John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. First, concerning the costs, how do we know what the cost is if we don't have legislative text? I think all of us have been around here long enough--we have talked a lot about the 72 hours that I absolutely think we need. The text should be online so that every American--not just the 100 of us who are fortunate enough to be here-- can read it. Everybody should have the right to know what a fundamental reform of health care in America is all about, and they should be able to read the legislation if they want to. Just as importantly, I ask my friend, has he seen any legislative text anywhere? Is it true that the Finance Committee is moving forward with legislation regarding which there is no legislative text? And by the way, we find out now, according to the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Barthold noted in a followup letter that the willful failure to file; that is, to take the government option, would be punishable by a $25,000 fine or jail time under a section of the bill. I wonder how many Americans are aware of that. In fact, I have to tell my friend from Tennessee, I was unaware of it. So if we are unaware of it, should we not have legislative text so that Americans know what is being legislated in the Senate Finance Committee; and second, shouldn't it be on line at least 72 years so everybody would know about it?

Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend from Tennessee, first, it is clear that the Medicaid cost increases to the States will be incredibly large. In the original version of the bill, according to media reports, the State of Nevada would have, along with every other State, a significant Medicaid expense. So somehow now the legislation has been changed, again, according to media because--excuse me, the concept has been changed because we don't have legislative language--that 4 States would then have 100 percent of their Medicaid costs assumed by the Federal Government for as long as 4 or 5 years. That is what goes on with the laws and sausages business here. I ask the Senator again, do you--first, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial entitled ``Rhetorical Tax Evasion'' in the Wall Street Journal this morning be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. This says: Chairman Max Baucus's bill includes the so-called individual mandate, along with what he calls a $1,900 ``excise tax'' if you don't buy health insurance. (It had been as much as $3,800. . . .) So American small businesses, which are hurting more than any other group of Americans today, the creators of jobs--are now facing a $1,900 excise tax. By the way, the President, in response to George Stephanopolos, said there was no tax engaged here. I wonder how many Americans are aware of that and how many Americans have had the opportunity to know exactly not only what the costs to the Federal Government and the respective States are, but the costs to the individuals who are struggling to make it in America at a time of almost unprecedented unemployment?

Mr. McCAIN. My friend from Tennessee brings up a good and an important point about some saying that Republicans have no plan. The fact is that the Republicans have no plan for the government to take over the health care system in America. That is what it is. What are we for? We are for going across State lines so that these small businesses and individuals--and the Senator from Georgia used to be one of them-- can get the health insurance policy of their choice. Why should they be restricted to the State they are in when perhaps there are minimum requirements for those health insurers residing in that State for coverage, which they neither want or need, and it may be in another State. Why don't we allow small business people to pool their assets together and negotiate with health insurers across America for the best policy they can get? And we are for medical malpractice reform and medical liability reform. We know doctors prescribe time after time, to protect themselves, unneeded and unnecessary procedures and tests. We all know that. That is in tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars. We are for medical malpractice reform. Where is it in any bill that has been proposed by the other side? We want outcome-based treatment. We want an individual who has a certain chronic disease to be treated on the basis of long term. We want Americans who have preexisting conditions to have a risk pool they can go to or where risk pools would be established so they can get health insurance, and insurers will bid on those people with so-called preexisting conditions, so that every American can have affordable and available health insurance. We are for that. We are for medical malpractice reform. We are for going across State lines to get a policy of your choice. We are for outcome-based care. We are for taking on the drug companies that have cut an unholy deal with the administration, which will give them the obscene profits, and the lobbyists, who make over a million dollars. We want to be able to import drugs from Canada that are cheaper for the American people. We want competition, as there is in Medicare Part D, for these patients who need it, who don't have health insurance. So we are for a number of things, but we are not for a government takeover of the health care system. So the next time we read that the Republican party does not have anything they are for, then they are not paying attention. There is more that we are for, but it has to do with competition and with availability and with affordability of health care in America, not a government takeover. We have seen that movie before in other countries.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask the Senator from Georgia, do you believe, one, that small business people in America today are ready for an additional cost laid on them to provide health insurance for themselves and their employees? Should we not make it easier and less costly, rather than imposing a government mandate, which may have types of health care that they neither want nor need, or paying an ``excise tax,'' as is in Chairman Baucus's bill? The second point I want to ask the Senator about, of course, is this whole issue of what should be the government's role in health care in America today. We freely admit--not only admit but appreciate the fact that Medicare is a government program. But we also appreciate that the costs of Medicare have skyrocketed to the point where we now have, by estimates, a $31 trillion unfunded liability. In other words, our kids and grandkids will not have Medicare 7 or 8 years from now unless we fix the issue of costs.

Mr. McCAIN. That is why there is a rising sentiment, particularly among seniors, against this plan, the one passed through the House and passed through our HELP Committee and is now being formulated. Our seniors and our citizens are a lot smarter than many times we give them credit for. They know you are not going to get $\1/2\ trillion in ``savings'' from Medicare without there being reductions in Medicare. There are hundreds of billions of dollars of savings that can be enacted in Medicare, but why don't we start tomorrow or why didn't we start yesterday or why didn't we start at least at the beginning of this debate imposing those savings so we could have a delay in the year when Medicare goes broke?

