John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 2375 and ask that it be made pending.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, this amendment would take $1.7 billion in earmarks and porkbarrel projects in this bill, 589 congressionally directed spending projects known by most Americans as earmarks, and instead redirect that money toward air traffic control modernization. Modernizing our outdated air traffic control system will positively impact all Americans, not just a favored few. It would decrease airport delays, improve the flow of commerce, and advance our Nation's air quality by reducing aircraft carbon emissions, unlike earmarks that only affect a small segment of our Nation's population and generally those Americans who happen to live in a State represented by a Senator who is a member of the Appropriations Committee. For example, the distinguished manager of the bill had secured more earmarks than any other Member--50 earmarks--including $2 million for a bike trail in Spokane--a bike trail. Right now, with the American people hurting all over America, we are going to spend an additional $2 million of their money for a bike trail, and $750,000 for a Freight Transportation Policy Institute. Madam President, $750,000 of my taxpayers' dollars is going to be spent in the State of Washington for a Freight Transportation Policy Institute. Other earmarks in this bill include $500,000 for construction of a beach park promenade in Pascagoula, MS. According to Citizens Against Government Waste--an organization that has done incredible work on behalf of the taxpayers of America for many years-- The population of Pascagoula in 2008 was 23,609; if each resident of the town paid $21.18 toward the beach park promenade, federal taxpayers, most of whom are unlikely ever to visit, would be off the hook. That is the point. Most Americans will never benefit from these earmark projects, except for those who happen to ride bikes in Spokane, WA, or walk the beach of Pascagoula, MS. Alternatively, all Americans are impacted daily by our Nation's air traffic control system. Every day Americans sit on a runway and miss meetings, children's soccer games, family dinners, and other important events due to air traffic control delays that could have been avoided if our Nation had a modernized air traffic control system. Thousands of goods are delayed for delivery each day due to air traffic delays, which results in more than $40 billion of costs each year that are passed on to consumers, according to the Joint Economic Committee. The Government Accountability Office estimates that one in every four flights is delayed. In 2007, the aviation industry recorded the second worst year for delays, with 27 percent of all flights that year being delayed. When you look at places such as the Eastern corridor, it is far worse. Although air traffic overall was down in 2008, due in part to economic factors that led airlines to reduce service, there was no significant reduction in traffic at the most congested airports, such as those in the New York and New Jersey area. Congestion and delays at key airports cascade across the entire system. Moreover, according to the FAA, even if traffic is reduced, congestion at these key airports will not be significantly reduced without implementing a modernized air traffic control system. The airlines have called our air traffic control system ``an outdated World War II radar'' system. The FAA's Next Generation Air Transportation System, NextGen, will transform the current ground-based radar air traffic control system to one that uses precision satellites; digital, networked communications; and an integrated weather system. Moving from a ground-based to a satellite-based system will enable more flights to occupy the same airspace, meaning the ontime performance improvements would be a reality with triple the aircraft capacity, according to the airlines. However, the administration and Congress have not provided adequate funding toward air traffic control modernization and instead continue to fund billions of dollars of earmarks. The FAA estimates it will cost up to $42 billion to implement a modern air traffic control system. Congress only appropriated $188 million for air traffic control modernization in 2008 and $638 million in 2009. The bill before the Senate today only dedicates $358 million toward air traffic control modernization, but it dedicates $1.7 billion toward earmarks. Get that: $358 million toward air traffic control modernization, which will benefit all Americans; $1.7 billion in earmarks. Instead of providing Americans with something they want, which is ontime airline departures and arrivals, Congress spent close to $1 trillion of taxpayers' hard-earned money on a stimulus bill that provided $500,000 to build a skate park in Rhode Island, $14 million for construction of an airport in an Alaskan town with only 167 residents that is 10 miles away from an airport, and millions to New York welfare recipients for the purchase of cell phones. Congress also spent close to $3 billion of Americans' hard-earned tax dollars on a Cash for Clunkers Program. At some point, at some point--and it is beginning out there, my friends. I tell my colleagues, it is beginning. It is beginning with the tea parties; it is beginning with marches on Washington; it is beginning with the demonstrations and rallies all over America. It is out there. They are sick and tired of the corruption that exists in our Nation's Capital. I noticed the other day there was another individual who was caught up in the Abramoff scandal going on trial. That is now 22 people who have either pled guilty or been found guilty over the Abramoff scandal on which I am happy to say the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, and I worked. And guess what the scandal was all about. It was about earmarks. It was about porkbarrel projects. That is what that Abramoff scandal was about. That is why Duke Cunningham resides in Federal prison. That is why there are people under investigation, and there will be more indictments. The American people are sick and tired of it. They are sick and tired of it. So we have to stop it and at least spend money on worthy projects that will impact all Americans. Earlier this year, the President stated: [E]armarks have been used as a vehicle for waste, and fraud, and abuse. Projects have been inserted at the 11th hour, without review, and sometimes without merit, in order to satisfy the political or personal agendas of a given legislator, rather than the public interest. There are times where earmarks may be good on their own, but in the context of a tight budget might not be our highest priority. That is what the President of the United States says. Well, if the President of the United States is serious, he will veto this bill. He will veto the $1.7 billion in earmarks and porkbarrel projects that are in it. And he is right; earmarks have been used as a vehicle for waste. In 2001, the Senate passed the fiscal year 2002 Transportation appropriations bill conference report that included an earmark for the Odyssey Maritime Discovery Center. That Discovery Center happened to be in Seattle, WA. I have a picture of it in the Chamber. The Discovery Center opened in 1998 but has seen decreased attendance year after year despite continued Federal earmarks. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer wrote in 2003: Container ships and fishing nets don't scream ``sex appeal''. . . . The Discovery Center procured $250,000 from an earmark sponsored by the Senator from Washington in the fiscal year 1998 Commerce-Justice- State appropriations bill, $3 million in the fiscal year 2002 Transportation appropriations bill, and $475,000 in the fiscal year 2006 Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill. As a result of that earmark, the museum put out a press release. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that press release be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. The press release states: Michael Bittner, Executive Director of the Odyssey Maritime Discovery Center, today expressed appreciation to U.S. Senator Patty Murray for securing $3 million for new transportation educational initiatives, programs and exhibits for Odyssey. ``Washington State is the most transportation and trade dependent state in the nation. Odyssey is in a unique position to educate our public and our children about the need to enhance our transportation infrastructure so this region can maintain and expand its status as the nation's leading gateway to the Pacific Rim. . . . Senator Murray has exceedingly well-served transportation and particularly this region through this appropriation. I congratulate her and thank her.'' In 1997, while seeking an earmark of $250,000 for the center, Senator Murray said: The Center will establish an educational link between the everyday maritime, fishing, trade, and environmental activities that occur in the waters of Puget Sound and Alaska, and the lessons students learn in the classroom. Through high-tech and interactive exhibits, over 300,000 children and adults per year will discover that what happens in our waters, on our coast lines, at our ports affects our State's and Nation's economic livelihood. Madam President, 300,000 people--children and adults--do not show up every year; 100,000 people do not show up every year; 50,000 people do not show up every year. Madam President, 30,000 people showed up in most years. In January 2008, the Seattle Times reported: The Port of Seattle wants to stop subsidizing the money- losing Odyssey Maritime Discovery Center Museum, which owes the Port $1.5 million in back rent and has received millions more in taxpayer assistance. The article also stated: Odyssey, which bills itself as the nation's only contemporary interactive maritime museum, has never hit its attendance targets. At its inception, the facility on Seattle's Pier 66 hoped to attract 300,000 visitors a year to pay its rent and operating costs. Instead, it has attracted fewer than 30,000 visitors most years. According to Odyssey's most recent available tax form, the museum received revenues of $262,000 in 2005 and had expenses of $1.6 million. In fact, according to a February 2002 article in the Seattle Times, ``the Port authority agreed to help Odyssey by taking 30,000 free tickets a year in lieu of $21,000 in monthly payments'' for rent. However, the article continued: Fewer than 10,000 of the visitors used the free tickets from the port. The Discovery Center was not even able to attract visitors when the tickets were free. When the Port Commission terminated the museum's lease, a port spokeswoman stated: It is finally acknowledging this museum isn't ever going to succeed as currently structured. So what did Americans' hard-earned dollars get for the $3 million earmark for ``educational initiatives, programs, and exhibits''? According to a 2003 article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Spinner's Riddle, an informational scavenger hunt . . . At each station [participants] had to answer exhibit-based questions such as, ``In the Quiet Bay, what kind of worm is listed?'' The answers helped solve the riddle: ``What time do sharks like to go to the dentist?'' Also available due to taxpayer dollars: A rack of orange survival suits kids can try on, a simulator that lets you ``steer'' an 850-foot-long virtual container ship. . . . Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So despite $3 million of taxpayer money spent on these interactive exhibits, attendance continued to fall, and this past year the museum closed its doors except to host private parties such as in December when it hosted a fashion show. The invitation read: This December, treat yourself to the Best of the Best . . . the Mother of all Fashion Events. . . . It went on to say that the museum was ``re-transformed with a massive stage and runway lighting and concert-quality sound you will feel the Glitz and Glamour of a Los Angeles Red Carpet Event.'' However, that was not the only earmark in the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill that failed to perform. Let me point out, at the time--at the time--I took to the floor and objected strenuously to this $3 million earmark. I objected strenuously to it on the grounds--I did not know it would fail--I am not surprised it would fail, but I was not surprised. Why in the world, why in the world--should my constituents in Arizona give $3 million to a museum that is going to fail? It is supposed to be for much needed transportation projects. Drive around America and see whether we need to spend transportation money on a failed museum, or do we want to spend it on the things we need? So that was not the only earmark in the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill that failed to perform. Also tucked in--and I objected to it at the time--was ``$4.5 million for a boat that nobody wanted,'' according to the headline of an October 14, 2007, article in the Seattle Times. The article continued: The Navy paid $4.5 million to build the boat. But months before the hull ever touched the water, the Navy gave the boat to the University of Washington. If we want to give money directly to the University of Washington, my friends, let's give it to the University of Washington. But this was supposed to be for the U.S. Navy. And why did the Navy do that? Because the Navy strongly stated they did not want the boat to start with. Yet the Senator from Washington, in her wisdom, decided that the Navy needed that boat. It did not need the boat. But months before the hull ever touched the water, the Navy gave the boat to the University of Washington. The school never found a use for it either. Why would the Navy waste taxpayer dollars on a boat nobody wanted? Earmarks were inserted into different bills to force the Navy and the Coast Guard to buy boats they didn't ask for--$17.65 million in all, $17.65 million in all for two boats that neither the Navy nor the Coast Guard wanted, and now one belongs to the University of Washington and the other belongs to a sheriff. In fact, some of the boats were never even used, period. One boat was given to the University of Washington, which sold it to the Federal Government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association's National Marine Sanctuaries Program for a regional sanctuaries research program doing research all along the west coast. However, NOAA e-mailed my staff today and stated that this boat has been out of service since January, since there is no funding available to support a project on this boat. According to a story that aired on PBS's ``Frontline,'' one of the Coast Guard boats was sold to the Alameda County Sheriff's Department and, according to a sheriff's deputy, ``We paid $1 for this boat, and I don't think we actually paid a dollar, but it was turned over to us.'' This is a $4.5 million boat that the Navy and Coast Guard did not want. These boats were constructed--$4.5 million for each--and neither one was ever used by the Coast Guard or the U.S. Navy. These are just two examples of wasted taxpayer money spent on earmarks that were not necessary and not beneficial. Instead, Congress and the administration should refocus their efforts and priorities toward improving all Americans' lives by modernizing our air traffic control system. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment to take the $1.7 billion in earmarked funding toward the implementation of air traffic control modernization that will improve the lives of all Americans. There are a lot more stories out there of these earmarks and porkbarrel projects that were inserted, such as the museum and these boats the Navy and Coast Guard never wanted, and we wasted $17.5 million. The American people are rising. They did it over the weekend here in our Nation's Capital when tens of thousands of them said: No more mortgaging our children's futures and no more of this earmarking, porkbarrel spending, which has spread corruption. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, how much time do I have?

