John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, isn't that a violation of the commitment that was made that for 72 hours any legislation would be online, not just for us to see but for all Americans to see? Could I ask the Senator from Kentucky, the Republican leader: Is it not the perception now that this bill is probably going to be pushed through? Through various parliamentary procedures, the majority will try to force a final vote on this legislation, no matter what, before we leave? Isn't that in contradiction to what the majority of the American people are saying, that they want us to do nothing? Is this a responsible way to govern, to have the Senate in round the clock, 24 hours, people on the floor, quorum calls and all this kind of stuff; and there would also be no amendments allowed at that time for us to at least address some of the issues of this bill that begins cutting Medicare by $500 billion, increases taxes by $500 billion on January 1, and in 4 years begins spending $2.5 trillion? Is this a process the American people are reacting to in a negative fashion, obviously, by polling data? By the way, I ask unanimous consent that the Wall Street Journal article entitled ``Democrats' Blues Grow Deeper in New Poll'' and ``Support for Health Overhaul Wanes'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. May I mention to my colleague that maybe the reason why they don't want it to be online for 72 hours is because when they examined what we have--on page 324 in this bill is an $8 billion tax on individuals who have nongovernment approved plans. On page 348 is a $28 billion tax on businesses that cannot afford to offer insurance to their employees. On page 1979: Raises an almost $150 billion tax on many middle-class workers using so-called Cadillac health insurance plans. Page 1997: Will cost families and individuals an additional $5 billion by prohibiting the use of savings set aside for health care expenses through health savings accounts. Page 2010: Will make the cost of lifesaving medicine more expensive by taxing pharmaceutical research firms an additional $22 billion. The list goes on and on, including on page 2040: Increasing Medicare payroll taxes by $53.8 billion. That may be a reason why it is going to be difficult for them to win passage of this after 72 hours of examining this bill.

Mr. McCAIN. When more Americans begin to understand it, they don't want it. That is thanks to the efforts made all over this country to educate the American people about what the impact of the bill will be.

Mr. McCAIN. Well, I don't think that is being added today. Again, I also point out that Americans are now against passage of this legislation. But in that polling data, it is very interesting, also, the majority of seniors, by much larger numbers--the actual beneficiaries of Medicare--are turning against it, and the intensity of Americans against it--which is harder to gauge in a poll--is incredible. If the responses that our efforts are getting are anything close to indicative of the mood of the American people, and the intensity of it, it is probably as great as I have ever seen in the years that I have had the privilege of serving in the Congress of the United States. This polling data says more Americans now believe it is better to keep the current health system than to pass President Obama's plan. That is a message being sent, and the intensity is higher than any I have ever observed in my years of service. I thank them for that. There is a chance that we can stop this, and we start in January. We would be willing to come back and sit down and negotiate, with the C- SPAN cameras on--as the President said or committed he would do as a candidate. We would sit down together here, at the White House, or anywhere, and we can fix this system that we all know needs fixing. As the Senator from Oklahoma said, it is the cost that has to be addressed, not the quality.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask the Senator from Oklahoma, would that aspect of this bill come to light if it hadn't been for the recommendation that was made by another similarly acting policymaking body? In other words, that is what triggered the investigation of what was in this bill, which would have had exactly the same effect. So if we hadn't had that information of a recommendation by another government policymaking bureaucracy, we would not have known about this until the bill would have taken effect.

Mr. McCAIN. This example wouldn't have been known if it hadn't been for the actions of the bureaucracy. Doesn't that bring into question what else is buried in this 2,000-page piece of legislation?

Mr. McCAIN. Let me point out again that we don't know what the CBO estimate is, because we know the majority leader keeps bouncing proposals back and forth to CBO. That is why we haven't had CBO information now for many days. But there is the Commission for Medicare and Medicaid, which clearly points out that this legislation would increase taxes dramatically, increase costs dramatically, decrease care, and it would have the effect of forcing people not only out of the system, but even if they are in the Medicare system, they would not have physicians to provide the care, because more and more physicians would fail to treat Medicare patients.

