John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. McCAIN. Isn't it, shall we say, Enron accounting when you have a proposal that, as soon as the bill becomes law, you begin to raise taxes and cut benefits, and then you wait 4 years before any of the benefits are then extended to the beneficiaries? That, on its face, is a remarkable piece of legislation. My experience, which has only been 20-some years, is that we haven't passed legislation that says we are going to collect taxes on it for 4 years, and then we are going to give you whatever benefits that may accrue from this legislation. Again, there has been no time in history where we have taken money from an already failing system to create a new entitlement program.

Mr. McCAIN. I believe the Senator from Tennessee has the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I was addressing the person who has the floor, which I am sure the Senator from Montana should understand by now.

Mr. McCAIN. Isn't it true--and the Senator from Montana is on the Senate floor and wants to enter into this. Maybe he can respond to his comments of 14 years ago. We weren't trying to create a new entitlement program, which is the object of the Senator's bill. We were just trying to enact some savings in the Medicare system. What did Senator Baucus say? He said: And above all, we must not use Medicare as a piggy bank. What are we using the $483 billion in cuts in Medicare for? Then he said: That is disgraceful. Perhaps some changes lie ahead. But if they do, they should be made for the single purpose of keeping Medicare services for senior citizens and people with disabilities. Isn't it true that now that we are taking $483 billion out of a failing system the Medicare trustees say is going to go bankrupt, and the Senator from Montana, 14 years ago, said: Seniors could easily be forced to give up their doctor, as doctors begin to refuse Medicare patients and hospitals-- especially rural hospitals--close. Isn't that the effect of taking $483 billion in cuts in Medicare? Then the Senator from Montana went on to say: Equivalent to blowing up the house and erecting a pup tent where it used to be. Instead of blowing up a pup tent, I would say what they are doing is like a hydrogen bomb. Finally, Senator Baucus said: Staggering. The leadership now proposes something like $250 billion in Medicare cuts. It is staggering. It is a reduction of nearly a quarter in Medicare services by the year 2002. All of us here learn about the issues. Apparently, the Senator from Montana didn't learn much, because he was deeply concerned 14 years ago about a very small savings in Medicare. Now he wants to spend $2.5 trillion and taking $483 billion out of Medicare to create a new entitlement system.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, may I just mention again, $70 billion in fraud, abuse, and waste, and Senator Coburn, the doctor, can tell you, that is nowhere in this bill. The fact is, maybe some of the providers have been bought off, jawboned, or had their arms twisted or given a good deal, like PhRMA has. Recipients have not. Medicare recipients know you cannot cut $483 billion without ultimately affecting their benefits, and that is a fact. Again, conspicuous by its absence, I say to the Senator from Montana, totally conspicuous by its absence is any meaningful malpractice reform, which has been proven in the State of Texas and other States to reduce costs and to increase the supply of physicians and caregivers. There is nothing in this bill that is meaningful about medical malpractice reform. I had a townhall meeting with doctors in my State, and everyone stood up and said: I practice defensive medicine because I fear being sued. If you are really serious, I say to the Senator from Montana, if you are really serious about this, medical malpractice should be a key and integral part of it. Even the CBO costed it out at about $54 billion a year. When you count in all the defensive medicine, it could be as much as $200 billion over 10 years. That is conspicuous by its absence. I think it brings into question the dedication of really reducing health care costs across America.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield? Very briefly, the Senator from Montana talked about the support the bill gets. AARP makes more money from Medigap plans they sell to seniors. AARP should be opposing the bill, but other groups such as 60 Plus are educating seniors. The AMA endorsement of the bill--shocking. The bill puts the government in charge, but AMA cut a deal to get their Medicare payments addressed by increasing the deficit by $250 billion.

Mr. McCAIN. PhRMA--my God, if there ever was an obscene alliance made that will harm seniors because it has the administration against drug reimportation from Canada and competition for treatment of Medicare patients. So now we understand a little bit better why these special interest groups, 500-some of them, have visited the White House in recent months, according to White House logs.

Mr. McCAIN. May I ask my colleague's indulgence for just a moment because, as you know, the majority leader seems to appear more and more frantic as he, perhaps, is reading the same polls we are that more and more Americans, when they figure out this legislation, are becoming more and more opposed to it. Yesterday, the majority leader came out and directly addressed me, saying: This man talks about earmarks, but his amendment is one big earmark to the insurance industry. And in addition to that, the sponsor of the amendment-- Talking about me-- during his Presidential campaign talked about cutting these moneys. Mr. President, I hate, I say to my colleagues, to take a trip back down memory lane, but at the time--of course, this was echoed by a DNC spokesperson, who then echoed it throughout the blogosphere and leftwing liberal blogs. The fact is, on October 20, FactCheck.org says: He accuses McCain of proposing to cut benefits. Not true. This is from FactCheck. In a TV ad and in speeches, Obama is making bogus claims that McCain plans to cut $880 billion from Medicare spending and to reduce benefits. A TV spot says-- A very well-funded campaign, I might add-- McCain's plan requires ``cuts in benefits, eligibility, or both.'' Obama said in a speech that McCain plans ``cuts'' that would force seniors to ``pay more for your drugs, receive fewer services, and get lower quality care.'' A second ad claims that McCain's plan would bring about a 22 percent cut in benefits. FactCheck.org says: These claims are false, and based on a single newspaper report that says no such thing. McCain's policy director states unequivocally that no benefit cuts are envisioned. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the entire FactCheck.org article.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I hope the Senator from Nevada will stop making false claims--repeating the false claims that were in attack ads on me throughout the campaign, funded by tens of millions of dollars, about my positions on health care in America which the fact checkers found to be totally false. As the narrator says that McCain's plan ``means a 22 percent cut in benefits,'' the ad displays a footnote citing an Oct. 6 Wall Street Journal story as its authority. FactCheck: But, in fact, the Journal story makes no mention of any 22 percent reduction, or any reduction at all. I hope, among other things, in his, may I describe, frustration, that the Senate majority leader would at least not repeat false accusations about what I wanted to do in the Presidential campaign. It is unfortunate. And I hope that maybe, instead of attacking David Broder, instead of attacking me, instead of attacking others who are in support of this amendment, maybe we could have a more meaningful discussion about the facts surrounding this legislation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question? Since the Senator mentioned my name, will he yield for a question?

Mr. McCAIN. I regret that the Senator from Illinois did not observe the courtesies of the Senate, particularly when a person's name is mentioned, as he continued to mention my name throughout and totally falsifying my position both in the Presidential campaign and the position that we have on this side and this amendment. I have always extended that courtesy to the Senator from Illinois. I deeply regret that even this comity of the Senate is no longer observed. I say to the Senator from Illinois, I regret you would not respond to a question I had posed, when you had said: I will respond in a minute. Again, even comity is not observed here.

Mr. McCAIN. I will go ahead with the--the Senator did not provide me with the courtesy of allowing me to respond to a question. Now you want me to respond to a question from you? I will display more courtesy than you displayed to me. Go ahead.

Mr. McCAIN. Well, I guess my questions were, one, did the Senator, who claimed that no Republican has done anything to curb the health care insurance industry, was the Senator in the Senate when Senator Kennedy and I fought for weeks and months for the Patients' Bill of Rights? Was the Senator here then? Was he engaged in that debate? Senator Kennedy and I fought for the Patients' Bill of Rights, and the majority on that side of the aisle opposed it. The fact is, there have been efforts on my part to curb the abuses of the health insurance industry by sponsorship of the Patients' Bill of Rights. Second, during the campaign, yes, I said that we could reduce and eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in spending, and I said it because of Senator Coburn's Patients' Choice Act which would save $1 trillion in the States in Medicaid savings, $400 billion over the next 10 years in Medicare savings. I wish the Senator from Illinois would examine the Patients' Choice Act, as proposed by the Senator from Oklahoma. Maybe he would learn something. The Coburn bill wants to preserve the best quality health care in America and not eliminate $12 billion in the Medicare Advantage Program, which 330,000 of my citizens who are enrollees like and want to keep, not eliminate $150 billion to providers, including hospitals, hospice, and nursing homes, $23 billion in unspecified decreases to be determined by an independent Medicare advisory board, as well as billions of additional cuts to the Medicare Program. There is no relation between what I tried to do in my campaign and what is being done in this legislation, I tell my friend from Illinois. I would be glad to hear the Senator's response. I would be glad to extend him that courtesy.

Mr. McCAIN. Your statement was that no Republican had done anything. You just said no Republican had done anything to curb the health insurance industry. The Patients' Bill of Rights certainly would have done it.

Mr. McCAIN. That is not what you said.

Mr. McCAIN. My record is very clear of advocating for patients and against the abuses of insurance companies across the board.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to yield to the Senator from Oklahoma to describe the Patients' Choice Act and the way we could truly save money and reduce fraud, abuse, and waste in the system and at the same time preserve quality health care.

Mr. McCAIN. Before the Senator continues, I ask unanimous consent to regain the floor and then yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have to address the situation since I have been accused by the majority leader of changing my position. The Senate considered the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 which called for approximately $10 billion in reduction in Medicare costs, approximately $10 billion. Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said: Unfortunately, the Republican budget is an immoral document. Let's look at what is in the bill before us. The budget increases burdens on America's seniors by increasing Medicare premiums, and we have not seen what the House is going to give us. It cuts health care, both Medicare and Medicaid, by a total of $27 billion. The majority leader was outraged in 2005 that there should be reductions in Medicare and Medicaid spending of $27 billion. Now the distinguished majority leader, with the white smoke coming out of his office, says he is for $483 billion in cuts in Medicare. That is a remarkable flip-flop. By the way, I might add, Senator Dodd, who is here on the floor, said, concerning the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005: For example, this bill cuts funding for Medicare and Medicaid which provide health care to poor children, working men and women, the disabled, and the elderly. What a plea. What a plea. Senator Barbara Boxer said: Mr. President, I strongly oppose the reconciliation bill before the Senate. The bill would cut vital programs for the middle class, elderly, and poor. That is why I cannot believe only 2 months after Katrina we have a bill that would cut Medicare and Medicaid by $27 billion. The list goes on and on. Now before us we have cuts of $483 billion, including hospice, hospitals, other vital programs for our seniors. If we are going to go around and talk about flip-flops, let's look at the rhetoric that accompanied my colleagues on the other side in their opposition to $27 billion in savings which, by the way, actually only saved $2 to $3 billion over 5 years. I ask my friend from Oklahoma, does he believe it is possible to make these cuts, including from the Medicare Advantage Program, and establish a Medicare commission that would not, over time, cut benefits that exist today for Medicare and Medicaid patients?

Mr. McCAIN. So does my colleague find it entertaining that my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle, in 2005--as part of the Deficit Reduction Act, we had to bring in the Vice President, who I think was overseas, in order to break the tie because they were worried about what Senator Reid called an ``immoral document,'' referring to the Republican budget? By the way, is the Senator aware that Citizens Against Government Waste has come out in favor of this amendment? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Citizens Against Government Waste be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Also, I say to the Senator, as you know, many of the seniors in my State--I would ask my colleague--have been very puzzled at the AARP's endorsement of a proposal that would cut their Medicare, where it has already been made clear that Medicare Advantage--and there are 330,000 seniors citizens in my State who are under Medicare Advantage--that it has been announced it will be slashed, and that somehow AARP is now supporting it. All I can say is, is my friend aware there is an organization called 60 Plus that is working very hard on behalf of seniors to make sure they do not lose these benefits?

Mr. McCAIN. Can I ask the Senator another question? How does the Senator envision that we can eliminate fraud and abuse and waste and institute significant savings? One of the ways is to retain the provisions in this amendment, this motion to commit, that uses the savings from fraud, abuse, and waste elimination to make the trust fund stronger, but at the same time preserves the benefits that our senior citizens have earned. How many times have you heard from senior citizens in your State saying: I paid into this trust fund. I paid for my Medicare all my life. Now it is going to be cut. How is that fair? How is that fair to my generation, the greatest generation?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to send to the desk at this time a motion to commit with instructions.