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the amendment would take $1.7 billion in this bill for the 589 congressionally directed spending projects, known by most Americans as earmarks, and redirect that money toward air traffic control modernization. Every day, Americans sit on a runway, miss meetings, children's soccer games, family dinners, and other important events due to air traffic delays that could have been avoided if our Nation had modernized the air traffic control system. The Government Accountability Office estimates that one in every four flights is delayed. A major issue, though, here as important as modernization of the air traffic control system is this bill has 589 earmarked projects on it worth $1.7 billion when we are facing the highest deficits in the history of this country. Americans all over this country are rising and saying stop, stop this porkbarrel earmarking which breeds corruption in the Nation's Capitol. I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, there are a lot of things happening in the United States and the world today. There are many issues and challenges we face. Obviously, the issue of health care reform has dominated the news and our attention. We had a somewhat interesting joint session of Congress the night before last. But there are also other issues facing the Congress and the Nation. One of them, of course, is our strategy in Afghanistan. My colleagues have been discussing and debating that, and we will, as has the President, continue to debate and discuss as the President makes some very tough decisions concerning Afghanistan. I have the greatest respect and regard for my colleague and friend, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He and I are in agreement on many issues. It is very clear that Senator Levin wants a larger Afghan National Army. I have long maintained we need a larger Afghan Army. But I believe it is a false choice to try to grow the Afghan National Army while holding back on any additional U.S. combat troops. I remind my colleagues that the lesson of Iraq, and the one General McChrystal wants to put into place in Afghanistan, is we do not get very far merely by putting individuals through a training course and releasing them into combat. As a matter of fact, when we examine the history, the very unhappy history of our engagement and involvement in Iraq, there was a time when the Iraqi Army was built up to a very large size--as I recall, around a couple hundred thousand--and then it basically collapsed, totally collapsed in the face of attacks from both Shia and Sunni extremists. I think the buildup of the Afghan Army is an important component but remember, the lesson of Iraq was that our troops went out and fought and lived and spent 24/7 with the Iraqi military and gradually, over time, they became a far more capable fighting force and one of which all of us can be proud. It is mentorship at every level, including partnership in joint operations with U.S. forces, that will build a robust and capable Afghan military and pave the way for our eventual successful exit from Afghanistan. To do this we need more U.S. combat troops in Afghanistan. There is a lot more I would like to say about it, but there are vital areas that are controlled by the Taliban and its allies today. It will require U.S. military force to shape, clear, hold, and build in those areas. If we await the day when the Afghan National Army is increased in size and is capable of carrying out all these operations fully on its own, it may well be too late. We are reaching a decisive moment in Afghan history and our own. I believe the United States must commit the decisive force levels to bring about a significant change in the security environment in Afghanistan with the aim of seeing real change over the next 12 to 18 months. This issue will continue to be an issue of mounting concern and importance to the American people. But I also want to point out, in the face of mounting reports of fraud and abuse carried out during the recent Afghan Presidential elections, I have real concerns about the integrity of the electoral process there. Yesterday, the Electoral Complaints Commission, a body backed by the United Nations, threw out votes from 83 polling stations across three provinces due to fraud. It also ordered recounts at hundreds of other polling stations and is due to examine irregularities in other areas of the country. These and other serious allegations of fraud undermine the perceived legitimacy of this election. I believe that perception is key to Afghan's political future. I believe we must urge the Electoral Complaints Commission to complete its work as soon as possible and to present a full report with its assessment of the fairness of the election in its entirety. The Afghan people desire and deserve a fair electoral process and a leader who is elected legitimately. This election must be breakthrough for Afghanistan in terms of better governance, more competence, and less corruption. They have suffered from poor governance for far too long. We should desire no less and take the necessary steps to ensure that the government we are backing in Kabul is legitimate and has the support of the Afghan people and the international community. I recall when it was fraud and an unfair election in Ukraine and the United States of America lent its weight and support of the then Orange Revolution and a free and fair election was held. We will wait until the electoral commissions issue their findings, but I am very concerned already about the information that we have concerning significant voter fraud. That may have called for a runoff election between President Karzai and his leading opponent, Abdullah Abdullah. While all Americans take occasion today to commemorate the terrible attacks of 2001, each of us also has cause to reflect on some of the lessons our Nation learned in the wake of 9/11. Its often hard to think clearly about the days before those attacks, when the world seemed at once a safer and more distant place, and our country a superpower in a secure neighborhood. We saw before 9/11 that America had interests across the globe, and we believed that our actions must be motivated by the ideals that have made us great. Yet we also often assumed-- wrongly--that the volatility that spilled across distant shores would never wash over ours; that instability and repression in remote and obscure places was cause for tragedy but not for alarm. We have learned a lot since that day. We have learned that history is often made in the very remote and obscure places that draw so little of our attention. We have learned that the degree of freedom and stability in other countries is connected to the security we enjoy at home. And we have learned that we must remain the authors of history, or face becoming its victims. Today I would like to spend just a few moments discussing recent events in one of those places which, I would bet, seems like a peripheral concern to most Americans. Few of us wake up in the morning scouring the papers for the latest news from Lebanon, or follow the ins and outs of politics in Beirut. Yet in recent days we, have seen the portents of new political crisis in Lebanon and, while all of us must hope that it will be resolved easily and peacefully, we know from the history of that country that it very well may not be. Yesterday, Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri stepped down, unable to form a national unity government some 2\1/1\ months after his election in June. After his moderate and relatively pro-Western party won the largest number of seats in the Lebanese parliament, Mr. Hariri proposed the formation of a broad based government that would even award a share of the cabinet posts to Hezbollah. Yet Hezbollah has been intent on thwarting these efforts to form a cabinet. Despite the fact that the Lebanese constitution confers on the President and Prime Minister the power to make cabinet appointments, and irrespective of Mr. Hariri's repeated attempts to form a government, talks have