Mr. McCAIN. I think we know what the outcome will be. We will either be able to reflect the feelings and intense feelings of the majority of the American people about this legislation and say let's go back to square one and all commit to a bipartisan approach to this issue or we will see jammed through on Christmas Eve legislation that will have the most far-reaching effects and devastating effects, I think, not only on our ability to provide much-needed medical care to all of our citizens, but also an impact that would be devastating on the debt and deficit, upon which we have laid an unconscionable burden already. We have two choices--to go back to the beginning and enact many reforms we can agree on--and there are many we could agree on immediately on a bipartisan basis; as the Senator from Tennessee pointed out, there has never been a fundamental reform made in modern history that was not bipartisan--or we are going to see jammed through, over the objections of a majority of Americans, legislation that they have never seen, read, or understand. That is the choice we have. That is what it is boiling down to. I think that, frankly, the American people should be heard, not a majority over on the other side.

Mr. McCAIN. By the way, could I mention, if you live long enough, all things can happen. I now find myself in complete agreement with Dr. Howard Dean, who says we should stop this bill in its tracks; we should go back to the beginning and have an overall bipartisan agreement. Dr. Dean, I am with you.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Rhode Island be recognized for 10 minutes followed by the Senator from Michigan, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee who will be speaking on the bill, and that I be recognized to follow him.

Mr. McCAIN. Yes. I have been around here 20-some years. It is the first time I have ever seen a Member denied an extra minute or two to finish his remarks. I must say that I don't know what is happening here in this body, but I think it is wrong. It is fine with me that it be 10 minutes. I will tell you, I have never seen a Member denied an extra minute or so, as the Chair just did.

Mr. McCAIN. I haven't seen it before. I don't like it, and I think it harms the comity of the Senate not to allow a Member at least a minute. I am sure the time is urgent, but I doubt if it is that urgent. I renew my unanimous consent that the Senator from Rhode Island be recognized for 10 minutes, the Senator from Michigan for 10 minutes, and then that I be recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Michigan. I thank him for his leadership of the Armed Services Committee. The train is about to leave the station on the last of the appropriations bills for 2010 and, unfortunately, nothing has changed. Everything is the same--earmarking, porkbarrel, excessive and unnecessary spending. Billions in wasteful earmarks again have found their way into this bill which could otherwise be spent for the priorities that our men and women, our military leaders, as well as the Secretary of Defense, has asked for. There is in this bill--here we go again: an appropriations bill loaded up with earmarks--a 523-page explanatory statement for 1,720 earmarks totaling $4.3 billion. Let's do some simple math: $4.3 billion in pork, $2.5 billion in unauthorized and unrequested C-17s; $500 million in unrequested and unwanted funding for the Joint Strike Fighter alternative engine; and a Presidential helicopter. That is $7.3 billion that neither the military nor the Defense Department requested and does not need--$7.3 billion. Some people say that is not a lot of money. It is enough to keep the State of Arizonas budget requirements fulfilled for 10 months. States across America are facing great difficulties, as we know, and an additional $7.3 billion would not be so bad. I wish to say, again, this process of earmarking breeds corruption. That is why we have former Members of Congress in Federal prison. It was not inadequate disclosure requirements that led Duke Cunningham to violate his oath of office and take $2.5 million in bribes in exchange for doling out $70 million to $80 million of the taxpayers' funds to a defense contractor. It was his ability to freely earmark taxpayer funds without question. I wish to point out, again, the President pledged during the campaign he would work to eliminate earmarks. The President, last March, when we had an omnibus spending bill, said they would not do it anymore. In September, the President spoke in Phoenix, AZ, to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. In that speech, the President's words were quite compelling about waste and porkbarrel spending in Defense bills. In that speech, the President promised--promised--an end to ``special interests and their exotic projects'' and reaffirmed he was leading the charge to kill off programs such as the F-22, the second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, and the outrageously expensive Presidential helicopter. The President went on to say: If a project doesn't support our troops, we will not fund it. If a system doesn't perform well, we will terminate it. And if Congress sends me a bill loaded with that kind of waste, I will veto it. We will do right by our troops and taxpayers. Mr. President, I can tell you, the President of the United States, that meets your criteria with over $7 billion of unnecessary, unwanted spending. Will the President veto this bill? Not a chance. Not a chance. But the American people are going to demand this obscene process stop. The American people are going to demand it be stopped, wasting $7 billion of their tax dollars on wasteful and earmark spending. I am confident they are aware. They are aware we are spending $7.6 million to fund research in Montana on hypersonic wind tunnels, called MARIAH. This self-licking ice cream cone has been earmarked and unrequested since 1998. The Air Force lost interest in 2004, so the appropriators moved it to the Army. The Army has no requirement for this capability and published a