nation stolen by a corrupt ruling elite; 31 years of a regime that puts its own selfish interests and those of foreign terrorist groups ahead of the needs of the Iranian people; 31 years of justice denied, freedom curtailed, and dignity trampled. In recent months, the world has watched in awe as hundreds of thousands of Iranians have said ``enough,'' and demanded better for themselves. They have taken to the streets and the Internet, risking the violent reprisal of a regime without conscience, in order to insist on their universal human rights. In television news clips and YouTube videos, in Twitter updates and countless online exchanges, the world has seen the naked oppression of the Iranian regime and its masked agents. We have watched as peaceful Iranian demonstrators for human rights have been beaten, and shot--even murdered--in the streets of cities across Iran. We have watched as Iranian men and women--many not more than young boys and girls--have been rounded up in their homes and dormitories, and hauled away unlawfully to face torture and other abuses in the darkest corners of the country, where the eyes of the international community struggle to see. Just a few months ago, we watched as a young woman named Neda was shot in broad daylight by agents of the Iranian government. And as that young woman bled to death in the street, it became clear to me and many others that this was the beginning of the end of the Islamic Republic. After 31 years, that day cannot come soon enough, but how and when it does is up to the Iranian people. This struggle continues in Iran. On February 11, many Iranians took to the streets again to demonstrate peacefully for freedom and justice. Again, many were beaten. Again, many were detained unlawfully. Again, many were no doubt tortured--and worse. The world has watched these abuses long enough. Now the world must act. It is long past time for democratic, law-abiding nations to stand up together, to speak with one voice, and to show these courageous Iranian human rights advocates that the free world is on their side. The recent statement between the U.S. and the European Union supporting human rights in Iran is a welcome development, and I hope to see more and more such joint actions. It is also long past time for the U.N. Security Council to impose the crippling sanctions on the Iranian government that have been promised for so long. As that negotiation drags on, individual countries should not refrain from taking their own individual actions to impose pressure on the rulers of Iran for failing to abide by their own international agreements, both security agreements and human rights agreements. In that vein, I was pleased to see the White House recently announce a new set of sanctions against four Iranian entities and one individual active in Iran's nuclear program. I hope there is a lot more where that came from. I do not wish, however, to confine our sanctions effort only to those persons in Iran who threaten our security and that of our allies, either through their support for terrorism or Iran's weapons programs. I also want to bring the full force of America's economic power to bear against those in Iran who threaten that country's peaceful human rights and democracy activists. That is why, just a few weeks ago, I sought to introduce an amendment to the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, which would impose targeted sanctions on persons in Iran who violate the human rights of their fellow citizens. Building on that earlier effort, today I am introducing, together with my good friend and colleague Senator Joe Lieberman, the Iran Human Rights Sanctions Act, which is co-sponsored by a broad bipartisan group of U.S. Senators. This bill has two parts. First, it would require the President to compile a public list of individuals in Iran who, starting with the presidential election last June, are complicit in human rights violations against Iranian citizens and their families, no matter where in the world those abuses occur. I want to stress: This would be a public list, posted for all the world to see on the websites of the State and Treasury Departments. We will shine a light on the names of Iran's human rights abusers, and we will make them famous for their crimes. Second, this bill would then ban these Iranian individuals from receiving U.S. visas, and impose on them the full battery of sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. That means, freezing any assets and blocking any property they hold under U.S. jurisdiction, and ending all their financial transactions with U.S. banks and other entities. If passed into law, this would be the first time the U.S. Government has ever imposed punitive measures against persons in Iran because of their human rights violations. In short, under this bill, Iranian human rights abusers would be completely cut off from the global reach of the U.S. financial system, and that would send a powerful signal to every country, company, and bank in the world that they should think twice about doing business with the oppressors of the Iranian people. Over the past year, the President has made every effort to extend a hand to the Iranian government--to seek to overcome 31 years of painful history, and to search for common ground on matters of common interest. Unfortunately, the President's generosity has been met defiantly, again and again, with the clenched fist of Iran's rulers--a fist that is increasingly stained with the blood of the Iranian people. It should now be clear that the Iranian regime has no desire to meet its international responsibilities and every desire to use all the tools of violence and repression at its disposal to crush the peaceful aspirations of Iran's citizens. Faced with this disturbing reality, America must lead an international effort to support the human rights of the Iranian people, and to put that effort at the center of our policy toward Iran. We must encourage our international partners, especially our European allies, to do the same, and to impose their own targeted sanctions on Iran's human rights abusers. This is not about picking winners in an internal Iranian matter. It is about standing up for the universal values we hold dear, and championing the cause of all who seek to secure those values for themselves. The Iran Human Rights Sanctions Act is an important start of this effort, and I encourage my colleagues in Congress to move quickly and pass it into law.