broken down over the demand by a Hezbollah- allied party that it retain the Telecommunications Ministry. This may appear to be a small and insignificant point of contention, and surely not one that would prompt an incoming Prime Minister to abandon his post, until we consider that Hezbollah badly wants to retain control over telecommunications and surveillance in Lebanon. Hezbollah, of course, not only possesses a surveillance capacity and an independent communications and broadcasting system, but also retains vast weaponry befitting its status as an independent militia. Along with its Syrian and Iranian sponsors, Hezbollah continues to both exert influence outside the constitutional process and invite foreign meddling in Lebanese affairs. I believe that the United States should take a strong stand in favor of respecting the outcome of the June democratic elections, and urge the parties in Lebanon to form a government in a manner that respects the constitutional process. Over the longer term, it is abundantly clear that there can be no durable peace in Lebanon, nor any long-term stability in the political process there, so long as Hezbollah continues to act freely as an armed, independent militia. According to some reports, Hezbollah remains today the best armed force in the country, better armed, indeed, than even the Lebanese Armed Forces. Such a situation invites further fighting at some point between Hezbollah and Israel and suggests that Hezbollah will continue to use its military power to induce cooperation with its demands at home. Sooner or later, one way or another, and as the U.N. Security Council has demanded, Hezbollah must be disarmed. We should also make perfectly clear to Syria that better ties with the United States will require an end to its malign interference in its neighbor's affairs. The administration has made a major effort this year to reach out Syria, sending a number of delegations to Damascus and making clear that better ties with the U.S. are possible if Syria changes its ways. Yet we should recall that it has been just 4 years since Mr. Hariri emerged onto the political stage after his father, Rafik Hariri, was murdered in a bombing. Reports indicate that suicide bombers continue to cross the Syrian border into Iraq. And Syria maintains its hostility to Israel and its close ties to the government of Iran. We must be clear that there must be real change on these issues in order for Syria to enjoy significantly warmer relations with the United States. Some Americans might reasonably ask why. Why should we care about the freedom and democratic aspirations of the Lebanese people? What matter is it of ours? Don't we have enough problems here at home, without spending our time and attention on the affairs of a small country far from our shores? In answering this, I would return to the theme with which I set out these brief remarks. We have learned since the attacks of 9/11 that instability in such places is not often confined to its borders. In lands where repression and despair are rife, intolerance and extremism grows in the hearts of some, and violence in the minds of a few. In Lebanon, as in so many other places around the world, the population aspires to something better than to be pulled from side to side by a thuggish and cruel militia. The vast majority of the Lebanese people want only that which we here in America desire, the freedom and security to build, through their talents and industry, a better life for themselves and their children. As Americans, we must demonstrate that we stand beside them in this hope. As we commemorate today the terrible acts of a small group dedicated to extinguishing this very ideal throughout the world, we should, I believe, rededicate ourselves and our policies to advancing this noble goal. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize and thank my colleague and friend from Florida, Mel Martinez, for his service to this country and to wish him luck in the years to come. I am proud and humbled to have had the chance to work with Mel over the last few years on some of the most difficult and trying issues of our time and I will miss his honesty, heart and dedication when he leaves the Senate this week. While many of my Senate colleagues are familiar with Mel's inspiring personal story I feel that it is important for the American people to know that Mel Martinez's life has personified the American dream and teaches us what we can all accomplish through hard work, a love of God and country and true dedication to a higher cause. Mel came to the U.S. in the 1960s as a young Cuban immigrant and became the first Cuban- American to serve in a Presidential Cabinet, as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and then the first Cuban-American U.S. Senator. As a freshman Senator, Mel didn't shy away from the tough issues--he did not sit back and let others tackle the tough, controversial tasks-- he dove in head first. Personally, the most memorable example of Mel's courageous work is his support of comprehensive immigration reform. The 2006 and 2007 immigration debates were difficult times in the U.S. Senate. We had both political parties and an American public divided on an issue that I still believe will define the future of our country for generations to come. For many, it would have been tempting to sit on the sidelines, take the safe votes, keep your head down and just wait for this one to pass, but not Mel Martinez. He took his strong personal convictions and put them in to action. We spent many hours together, working in a bipartisan fashion to try to reach an agreement that could be acceptable to both sides of the aisle and ensure the security of our Nation. Every day, Mel Martinez was in the trenches, on the floor, working to improve the bill, working to reach a bipartisan compromise and working for a better future for our country and our children. I also had the pleasure of traveling with Mel to the Republic of Georgia where he met with Georgian leaders and spoke openly about the importance of United States support for freedom in all countries, both those distant and close to our shores. Mel spoke with conviction due to his early childhood spent in a country controlled by a repressive dictator. Many in this Chamber will fondly recall Mel's leadership in the Senate and his work for the State of Florida. I will remember my friend, his courageous leadership on the tough issues and his willingness to put the future of our Nation before his own self interest.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today Congress returns from the August recess. Perhaps one of the most important issues of recent times affecting one-sixth of America's gross domestic product and rising to as much as one-fifth, the issue of health care and health care reform, will be front and center, including a highly unusual appearance tomorrow night before a joint session of Congress by the President. The last time such a joint session of Congress was called for, aside from the regular one, was by former President Bush concerning the events surrounding the attacks on the United States of 9/11. During the recess, I had, similar to all my colleagues, a very busy schedule of meetings addressing various issues, including travel to Iraq and Afghanistan. That visit will be the subject of other statements on the floor. But in Arizona, I hosted townhall meetings with my constituents. I also attended meetings and forums with health care providers in Missouri, North Carolina, and Florida so I could, along with my colleagues, better understand America's thoughts and ideas on reforming our Nation's health care system. I have no doubt there is a peaceful revolution going on out in America. I have not seen, in the years I have been a Member of Congress, such anger and dissatisfaction with the way the Congress and we in Washington are doing business. We all know the President's approval numbers continue to fall. The unruly and sometimes disruptive behavior at townhall meetings has been an exhibit of the anger and dissatisfaction Americans