report in 2005 stating their disinterest in the program. In summary, we spent $70 million for some hypersonic wind tunnels nobody wants--$70 million. Unless we demand and receive change, there will be more millions in it next year. There is $5 million going to the battleship USS Missouri Memorial Association; $18.9 million for a center at the University of Massachusetts ``dedicated to educating the general public, students, teachers, new Senators, and Senate staff about the role and importance of the Senate.'' What does that have to do with defending this Nation? What does that have to do with providing the men and women who are risking their lives, as we speak, with the equipment they need? Madam President, $18.9 million to educate the public about the importance of the Senate? Give me a break. There is $9.5 million going to the University of Hawaii for a program called the Panoramic Survey Telescope and Raid Response System. The list goes on and on. The Air Force is paying for this, and the Air Force will not be allowed to be getting much in return, since it will only be allowed to use the telescope 5 percent of the time. In other words, in dollar figures, the Air Force pays $10 million to the university and receives $500,000 in return. What is more, the Air Force has not, in the 9-year life of this earmark, requested a single dollar for this program. Since 2001, the Air Force has been forced to spend more than $75 million of its budget allocation on a program it does not want. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these other porkbarrel earmark programs, such as $1.2 million for the American Museum of Natural History Infectious Disease Research.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the list goes on and on: $2 million for the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center's operating room of the future in Los Angeles, CA. That is the second earmark I have seen. The other one is for irritable bowel syndrome. Now we have the operating room of the future. Remarkable. There is $2.3 million for marine species; $2 million for a marine mammal detection system. There is a threat. Also, $2.4 million for marine mammal awareness alert and response system. The list goes on and on. I know my time is near to expire. Here we are with a deficit of $1.4 trillion for this year, a debt of over $12 trillion, unemployment at 10 percent, 900,000 families lost their homes in 2008, and we are spending over $7 billion on earmarks, porkbarrel projects the Department of Defense neither needed nor wants, and there are programs not fully funded because of this that are vital to defending the lives of the men and women who are serving in the military. Again, this appropriations bill is a disgrace. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before my colleagues begin, I think it is important for us to point out where we are here on December 16, 2009. We are now almost a year into the discussion and debate about ``reforming health care in America'' and we still do not know what is in the bill. We still do not know the specifics of what we are considering here. I have had the honor of serving here for a long period of time, but I have never seen a process like this. I have never seen a situation where a major piece of legislation is not before the body and is somehow being negotiated and renegotiated amongst the other side. Meanwhile, according to the Washington Post this morning, a newspaper I always have the utmost trust and confidence in--I wish to say the title is ``Public cooling to health-care reform as debate drags on, poll finds.'' As the Senate struggles to meet a self-imposed, year-end deadline to complete work on legislation to overhaul the nation's health-care system, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds the public generally fearful that a revamped system would bring higher costs while worsening the quality of their care. A remarkable commentary about where we are in this legislation. One of the interesting things is this poll goes back to April, where in April, 57 percent of the American people approved and 29 disapproved of the President's handling of health care. Today it is 53 disapprove and 44 approve, which means the American people, the more they find out about this, the less they like it and the more concerned they are. According to this poll again: Medicare is the Government health insurance program for people 65 and older. Do you think health-care reform would strengthen the Medicare program, weaken Medicare or have no effect on it? American people have figured it out. Amongst seniors, those who are in Medicare, 12 percent say it would strengthen, 22 percent no effect, and 57 percent of seniors in America believe--and they are correct-- that this proposal would weaken Medicare, the benefit they paid into and that they have earned. Let me say it again: I plead with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the majority leader. Let's stop this. The American people do not approve of it. Let's sit down and work together; let's have real negotiations; let's even have the C-SPAN cameras in, as the President promised October a year ago. This present legislation spends too much, taxes too much, and reduces benefits for American citizens as far as overall health care is concerned, including Medicare, as the American people have figured out. I welcome my colleagues here. I see Dr. Coburn is here. Let me restate: It is time to say stop. It is time to start listening to the American people. It is time to start being straightforward with the American people because the American people need to know what we are doing and they do not. The distinguished Senator from Illinois, last Friday when I asked him what is in the bill, said none of us know what is in the bill. I ask my friend from Oklahoma, isn't what is happening--we have a proposal, we send it to CBO, CBO sends back numbers they do not like so they try to fix it, send it back to CBO, they send it back again. That is why only one Senator, the majority leader, knows what is going on.