Mr. McCAIN. That is an excellent point. But also the fact is to root out this waste, fraud, and abuse is going to take time and effort and it is going to require some pretty hard work on our part. But we need to change some of the fundamentals of the Medicare system in providing more competition in the form of prescription drugs, in the form of medical malpractice liability reform, in the form of more competition between drug companies for Medicare and Medicaid patients. These reforms we are advocating have to be enacted in order to bring down the costs of Medicare, Medicaid, and overall health care costs in America. Look, it is obvious. The cost escalations that are bringing Medicare to a crisis are the same cost escalations everybody else in America is experiencing.

Mr. McCAIN. Or a demonstration project conducted by the Secretary of Health and Human Services who knows a lot about this, I admit, because I understand she was head of the Trial Lawyers Association for a number of years. I am sure that gives significant qualifications to the person who is tasked with this project. Life is full of anecdotes and experiences we have. I was down in Miami at the Palmetto Hospital. I spoke to a surgeon there. By the way, they treat a very large number of people who have come to this country illegally. I asked the surgeon: How are you doing on making your insurance payments, your malpractice or medical liability insurance payments? He said: I don't have a problem. I don't have it. I don't have it because I couldn't afford it and probably I am not going to get sued because if they sue me, they are only going to get everything I have, not what the insurance company has. We are giving physicians and caregivers the untenable option of either paying skyrocketing malpractice insurance premiums--in some cases $200,000 a year for a neurosurgeon--or as this surgeon did and others have done: I am not going to have insurance. That is not an acceptable thing to do to physicians in America or anybody in America.

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator is exactly right. Again, wouldn't it be nice for our constituents--by the way, many of them come to the townhall meetings with a sign that says ``Have you read the bill?''--to let them read the bill too. Wouldn't it be nice if every American citizen who wanted to could go online and read the legislation and give us their ideas and thoughts as to how we could make it better? May I mention--I hate to keep coming back to this issue of medical liability--a PricewaterhouseCoopers study says defensive medicine could cost us as much as $200 billion annually. If we are interested in savings, why don't we go right at that? Do we need a demonstration project someplace around America? I don't. May I mention one other point, and I would be interested in my colleagues' views on it. This proposal also levies new taxes on medical devices. Why in the world would we want to do that? Medical devices and the best technology in the world are developed in America, but they are very expensive as they are. Why would we want to levy new taxes on medical devices when we know very well that if the insurance company is paying for them, the insurance company passes on those increased costs to the insured, thereby increasing the cost of health insurance in America. Why would we want to do that?

Mr. McCAIN. What the other side is trying to do is expand government, expand coverage, and yet, at the same time, reduce costs. You cannot square the circle. That is why they keep bumping into--every time there is a new proposal and to make things more expansive and more available, they run into escalations in costs and how we are going to pay for it. I believe our constituents, again, have figured it out--a reestimate of a $7 trillion to $9 trillion deficit over 10 years, a some $700 billion stimulus package that may have stimulated Wall Street but, frankly, in my view from being home a lot, has not stimulated Main Street and is not having an effect on unemployment in America, to say the least. The neighboring State of California now has 12.2 percent unemployment. They cannot get to where they want to go without increasing that deficit and debt burden that we are laying on future generations of Americans. I wish they would sit down with us. I wish we could sit down together, start from the beginning, knowing what we know--we have all been well educated by this process--knowing what we know now, knowing what we can do to reduce health care costs in America and make it affordable and available. Unfortunately, as we watch the machinations going on in the Finance Committee, that has not happened yet.

Mr. McCAIN. Can I tell my friend, if the American people are able to know the details of this legislation, I think they would be surprised to know that the new taxes--the medical devices, the prescription drugs and other tax increases--they begin in the year 2010, 3 years before the provisions in the bill for ``reform'' are implemented. So for the next 3 years, the cost of health care and health insurance goes up due to the new taxes and fees, but the so-called reforms are not implemented--why did they do that?--so that the actual costs, as we cost it out over a 10-year period, are disguised by beginning the taxes and not implementing the reforms, which then the Congressional Budget Office can give a cost estimate which is less than, frankly, what it actually is if you put the reforms in at the same time as the tax increases. That is a little complicated, but I think Americans need to know that.

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I rise to address the issue of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010, which is the pending business before the Senate. The funding provided in this legislation is very crucial. We need to support our commanders as they lead operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, and care for the men and women who are in the military, including making sure they are provided for, as well as our wounded warriors. But I also note with great concern and alarm, dismay, and even disgust that billions of dollars in wasteful earmarks, unrequested, unauthorized, have again found their way into this legislation. As I have said before, these are serious times, and we as a Congress are required to make serious decisions, tough decisions, that may go against the special interests. I need not remind my colleagues that we are at war or that the national debt is growing ever larger. Recently, there was a reestimate of the deficit for the next 10 years from $7 trillion to $9 trillion. We are facing deficits of unprecedented proportions. Yet the spending goes on here like, as some people have said, a drunken sailor. I do not use that phrase anymore because I never knew a sailor, either drunk or sober, with the imagination Members of Congress have, which is best epitomized in this bill, as I will point out in several provisions. We cannot afford the waste. We cannot afford it. It is our duty to fully support the funding for our national defense and ensure that each dollar we spend is spent wisely in delivery of the stated need and not on special interests. The Appropriations Committee has provided $626 billion in total funding for the Department of Defense--$498 billion for the base budget and $128 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Interestingly, it is $3.9 billion less than the President's budget request, and the bill further reduces the Defense programs requested by the Pentagon to make room for $2.5 billion in C- 17 cargo aircraft slated for termination by the administration and about $2.7 billion--I repeat, $2.7 billion--in earmarks and special interest items. I have long talked about the broken appropriations process and the corruption it breeds. I remain deeply concerned over the damage done to our country and the institutions we are so proud to serve in by their continued abuse. While we have made some progress on the issue in the last couple of years, we certainly have not gone nearly far enough. Legislation we passed in 2007 provided for greater disclosure of earmarks, and that was a good step forward. But the bottom line is, we simply do not need more disclosure of earmarks, we need to eliminate them. We need to eliminate them. We should adopt the practice that was the practice here for a long time, up until recent years, that we didn't appropriate unless it was authorized. In the years that I have been here, I have seen a tremendous shift in the authority and responsibility from the authorizing committees to the appropriating committees and a commensurate rise in earmarks and corruption. I know my colleagues do not like to hear me use the word ``corruption,'' but we have former Members of Congress residing in Federal prison. We had a Congressman from California who used to list the appropriations he was able to get in one column and in the other column the amount of money he received for earmarking those appropriations. That is corruption. It is not responsible for us to continue to load up appropriations bills with wasteful and unnecessary spending. Americans all over this country are hurting. People are losing their jobs, their savings, their homes. So what are we doing? We continue the disgraceful earmarking process, elevating parochialism and patronage politics over the true needs and welfare of this Nation. I will be pointing out during the course of this debate a number of examples of that corruption, which I think is really unacceptable to the American people. By the way, that is one of the reasons the American people have risen up in an unprecedented manner in demonstrations against the way we do business here in Washington. So I want to be clear, disclosure is good. But it was not inadequate disclosure requirements which led Duke Cunningham to violate his oath of office and take $2.5 million in bribes in exchange for dolling out $70 to $80 million of taxpayers' funds to a defense contractor. It was his ability to freely earmark taxpayer funds without question. A lot is said during campaigns. A lot of promises are made. Unfortunately, some are not kept. The President of the United States pledged during his campaign that he would work to eliminate earmarks. The Speaker of the House promised to ``drain the swamp.'' Just last month, the President of the United States 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 an end to ``special interests and their exotic projects,'' and he reaffirmed that he was leading the charge to kill off programs like 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 does not support our troops, we will not fund it. If a system does not perform well, we will terminate it. And if Congress sends me a bill loaded with that kind of waste, I will veto it. If the President means those words, this legislation should be vetoed in its present form by the President of the United States. He went on to say: We will do right by our troops and taxpayers. He is right. We should do right by our troops and taxpayers. The bill has at least $5.2 billion in programs the Pentagon does not need and did not ask for--$5.2 billion. The President last month put on an all court press to terminate the F-22 program in the face of congressional determination to continue funding the production of the aircraft. So why was the President so adamant about terminating the F-22 while at the same time possibly giving a free ride to 10 unrequested C-17s in this bill at a cost of $2.5 billion? How can one differentiate between a fighter aircraft that the Pentagon says further production is unnecessary from a cargo aircraft that the Pentagon says the current fleet, coupled with those on order, is sufficient to meet the Pentagon's needs, even under the most stressing situations? Why has the administration, including the Secretary of Defense, been silent on $2.7 billion in Member-requested earmarks? These are questions for which I do not have a good answer. What I do know is that the appropriators did not add $5.2 billion to the bill to pay for the unrequested additions but, rather, secured this additional funding by offsetting programs in other parts of the bill. So what did the appropriators decide to cut to make room for most of these unrequested earmark and porkbarrel projects? They reduced $900 million from the President's request for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund at a time when the one thing we are in agreement on is that we need to increase the size of the capability of the Afghan Army and security forces. It is a key component of the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. So they cut it by $900 million. Reducing funding in the account runs counter to our ground commanders' plan for the Afghan forces to assume a greater share of responsibility for security as quickly as possible. Equally as incredible, the bill reduces over $3 billion in operations and maintenance accounts through direct cuts and cuts mandated in other provisions in the bill based on economic assumptions and excess cash balances. The administration strongly opposes these cuts and in their Statement on Administration Policy said, ``These reductions would hurt force readiness and increase stress on the military people and equipment.'' This account is the lifeblood for our military. The operations and maintenance of our men and women in the military and the equipment they use is absolutely vital. So what did we do? We took $3 billion out of operations and maintenance and put it in those porkbarrel projects, including the C-17. The account provides for services with funds to carry out day-to-day activities such as recruitment and fielding of a trained and ready force, all military training and exercises, food, weapons, spare parts, equipment repairs, depot maintenance, ship overhauls, transportation services including aviation fuel, Navy and Marine Corps steaming days, civilian personnel management and pay, and childcare and family centers. One thing in this debate about Afghanistan that almost everyone is in agreement on is that our equipment is wearing out and that we are way behind in the repair and replacement of spare parts, equipment--all that is necessary for our Active-Duty Forces and our Guard and Reserve, who are practically, for all practical purposes, Active Duty. And we are looking at--and I have guarded confidence that the President will agree to General McChrystal's and Petraeus' and Admiral Mullen's recommendation. We will need more money for operations and maintenance because we will be sending more men and women and equipment to Afghanistan. So what did they do? What is in this bill? A $3 billion reduction. Well, what is in its place? I will be going over some of the projects that are in its place. One of the more egregious items in the legislation we are considering today is the addition of $2.5 billion for 10 C-17 Globemaster cargo aircraft. First, let's have a little background. Recognizing that the Department's total requirement for 180 C-17 aircraft has been well been exceeded for 3 consecutive years, the Bush administration had actively tried to close down the production line for the C-17s. Nonetheless, earlier this year, the House Appropriations Committee Defense Subcommittee, added eight more C-17s for $2.25 billion to the 2009 supplemental spending bill, a bill that is supposed to be used to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The final version of that bill included all eight of these aircraft. When the subcommittee met later to consider the 2010 Defense appropriations bill, it went ahead and added three more. This is a little hard to see, this chart, but it is an interesting one. These are the C-17s that were originally in the Air Force budget. These are the C-17s, in red, that have been added by Congress. Each year--each year--the Department of Defense and the administration have said: Enough. We have enough C-17s. Obviously, that has not been the case. It brings us to where we are now--well in excess of requirements, continuing to spend billions of dollars for aircraft we do not need. Including the 8 C-17s in the 2009 supplemental, the Department has bought now a total of 213 C-17s. The original requirement was 180. According to the most recent Statement of Administration Position, the administration ``strongly objects'' to the addition of $2.5 billion in funding for 10--count them: 10--unrequested C-17 airlift aircraft. The Department's own analyses show that the 205 C-17s in the force and on order, together with the existing fleet of C-5 aircraft, are more than sufficient to meet the Department's future airlift needs even under the most stressing conditions. In no uncertain terms, Secretary Gates has stated that the military has no need to buy more C-17s. So here we are, my friends, with a $3 billion cut in operations and maintenance, which any observer, much less the administration, the Secretary of Defense, and the Joint Chiefs, says, is vital to continuing our operations and the well-being and protection of the men and women in the military, and we are adding $2.5 billion for more C-17s. What kind of a tradeoff is that? Secretary Gates has stated the military has no need to buy more C- 17s. While Secretary Gates called the C-17 ``a terrific aircraft''--and I agree--he stressed earlier this year that the Air Force and the U.S. Transportation Command ``have more than necessary [strategic airlift] capacity'' for airlift over the next 10 years. Nonetheless, continuing C-17 production would cost about $3 billion per year from 2010 onward. In connection with the fiscal year 2010 budget request, the President not only requested no funding for additional C-17s but also recommended this program for termination. Particularly in light of today's financial constraints, continuing to spend billions of dollars for more C-17s we do not need is becoming increasingly unsustainable. For these reasons, I will be offering an amendment to strike the additional 10 aircraft. Given how much our airlift capacity currently exceeds operational requirements, I see no reason why we should buy more of these aircraft--at a minimum, before key analyses on the subject, such as the Institute for Defense Analyses' review and the Department of Defense Mobility Capabilities and Requirements Study are completed. I will be proposing an amendment shortly that I hope will correct this egregious action on the part of the Appropriations Committee. The men and women in the military, who are fighting and putting their lives on the line, deserve a lot better than that. I want to talk for a few minutes about earmarks. The practice of earmarking is detrimental to the Department and, with increasing frequency, to Members themselves. The guilty pleas of former Members of Congress, congressional staffers, and lobbyists illustrate how earmarks have been used to corrupt the legislative process. Check the polls. The trust and confidence on the part of the American people in the Congress of the United States is at an all-time low, and deservedly so. By my preliminary count, there are almost 700 unrequested earmarks in this bill, over 400 of which are not authorized in the fiscal year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act. That represents more than $1.3 billion in funding for unrequested, unauthorized, Member-interest items. It is unacceptable. It is the constitutional duty of Congress to provide the Department of Defense the resources it needs while providing the oversight our constituents demand. We have a fiduciary obligation to the American taxpayer, and every time we tuck pork into an appropriations measure, we shun that responsibility. One of the great untold stories of earmarking is that the money, which is diverted to special-interest projects, would have otherwise been used to address the stated needs of our military services. The money does not come from anywhere but the taxpayers' wallets and purses. But the service chiefs, who are in the best position to advise Congress of their priorities, are routinely shortchanged so that Senators and Congressmen can fund their pet projects. A sampling: $9.5 million is in this bill to fund research in Montana on hypersonic wind tunnels, called MARIAH--M-A-R-I-A-H. This self- licking ice cream cone has been with us, earmarked and unrequested, since 1998. The Air Force, leader in hypersonic testing and technology, lost interest in 2004, so appropriators moved the program to the Army. The Army has no official requirement for this capability and published a report in 2005 stating their disinterest in the program. To date, the Army has no plans to fund the MARIAH wind tunnel effort, as they have stated in their budget documents. That has not kept the Congress from pouring more than $70 million into it--more than $70 million--with no discernible return. One group has done very well in the deal, however. Of course, I am referring to lobbyists, including Gage LLC, whose CEO, coincidentally, had been a senior staffer to an appropriator from Montana. I intend to offer an amendment to strike this earmark in the bill, and I can assure you, you will hear more from me on this. We have spent more than $70 million on a project that has had no return, that the military has said they have no interest in pursuing. Another earmark is $5 million to the battleship USS Missouri Memorial Association. This is a private organization which owns and operates this battleship as a museum in Pearl Harbor. I am aware that the association plans to put the Missouri in drydock and refurbish it, and also aware it was not part of the donation agreement that the Defense Department would pay for required maintenance. I am all for Navy ships being placed in places where Americans can see and appreciate the great service and sacrifice of the men and women in the military, the Navy and Marine Corps in particular. The deal was that the Defense Department would not, that they would take care of the maintenance of it, that they would take care of whatever the needed expenses are. So here is $5 million. Another earmark is $25 million for the National World War II Museum in New Orleans, to help pay for the construction of new facilities as part of a $300 million expansion. This privately funded museum opened in 2000 and, through the help of the Louisiana delegation, has already received $13 million in Department of Defense funds tucked into previous appropriations bills. Again, if the members of the Appropriations Committee wish to go through the authorization process and have this project authorized, I would be more than willing to consider it. Another appropriation is $13.8 million for five different earmarks pertaining to nano-tuber research. Of the almost 800 earmarks I mentioned earlier, hundreds are for high-tech research or devices. I ask my colleagues whether they are capable of weighing the merits of specific technologies they fund in this bill. Another earmark is $20 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.'' This center was neither requested in the President's budget nor authorized by Congress. Certainly a legitimate question should be whether $20 million should be appropriated for a project that has nothing to do with the defense of this Nation. It may be a worthwhile project. Why couldn't we get it authorized? Another earmark is $10 million, as usual, to the University of Hawaii for a program called the Panoramic Survey Telescope and Raid Response System, Pan-STARRS. On the surface, this program seems like a reasonable need for the Air Force as a part of its Space Situational Awareness efforts. Unfortunately, the Air Force will not be getting much return on this investment since it will only be allowed to use the telescope 5 percent of the time. Let's get that straight. The Air Force is paying $10 million so the telescope could be developed and maintained, and they are going to get to use it 5 percent of the time. 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. So 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--but might be able to use-- only to be denied use 95 percent of the time. I do not dispute that some of the earmarks listed in the bill have value. I am sure they do. But I protest the process by which Congress ignores priorities of the armed services so that Members can deliver tax dollars to their constituents for programs which may have nothing to do with the defense of our Nation, and at a time when we can least afford to misuse resources. We all know the economy has taken a beating over the last year. Unemployment is just under 10 percent, and the national debt is $11.8 trillion. So we are going to provide $20 million to a center with a purpose to extol the virtues of the Senate? The issues we face as a nation require all of us to make sacrifices-- all of us. It is about time we started setting an example. In today's Washington Post is an article written by Jeffrey Smith, entitled ``Defense Bill, Lauded by White House, Contains Billions in Earmarks.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that article be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Quoting from the article: President Obama has repeatedly promised to fight ``the special interests, contractors and entrenched lobbyists'' that he says have distorted military priorities and bloated appropriations in the past. In August-- As I mentioned-- he told a convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that ``if Congress sends me a defense bill loaded with a bunch of pork, I will veto it.'' Mr. President, this bill fits that description. It goes on: The bill, however, would add $1.7 billion for an extra destroyer the Defense Department did not request. . . . It talks about the C-17s and ``the Senate's proposed shift of more than $3 billion from operations and maintenance accounts to projects the Pentagon did not request, no veto was threatened over those provisions. I want to say again, I am sure the managers of this bill will somehow try to justify this transfer out of operations and maintenance into the C-17. It is not a credible argument. It is not a credible argument. The absence of such a threat provoked Winslow Wheeler, director of a military reform project at the Center for Defense Information, to describe. . . . Senior Obama aides responded that the White House never sought to fix the problem of earmarks in one year. ``The president has been clear from Day One: He wants to change the way business gets done in Washington''. . . . One thing I know about egregious practices, if you do not stop them early in an administration, you never will. It will be alleged that earmarks are down less than they were before, it is an important step forward, and the sponsors of the bill will say earmarks are down 27 percent in the House and 19 percent in the Senate. Those figures are the most flattering the White House could have used: They refer to the number of earmarks in the bills, not total spending. Total spending on military earmarks in the Senate declined by only 11 percent from the $3 billion approved by Congress last year. ``Despite the fact that earmarks are down, there's still nearly 800 . . . for projects that rose to the top by dint of political power rather than project merit,'' said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. ``The president needs to take a harder line against waste and political gamesmanship, particularly in the defense bill, which is paying for two years.'' Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment strikes funding in the Defense appropriations bill for 10 C-17 Globemaster aircraft that we neither need nor can afford. My amendment also redirects those funds to critically important operations and maintenance accounts which the appropriators have seen fit to cut. At about $250 million per aircraft, the total cost to the taxpayer of the C-17 earmark in this bill is $2.5 billion. But how are we paying for these aircraft? With the cuts made in the bill, it appears much of the offset for paying for the 10 aircraft falls on the O&M accounts. So why are we buying C-17s we don't need and can't afford while at the same time reducing overall O&M accounts by $3 billion? I am sure the managers of the bill will justify this cut in operations and maintenance. I would rely on the judgment of the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who will tell us they need this money for operations and maintenance. I hope my colleagues understand what this really means. If this bill passes with these cuts, the Air Force in particular will be forced to decrease funding for training, equipment, depot maintenance, and the restoration and modernization of air bases across the United States, and they would not be alone. The Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and National Guard would also come out on the wrong end of these cuts and would be forced to reduce funding for facilities sustainment, training, and recruiting. After 8 years of war, the Army's equipment readiness has fallen to truly worrisome levels. In testimony before the Armed Services Committee this year, Secretary of the Army Pete Geren said: Predictable and timely funding is key for us to be able to operate an organization the size of the United States Army. . . .When funding is unpredictable, it makes it very hard to plan long term. I have seen a hollow Army, deeply degraded in the decade after Vietnam and again during the drawdown of the 1990s. Today's forces are not in such dire straits as those, but 8 years of war has taken its toll on the Army, Marines, Guard, and Reserve component ground forces. As GEN George Casey said: ``The current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply.'' Particularly in a time of war, I urge my colleagues to invest in the recapitalization of our ground forces--not funding aircraft we neither need nor can afford with those investments. Finally, I wish to mention the Army Reserve and National Guard, which are, as General Casey described, ``performing an operational role for which they were neither originally designed nor resourced.'' In my view, any cut to their operations and maintenance accounts will retard the ability of these components to fit and deploy for missions at home or abroad. And I am sure the Secretary of Defense would say he would like a lot more because of the wear and tear and degradation that already exists to much of our equipment and capabilities. We can and must do better. Left uncorrected what we would do in this bill is effectively fund the purchase of new aircraft that we neither need nor can afford with critical sustainment money. That would have a significant impact on our ability to provide the day-to-day operational funding that our service men and women and their families deserve. Let me turn briefly to the merits of the C-17 earmark itself. If some of these remarks sound familiar, that is because I was on the floor of the Senate less than 3 months ago speaking about C-17s when the Senate Appropriations Committee earmarked eight of these cargo aircraft in the 2009 supplemental appropriations bill at a cost of $2.25 billion. That is right. In just 3 months, the Appropriations Committee has set aside nearly $5 billion for 18 C-17 aircraft that we don't need, the Pentagon doesn't want, and we can't afford. Against that backdrop, over the last 3 years the White House has actively been trying to close down the C-17 production line, asking for as much as $500 million per year to shut down the line. But over that same period, the appropriators have been working in the exact opposite direction to ensure continued funding for the program in supplemental war funding bills--bills that are supposed to be used to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So despite that the Democrat Department of Defense's overall requirements for C-17s continue to sit at 180, the appropriators have required the Department to buy through fiscal year 2009 a total of 213 C-17s, and they have done so before two key studies have been completed. This chart illustrates what is going on. Marked in red we see the C- 17s the appropriators have added. Why? Because our service men and women need them? No. In 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 the Air Force budgeted money to close the line each and every year. Is the reason some sort of new stimulus package which will create new jobs? No. That is because, as I mentioned, they have had three dozen more C-17s than the Air Force has needed. In fact, right now, the backlog of C-17s is such that Boeing will not begin building these aircraft earmarked by the appropriators for another 2 years. In the bill we are debating today, the 10 C-17s the appropriators want to fund will bring the total number of C-17s the Senate Appropriations Committee has added above any validated military requirement to 44. Enough is enough. According to the most recent Statement of Administration Policy, the administration ``strongly objects'' to the addition of $2.5 billion in funding for 10 unrequested C-17 aircraft. The Department of Defense's own analyses show that the 205 C-17s in the force and on order, together with the existing fleet of aircraft, are sufficient to meet the Department's future airlift needs even under the most stressing conditions. Secretary Gates has likewise very clearly said that the military has no need to buy more C-17s. While Secretary Gates called the C-17--and I agree--a ``terrific aircraft,'' he stressed earlier this year that the Air Force and U.S. Transportation Command ``have more than necessary'' strategic airlift ``capacity'' for airlift over the next 10 years. Nonetheless, continuing C-17 production would cost about $3 billion per year from 2010 onward. There is little reason why, in connection with the fiscal year 2010 budget request, the President not only requested no funding for additional C-17s but also recommended this program for termination. In light of today's financial exigencies, continuing to spend billions of dollars for C-17s the Pentagon doesn't need and can't afford is becoming increasingly unsustainable. More so than almost any other earmark I have discussed on the Senate floor, this earmark shows our priorities are just about the opposite of where they should be. For that reason, I am persuaded by the strength of Secretary Gates's opposition, and I find unacceptable the apparent source of funding for this earmark and urge the Members of this body to support my amendment. As I mentioned before, the amendment would redirect money from buying the C-17s we don't need and can't afford to critically important operations and maintenance accounts that are the lifeblood of our troops and their families. So we have a choice with this amendment. We can either continue to fund an airplane that the military neither wants nor needs, or we can restore the cuts in funding in operations and maintenance which, according to the testimony of every military leader, is badly needed and wanted. The body will be presented with that choice. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for at least several months, Congress, as we know, has been considering comprehensive health reform legislation written and moved through committees without bipartisan support. The Senate Finance Committee, now the last committee, is apparently considering a proposal that was originally believed to possibly garner bipartisan support. However, it has not. At the end of the day, the bill has ended up being divided along partisan lines. I agree that bipartisanship alone does not propose good legislation, but I can guarantee that partisan legislation pushed through Congress on artificial deadlines will not engender confidence or the support of the American people. Not one of the bills in the House or Senate committees has received a Republican legislator's vote--now they are counting on perhaps one--nor did any of the bills deserve the vote of any Member of Congress. I hope reason will prevail this week. Unfortunately, as written, the administration's and Senator Baucus's proposal does not warrant the support of the American people or Members of Congress. During the August recess we saw millions of Americans come to townhall meetings across this country and express their concerns. While some have dismissed these peaceful revolutionaries and impugned their motives, I believe these citizens should be listened to. This peaceful resolution is like nothing I have ever seen in my nearly 30 years of elected office. Americans have made it abundantly clear they do not want government taking over their health care decisions. But, unfortunately, that is the reality of the proposals before the Senate Finance Committee and those that have already been passed. Senator Baucus's proposal is not any different. It increases or creates new government control in all aspects of our health care system, increases health care taxes, and makes cuts to Medicare that reduce benefits and weaken its fiscal health. The administration's bill being considered this week in the Finance Committee puts Washington in control of health insurance regulations by defining what is ``acceptable health insurance coverage'' and what Americans must pay for this coverage. Washington also seeks to tell Americans that they have no more than four insurance plan coverage levels available to them, the least costly of which would be more expensive than many individual and small group policies today. In addition, the proposal decides which health care industry should be taxed and then imposes billions in new taxes on them. There are new taxes on prescription drugs, there are new taxes on medical devices, there are new taxes on laboratory tests, and there are new taxes on insurance companies. The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed what we know: that these taxes will be passed on to the consumers and will drive up health insurance premiums, directly contradicting the goal all of us shared together. This week CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf in the Senate Finance Committee said: Our judgment is that that piece of legislation would raise insurance premiums by roughly the amount of the money collected. If there are some out there who are not concerned by this massive government expansion, here is the kicker. The tax increases start right away even though many coverage provisions do not begin for 4 years, making the real 10-year implementation cost between $1.5 and $2 trillion. While it may seem to most Americans that reform is all about regulating health insurers and getting people covered, America's seniors who depend on Medicare would be wrong to assume their benefits will not be affected under the proposal that is being considered in the Senate Finance Committee. The administration's proposal under consideration in the Finance Committee cuts $500 billion from Medicare and allocates it to creating a new entitlement that we know taxes and costs too much. Instead of improving Medicare's financial stability, the proposal cuts nearly $120 billion from hospitals serving Medicare patients, more than $40 billion from Medicare home health providers, and approximately $130 billion of the cuts come from Medicare Advantage. CBO confirmed the obvious--that taking $130 billion from Medicare Advantage is a cut in the extra benefits provided to seniors despite protestations that this is not a cut from the other side and from President Obama. From the Associated Press: Congress' Chief Budget Officer is contradicting President Barack Obama's oft-stated claim that seniors would not see their Medicare benefits cut under a health care overhaul. Candidate Obama campaigned to make this cut, but now we hear the other side twist themselves in circles trying to obscure the facts. Americans should understand what is in these proposals and make up their own minds. But the other side must not agree. Why else would Democrats vote down an amendment in the Senate Finance Committee that would have simply required the legislative language to be posted online for 72 hours before voting on the proposals? This is what happens when you do not have online or prior information concerning amendments. The Finance Committee passed a Democratic amendment earlier Wednesday by voice vote that they thought would have no impact on the bill's bottom line. Hours later, the committee staff learned from CBO that Senator Debbie Stabenow's amendment on foster care would actually cost $600 million. This is why we need to have cost estimates and online scrutiny not only by Members of Congress and their staffs but by the American people before we adopt amendments. Let me read from the press release issued by Senator Baucus this week: At the urging of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services [known as CMS] has cracked down on insurance compan[ies] . . . The CMS investigation into the beneficiary letter was prompted by a Baucus request. This is a press release issued by the office of the Senator from Montana himself. And what did Senator Baucus's urging result in? A gag order from the acting head of the CMS Center for Drug and Health Plan Choices. Shockingly, the CMS subgroup ordered health plans offering Medicare Advantage benefits to stop communicating with their members what the CBO tells us is true, that taking $130 billion from Medicare Advantage is a cut. Let's be clear. This is government-imposed restrictions on free speech. How is it that we have an agency of government telling a private corporation they are not free to express their opinions or views on anything the Congress does? So where does this leave us? The proposal expands failing Medicaid, increases government control in the health care of every American, and drives up premiums by raising taxes on health care and health insurance. Then the proposal forces you or your employer to purchase their more expensive insurance. But to hide the impact, we are going to subsidize some Americans for this more expensive coverage, and if they do not purchase this more expensive coverage, the proposal tells the IRS to come after them with new tax penalties. The recent poll this morning, published in various newspapers, shows there continues to be waning support and a lack of understanding of the President's proposal. I think that is perfectly logical because the President says: If you like your present health insurance, you can keep it. Then CBO determines, and others, if your employer provides you with health care benefits and chooses the government option, then you as the employee do not have the ability to keep your health insurance policy if you like it. So I think it is pretty clear the strategy of the administration is to try to ram something through the Senate and the House, rewrite it in conference, and certainly without Republican participation. I hope that is not the case. I look forward to continued discussion of this very vital issue for the American people on the floor of the Senate and in the various forums around the country. I intend to continue to have health care townhall meetings in my State as they have been very helpful both in informing my constituents and my constituents informing me. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Well, I thank my colleague from Tennessee and the great work he has been doing. First of all, I would ask my friend if he has had the same experience I have had at townhall meetings and that is from one of the hand-done signs--not printed-out signs but one of the hand-done signs--which says: Have you read the bill? One of the first questions at the townhall meeting was: Have you read the bill? Of course, that is an impossibility for anyone to read the bill because there is no bill before the Finance Committee, it is my understanding. I understand it is about 200 pages of a ``framework.'' I think the Senator from Tennessee and I are keenly aware that many times there is a comma, a word inserted here, a word taken out there which changes the entire legislative impact. The American people are a lot smarter than we give them credit for. They know that in the middle of the night, many times legislation is written and turned into the kind of legislation that, frankly, unless you go through it page by page, word by word, you don't know the final impact. So what I, first, wish to say to my friend from Tennessee is that apparently the Finance Committee is working to turn out a legislative package that is not in legislative form, and I am curious how the Members would understand what is in it. I guess the second point is, there is still no serious consideration of a couple of the fundamentals--medical malpractice or medical liability reform or, obviously, the ability to go across State lines to purchase insurance and allowing small businesses to pool their assets so they can compete for health insurance policies that large corporations are able to. The other question I would ask, because I know my friend from Tennessee has had many roles in his long political life, has the Senator from Tennessee, as a former Governor, had any contact with the Governors and their organizations as to how much additional costs would be added to those States, which are already in dire shape--certainly mine is--in the form of additional Medicaid costs? I notice the majority leader at first complained about the bill and the cost it might accrue to his State of Nevada, but I guess that has been fixed to his satisfaction. But I don't think the other States--a State such as mine, which is still looking at over a $50 billion deficit--probably would be eager to absorb dramatically increased Medicaid costs. I wonder if my friend, a former Governor, former Cabinet member, former candidate for President, former dog catch-- excuse me, someone who has had many roles in American life, would respond to that.

Mr. McCAIN. If I might interrupt, if it were on the Internet for 72 hours, maybe as many Americans who wanted to would be able to read the bill themselves.

Mr. McCAIN. Would it be ``no'' for the individual who has employer- based health care and that employer then opts for the so-called public option, which would be a government-run health program? Could that employee see the same doctor?

Mr. McCAIN. Isn't it true, in fact, that the Congressional Budget Office has said that these increased costs, at least half of them, will be passed on to the individual?