feel. I would like to make it clear that I think the townhall meetings should be conducted with respect. They should be conducted in a way that is an American tradition, that all Americans can be heard from as well as their elected representatives. But there is no doubt people attended townhall meetings that never before in their lives have been engaged in any debate in America. There is something going on out there. I certainly got the message. I hope the majority of my colleagues did as well. It is more clear to me that we have to reform the way health care is provided, but we have to do it in the right way, without a government takeover of the health care system. The problem with health care is not the quality of health care. The problem with health care in America is the cost of health care and almost double-digit inflation that takes place annually which deprives more and more Americans of their ability to acquire and keep health insurance. Among other places I visited recently, one of them was a place called M.D. Anderson, a cancer treatment facility in Houston, TX. There were patients there from 90 countries around the world. Why? Because it is the highest quality health care. The fundamental difference we have here between those of us who want to reform health care to reduce the cost and maintain the quality is the argument from the President and the other side of the aisle that they want a government option. They refuse to address the issue of medical malpractice reform. They refuse to allow someone to go across State lines and acquire the health insurance of their choice, and they continue to allow practices to go on that breed fraud, abuse, and waste in Medicare, which are well documented to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year. We must reform health care. We can't do it with a government solution that is advocated by the other side. That is why we have been unable to reach agreement--because we have two fundamental philosophical differences between ourselves and those who want to have a government option, who want to have greater and greater intervention in the health care system. On the way over I read this: Washington (AP)--A top senator is calling for fines of up to $3,800 on families who fail to get medical insurance after a health care overhaul goes into effect. Do we want to do that to the American people, a $3,800 fine? That is why we also need to step back and examine the 600-page bill passed through the HELP Committee, without a financing provision, the 1,000 pages or so bill passed through the House before they left, and figure out what else we have added in this bill. Why are Americans angry and upset? They are angry and upset because of this, because we spent $787 billion on the stimulus, which is $1.1 trillion with interest; $700 billion on TARP; $410 billion with 9,000 earmarks in it on the Omnibus appropriations bill; $3.5 trillion on the budget resolution; $83 billion to bail out the auto companies; $33 billion to expand the Children's Health Insurance Program; and a $1 to $2 trillion cost associated with the HELP Committee's plan that went through the HELP Committee, according to the Congressional Budget Office, which would not bend the curve, according to the Congressional Budget Office. What have we gotten for all this? We have gone to 9.7 percent unemployment. We have gone to 9.7 percent unemployment in this country, after the President and all his economic advisers said that if we pass this stimulus bill, unemployment will be a maximum of 8 percent. As they say: You can look it up. It is now at 9.7 percent. The public debt is $11.7 trillion. Sometime in October, we are going to have to increase the Federal debt limit which is going to go beyond $12.1 trillion. We are all responsible for what we say. In 2006, the current President spoke in opposition to raising the debt limit to $9 trillion saying: Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today on to the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. That was from the then-Senator from Illinois, now President of the United States. Where did we go? Where did we go from 11 to 12 and now, of course, a few weeks ago, a small rounding error, the 10-year deficit was raised $7 to $9 trillion, just a $2 trillion rounding error. That is what the American people are worried about, the commission of generational theft on our children and grandchildren. No one in the administration has a plan for bringing the budget back into balance. I think the American people at least deserve it. Yesterday the President spoke in front of union allies in a partisan, campaign-style speech, where he questioned the motives of those who raise concerns about too much government control over our health care economy and instead wrongly criticized our side for having no ideas of our own. We have plenty of ideas. None of them have been considered in the HELP Committee or by the Senate or by the House of Representatives. The HELP Committee bill was written only by the Democrats. There was no input from this side of the aisle. Every meaningful amendment proposed was rejected, including malpractice reform. How can we possibly look the American people in the face and say: We are going to bring down the cost of health care without medical malpractice reform. Ask any physician and they will tell you physicians are required to practice defensive medicine because of the fear of being sued. Unnecessary tests and procedures are performed time after time after time. I was in Miami at the Palmetto Hospital, a fine institution. I asked one of the surgeons: How can you afford your health insurance premiums? He said: We don't keep insurance anymore. We can't afford it. We will probably not get sued because they know we only have so much in assets. Now we are putting physicians and care providers in a position where they basically cannot afford, nor can they get, malpractice insurance because the premiums are so high, and they are targets for the trial lawyers. We have a number of alternatives. Most of them are market based. Most of them have to do with preserving the quality of health care yet bringing down the cost, which should be our goal. Why don't we have insurance reforms to improve access? That means someone can go across State lines. If a citizen of Arizona wants to go to North Dakota and get health insurance there, why can't they? Why can't that family do that? Why can't they? They cannot today. Why is it we cannot reform medical malpractice? Let's have tax reforms. Let's have incentives to purchase insurance either in the form of tax credits for families in America or--or--why don't we give the same tax treatment to families that businesses get in the provision of health insurance? Why don't we have real competition in any State? Why don't we set up the risk pools that are necessary to ensure those who were previously uninsurable or for those with ``preexisting conditions''? Let's set up those risk pools. Yes, that will take some taxpayer dollars. Why don't we allow the insurance companies to compete so they can provide insurance, so we can provide affordable and available health care to all Americans? Why don't we look at cost reductions? Why don't we look at incentives for wellness and fitness? One of the most famous corporations in America recently is Safeway. We have heard from their CEO. They reward people financially for wellness and fitness. And-- guess what--their costs for health care have gone down because there are incentives to do so. Here is a small idea: Why don't we see what the school lunch program is in our local schools? Why don't we see what the physical education requirements are in our local school districts? Why don't parents do that? I was appalled, and I am sure my colleagues and all Americans were, to see recently there is one State in America where one-third of the population suffers from obesity. We know what obesity does to health care costs, not to mention the lives of individuals. Why don't we also look at what has been tried and done before: an outcome treatment