Mr. McCAIN. What is the parliamentary situation, I ask the President?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I think I have made my point here. I wish to yield. I ask unanimous consent to have a colloquy with the Senator from South Dakota, the Senator from Texas, the Senator from Oklahoma, and the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my friend and colleague from Washington, Senator Cantwell, to introduce the Banking Integrity Act of 2009. My reasons for joining this effort are simple--I want to ensure that we never stick the American taxpayer with another $700 billion tab to bail out the financial industry. If big Wall Street institutions want to take part in risky transactions--fine. But we should not allow them to do so with federally insured deposits. Paul Volcker, a top economist in the Obama administration and former Federal Reserve Chairman, wants the nation's banks to be prohibited from owning and trading risky securities, the very practice that got the biggest ones into deep trouble in 2008. The administration is saying no, it will not separate commercial banking from investment operations. Mr. Volcker argues that regulation by itself will not work. Sooner or later, the giants, in pursuit of profits, will get into trouble. The administration should accept this and shield commercial banking from Wall Street's wild ways. ``The banks are there to serve the public,'' Mr. Volcker said, ``and that is what they should concentrate on. These other activities create conflicts of interest. They create risks, and if you try to control the risks with supervision, that just creates friction and difficulties'' and ultimately fails. The bill we are introducing today precludes any member bank of the Federal Reserve System from being affiliated with any entity or organization that is engaged principally in the issue, flotation, underwriting, public sale or distribution of stocks, bonds, debentures or other securities. Essentially, commercial banks may no longer intermingle their business activities with investment banks. It is that simple. Since the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act in 1999, this country has seen a new culture emerge in the financial industry: one of dangerous greed and excessive risk-taking. Commercial banks traditionally used people's deposits for the constructive purpose of main street loans. They did not engage in high risk ventures. Investment banks, however, managed rich people's money--those who can afford to take bigger risks in order to get a bigger return, and who bore their own losses. When these two worlds collided, the investment bank culture prevailed, cutting off the credit lifeblood of main street firms, demanding greater returns that were achievable only through high leverage and huge risk taking, and leaving taxpayers with the fallout. When the glass wall dividing banks and securities firms was shattered, common sense and caution went out the door. The new mantra of ``bigger is better'' took over--and the path forward focused on short-term gains rather than long-term planning. Banks became overleveraged in their haste to keep up in the race. The more they lent, the more they made. Aggressive mortgages were underwritten for unqualified individuals who became homeowners saddled with loans they couldn't afford. Banks turned right around and bought portfolios of these shaky loans. Sub-prime loans made up only five percent of all mortgage lending in 1998, but by the time the financial crisis peaked in late 2008, they were approaching 30 percent. Since January 2008, we have seen 159 state and national banks fail. In my home State of Arizona, five banks have shut their doors, leaving small businesses scrambling to find credit from other banks that may have already been overleveraged. Banks sold sub-prime mortgages to their affiliates and other securities firms for securitization, while other financial institutions made risky bets on these and other assets for which they had no financial interest. As the market grew bigger, its foundation became shakier. It was like a house of cards waiting to fall, and fall it did. In October 2008, the financial system was on the brink of collapse when Congress was forced to risk $700 billion of taxpayer dollars to bail out the industry. These financial institutions had become ``too big to fail.'' In fact, the special inspector general of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, testified before Congress earlier this year that ``total potential Federal Government support could reach $23.7 trillion'' to stabilize and support the financial system. Ironically, some of these ``too big to fail'' institutions have now become even bigger. An editorial from yesterday's New York Times stated: The truth is that the taxpayers are still very much on the hook for a banking system that is shaping up to be much riskier than the one that led to disaster. Big bank profits, for instance, still come mostly courtesy of taxpayers. Their trading earnings are financed by more than a trillion dollars' worth of cheap loans from the Federal Reserve, for which some of their most noxious assets are collateral. They benefit from