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, February 11, 2010, was the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Republic of Iran. For most Iranians, the Islamic Republic is the only government they have ever known, and unfortunately, it is a record that many would rather forget-- 31 years of economic potential lost and the resources of a great and proud nation stolen by a corrupt ruling elite; 31 years of a regime that puts its own selfish interests and those of foreign terrorist groups ahead of the needs of the Iranian people; 31 years of justice denied, freedom curtailed, and dignity trampled. In recent months, the world has watched in awe as hundreds of thousands of Iranians have said ``enough,'' and demanded better for themselves. They have taken to the streets and the Internet, risking the violent reprisal of a regime without conscience, in order to insist on their universal human rights. In television news clips and YouTube videos, in Twitter updates and countless online exchanges, the world has seen the naked oppression of the Iranian regime and its masked agents. We have watched as peaceful Iranian demonstrators for human rights have been beaten, and shot--even murdered--in the streets of cities across Iran. We have watched as Iranian men and women--many not more than young boys and girls--have been rounded up in their homes and dormitories, and hauled away unlawfully to face torture and other abuses in the darkest corners of the country, where the eyes of the international community struggle to see. Just a few months ago, we watched as a young woman named Neda was shot in broad daylight by agents of the Iranian government. And as that young woman bled to death in the street, it became clear to me and many others that this was the beginning of the end of the Islamic Republic. After 31 years, that day cannot come soon enough, but how and when it does is up to the Iranian people. This struggle continues in Iran. On February 11, many Iranians took to the streets again to demonstrate peacefully for freedom and justice. Again, many were beaten. Again, many were detained unlawfully. Again, many were no doubt tortured--and worse. The world has watched these abuses long enough. Now the world must act. It is long past time for democratic, law-abiding nations to stand up together, to speak with one voice, and to show these courageous Iranian human rights advocates that the free world is on their side. The recent statement between the U.S. and the European Union supporting human rights in Iran is a welcome development, and I hope to see more and more such joint actions. It is also long past time for the U.N. Security Council to impose the crippling sanctions on the Iranian government that have been promised for so long. As that negotiation drags on, individual countries should not refrain from taking their own individual actions to impose pressure on the rulers of Iran for failing to abide by their own international agreements, both security agreements and human rights agreements. In that vein, I was pleased to see the White House recently announce a new set of sanctions against four Iranian entities and one individual active in Iran's nuclear program. I hope there is a lot more where that came from. I do not wish, however, to confine our sanctions effort only to those persons in Iran who threaten our security and that of our allies, either through their support for terrorism or Iran's weapons programs. I also want to bring the full force of America's economic power to bear against those in Iran who threaten that country's peaceful human rights and democracy activists. That is why, just a few weeks ago, I sought to introduce an amendment to the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, which would impose targeted sanctions on persons in Iran who violate the human rights of their fellow citizens. Building on that earlier effort, today I am introducing, together with my good friend and colleague Senator Joe Lieberman, the Iran Human Rights Sanctions Act, which is co-sponsored by a broad bipartisan group of U.S. Senators. This bill has two parts. First, it would require the President to compile a public list of individuals in Iran who, starting with the presidential election last June, are complicit in human rights violations against Iranian citizens and their families, no matter where in the world those abuses occur. I want to stress: This would be a public list, posted for all the world to see on the websites of the State and Treasury Departments. We will shine a light on the names of Iran's human rights abusers, and we will make them famous for their crimes. Second, this bill would then ban these Iranian individuals from receiving U.S. visas, and impose on them the full battery of sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. That means, freezing any assets and blocking any property they hold under U.S. jurisdiction, and ending all their financial transactions with U.S. banks and other entities. If passed into law, this would be the first time the U.S. Government has ever imposed punitive measures against persons in Iran because of their human rights violations. In short, under this bill, Iranian human rights abusers would be completely cut off from the global reach of the U.S. financial system, and that would send a powerful signal to every country, company, and bank in the world that they should think twice about doing business with the oppressors of the Iranian people. Over the past year, the President has made every effort to extend a hand to the Iranian government--to seek to overcome 31 years of painful history, and to search for common ground on matters of common interest. Unfortunately, the President's generosity has been met defiantly, again and again, with the clenched fist of Iran's rulers--a fist that is increasingly stained with the blood of the Iranian people. It should now be clear that the Iranian regime has no desire to meet its international responsibilities and every desire to use all the tools of violence and repression at its disposal to crush the peaceful aspirations of Iran's citizens. Faced with this disturbing reality, America must lead an international effort to support the human rights of the Iranian people, and to put that effort at the center of our policy toward Iran. We must encourage our international partners, especially our European allies, to do the same, and to impose their own targeted sanctions on Iran's human rights abusers. This is not about picking winners in an internal Iranian matter. It is about standing up for the universal values we hold dear, and championing the cause of all who seek to secure those values for themselves. The Iran Human Rights Sanctions Act is an important start of this effort, and I encourage my colleagues in Congress to move quickly and pass it into law.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I wanted to take a moment to discuss the Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010 that Senator Dorgan and I introduced earlier this month. This legislation has been widely discussed since introduction and many falsehoods and misstatements regarding it have been raised. I want to take a moment to clarify what this bill will and will not do if passed into law. We introduced this legislation at the request of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association, National Football League, National Hockey League, U.S. Olympic Committee, American College of Sports Medicine, American Swimming Coaches Association, National Collegiate Athletic Association, PGA Tour, U.S. Lacrosse, U.S. Tennis Association, U.S.A. Cycling, U.S.A. Gymnastics, U.S.A. Swimming, U.S.A. Track and Field, and U.S.A. Triathlon. Additionally, scores of parents, spouses and high school athletic coaches requested action by Congress or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to assist them in ensuring the safety of dietary supplements. I am proud that this legislation is so widely supported. However, opponents to this bill and their well-paid Washington lobbyists have spread false statements and rumors about the legislation, which is really a disservice to consumers, and instead proudly boast that they remain largely untouchable by the FDA. This legislation would simply require dietary supplements to list all ingredients on the packaging, mandate that all dietary manufacturers register with the Food and Drug Administration--FDA--to ensure the FDA knows what is being sold and provide the FDA mandatory recall authority of any dietary supplement if