of patients. A patient has diabetes. You pay that provider for 6 months or a year or 2 years and say: OK, here is the amount of money, and if you keep that patient well, you will receive a reward at the end of that treatment period, rather than to pay for every single test and procedure. My friends, there are cases of abuse of Medicare that stretch into the hundreds of billions of dollars. We have to go after these people who abuse health care, Medicare, and Medicaid. And a practical question: Suppose we adopted what passed through the HELP Committee and through the House. There are dramatic increases in State Medicaid payments. What States can afford the additional burden of Medicaid that is envisioned by this legislation? Not many. Not many, my friends. So we do have legitimate, workable, doable, viable alternatives to the government option. When the President of the United States stands up and says we do not, he either is not paying attention to what we are saying--which has been one of the big problems with this debate--or he willfully ignores the fact there are solutions we can move forward with to reduce health care costs in America and preserve the quality. I wish to make a comment about the so-called co-op approach. My friends, you can call it the government option. You can call it a co- op. You can call it a banana. But the fact is, it is government intervention into the free marketplace, which will lead to crowding out, which over time will lead to government control of health care in America. A co-op can exist today. They do not have to wait for legislation. They can exist today. Yet very few do. If there was a pressing need for more co-ops, wouldn't more of them have been created? Under the co-op approach, the Federal Government would design, fund, and foster their creation. But let's not kid ourselves. Creating a new, massive government plan designed in Washington is still Washington involvement in health care. And if we did not learn any lessons from the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac co-ops, nobody has been paying attention. Let me talk about the ``trigger'' for a second. The trigger in the bill would implement the public option only if private insurance companies failed to meet certain benchmarks, such as lowering overall health spending or shrinking the number of the uninsured. The Wall Street Journal stated yesterday: Liberals should love the idea because a trigger isn't a substantive concession; it merely ensures that the public option will arrive eventually, instead of immediately. Democrats will tweak the tests so that private insurers can't possibly meet them, mainly by imposing new regulations and other costly burdens. Additionally, this trigger appears to blatantly and patently violate the Constitution's delegation of lawmaking powers to Congress and not the executive branch. We must decide whether to implement a ``government option'' or not. I vote to not do so and oppose any suggestion that abdicates my duties as a lawmaker and allows the executive branch to create a ``government option'' based on a trigger. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Wall Street Journal column entitled ``Whoa, Trigger''--a good name--be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. So, Mr. President, let me summarize. I come back from this recess--and I see my colleague also from Arizona in the Chamber-- both of us come back, as a lot of my colleagues do, in the face of extreme unease, anger, and frustration on the part of the American people, not just over the issue of health care but over the issue, as I pointed out, of this massive spending and debt and deficit we have laid on future generations of Americans. They want us to act in their interests. So wouldn't it be appropriate for the President, tomorrow night, if I may be so bold, to say: My friends and colleagues, the citizens have spoken. They want us to sit down together, and they want us to do what is doable. They want us to fix this cost escalation of health care in America, which is making it less and less affordable to all Americans. But the message we have gotten is, they are very skeptical about ``government-run health care'' or a ``government option.'' When the President says: If you like your health insurance policy, you can keep it, that is not true either. It is not true either. Because if you had a government option, and it looked more attractive to your employer, and your employer decided to select the government option rather than the health insurance policy you now have, then you cannot keep it. So it is simply not true that under the government option, if you like your health insurance policy, you can keep it. But the real point is, why don't we sit down--which we did not do; we did not do that at the beginning of this process--why don't we sit down with the smartest people on both sides of the aisle and say: OK, what can we get gone? What can we get done here together and go to the American people and say we are going to make significant progress in eliminating this problem of out-of-control costs in health care in America. I recall when I first came to the Congress of the United States--and it was pretty partisan then--Ronald Reagan had only been elected a couple years before that time, and Social Security was about to go broke. Social Security was going broke, and two old Irishmen--Tip O'Neill, a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts, and the conservative from California--sat down together and said: OK, we are going to sit together. We are going to fix Social Security. And they did. There American people were not only proud and grateful but they benefited. Let's go back to square one. Let's sit down together and get this issue resolved. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Kyl amendment. I remind my colleagues how this all happened. In June, the House ``air dropped'' $1 billion for a Cash for Clunkers Program into a conference report, which had nothing to do with clunkers, accompanying a $105 billion war supplemental spending bill and sent it over to the Senate. Despite the fact that my colleagues on the other side had advocated a new rule in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act in 2007 to allow a procedural vote to strip air drops from conference bills, when such a vote was presented, it was voted to keep this clunker of a provision. I hope one of my colleagues will propose a ``cash for golf clubs'' proposal. I have had many calls from people who have old golf clubs, and they would like to have cash for them. We know that it is an important national sport and it is an important part of our economy. I hope we will be taking up a ``cash for golf clubs'' provision pretty soon. We are spending $3 billion to subsidize car purchases, some of them from automotive companies we own. We own Chrysler and General Motors. We own them, and we are going to give them money. So maybe it will come back to us. The Wall Street Journal editorializes: This is crackpot economics. The subsidy won't add to net national wealth, since it merely transfers money to one taxpayer's pocket from somebody else's, and merely pays that taxpayer to destroy a perfectly serviceable asset in return for something he might have bought anyway. Here we had it stuck into a supplemental appropriations bill that had nothing to do with automobiles. So now we find that people like free money. They like free money. Yes, we all like free money. So the program has gone out of control. We have no idea, as Senator Kyl has said, how much money is being spent, how much is being obligated. So rather than stop and see what the story is here, let's spend $2 billion more. At some point, this kind of thing has to stop. The national debt has climbed to $11.6 trillion. If we are under the impression--if anybody is under the impression--it is going to be taken out of the stimulus package, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the House 2 days ago said: Don't worry, we will add an additional $2 billion. Don't worry, it would not be taken out of the program that the money is there for; that money will be ``replenished.'' Do you know what replenishing means? It means $2 billion more of taxpayers' dollars. Everybody in Congress now is patting themselves on the back. The program has also been a success, I might add, for foreign auto manufacturers. Four of the five top-selling cars in the program are made by foreign automakers, according to the Department of Transportation, and a success for Citibank that managed the voucher program, which has received $45 billion in Federal aid, and, yes, for the 184,000 Americans who have received up to $4,500 toward the purchase of a new car, except for the other 290-some million who will not take advantage of this program who will be paying the bill. I urge adoption of the Kyl amendment. At least we should pause and see where we are.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be divided equally on both sides.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, what are the proceedings under the unanimous consent agreement?