immense federal loan guarantees, but they are not lending much. Lending to business, notably, is very tight. What profits the banks make come mostly from trading. Many big banks are happy to depend on the lifeline from the Fed and hang onto their toxic assets hoping for a rebound in prices. And the whole system has grown more concentrated. Bank of America was considered too big to fail before the meltdown. Since then, it has acquired Merrill Lynch. Wells Fargo took over Wachovia. JPMorgan Chase gobbled up Bear Stearns. If the goal is to reduce the number of huge banks that taxpayers must rescue at any cost, the nation is moving in the wrong direction. The growth of the biggest banks ensures that the next bailout will have to be even bigger. These banks will be more likely to take on excessive risk because they have the implicit assurance of rescue. Excess was a common theme for banks/financial institutions in the mid-2000s--excessive risk, excessive bonuses. Times were good at Merrill Lynch in 2006 when the firm's risky mortgage business was booming. The firm made record earnings of $7.5 billion that year and paid out bonuses of $5 billion to $6 billion. Fast forward to late 2008 when Merrill's gambling left it in deep financial despair with losses exceeding $27 billion. Yet we witnessed the firm pay out another $3.6 billion in bonuses just before it was acquired by Bank of America. Merrill Lynch wasn't alone in excess and greed. Citigroup posted a net loss of nearly $28 billion in 2008, yet paid out $5.3 billion in bonuses. Although Goldman Sachs earned only $2.3 billion, it paid out $4.8 billion in bonuses. Morgan Stanley earned $1.7 billion, and paid out nearly $4.5 billion in bonuses. JPMorgan Chase earned $5.6 billion and paid $8.7 billion in bonuses. If a company doesn't make money, how can it pay these bonuses? In this case, each of these firms was a recipient of billions in taxpayer-funded TARP money. The Federal Government has set a dangerous precedent here. We sent the wrong message to the financial industry: you engage in bad, risky business practices, and when you get into trouble, the government will be there to save your hide. Many would call it a moral hazard. I call it a taxpayer-funded subsidy for risky behavior. The consolidation of the banking world was also riddled with conflicts of interest, despite the purported firewalls that were put into place. If an investment bank had underwritten shares for a company that was now in financial trouble, the investment bank's commercial arm would feel pressure to lend the company money, despite the lack of merits to do so. The Banking Integrity Act of 2009 would eliminate some of these conflicts. Today, it is time to put a stop to the taxpayer-financed excesses of Wall Street. No single financial institution should be so big that its failure would bring ruin to our economy and destroy millions of American jobs. This country would be better served if we limit the activities of these financial institutions. Banks should accept consumer deposits and invest conservatively, while investment banks engage in underwriting and sales of securities. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my friend and colleague from Washington, Senator Cantwell, to introduce the Banking Integrity Act of 2009. My reasons for joining this effort are simple--I want to ensure that we never stick the American taxpayer with another $700 billion tab to bail out the financial industry. If big Wall Street institutions want to take part in risky transactions--fine. But we should not allow them to do so with federally insured deposits. Paul Volcker, a top economist in the Obama administration and former Federal Reserve Chairman, wants the nation's banks to be prohibited from owning and trading risky securities, the very practice that got the biggest ones into deep trouble in 2008. The administration is saying no, it will not separate commercial banking from investment operations. Mr. Volcker argues that regulation by itself will not work. Sooner or later, the giants, in pursuit of profits, will get into trouble. The administration should accept this and shield commercial banking from Wall Street's wild ways. ``The banks are there to serve the public,'' Mr. Volcker said, ``and that is what they should concentrate on. These other activities create conflicts of interest. They create risks, and if you try to control the risks with supervision, that just creates friction and difficulties'' and ultimately fails. The bill we are introducing today precludes any member bank of the Federal Reserve System from being affiliated with any entity or organization that is engaged principally in the issue, flotation, underwriting, public sale or distribution of stocks, bonds, debentures or other securities. Essentially, commercial banks may no longer intermingle their business activities with investment banks. It is that simple. Since the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act in 1999, this country has seen a new culture emerge in the financial industry: one of dangerous greed and excessive risk-taking. Commercial banks traditionally used people's deposits for the constructive purpose of main street loans. They did not engage in high risk ventures. Investment banks, however, managed rich people's money--those who can afford to take bigger risks in order to get a bigger return, and who bore their own losses. When these two worlds collided, the investment bank culture prevailed, cutting off the credit lifeblood of main street firms, demanding greater returns that were achievable only through high leverage and huge risk taking, and leaving taxpayers with the fallout. When the glass wall dividing banks and securities firms was shattered, common sense and caution went out the door. The new mantra of ``bigger is better'' took over--and the path forward focused on short-term gains rather than long-term planning. Banks became overleveraged in their haste to keep up in the race. The more they lent, the more they made. Aggressive mortgages were underwritten for unqualified individuals who became homeowners saddled with loans they couldn't afford. Banks turned right around and bought portfolios of these shaky loans. Sub-prime loans made up only five percent of all mortgage lending in 1998, but by the time the financial crisis peaked in late 2008, they were approaching 30 percent. Since January 2008, we have seen 159 state and national banks fail. In my home State of Arizona, five banks have shut their doors, leaving small businesses scrambling to find credit from other banks that may have already been overleveraged. Banks sold sub-prime mortgages to their affiliates and other securities firms for securitization, while other financial institutions made risky bets on these and other assets for which they had no financial interest. As the market grew bigger, its foundation became shakier. It was like a house of cards waiting to fall, and fall it did. In October 2008, the financial system was on the brink of collapse when Congress was forced to risk $700 billion of taxpayer dollars to bail out the industry. These financial institutions had become ``too big to fail.'' In fact, the special inspector general of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, testified before Congress earlier this year that ``total potential Federal Government support could reach $23.7 trillion'' to stabilize and support the financial system. Ironically, some of these ``too big to fail'' institutions have now become even bigger. An editorial from yesterday's New York Times stated: The truth is that the taxpayers are still very much on the hook for a banking system that is shaping up to be much riskier than the one that led to disaster. Big bank profits, for instance, still come mostly courtesy of taxpayers. Their trading earnings are financed by more than a trillion dollars' worth of cheap loans from the Federal Reserve, for which some of their most noxious assets are collateral. They benefit from immense federal loan guarantees, but they are not lending much. Lending to business, notably, is very tight. What profits the banks make come mostly from trading. Many big banks are happy to depend on the lifeline from the Fed and hang onto their toxic assets hoping for a rebound in prices. And the whole system has grown more concentrated. Bank of America was considered too big to fail before the meltdown. Since then, it has acquired Merrill Lynch. Wells Fargo took over Wachovia. JPMorgan Chase gobbled up Bear Stearns. If the goal is to reduce the number of huge banks that taxpayers must rescue at any cost, the nation is moving in the wrong direction. The growth of the biggest banks ensures that the next bailout will have to be even bigger. These banks will be more likely to take on excessive risk because they have the implicit assurance of rescue. Excess was a common theme for banks/financial institutions in the mid-2000s--excessive risk, excessive bonuses. Times were good at Merrill Lynch in 2006 when the firm's risky mortgage business was booming. The firm made record earnings of $7.5 billion that year and paid out bonuses of $5 billion to $6 billion. Fast forward to late 2008 when Merrill's gambling left it in deep financial despair with losses exceeding $27 billion. Yet we witnessed the firm pay out another $3.6 billion in bonuses just before it was acquired by Bank of America. Merrill Lynch wasn't alone in excess and greed. Citigroup posted a net loss of nearly $28 billion in 2008, yet paid out $5.3 billion in bonuses. Although Goldman Sachs earned only $2.3 billion, it paid out $4.8 billion in bonuses. Morgan Stanley earned $1.7 billion, and paid out nearly $4.5 billion in bonuses. JPMorgan Chase earned $5.6 billion and paid $8.7 billion in bonuses. If a company doesn't make money, how can it pay these bonuses? In this case, each of these firms was a recipient of billions in taxpayer-funded TARP money. The Federal Government has set a dangerous precedent here. We sent the wrong message to the financial industry: you engage in bad, risky business practices, and when you get into trouble, the government will be there to save your hide. Many would call it a moral hazard. I call it a taxpayer-funded subsidy for risky behavior. The consolidation of the banking world was also riddled with conflicts of interest, despite the purported firewalls that were put into place. If an investment bank had underwritten shares for a company that was now in financial trouble, the investment bank's commercial arm would feel pressure to lend the company money, despite the lack of merits to do so. The Banking Integrity Act of 2009 would eliminate some of these conflicts. Today, it is time to put a stop to the taxpayer-financed excesses of Wall Street. No single financial institution should be so big that its failure would bring ruin to our economy and destroy millions of American jobs. This country would be better served if we limit the activities of these financial institutions. Banks should accept consumer deposits and invest conservatively, while investment banks engage in underwriting and sales of securities. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I ask for unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. McCAIN. I think it is important for us to recognize what the Dorgan amendment is all about. It is about an estimated--according to the Congressional Budget Office, and we love to quote the Congressional Budget Office around here--$100 billion or more in consumer savings. That is what the Dorgan amendment does. It cuts the cost of the legislation before us as much as $19.4 billion over 10 years. We are always talking about bending the cost curve, saving money, particularly for seniors who use more prescription drugs than younger Americans, and yet there is opposition. I would like to ask my colleague from North Dakota, one, how long has he been fighting this issue; and, two, why in the world do we think anybody would be opposed to an amendment that would save $100 billion for consumers?

Mr. McCAIN. Could I also ask my friend, has he seen this chart? This chart shows that the pharmaceutical companies in America increased wholesale drug costs, which doesn't reflect the retail drug cost, by some 8.7 percent just this year, while the Consumer Price Index--this little line here, inflation--has been minus 1.3 percent. How in the world do you justify doing that? These are lists of the increases over a year in the cost of some of the most popular or much needed prescription drugs. Why would pharmaceutical companies raise costs by some 9 percent unless they were anticipating some kind of deal they went into? I don't want to embarrass the Senator from North Dakota, but isn't it true that the President, as a Member of this body, cosponsored this amendment?

Mr. McCAIN. Haven't we seen this movie before? The movie I am talking about is that we have an amendment or legislation pending before the body or in committee that will allow for drug reimportation, as the Senator pointed out from that previous chart, in a totally safe manner. Then there is always, thanks to the pharmaceutical lobbyists--of which there are, I believe, 635 pharmaceutical industry lobbyists, a lobbyist and a half for every Member of Congress--an amendment that then basically prohibits the reimportation of drugs. Haven't we seen this movie before? Apparently another deal was made so that they are now going to have sufficient votes to again cost the consumers $100 billion more in cost for the pharmaceutical drugs. Their representatives are here on the Senate floor ready to tout the virtues of an amendment which, as we all know, is a killer amendment. Let's have no doubt about that.

Mr. McCAIN. My only conclusion is that what we are seeing is really what contributes to the enormous cynicism on the part of the American people about the way we do business. This is a pretty clear-cut issue. As the Senator from North Dakota pointed out, it has been around for 10 years. For 10 years we have been trying to ensure the consumers of America would be able to get lifesaving prescription drugs at a lower cost. And the power of the special interests, the power of the lobbyists, the power of campaign contributions is now being manifest in the passage of a killer amendment which will then prohibit--there is no objective observer who will attest to any other fact than the passage of the follow-on amendment, the side-by-side amendment, will prohibit the reimportation of prescription drugs into this country which we all know can be done in a safe fashion and could save Americans who are hurting so badly $100 billion a year or more and cut the cost of the legislation before us by $19.4 billion. To scare people, to say that these drugs that are being reimported are not done in a safe manner to ensure that the American people's health is not endangered is, of course, an old saw and an old movie we have seen before. It is regrettable that the special interests again prevail at the power of the pharmaceutical lobby. Of the many traits the Senator from North Dakota has that I admire, one of them is tenacity. I want to assure him that I will be by his side as we go back again and again on this issue until justice and fairness is done and we defeat the special interests of the pharmaceutical industry which have taken over the White House and will take over this vote that will go at 6 o'clock. It is not one of the most admirable chapters in the history of the Senate or the United States Government.