the FDA finds the supplement to be hazardous to one's health. Opponents have stated that the legislation would seek to limit consumers' ability to purchase dietary supplements, vitamins or prescription drugs. That is completely false. Opponents also claim the bill establishes a new regulatory structure for dietary supplements at the Food and Drug Administration. That is completely false. Opponents claim that this bill was only introduced to rein in a few athletes who took supplements and then tested positive for steroids or other substances banned by sports leagues. That is completely false. This bill was introduced for the nearly half of all Americans who take a dietary supplement. People have died from taking dietary supplements, including a young mother and wife who lived in my home State, and thousands have had to be hospitalized or seen by a doctor due to an adverse reaction from a dietary supplement. It took nearly 10 years--and then a lengthy court battle--for the FDA to ban the inclusion of ephedra in dietary supplements after ephedra was linked to a number of deaths. Such a delay should never happen again. Additionally, the more than 100 million Americans who consume dietary supplements should be able to know the ingredients of any supplement, and these supplements need to be required to be listed on the product's packaging. If you go to a grocery store and pick up a box of cereal, bread, yogurt or any product off the shelf, you can read the product's label to clearly know the ingredients and be sure you aren't eating something that you find concerning, hazardous or unhealthy. Those who take dietary supplements should have the same option. Simply put, this legislation is about truth in labeling. This legislation is about giving consumers choice. If you take a vitamin now, this bill will in no way restrict your ability to take that vitamin. But the consumer needs to know the entirety of what is contained in that pill. Additionally, clear labeling could save lives as it did for a Phoenix Suns star who took a dietary supplement sleep aid and stopped breathing. Fortunately, his teammates found the supplement bottle that listed the ingredients, and the emergency room doctors were able to use the information to give him an antidote in the emergency room moments later and save his life. The disclosure of ingredients on a dietary supplement can save lives; and therefore, it should be mandatory. With the new ``buzz word'' in Washington being ``transparency,'' I don't understand how any lawmaker could oppose such a requirement.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first, I thank my friend, the Senator from Delaware, for his strong statement. I thank him for his support of freedom and democracy in Iran. I thank him for his longtime advocacy of human rights. I and others are pleased to have the opportunity to work with him in a common cause of human rights and democracy. I thank the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a colloquy with the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, and I am aware of the time constraints of being in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today is the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Republic. Unfortunately, it is a record that many would rather forget--31 years of economic potential lost, stolen by a corrupt elite. We know what has gone on over the last 31 years. Right now, as we speak, if anyone watching wants to turn on cable news, turn on FOX News, they will see videos coming out of Tehran of innocent people, young and old, being beaten and tortured and taken away to prison where unspeakable things are done to them as the people of Iran are standing up and demonstrating, again, their commitment, their courage, their sacrifice on behalf of a free and open democracy and society. We are watching as Iranian men and women, many not more than young boys and girls, are rounded up in their homes and dormitories, hauled away unlawfully to face torture and other abuses in the darkest corners of the country where the eyes of the international community struggle to see. These are unacceptable, unspeakable crimes that are being committed on the Iranian people, and we and the world must stand up against it. I appreciate being part of an effort, along with my friend from Connecticut--both sides, a bipartisan effort--to take action on the part of these people in Iran. Turn on FOX News, I say to my friends. They will see the videos coming out of Tehran of the brutality that is being inflicted on innocent Iranians who are trying to just have the God-given right to freedom and democracy. I thank my friend from Connecticut. This resolution we are submitting today has two parts. It would require the President to compile a public list of individuals in Iran who, starting with the Presidential election last June, are complicit in human rights violations against Iranian citizens and their families. No matter where in the world these abuses occur, I want to stress this will be a public list. You will know their names. You will know their faces. You will know what they have done. And we will make them famous. They are war criminals, and they should be taken to The Hague for trial. The bill would then ban these Iranian individuals from receiving U.S. visas and impose on them the full battery of sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. That means freezing any assets and blocking any property they hold under U.S. jurisdiction, et cetera. This Nation has always stood for the human rights of people throughout the world. We stood up for the people behind the Iron Curtain. We provided Lech Walesa with a printing press. Now we need to help the Iranian people with the means to use the Internet to communicate, to resist. I hear back and forth that the Iranian people are without a leader. They have leaders. They have thousands and thousands of leaders who are in the streets right now demonstrating for freedom and putting their very lives at risk. I thank my colleague from Connecticut and ask him if he has additional comments on this disturbing reality that is unfolding before our eyes as we stand on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield? I also heard that the wife of one of the opposition leaders was beaten in the streets today. Did the Senator hear that?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask my friend, I believe that last year an attempt was made to establish some kind of relationship and dialog with the Iranian Government--in other words, to have an unclenched fist. Will my friend comment on what success that has been?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Connecticut, isn't it also true that there are certain elements who say: Don't do these things--the sanctions and actions we are trying to take--you only hurt the Iranian people. Isn't it true that the demonstrators in the streets of Tehran were chanting: Obama, Obama, are you with us or are you with them? What would be the effect on the Iranian people if we impose these sanctions?

Mr. McCAIN. Finally, I would like to ask my friend, we were together in Munich over the weekend. The Foreign Minister of Iran came and spoke. I wish everyone in the world could have seen that performance-- one, a complete denial that they are on the path to acquisition of nuclear weapons, and, perhaps as important, a denial that any human rights abuses were taking place anywhere in that country. It was a remarkable display of hypocrisy and outright lying.

Mr. McCAIN. I know we are running out of time, but I want to say to my friend that history does repeat itself. There was a time during the Cold War when Ronald Reagan spoke out and mentioned Natan Sharansky's name and he was beaten for it. People said he shouldn't have done that, but Ronald Reagan said: Take down this wall. People said that was provocative toward the Soviet Union. You know what Natan Sharansky said, after he was released from the prison? He said: Those words reverberated throughout the gulag and gave hope for democracy and freedom, and made them even more steadfast and encouraged them in the face of the brutality they underwent in the Soviet gulag. That is the same message we are sending to the Iranian people with this legislation. I hope we will enact it soon. We will not slack nor will we give up until the Iranian people have their God-given rights restored to them. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Mr. Craig Becker to be a member of the National Labor Relations Board. Mr. Craig Becker is the first person--I repeat, the first person-- nominated for a term on the National Labor Relations Board who comes directly from a labor organization. Mr. Becker is an officer and associate general counsel of two of our Nation's largest unions, the AFL-CIO and the SEIU. These unions clearly have a substantial interest in the most important decisions presently pending before the Board. Now, it is one thing to come from private law practice representing employers or unions as clients under the circumstances. It is quite another to come to the Board directly from being an officer and associate general counsel of a labor organization with, as mentioned, substantial interests in multiple matters pending or that will be pending before the Board. Last week's hearing was clearly necessary, as it revealed that while Mr. Becker will recuse himself for a period of 2 years, and only for 2 years, from those instances when his former employers, the international unions, are a party in a Board proceeding, he did not commit to recuse himself from cases raising issues in which the internationals are involved or impacted, and he did not commit to recuse himself from cases involving the locals of those two international unions. Parties before the Board, whether union or employer, have a right to a fair and impartial tribunal. The confirmation of an officer and associate general counsel of two of our Nation's largest unions for a term on the National Labor Relations Board will make the appearance of justice and many of the decisions in which he participates impossible to achieve. Further, to the extent he interprets the act to adopt the policy imperatives of the SEIU or the AFL-CIO and not those expressed by Congress in the act, he will further undermine the Board and sow cynicism in the labor/management community as well as amongst workers whose rights to engage in protected concerted activity or refrain from doing so are protected under the act. Mr. Becker's writings suggest that he believes the Board can implement provisions of the Employee Free Choice Act into labor law through decisions of the Board. This view suggesting the Board can do what Congress has not authorized should raise concerns with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Let me read a quote from Mr. Becker's colleague, Mr. Stewart Acuff, the AFL-CIO's director of organizing from a February 3, 2010, posting on the Huffington Post. This is just last week. We are very close to the 60 votes we need. If we are not able to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, we will work with President Obama and Vice President Biden and their appointees to the National Labor Relations Board to change the rules governing forming a union through administrative action to once again allow workers in America access to one of the most basic freedoms in a democracy. This is clear. This is clear. Mr. Becker's colleague, Mr. Acuff, clearly indicates what Mr. Becker's agenda would be, which would be to violate what is absolutely only a prerogative of the Congress of the United States. This type of bias is why the most respected business groups in America are opposing Mr. Becker's nomination. A statement opposing Mr. Becker's nomination from the National Association of Manufacturers, the Nation's largest industrial trade association, states: The NAM firmly believes that NLRB members charged with administering our nation's labors laws should protect the principles of fairness and balance that characterize our labor law system. Employees should have the right to information from both employers and union officials and the time to review that information in order to better make important decisions that impact their jobs and families. Unfortunately, Mr. Becker's interpretation of our labor laws does not reflect these principles and casts serious doubt on his ability to administer our nation's laws in an unbiased manner. We are particularly concerned with Mr. Becker's writings in academic journals that argue that the NLRB should limit the ability of employers to communicate with their employees during union organizing campaigns. Specifically, Mr. Becker has claimed in a 1993 Minnesota Law Review article that ``the core defect in union election law . . . is the employer's status as a party to labor representation proceedings.'' Mr. Becker has asserted views that the NLRB should rewrite union election rules in favor of union organizers. Such policy decisions should only be determined by Congress. The NAM is particularly concerned that if confirmed, Mr. Becker would seek to advance aspects of the jobs-killing Employee Free Choice Act through actions of the NLRB. From the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that has only opposed three nominees in the last 30 years, I quote from the U.S. Chamber's statement: This is only the third time in more than 30 years that the Chamber has opposed a nominee to the Board, most recently the 1993 nomination of William B. Gould. Mr. Becker has written prolifically about the National Labor Relations Act, the law he would be charged with interpreting and enforcing should he be confirmed. Many of the positions taken in his writings are well outside the mainstream and would disrupt years of established precedent and the delicate balance in current labor law. These positions have raised significant concerns in the employer community. Among those concerns are the extent to which Mr. Becker would restrictively interpret employers' free speech rights and the extent to which he would seek to expand the use of intermittent strikes and other forms of work stoppages that disrupt the right of employers to maintain operations during labor disputes. There may be no one ever nominated to the NLRB more opposed by the business community in the entire history of the NLRB. Are we to believe that the President could not find a single person in America who would not elicit this kind of response due to their bias? Last week, over 500 employers signed a letter opposing Mr. Becker's nomination; 23 major business associations oppose Mr. Becker's nomination. Mr. Becker's views speak for themselves. But his supporters on the left have explained in full view why they are attempting to seat Mr. Becker. From the authors in the left-leaning publication, The Nation, ``Obama's Pro-Union Nominations to the Labor Relations Board Stalled,'' January 20, 2010: The battle over nominations to the NLRB, even more than EFCA, may be what really determine the extent of labor's gains under Obama. Should Obama persevere and see his nominations confirmed, there is reason to believe that much of what organized labor hopes to accomplish via EFCA will be realized through the rule-making power of the NLRB. If there was any doubt about the euphoria on the left, look no further than what Wade Rathke, the chief organizer of Community Organizations International, formally Acorn International, founder and chief organizer of Acorn, and founder and chief organizer of Local 100, Service Employees International Union, recently wrote: For my money Craig [Becker's] signal contribution has been his work in crafting and executing the legal strategies which have allowed the . . . effective organization of informal workers--home health and home day care--has been the great, exceptional success story within the American labor movement for our generation, leading us to the [forced dues] of perhaps a half-million such workers in unions such as SEIU, AFSCME, CWA, and the AFT. Becker is ``the key lawyer from the beginning in the early 1980s who was able to piece together the arguments and representation that allowed those of us involved in trying to organize home health care workers in Illinois, Massachusetts, and elsewhere. . . . [Becker's] role was often behind the scenes devising the strategy with the organizer and lawyers, writing the briefs for others to file, and putting all of the pieces together, but he was the go-to-guy on all of this.'' Rathke concludes: I can remember Keith Kelleher negotiating the subsidy for the SEIU Local 880 in Chicago and always making sure there was the money for the organizers, but that SEIU was also willing to allow access to Craig. . . . I just received this, from Alison Reardon of the Service Employees International Union, who came out with an e-mail today that reads: Senator, your attendance is crucial to appointing Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. Please attend Thursday's HELP [executive] Session to report out President Obama's nomination of Craig Becker for Senate confirmation. This is the highest priority for organized labor, and Majority Leader Reid will file Cloture on Friday 2/5, and has assured us [the] Senate will vote to end debate at 5 p.m. Monday 2/8. So when this President was elected, he said he would govern from the center. If Craig Becker's nomination is approved, we will see the undermining of a longstanding practice in labor law that should be the prerogative of the United States Congress. If the Congress of the United States, in its wisdom, or ignorance, decides to pass EFCA, then that is an act of Congress. It should not happen. Card check should not happen because of an unelected bureaucracy, and the National Labor Relations Board is the one to do it. Mr. Becker would have that, obviously my conclusion, on his agenda. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the cloture motion on Mr. Becker's nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010 with my colleague Senator Dorgan. This bill would strengthen the Food and Drug Administration's, FDA, regulation of dietary supplements to ensure the safety of the millions of Americans who use them daily. The proposed legislation would require manufacturers of dietary supplements to register with the FDA and disclose a full list of ingredients contained in each supplement. Currently, these companies do not have to submit such information before their products are offered for sale to consumers. A little over a year ago the NFL suspended six players, including two players from one of the teams competing this Sunday, for violating the league's anti-doping policy. Several of the players were surprised that they tested positive for a banned substance because they used a dietary supplement they believed to be safe and legal. Additionally, a recent GAO study, GAO-09-250, found that a record number of young Americans are using dietary supplements naively believing these supplements are safe and approved by the FDA for sale. However, FDA does not have a pre-market approval process. In a recent article published in The New York Times, it was reported that Americans spent almost $24 billion on dietary supplements last year. Close to $3 billion of that total is estimated to have come from manufactures that frequently advertise their products as alternatives to anabolic steroids, which are used for increasing muscle mass and strength. The current regulatory process does not adequately address the problem. Manufactures of dietary supplements are not required to demonstrate that their product is safe and effective before it is offered for sale to the public. The dietary supplement industry is one that is mostly self-regulated. However, manufacturers have failed to disclose to their customers key ingredients that may harm a consumer's health. For this reason, the proposed bill would require manufacturers to register the locations they manufacture these supplements, the products they are making, and disclose the ingredients found in their products with the FDA. Furthermore, dietary supplement companies would be required to provide a 75 day pre-market notice to the FDA not only for New Dietary Ingredients, but for all products containing steroids, including hormones, pro-hormones, and hormone analogues, and must establish that the product is safe for its intended use. Lastly, the proposed legislation provides the FDA with mandatory recall authority if a product is found to be unsafe or harmful. Had this provision been in place earlier, the FD might not have taken 10 years to ban ephedra, a dietary ingredient that accounted for 64 percent of all adverse reactions in 2001, despite accounting for 1 percent of all total dietary supplement sales. It has been reported that use of ephedra contributed to the deaths of Baltimore Orioles pitcher Steve Bechler and Minnesota Vikings player Korey Stringer. Sadly and unfortunately, there are numerous stories of amateur athletes who took this supplement and experienced serious health problems. Legitimate dietary supplement companies should have nothing to fear from this legislation. These additional requirements are critical to the FDA's ability to evaluate the safety of particular dietary ingredients and to quickly identify and notify all dietary supplement manufacturers and consumers of ingredients with known safety risks. People's lives and dreams have been significantly impacted by illegitimate supplements. The purpose of the bill is not to create a sweeping regulatory structure, but instead a targeted structure that provides for openness, transparency and safety. All Americans should know the ingredients of any dietary supplement they use and the FDA must have the tools necessary to ensure the safety of all Americans. I am proud that this legislation is supported by all the major sports leagues, including Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, the National Football League, and the National Hockey League. Additionally, the legislation is supported by the United States Anti-Doping Agency, the United States Olympic Committee, the American College of Sports Medicine, National College Athletic Association, NCAA, and the PGA Tour. I hope my colleagues will join these organizations in supporting this needed legislation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010 with my colleague Senator Dorgan. This bill would strengthen the Food and Drug Administration's, FDA, regulation of dietary supplements to ensure the safety of the millions of Americans who use them daily. The proposed legislation would require manufacturers of dietary supplements to register with the FDA and disclose a full list of ingredients contained in each supplement. Currently, these companies do not have to submit such information before their products are offered for sale to consumers. A little over a year ago the NFL suspended six players, including two players from one of the teams competing this Sunday, for violating the league's anti-doping policy. Several of the players were surprised that they tested positive for a banned substance because they used a dietary supplement they believed to be safe and legal. Additionally, a recent GAO study, GAO-09-250, found that a record number of young Americans are using dietary supplements naively believing these supplements are safe and approved by the FDA for sale. However, FDA does not have a pre-market approval process. In a recent article published in The New York Times, it was reported that Americans spent almost $24 billion on dietary supplements last year. Close to $3 billion of that total is estimated to have come from manufactures that frequently advertise their products as alternatives to anabolic steroids, which are used for increasing muscle mass and strength. The current regulatory process does not adequately address the problem. Manufactures of dietary supplements are not required to demonstrate that their product is safe and effective before it is offered for sale to the public. The dietary supplement industry is one that is mostly self-regulated. However, manufacturers have failed to disclose to their customers key ingredients that may harm a consumer's health. For this reason, the proposed bill would require manufacturers to register the locations they manufacture these supplements, the products they are making, and disclose the ingredients found in their products with the FDA. Furthermore, dietary supplement companies would be required to provide a 75 day pre-market notice to the FDA not only for New Dietary Ingredients, but for all products containing steroids, including hormones, pro-hormones, and hormone analogues, and must establish that the product is safe for its intended use. Lastly, the proposed legislation provides the FDA with mandatory recall authority if a product is found to be unsafe or harmful. Had this provision been in place earlier, the FD might not have taken 10 years to ban ephedra, a dietary ingredient that accounted for 64 percent of all adverse reactions in 2001, despite accounting for 1 percent of all total dietary supplement sales. It has been reported that use of ephedra contributed to the deaths of Baltimore Orioles pitcher Steve Bechler and Minnesota Vikings player Korey Stringer. Sadly and unfortunately, there are numerous stories of amateur athletes who took this supplement and experienced serious health problems. Legitimate dietary supplement companies should have nothing to fear from this legislation. These additional requirements are critical to the FDA's ability to evaluate the safety of particular dietary ingredients and to quickly identify and notify all dietary supplement manufacturers and consumers of ingredients with known safety risks. People's lives and dreams have been significantly impacted by illegitimate supplements. The purpose of the bill is not to create a sweeping regulatory structure, but instead a targeted structure that provides for openness, transparency and safety. All Americans should know the ingredients of any dietary supplement they use and the FDA must have the tools necessary to ensure the safety of all Americans. I am proud that this legislation is supported by all the major sports leagues, including Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, the National Football League, and the National Hockey League. Additionally, the legislation is supported by the United States Anti-Doping Agency, the United States Olympic Committee, the American College of Sports Medicine, National College Athletic Association, NCAA, and the PGA Tour. I hope my colleagues will join these organizations in supporting this needed legislation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I reserve the right to object, though I will not object, but I just want to point out the importance of this legislation. I think it deserves a rollcall vote. In discussions with the majority leader and the Republican leader, we will hopefully get a rollcall vote on the conference report. This situation in Iran is terrible, and it is worsening. People are dying in the streets of Iran as we speak. The amendment I had proposed and that I had hoped for--and maybe we can have the conferees include it--would have required the President to draw up a list of persons in Iran who have committed human rights abuses or actions of violence against Iranian civilians engaging in peaceful political activity. The amendment I would have proposed would require that the list be made public so the enemies and oppressors of the Iranian people can't hide from their crimes--the world would know their names--and then we could impose visa bans, asset freezes, financial and banking sanctions, et cetera. In the streets of Iran today the Iranian students are chanting: Obama, Obama, are you with us or are you with them? I appreciate the President's recent statements in support of democracy in Iran. I am pleased to hear that. I am pleased to see articles, such as this one in Newsweek magazine--``Enough Is Enough''--and other support for serious action against Iran that some months ago did not support such action. The time of the majority leader and the Republican leader is valuable, so I would just summarize by saying: This is an important issue, Madam President. We have a country on the road to acquisition of nuclear weapons. We have brutality and oppression in the streets. We have unspeakable brutality taking place in the prisons, and people have been killed. A young woman by the name of Neda bled to death on the street of Tehran before the entire world. So I hope we will be able to impose these and other necessary actions against this tyrannical, oppressive, brutal regime in Iran that I think is coming apart. We want to be on their side, and we want the Iranian people to know we are on their side. I appreciate the accommodation of the majority leader as well as the Republican leader, and I know they share my commitment, as does my esteemed and wonderful friend from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman. So I will not object.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleague, Senator Dodd, in introducing an important piece of legislation that will have an enormously positive impact on and improve the lives of blind Americans in the workforce. For too long, capable and talented blind Americans who have the desire and ability to fully participate in the workforce have been discouraged from doing so because of outdated federal disability laws. Current law stifles earnings opportunities for blind individuals by cancelling all disability assistance for the first dollar of earnings over the government-set threshold. As a result, blind individuals covered by Social Security Disability Insurance, SSDI, which was created to provide security and stability to blind workers during periods of unemployment, are discouraged from expanding their employment opportunities beyond the earnings limitation for fear of suddenly losing their benefits. Senator Dodd and I have been longtime supporters of legislation that would increase the earnings limit for those covered by SSDI. A similar policy was enacted for senior citizens with the adoption of the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act. The act eliminated the earnings limit for certain seniors covered by Social Security and thereby encouraged more seniors to participate in the workforce. The current proposal, the Blind Persons Return to Work Act, is an improvement on past policy proposals focusing on modestly increasing the earnings limit. Rather than simply increasing the earnings limit for blind individuals, the act would allow for a gradual phase-out of Federal benefits for every $3 earned over the current limit, providing blind individuals the opportunity to increase their earnings as the SSDI benefit decreases. The unemployment rate for working-age blind people is currently 70 percent. Many of these individuals are extremely talented and capable of fully contributing to the workforce, and we should provide them an incentive to reach their full potential while reducing the number of federal beneficiaries. The proposal will ease the transition from relying solely upon SSDI benefits to becoming active and productive members of the workforce. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Blind Americans Return to Work Act, to treat blind individuals fairly and to allow them to achieve increased financial independence.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleague, Senator Dodd, in introducing an important piece of legislation that will have an enormously positive impact on and improve the lives of blind Americans in the workforce. For too long, capable and talented blind Americans who have the desire and ability to fully participate in the workforce have been discouraged from doing so because of outdated federal disability laws. Current law stifles earnings opportunities for blind individuals by cancelling all disability assistance for the first dollar of earnings over the government-set threshold. As a result, blind individuals covered by Social Security Disability Insurance, SSDI, which was created to provide security and stability to blind workers during periods of unemployment, are discouraged from expanding their employment opportunities beyond the earnings limitation for fear of suddenly losing their benefits. Senator Dodd and I have been longtime supporters of legislation that would increase the earnings limit for those covered by SSDI. A similar policy was enacted for senior citizens with the adoption of the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act. The act eliminated the earnings limit for certain seniors covered by Social Security and thereby encouraged more seniors to participate in the workforce. The current proposal, the Blind Persons Return to Work Act, is an improvement on past policy proposals focusing on modestly increasing the earnings limit. Rather than simply increasing the earnings limit for blind individuals, the act would allow for a gradual phase-out of Federal benefits for every $3 earned over the current limit, providing blind individuals the opportunity to increase their earnings as the SSDI benefit decreases. The unemployment rate for working-age blind people is currently 70 percent. Many of these individuals are extremely talented and capable of fully contributing to the workforce, and we should provide them an incentive to reach their full potential while reducing the number of federal beneficiaries. The proposal will ease the transition from relying solely upon SSDI benefits to becoming active and productive members of the workforce. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Blind Americans Return to Work Act, to treat blind individuals fairly and to allow them to achieve increased financial independence.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman.) Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendment No. 3303

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Coburn amendment to eliminate wasteful and duplicative spending. Before my colleague from Oklahoma leaves the floor, I know he has to go, but I have to pose a question for the Senator from Oklahoma. We have a listing in the Senator's amendment of the many duplicative programs. Have we had a study that would indicate how many government employees are engaged in administering these duplicative programs?

Mr. McCAIN. I do believe that at least we ought to, over time, make an attempt to ascertain the numbers of employees who are in these duplicative government programs. It is really startling--if the American people knew of the fact that there are so many duplicative efforts and different agencies of the government trying to accomplish the same mission. Before I go much further, I would like to mention, I have the information that tomorrow night the President will propose a spending freeze for discretionary spending with the exception of defense, veterans affairs, and homeland security. I applaud that move on the part of the President. I think, from the conclusions I have reached so far, it would save some $15 billion next year and perhaps $200 billion over time. We are trying to ascertain exactly what that is. But I do not see how the President, at the same time that he is recommending a spending freeze that would save some $12 or $15 or $20 billion next year, at the same time to be proposing a stimulus package, another one, that could be $80 or $100 billion. That is not fiscal discipline. The House, the other body, passed, before we went out of session, a jobs bill that was somewhere around $100 billion, as I understand it. I understand the other side of the aisle is working on a package of about $80 billion. Well, look, let's stop the spending now. Let's stop the spending now. So if we want to be sincere about stopping the spending that is unnecessary and unneeded, then we certainly should discard the idea that we need another massive stimulus, particularly in light of the fact that by any estimation, including the prediction of the President's economic advisers that if we passed the last stimulus package, unemployment would be at 8 percent. So this proposal about a spending freeze would have a lot more credibility with me if we said we are going to stop additional spending this year that would also add to the burgeoning national debt. The Coburn amendment is an important one. The Coburn amendment is best appreciated by the fiscal situation in which we find ourselves. In a recent editorial in the Houston Chronicle, they noted: Our spending excesses, as most every American knows, are increasingly financed by foreign sources led by China. In all, about $4.5 trillion in U.S. debt is held by foreigners and nearly $800 billion of that is held by the Beijing government. So we will increase the debt limit, and who is going to buy that debt? Apparently, the Chinese are buying a lot of it since they own, according to the Houston Chronicle, about $800 billion, and foreign countries own about $3.5 trillion. On December 16, the Wall Street Journal wrote: Our view is there is good and bad public borrowing. In the 1980s, Federal deficits financed a military build-up that ended the Cold War leading to an actual peace dividend in the 1990s of 3 percent of GDP, as well as tax cuts that ended the stagflation of the 1970s, and began 25 years of prosperity. Those were high-return investments. Today's debt is financing what exactly? The TARP money did undergird the financial system for a time, and is now being repaid. But most of the rest has been spent on a political wish list of public programs ranging from unemployment insurance to wind turbines to tax credits for golf carts. Borrowing for such low-return purposes makes America poor in the long run. So if we are increasing the debt limit, and the Chinese and other countries are going to buy that debt, and we are spending money in the stimulus package that has shown very little return on the massive $787 billion investment, then should we not try Dr. Coburn's method and support his amendment which would basically prevent us from having to increase the debt limit? This amendment of Dr. Coburn's would rescind $120 billion in spending, 5 percent from each agency of government, other than the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs; directing the agencies to consolidate more than 650 duplicative government programs; rescind unobligated discretionary funds available for more than 2 consecutive fiscal years. Most Americans would be astonished to know that there are still tax dollars sitting out there which have been appropriated and not been spent for more than 2 years, sometimes several years. Directing GAO to identify duplicative government programs and report the findings to Congress would render the debt limit increase in the underlying bill null and void. It is $1.9 trillion. Let's just look at a few of the duplicative Federal programs that are out there. A 2004 report by a nonprofit research group listed 21 Federal programs across multiple agencies, many at Health and Human Services that funded childhood obesity programs either as the main focus or as one component of the Federal program. Child obesity is a serious issue in America. Do we need 21 separate programs to address the issue? Would not we be more efficient if we had a single program instead of spreading them out amongst different Federal agencies? There are 14 programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education related to foreign exchanges and designed to increase the opportunities for study abroad, 14 programs. According to a 2003 GAO report, the Federal Government funds more than 44 job training programs administered by nine different Federal agencies across the Federal bureaucracy at a cost of $30 billion. According to data from the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, 14 departments within the Federal Government and 49 independent agencies operate exchanges and study abroad programs. A 2009 GAO report found 69 early education programs administered by nine different agencies. There are over 30 Federal programs that provide financial assistance to students to support postsecondary education at a cost to the taxpayer of over $30 billion every year. According to a May 2007 report in the Academic Competitiveness Council, there are 105 Federal programs supporting STEM education with aggregate funding of $3.2 billion in 2006. You will note that I am not even talking about millions or hundreds of millions; we are talking about billions. Here is one. There are at least 17 offender reentry programs across five Federal agencies, different Federal agencies, costing the taxpayers over $250 million annually. A 2005 GAO study found there are a total of 23 Federal housing programs targeted or have special features for the elderly, 23 Federal housing programs that target or have special features for the elderly. There are at least nine programs at the USDA tasked with researching and developing biofuels, costing taxpayers nearly $300 million annually. Over $800 million was included in the stimulus bill for these initiatives. The Federal Government oversees at least 15 different preservation programs costing taxpayers nearly $100 million annually. There are at least 28 Federal programs totaling over $5 billion that support job training and employment. Here we are, with an outstanding public debt well over $12.3 trillion. The estimate for this year is the largest in history. The estimated population of the United States is over 307.6 million people. Therefore, each U.S. citizen's share of this debt is approximately $40,100. That is $40,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country. That is shameful, shameful spending that has laid this debt on future generations of Americans. The greatness of America is based on the tradition that one generation has passed off to the next generation a nation that is better off than the one they inherited. What kind of a nation are we going to hand off to the next generation of Americans with a debt to the Chinese of $800 billion, a debt of over $3.5 trillion held by foreigners, and the debt goes on and on and on with no end in sight. Why should we not try Dr. Coburn's method? Why should we not attempt to do something different rather than raising the debt limit every time we have spent so much we have to raise it again? Let's look at what we spent last year alone: $787 billion on the so- called stimulus bill which amounts to $1.1 trillion, if you calculate the interest; $700 billion in TARP to bail out the banks and other ailing financial institutions; $410 billion for the Omnibus appropriations bill, a package of 9 appropriations bills rolled together, which contained over 9,000 unrequested, unnecessary, run-of- the-mill pork-barrel earmarks; $450 billion for the 2010 Omnibus appropriations bill, a package of 6 bills rolled together, containing 5,000 unrequested earmarks. Let's put them together. In two bills last year, one for 2009, the other for 2010, were at least 14,000 earmarks. The Democratic leadership worked with the President to ram through a $3.5 trillion budget resolution. We have spent $83 billion to bail out the auto companies. There is still a chance that a $2.5 trillion health reform bill may be passed by the other side. Overall, domestic spending has increased by 14 percent over the last fiscal year. Inflation has been practically zero for all intents and purposes. But the spending has increased by 14 percent. Don't we get it? Don't we see what we are doing to future generations of Americans? Don't we see that a debt for $40,100 for every man, woman, and child in America is unconscionable? Why don't we try the Coburn amendment before we willy-nilly increase the debt limit by another $1.4 trillion? Why? Why can't we at least make an effort? One thing I know about Dr. Coburn, he researches his information carefully. He has shown us we don't need to raise the debt limit and give ourselves a green light to spend even more. We have before us an opportunity. We can turn things around today. We can pass this amendment and begin the hard work and make the tough decisions necessary to put us on the path to fiscal solvency and national prosperity. Here we are with a bill before us to increase the debt limit which would increase, then, the debt that every man, woman, and child in America has, as we continue this almost unrestrained spending spree. I have said to my colleagues for a long time--and I think it was authenticated in Massachusetts recently--the American people are mad. They are angry at the spending. They do not want to lay a huge debt on future generations of Americans. They do not believe there is a shred of fiscal responsibility in the Congress or the administration. I will fairly note that this out-of-control spending was not invented with this administration. Republicans, when they were in charge, let spending get completely out of control. We betrayed our fiscal base. We paid a heavy price for it, but we deserved to pay that price. Now is the time to say stop, stop borrowing against our children and grandchildren's futures. Stop putting ourselves in a precarious situation, where the Chinese own so much of our national debt that they have their hand on the throttle of the American economy. I hasten to add, it is not in China's interest to hurt the American economy. But it certainly can't be in our interest, in any way, to be in that kind of fiscal jeopardy. We cannot do that--not to mention the $3.5 trillion in debt held by foreigners. I say to my colleagues, let's look at the Coburn amendment. It is well thought out, well researched. Let's put the brakes on the mortgaging of America's future. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to congratulate my friend, Scott Brown, on his historic victory last night. Scott Brown is a man who has served his country in the Army National Guard and Reserve. He is a person who has served his State in the State legislature. He is a wonderful father and a wonderful public servant. I congratulate him on his landmark victory. I believe it was in Concord where the ``shot was heard round the world.'' Last night a shot was fired round this Nation. A shot was fired saying no more business as usual in Washington, DC. Stop this unsavory, sausage-making process called health care reform, where special favors are dispensed to special people for special reasons in order to purchase votes. The American people do not want this health care reform because they do not believe it attacks the fundamental problem with health care in America; that is, there is nothing wrong with the quality, it is the cost that needs to be brought under control. But there is also anger--I know from the townhall meetings in my own State--about the process: the Louisiana purchase, $300 million for Louisiana; the Florida Medicare Advantage grandfather clause for the Senator from Florida; the $5 billion cornhusker kickback; Vermont, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Michigan, Connecticut--twice in Connecticut-- Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming--the list goes on and on of special deals that were carved for special reasons. The latest, of course, is the incredible action concerning unions being exempt from taxes nonunion members will now have to pay in greater numbers. How do you justify favoring one group of Americans; that is, union members, for any reason other than you owe them political favors and they have political influence? So the negotiating went from the backrooms here to the backrooms in the White House--the same President who said C-SPAN and a completely transparent process would prevail here so the American people would know who is on the side of the pharmaceutical companies. And the pharmaceutical companies probably got the best sweetheart deal of anybody in this whole process. So I believe the majority of the American people have said and according to polling data 48 percent of Massachusetts voters have said health care was the single issue driving their vote. Thirty-nine percent said they voted for Brown specifically because of his vocal opposition to the measure. I congratulate Scott Brown. I congratulate our new colleague not only for standing up for what is right but also for articulating the frustration of the American people about this process we have been through. So here we are, and now the rumors are that they will jam this proposal through the House of Representatives and then bypass what has always been the normal legislative process. They should not do that. The American people have spoken. The people of Massachusetts have spoken for the rest of America: Stop this process, sit down in open and transparent negotiations, and let's begin from the beginning. We can agree on certain principles and certain measures that need to be taken, such as malpractice reform, going across State lines so people can have the insurance of their choice, and many other things, including, perhaps, a refundable tax credit for those who need health insurance and risk pools for those who have preexisting conditions. There are many things we could agree on if, for the first time in this administration and in this Senate, we sit down across the table from one another in honest and open negotiations and discussions. We know health care costs in America are out of control. We know they need to be fixed. We want to be part of that process. So I urge the President of the United States, I urge my colleagues--now 59 of them-- to say: Stop, start from the beginning, sit down, and work for America. Let's do what has been done in the past, time after time after time, where we sit down and negotiate in good-faith efforts. So far, that has not happened despite the promises the President made during his campaign. I urge my colleagues together to say we have to stop this process, we have to stop this unsavory sausage making, Chicago style, that has been going on, and we have to sit down in open and honest negotiations with the American people and fix the health care problem. We can do that together, and that is what the American people want us to do. Again, I thank my colleague from North Dakota, and I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from North Dakota for allowing me to speak out of order. I might add--and I will say this several times--what a privilege it has been for me to have served with the Senator from North Dakota, a man who embodies the best in a prairie populist and one with whom I have had a great honor and privilege working for a long time. As the hour grows near, I will have more to say about my appreciation and the honor of working with the Senator from North Dakota.