Mr. McCAIN. Following that, there would be a vote on two amendments; is that correct?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the second rollcall vote be vitiated and replaced by a voice vote.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this vote will be on amendment No. 1912. The amendment eliminates, as recommended by the President of the United States, the USDA Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program, also known as the Small Watershed Program. This program is the perfect example of how reckless earmarking can devastate a well-intentioned government program. Like the previous four Presidents' budgets, this administration has proposed to terminate this account--four previous Presidents--because ``Congress has earmarked virtually all of this program in recent years, meaning that the agency is unable to prioritize projects on any merit-based criteria, such as cost-effectiveness.'' According to the Congressional Research Service, the Small Watershed Program was 97 percent earmarked in fiscal year 2009, which severely marginalized the ability of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to evaluate and prioritize projects. A 2003 Office of Management and Budget study showed this program has a lower economic return than any other Federal flood prevention program, including those in the Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The onslaught of earmarks over the years has most certainly contributed to the current backlog of about 300 unfunded authorized small watershed projects, totaling $1.2 billion. As was originally intended, the Small Watershed Program may be a worthwhile program, but by inundating it with so-called ``congressionally designated projects,'' the program is challenged to function properly to the point where four previous Presidents have recommended its termination. Nevertheless, the Appropriations Committee hasn't given up on plundering it just yet. The bill provides $24.3 million for this program, including $16.5 million in earmarks for various unauthorized projects. I urge my colleagues to support the President's recommendation. Again, I will quote from the President's recommendation--the President of the United States: The administration proposes to terminate the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program. The Congress has earmarked virtually all of this program in recent years, meaning that the agency is unable to prioritize projects on any merit-based criteria, such as cost-effectiveness. So it goes on and on. Every analysis is that it has a lower economic return than any other program. Four Presidents have sought to eliminate it. We will probably lose this vote. But if there is ever a graphic example that once a program is established and once you fund it, it acquires a constituency and a powerful special interest and that funding continues on and on--we are proving, and we will continue to prove as we go through the appropriations bills, that there is no program that, once it exists, is going to be eliminated by this body, and that the appropriators continue to defy not only the President of the United States but logic and good sense as we amass deficits of monumental proportions which are mortgaging our children's and grandchildren's futures. We cannot even stop a program the President wants terminated, that has no value, that the Office of Management and Budget and any objective observer will say deserves termination. It is only $24.3 million, but the appropriators will join and jawbone others, and we will lose this vote, the same way we lost a vote yesterday that, again, had been recommended for termination by the President of the United States. I didn't come up with this. It wasn't my idea to terminate it, although I certainly do think we should. It was the idea of the President of the United States. It is also every objective observer's idea. We will prove that not only will we not eliminate that program, but we send the message to the country that this program--even though the President wants it terminated, even though it has a clear record of total inefficiency--we will continue to maintain. Sooner or later, there will be more tea parties and more protests, and the American people are going to rise up and say: Stop it. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is with great respect for Judge Sotomayor's qualifications that I come to the floor today to discuss her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. There is no doubt that Judge Sotomayor has the professional background and qualifications that one hopes for in a Supreme Court nominee. As we all know, she is a former prosecutor, served as an attorney in private practice, and spent 12 years as an appellate court judge. She is an immensely qualified candidate. And, obviously, Judge Sotomayor's life story is inspiring and compelling. As a child of Puerto Rican parents who did not speak English upon their arrival in New York, Judge Sotomayor took it upon herself to learn English and became an outstanding student. She graduated cum laude from Princeton University and later from Yale Law School. Judge Sotomayor herself stated that she is ``an ordinary person who has been blessed with extraordinary opportunities and experiences.'' However, an excellent resume and an inspiring life story are not enough to qualify one for a lifetime of service on the Supreme Court. Those who suggest otherwise need to be reminded of Miguel Estrada. Mr. Estrada also was a supremely qualified candidate, and he, too, has an incredible life story. Miguel Estrada actually emigrated to the United States from Honduras as a teenager, understanding very little English. Yet he managed to graduate from Columbia University and Harvard Law School magna cum laude before serving his country as a prosecutor and a lawyer at the Department of Justice. Later, he found success as a lawyer in private practice. However, Miguel Estrada, in spite of his qualifications and remarkable background, in spite of the fact that millions of Latinos would have taken great pride in his confirmation, was filibustered by the Democrats seven times--most recently in 2003-- because many Democrats disagreed with Mr. Estrada's judicial philosophy. This was the first filibuster ever to be successfully used against a court of appeals nominee. I supported Mr. Estrada's nomination to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, not because of his inspiring life story or impeccable qualifications but because his judicial philosophy was one of restraint. He was explicit in his writings and responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he would not seek to legislate from the bench. In 1987, I had my first opportunity to provide ``advice and consent'' on a Supreme Court nominee. At that time, I stated that the qualifications I believed were essential for evaluating a nominee for the bench included integrity, character, legal competence and ability, experience, and philosophy and judicial temperament. When I spoke of philosophy and judicial temperament, it is specifically how one seeks to interpret the law while serving on the bench. I believe a judge should seek to uphold all actions of Congress and State legislatures, unless they clearly violate a specific section of the Constitution, and refrain from interpreting the law in a manner that creates law. While I believe Judge Sotomayor has many of these qualifications I outlined in 1987, I do not believe she shares my belief in judicial restraint. When the Senate was considering Judge Sotomayor's nomination to the Second Circuit in 1998, I reviewed her decisions and her academic writings. Her writings demonstrated that she does not subscribe to the philosophy that Federal judges should respect the limited nature of the judicial power under our Constitution. Judges who stray beyond their constitutional role believe judges somehow have a greater insight into the meaning of the broad principles of our Constitution than representatives who are elected by the people. These activist judges assume the Judiciary is a superlegislature of moral philosophers. I know of no more profoundly antidemocratic attitude than that expressed by those who want judges to discover and enforce the ever- changing boundaries of a so-called ``living constitution.'' It demonstrates a lack of respect for the popular will that is at fundamental odds of our republican system of government. Regardless of one's success in academics and government service, an individual who does not appreciate the commonsense limitations on judicial power in our democratic system of government ultimately lacks a key qualification for a lifetime appointment to the bench. Although she attempted to walk back from her long public record of judicial activism during her confirmation hearings, Judge Sotomayor cannot change her record. In a 1996 article in the Suffolk University Law Review, she stated: A given judge (or judges) may develop a novel approach to a specific set of facts or legal framework that pushes the law in a new direction. This is exactly the view I disagree with. As a district court judge, her decisions too often strayed beyond legal norms. Several times this resulted in her decisions being overturned by the Second Circuit. She was reversed due to her reliance on foreign law rather than U.S. law. She was reversed because the Second Circuit found she exceeded her jurisdiction in deciding a case involving a State law claim. She was reversed for trying to impose a settlement in a dispute between businesses, and she was reversed for unnecessarily limiting the intellectual property rights of free-lance authors. These are but a few examples that led me to vote against her nomination to the Second Circuit in 1998 because of her troubling record of being an activist judge who strayed beyond the rule of law. For this reason, I closely followed her confirmation hearing last month. During the hearing, she clearly stated, ``As a judge, I don't make law.'' While I applaud this statement, it does not reflect her record. As an appellate court judge, Judge Sotomayor has been overturned by the Supreme Court six times. In several of the reversals of Judge Sotomayor's Second Circuit opinions, the Supreme Court strongly criticized her decision and reasoning. In a seventh case, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling, noting that in her written opinion for the majority of the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor had ignored two prior Supreme Court decisions. While I do not believe reversal by the Supreme Court is a disqualifying factor for being considered for the Federal bench, I do believe such cases must be studied in reviewing a nominee's record. Most recently, in 2008, the Supreme Court noted in an opinion overturning Judge Sotomayor that her decision ``flies in the face of the statutory language'' and chided the Second Circuit for extending a remedy that the court had ``consistently and repeatedly recognized for three decades forecloses such an extension here.'' Unfortunately, it appears from this case--Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp.--that Judge Sotomayor does not seek ``fidelity to the law'' as she pledged at her confirmation hearing. As legislators, we must enact laws. The courts must apply the law faithfully. The job of a judge is not to make law or ignore the law. Further, in Lopez Torres v. N.Y. State Board of Education, the Supreme Court overturned Judge Sotomayor's decision that a State law allowing for the political parties to nominate State judges through a judicial district convention was unconstitutional because it did not give people, in her view, ``a fair shot.'' In overturning her decision, the Supreme Court took aim at her views on providing a ``fair shot'' to all interested persons, stating: It is hardly a manageable constitutional question for judges--especially for judges in our legal system, where traditional electoral practice gives no hint of even the existence, much less the content, of a constitutional requirement for a ``fair shot'' at party nomination. In her most recent and well-known reversal by the Supreme Court, the Court unanimously rejected Judge Sotomayor's reasoning and held that white firefighters who had passed a race neutral exam were eligible for promotion. Ricci v. DeStefano raised the bar considerably on overt discrimination against one racial group simply to undo the unintentionally racially skewed results of otherwise fair and objective employment procedures. Again, this case proves that Judge Sotomayor does not faithfully apply the law we legislators enact. Again and again, Judge Sotomayor seeks to amend the law to fit the circumstances of the case, thereby substituting herself in the role of a legislator. Our Constitution is very clear in its delineation and disbursement of power. It solely tasks the Congress with creating law. It also clearly defines the appropriate role of the courts to ``extend to all Cases in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties.'' To protect the equal, but separate roles of all three branches of government, I cannot support activist judges that seek to legislate from the bench. I have not supported such nominees in the past, and I cannot support such a nominee to the highest court in the land. When the people of Arizona sent me to Washington, I took an oath. I swore to uphold the Constitution. For millions of Americans, it is clear what the Constitution means. The Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms to protect himself, his home, and his family. The Constitution protects our right to protest our government, speak freely and practice our religious beliefs. The American people will be watching this week when the Senate votes on Judge Sotomayor's nomination. She is a judge who has foresworn judicial activism in her confirmation hearings, but who has a long record of it prior to 2009. And should she engage in activist decisions that overturn the considered constitutional judgments of millions of Americans, if she uses her lifetime appointment on the bench as a perch to remake law in her own image of justice, I expect that Americans will hold us Senators accountable. Judicial activism demonstrates a lack of respect for the popular will that is at fundamental odds with our republican system of government. And, as I stated earlier, regardless of one's success in academics and in government service, an individual who does not appreciate the common sense limitations on judicial power in our democratic system of government ultimately lacks a key qualification for a lifetime appointment to the bench. For this reason, and no other, I am unable to support Judge Sotomayor's nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

Mr. McCAIN. What time does the Senate intend to move back to consideration of the fiscal year 2010 Agriculture appropriations bill?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at this time we return to the Agriculture appropriations bill that was pending before the Senate.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair.