John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, from the story of the Burmese prison, let me quote: Human rights campaigners say incarceration at the top security prison, which is known as the ``darkest hell-hole in Burma'', could be tantamount to a death sentence--especially as the 63-year-old's health-- Referring to Aung San Suu Kyi's health---- is known to be fragile. Bo Kyi, now joint secretary of Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma), has firsthand experience of life in Insein jail. He was jailed for more than seven years for political dissent, and was kept in solitary confinement for more than a year, in a concrete cell that was about 8ft by 12ft. . . . There was no toilet in the cell--just a bucket filled with urine and faeces. He slept on a mat on the floor. Mr. Kyi says he was tortured and beaten by the prison guards. He was shackled in heavy chains, with a metal bar between his legs, which made it difficult to walk. Every morning for about two weeks, he says he was made to ``exercise''--forced to adopt awkward positions and if he failed he was brutally beaten. During this time he was not allowed to shower and was forced to sleep on bare concrete. It goes on. So she is there in that prison. I hope and pray the treatment she is receiving is not anywhere along the lines of what this prison is well known for. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his words concerning the parliamentary situation we are in. Of course, I am very appreciative of his words about the long service we have shared together, both in the other body and in the Senate. Since I have returned from the campaign trail, I have appreciated his kind words about my service to the country. I must say, while the majority leader is still on the floor, I might point out that they are dramatically different from the comments he made about me during the campaign--not just our political differences but my qualifications to serve and other statements about my character. All those things are said in political campaigns, but I am certainly glad to see sort of a significant change in his comments concerning me, and I am always very grateful. Can I also say that the distinguished leader said he couldn't understand that I couldn't understand. Well, the thing I can't understand is the fact that the majority leader can, by virtue of being majority leader, put legislation at any time before this body. I have never been majority leader, and in all candor I never want to be majority leader. I think the majority leader in the Senate has a very tough job. I appreciate the hard work he does in trying to move legislation through the Senate. My former colleague and one-time majority leader, Senator Lott, once said that being majority leader of the Senate was like herding cats, and I certainly agree with that assessment. So let me say I appreciate the work the majority leader does, but if I had been majority leader, I would never have had to do any of those amendments. The majority leader sets the agenda for the Senate. All he has to do if he wants the hate crimes bill up is to schedule it to be taken up and debated and discussed and amended--but in the regular order of the Senate. Instead, he chooses to put it on the Defense authorization bill, a bill that is vital to the future of the security of this Nation. I understand his passion concerning hate crimes. I have heard speakers come to the Senate floor all day, and they, in very graphic and moving terms, described events, as I am sure the next speaker will--about the terrible crimes committed in this country by some of the worst of the worst people who have ever inhabited this country. But the question remains: Why should a bill of this importance--the hate crimes legislation--not have been, at the majority leader's direction, moved through the Judiciary Committee, reported out, and reported to the floor of the Senate? We have been in session since January. I am sure the Judiciary Committee has a lot to do. This has been described by proponents, as they come to the floor, as one of the most important issues of our time. If it is, why not move it through the Judiciary Committee, move it to the floor, and allow us to amend, debate, and discuss the issue? Instead, it is put, as an amendment, on the Defense authorization bill. That is not right, Mr. President. The fact is, the amendment the majority leader just, very rightfully, extolled, the Levin-McCain amendment--and I appreciate his strong remarks about the importance of it--is the one he wanted withdrawn. The reason we are not debating it now is because the majority leader told the chairman of the committee to withdraw the amendment. I appreciate his passionate advocacy of this issue. I also want to reemphasize this isn't just about $1.75 billion. This amendment is about whether we are going to change, fundamentally, the way we do business. If the opponents of the amendment succeed, and we fund additional F- 22 aircraft, which as the majority leader pointed out has never flown in Iraq or Afghanistan, that signal to the military industrial complex, which President Eisenhower warned us about is business as usual in our Nation's Capitol. So this is an amendment that has transcendent importance. The President has guaranteed a veto. The Secretary of Defense came out and staked his reputation on succeeding here and eliminating, bringing to an end the F-22 production line and moving forward with the F-35 production line. A lot of my friends ought to understand this is not just about cutting or eliminating or ending production of the F-22. It is also about the F-35 aircraft. If I had been majority leader, I would have-- when he described those amendments I put on bills that were before the Senate, it was because I could not get them up in any other way. Let me say this: Hate crimes legislation deserves the attention of the Senate in the normal legislative process with amendments, debate, and discussion. If it is so important, and speaker after speaker, including the majority leader, came to the Senate floor talking about how important and vital it is and all of the terrible things that have happened as a result of, in their view, not having this bill--although that is not in agreement with the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. But the fact is, then you would think we would want to take it up in the regular fashion and debate it, and that we would want to improve it and make it more effective through the amending process. But, no, we are not going to do that. We are going to take down the pending amendment that is probably one of the most significant amendments we have had in recent history of the Senate--at least as far as defense is concerned-- and replace it with a piece of legislation that is complex, certainly controversial, and certainly deserves the full attention of the Senate. I proposed earlier a unanimous-consent request, which was rejected by the majority, that we move back to the F-22 amendment, that we dispose of this legislation, and then that we move to the hate crimes bill, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, even bypassing the Judiciary Committee, which is not a normal thing to do given the complexity of the issue. I am deeply moved by the stories the majority leader told, and both Senators from California came to the floor, and many others have given very graphic and dramatic and compelling stories recounting terrible things that have happened to our citizens--horrible, awful, horrifying things. I understand that and my sympathies and thoughts and prayers go out to their families. We must do everything in our power to make sure these kinds of horrendous acts are never repeated. Let me point out another thing, if I could. There are also men and women in the military who are in harm's way now and who have been gravely wounded. The sooner we enact this legislation, we will make preparation and be able to better care for them. Mr. President, I don't usually tell these anecdotes. I heard a lot today, and I sympathize with them. Before the majority leader took the floor, I was outside the Senate Chamber. There was a young man there who said he wanted to meet me--a young marine in a wheelchair, badly wounded. He was there with his family. He was escorted by Congressman Kennedy. I was gratified and moved that he wanted to meet me. Do you know what. That made me want to come back here and pass this legislation as quickly as possible because this legislation, No. 1, provides fair compensation and first-rate health care and addresses the needs of the injured and improves the quality of life of the men and women of the All-Volunteer Force--Active Duty, National Guard, Reserve, and their families. That is the No. 1 priority of this legislation. Instead of moving this legislation as quickly as possible through the Senate, we have now withdrawn the amendment and moved on to a piece of legislation that has nothing to do with the purpose and our obligation to the men and women serving this country. I understand what numbers are, and I understand what the outcome of elections is. I understand there is a majority on the other side of the aisle. But what is being done by withdrawing an amendment that has transcendent importance and putting another totally unrelated piece of legislation in--it may set a dangerous precedent for this body. This is not a one-shot deal; this the hate crimes bill. This is not an amendment to say you can carry a gun in a national park. This is not a single specific issue bill--hate crimes. We are talking about a very large, encompassing piece of legislation that, by any rational observation, demands to be considered through the proper committee and on the floor through the proper process. We are now holding up the progress of legislation that is important to the future security of this country and the men and women who serve it, to give them the resources, training, technology, equipment, force protections, and authorities they need to succeed in combat and stability operations. I understand and appreciate the passion of the advocates of hate crime legislation. They have made it very clear and told compelling stories on the Senate floor. I believe we must take it up and enact it as immediately as possible. What we should be doing is taking up the hate crimes bill in the Senate for full debate and discussion as soon as we finish the Defense authorization bill. There is no connection between the Defense authorization bill and hate crimes. It is a complex and detailed--26 pages, as I recall--piece of legislation. Again, I appreciate the kind comments of the majority leader, who came to the floor and said he couldn't understand certain things I have done. I hope the majority leader understands better now. If he doesn't, I will be glad to come to the floor again and point out that what we are doing is wrong. It is wrong for us to get off the legislation that provides for the defense and security of this Nation. It is wrong to take up a piece of legislation that should go through the appropriate committee. This is what we teach kids in school in Civics 101--that a bill is proposed and goes through the proper committee, is reported out, and then it comes to the floor of the Senate for debate and amendment. Instead, we are violating the fundamental rules of procedure of the Senate. As we continue and vote at 2 a.m.--or whatever it is that we are going to do-- all we will have done is delay the responsibility we have, which is to provide for the security of this Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the pending business, I understand, is the DOD authorization bill.

Mr. McCAIN. And when does that time expire?

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, at this point, I thank Chairman Levin for his important comments, especially about the letters from the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force on this issue. Let me repeat that this debate is not about depriving, in my view, the U.S. Air Force of a much needed part of our arsenal to defend this Nation's national security; it is about whether we will continue to spend money on the F-22, of which we are already acquiring 187, and additionally adding the F-35, the Joint Strike Fighter, which is very badly needed by the other services as well. I believe the F-35, the Joint Strike Fighter, is a very important counterpart to the F-22. The F-22 has great capabilities in certain areas, and the Joint Strike Fighter does too. So this debate is not just about removing the funds for the F-22. What it is about is removing funds for the F-22 and moving forward with the Joint Strike Fighter to give the U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy a balanced inventory that will maintain the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps as the most powerful projections of air power in the world for a long time to come. So I emphasize, this is not so much about terminating a program as it is ending a much needed program and supplementing it with another. I think that sometimes this argument is portrayed simply in the area of the F-22 itself. It is not. I know the chairman and I and the majority of the committee want a balanced, powerful, capable Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy throughout the 21st century. There have been various points raised and arguments made during this debate. I would like to respond to several of those arguments that have been made so far and probably will be raised again during the rest of this debate. The first argument addresses the fact that 187 F-22s will not meet operational demands at an acceptable level of risk. In the view of some Air Force officials, including the Air Combat Command general, John Corley, for example, a total of 381 F-22s would be sufficient to meet operational demands at a low level of risk and a total of 243 to 250 would be sufficient to meet operational demands with a moderate level of risk. That is the view of some very credible individuals. Our response to that is that in December 2004, the Department of Defense determined that 183 F-22s was sufficient to meet its military requirements. This is back in December of 2004. The Department conducted several analyses which affirmed that number based on a number of variables, including the lengths and types of wars the Department of Defense believes it will have to fight in the future and future capabilities of likely adversaries. The President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Air Force Chief of Staff, and the Secretary of the Air Force have all stated that 187 F-22s is sufficient to meet operational requirements, particularly when combined with other U.S. military assets, including cyber warfare, strike fighter aircraft, long-range standoff precision weapons to counter enemy aircraft and surface-to-air missile systems in the future from potential adversaries. We need to look at this in the entirety of its inventory. That means cyber warfare, it means long-range standoff precision weapons, it means the dramatic increase in capability of unmanned aircraft. Look at the role unmanned aircraft have played in Iraq and Afghanistan. In all candor, look at the role the F-22 has not played in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has not been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan; whereas, our unmanned aircraft, our Predators, have had an incredible effect in identifying, locating, and destroying the enemy. I think General Petraeus will attest to that in a very persuasive fashion. In response to the argument that more F-22s are necessary to close a gap in fifth-generation fighters between the United States and China, on May 14, Secretary Gates noted, ``[W]hen you look at potential threats--for example, in 2020, the United States will have 2,700 TACAIR. China will have 1,700. But, of ours, 1,000 will be fifth- generation aircraft, including the F-22 and the F-35. And, in 2025, that gap gets even bigger. So, the notion that a gap or a United States lead over China alone of 1,700 fifth-generation aircraft in 2025 does not provide additional fifth-generation aircraft, including F-22s, to take on a secondary threat seems to be unrealistic.'' Secretary Gates summarized his position on the operational need issue on June 18, when he said that ``the U.S. military has to have the flexibility across the spectrum of conflict to handle the threats of the future'' and that ``this will mean a huge investment for the future, one that is endangered by continuing the F-22 Raptor program.'' He concluded, ``frankly, to be blunt about it, the notion that not buying 60 more F-22s imperils the national security of the United States, I find complete nonsense.'' As military deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition GEN Mark D. Shackleford said, ``the capability that we get out of the 187 F-22s we believe is more than sufficient for the type of threat that the Secretary of Defense is addressing in the future''. Whatever moderate risk may arise from ending the F-22 program, now is merely short term and, under the Air Force's Combat Air Force--CAF-- restructure plan, necessary for the Air Force to transition the current fleet to a smaller, more capable fifth-generation fighter force for all the Services. The next argument being made is buying more F-22s could help mitigate a projected fighter shortfall of up to 800 aircraft by 2024 that Air Force leaders identified in 2008 and a projected gap recently identified within the Air National Guard's fighter inventory. Such purchases could also hedge the United States against the risk of unexpected age-related problems developing in the Air Force's legacy force. Our response to that is the fighter gap that the Air Force identified is questionable, given that it turns on various assumptions regarding threats and whether the United States will fight by itself or as part of a coalition. In any event, the Air Force has put in place a plan that will both mitigate any shortfall in fighter capability and bridge the current fleet to a smaller, more capable fifth-generation fighter force. An essential element of that plan--called the Combat Air Force-- CAF--restructure plan--is to stop investing in the F-22 program after the current program of record of 187. That plan addresses possible shortfalls in fighter capability more cost-effectively than simply buying more F-22s. It does so by restructuring the Air Force's current fleet of fighters now and directing resulting savings to modifying newer or more reliable fighters in the legacy fleet, including, upgraded F-15s and F-16s, procuring less expensive aircraft, including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and investing in joint enablers. Under the plan, those investments will help create a more capable fleet that can bridge the Air Force to a future fleet with a smaller, more capable force. In addition, in the years ahead, the Department of Defense needs to focus on improving its capabilities for irregular warfare operations, and the F-22 is not a key program for improving those capabilities. While the F-22 is an extraordinarily capable ``air superiority'' platform, its limited air-to-ground capability makes it less appropriate for supporting counterinsurgency operations--so much so that, as Secretary Gates has pointed out several times, ``the reality is we are fighting two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the F-22 has not performed a single mission in either theater.'' The next argument is the decision to end the F-22 program is purely budget driven. Secretary Gates has indicated numerous times that his decision to end the program is not resource driven. He announced that decision on April 6, weeks before his plan was even submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for vetting. On April 30, Secretary Gates plainly stated, ``if my top-line were $50 billion higher, I would make the same decision [regarding the F-22 program].'' That having been said, given the current fiscal crisis, buying more F-22s would likely reduce funding for other more critically needed aircraft, such as the F-35, F/ A-18E/F, and EA-18G, which unlike the F-22 are equipped with electronic warfare capability--the combatant commanders' number one priority. In that sense, continuing to purchase of F-22s could create operational risks for the United States military in the near term. The next argument is buying more F-22s will ensure the Air National Guard gets modernized fighter aircraft sooner. Our response is that under the Total Force policy, all the Services, including the Air National Guard, will receive Joint Strike Fighters at the appropriate time and at the appropriate rate to replace their aging F-15 and F-16 aircraft. The only requirement that the Air National Guard obtain Joint Strike Fighters ``sooner'' arises from the ``additional views'' of Senator Chambliss in the report accompanying the fiscal year 2010 authorization bill. In a letter to Senator Chambliss, the head of the Air National Guard LTG Harry M. Wyatt III noted, ``I believe the current and future asymmetric threats to our nation, particularly from seaborne cruise missiles, requires a fighter platform'' such as the F-22. However, that threat is simply not present today. This is something that is being closely looked at now in the on-going QDR debate. When asked about the cruise missile threat during our committee hearing recently, Secretary Gates correctly noted that the most effective counter to these sorts of threats is an aircraft that doesn't have a pilot inside of it. The next argument is that large-scale production of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters has only recently begun and has not yet increased to planned higher annual rates. Until production of the Joint Strike Fighter has been successfully demonstrated at those planned higher annual rates, it would be imprudent to shut down the F-22 production line, which is the only ``hot'' fifth-generation production line. Our response is that given how relatively similar the development and manufacturing efforts supporting the Joint Strike Fighter are to those supporting the F-22, concerns about an overall compromise in the industrial base appear to be overstated. In addition, whatever moderate risk may arise from ending the F-22 program now is operationally acceptable: it is short-term in duration and, under the Air Force's Combat Air Force--CAF--restructure plan, necessary for the Air Force to transition the current fleet to a smaller, more capable fifth- generation fighter force for all the Services. It is true that although ``full-rate production'' of the Joint Strike Fighter isn't anticipated until 2015, the program is making very meaningful progress. But, maturation in the technical, software, production- processes, and testing aspects of the program are on track to plan and are in fact exceeding legacy standards--including those for the F-22. All 19 ``systems development and demonstration'' aircraft will roll out by the end of the year and major assembly on the 14 aircraft comprising the earlier ``low-rate initial production,'' L-RIP, lots have begun. I can assure the Members of this body that Senator Levin and I and our capable staffs will be keeping a very close eye on the Joint Strike Fighter production. It is vital that aircraft meet its cost estimates and meet its time schedules. At this point, the first of those copies is expected to be delivered on time to Eglin Air Force Base in May 2010, and the first operationally capable versions of the fighter are expected to be delivered to the Marine Corps in 2012, the Air Force in 2013, and the Navy in 2015. This is not to say we should take, as I said, our eyes off the program. We need to track continuous progress on the F-35 to ensure that development costs leading to production remain stable. I am persuaded, as I hope the majority of this body will be, that on the issue of whether the F-22 program should continue, the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Air Force Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the Air Force are all correct: Ending the F-22 program now is vital to enabling the Department to bridge its current fighter capability to a more capable fifth-generation fighter force that is best equipped to both meet the needs of our deployed forces today and the emerging threats of tomorrow. Finally, the chairman and I are not unaware that this will lead to the loss of jobs in certain States in certain production facilities around the country. We know this is very tough, particularly in times of high unemployment across the country. But I would like to make the argument, No. 1, that the F-35, the Joint Strike Fighter, once it gets into production, will also be a job creator. But I would also point out that the purpose of building weapons is not to create jobs. The purpose is simply to defend this Nation's national security. We have an obligation to be careful stewards of all our taxpayers' dollars but, most importantly, those taxpayers' dollars that go to the defense of this Nation should be first and foremost what can best defend the Nation's national security in times when we are in two wars and facing future threats that are, indeed, formidable in the view of most. We are not without sympathy for the parts of our country, including the State of Georgia, where there are a large number of jobs that are at risk. Our sympathy is with them, and we will do everything we can to provide job opportunities, including in the defense industries across this country. But we cannot argue that we should spend taxpayers' dollars for weapons systems simply to create or keep jobs. That is not the use of taxpayers' dollars. If we want to do that, then there are many other programs we should fully fund to help create jobs and small business opportunities across this Nation. This issue, I hope, will continue to be debated today and that we could resolve it, hopefully, sometime tomorrow morning with a final vote. I know, from previous experience, there are perhaps 100 or more amendments that await the consideration of this body on the Department of Defense authorization bill. This is, obviously, a very important issue. This issue, perhaps, is maybe even more important than the $1.75 billion we are talking about. This debate is about whether we are going to make the tough decisions to most wisely and most expeditiously defend this Nation and spend those dollars wisely. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise for two purposes. One is to make a quick response to the remarks of Senator Chambliss concerning the F-22 and a couple of remarks about what I understand is going to be next on the agenda which will be proposed by the majority leader, which is a hate crimes bill, which is very difficult for me to understand. Senator Chambliss very appropriately pointed out that many times when we put together an authorization bill, we find offsets, as we call them--ways of paying for whatever item we want to add in the authorization bill. But I think it is important for us to point out that the Chambliss amendment during the markup, while putting this bill together, provided $1.75 billion for F-22 procurement. It took funds from presumed unobligated balances of several accounts. In all candor, they were unjustified assumptions. The amendment cut $850 million from O&M accounts, which is operations and maintenance. That means the operating, the maintenance, the equipping, the replacement of very much needed parts and supplies that provide for the readiness of our troops, enabling them to stay ready for today's conflicts and for tomorrow's challenges. The account also covers day-to-day costs of the Department. This includes items such as training, maintenance of ships, aircraft, combat vehicles, recruiting, education support, procurement of general supplies and equipment, and repairs and maintenance of Department of Defense facilities. Our military is engaged around the world. It is irresponsible to cut the resources they rely on to prepare successfully for their mission to protect the United States and its security interests worldwide. We owe it to our military to provide them with every resource. Based on historical data, the reductions that are in the Chambliss amendment to pay for the additional $1.75 billion would affect the following areas: Army's training and operating tempo, including training additional helicopter crews for irregular warfare missions; Navy's depot maintenance for surface ships; Air Force's depot maintenance and contractor logistical support for critical aircraft and unmanned vehicles; and the special operations command missions support and training of its forces. Furthermore, a reduction of this magnitude would affect the Secretary's initiatives to hire and train additional acquisition professionals needed to improve the Department's ability to contract, develop, and procure weapon systems and to replace contractors with Federal employees, thereby reducing the $1.2 billion in savings that is reflected in the budget. In addition, these accounts will have to absorb the increased cost of fuel that has occurred since the budget was submitted and additional civilian pay raises. That assumes the Congress sets the civilian pay raises at the same level as the military pay raise of 3.4 percent. The other two ``offsets'' are $400 million from military personnel funding. Much of the funding in the military personnel accounts is entitlement driven. Thus, there is limited flexibility to absorb these reductions without affecting the readiness of U.S. forces. These reductions will directly translate into cuts to recruiting and retention bonuses incentives and other important programs such as covering the cost to move members and their families to new assignments. It will affect unit readiness by hindering the services' ability to meet end strength goals and fully staff operational units with critical personnel prior to deployment. If Congress sustains these reductions, the services will need to submit a reprogramming action to make sure our military forces are fully supported. Finally, the Senator from Georgia assumes $500 million in first-year savings from the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act, which he referred to in his remarks. I am very proud to have worked under the leadership of Senator Levin and together coming up with a very important piece of legislation, strongly supported by the President and the Secretary of Defense, to reform the way we acquire weapon systems. The cost overruns have been outrageous, as we know, throughout the past few years. But there is no one--no one in our wildest imagination--who believes that in the first year of acquisition reform we will save $500 million. I would love to see that happen. I would love to see pigs fly. But we are not going to save $500 million in the first year of a piece of legislation that has not been implemented and would not be for some period of time. So I am very flattered by the reliance of Senator Chambliss on $500 million in savings from the legislation we recently passed through the Congress and that has been signed by the President of the United States, but in all due respect, it is totally unrealistic. So what we are really doing is adding $1.75 billion and not accounting for ways to reduce spending or impose savings in any other way. But I also understand and appreciate the passion, commitment, knowledge, and contributions of Senator Chambliss of Georgia. There is no more valued member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. We simply have an honest disagreement on this issue. I appreciate the many qualities of the F-22 aircraft and the enormous contribution it makes to our Nation's security, but the fact is, we don't need any more of them. That comes from the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Air Force, and others involved in these issues for a long period of time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, just for a minute, because I know colleagues are waiting, it is my understanding that following the disposition of this amendment, which we hope would happen tomorrow morning, the majority leader will move to take up a hate crimes bill. The hate crimes bill is, to say the least, a very controversial piece of legislation and may deserve the debate and discussion of the Members of this body. But the fact is, it has nothing to do with the Department of Defense authorization bill. What the Defense authorization bill has a lot to do with is the training, equipping, taking care of reenlistment and retention, and all of the things necessary to defend our Nation's national security. We are in two wars. We are in two wars, and we need to pass this legislation. So the majority leader's priority is a hate crimes bill--a hate crimes bill which has nothing to do with the Defense authorization. I hope if the majority leader does that, it will be the last time he will ever complain about an unrelated amendment being brought up by this side of the aisle. Look, there are important amendments that need to be debated and considered on this legislation. This has to do with the defense of this Nation. So what are we going to do? We are going to tie up the Senate for a number of days. For a number of days we are going to tie up the Senate on a totally unrelated, very controversial, very emotional issue that has nothing to do with defending this Nation. So I urge my colleagues on this side of the aisle, I urge the distinguished chairman, I urge the majority leader, let's move forward with addressing the defense needs of this country, save the hate crimes bill for another day, and do what is necessary for the men and women in our military rather than putting an agenda item that has nothing to do with defense next before this body. I predict again that when this bill comes up, if the hate crimes bill is proposed by the majority leader and agreed to by the distinguished chairman, it will lead to a great deal of controversy and unnecessary debate and discussion on a defense bill. If the majority leader, who controls the agenda, wants to bring up a hate crimes bill, I would imagine he would be able to bring it up on his own. Instead, he wants to stick it on to the bill that the men and women who are serving in our military and are in harm's way today are depending on. It is not right. It is not the right thing to do. I hope the majority leader and the chairman of the committee will reconsider their position and wait and bring up a hate crimes bill as a separate piece of legislation for deliberation and discussion and vote from this body and not tie it to the Defense authorization bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Levin, and I share his gratitude in thanking our subcommittee chairmen and ranking members who contributed so much to writing this bill. They held numerous hearings on many important issues, and I thank them all for their hard work. And they were ably assisted by our extremely competent committee staff. Bringing this bill to the floor each year is a tremendous undertaking, and it would not be possible without the hard work of our outstanding professional staff who ensure that the process goes smoothly. I also extend my special thanks to Chairman Levin, with whom I have worked for many years now. I commend him on his leadership, grace, and integrity in shepherding this bill. It is not easy managing the competing interests, views, and opinions of 26 Senators, but Chairman Levin does an outstanding job at ensuring we all feel heard and understood, even if we do not always agree. I continue to admire his steadfast dedication to the committee's long tradition of bipartisan cooperation. Chairman Levin, you are a friend and great colleague, and I appreciate your support in both regards. Consistent with the longstanding, bipartisan practice of the Armed Services Committee, this bill reflects our committee's continued strong support for the brave men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces. It is, for the most part, an excellent bill, and I believe the committee has made informed decisions regarding the authorization of over $680 billion in base and overseas contingency operations funding for fiscal year 2010. To a great extent, it reflects the priorities laid out by the Secretary of Defense and the administration. It also reflects his decision to end troubled programs and focus our limited resources on today's threats and the lessons we have learned after more than 8 years of war. While the provisions in the bill demonstrate our commitment to provide our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines the very best available equipment, training, and support in order to provide them with the best possible tools to undertake their missions, I believe we can and should improve the bill in certain respects, and I will offer amendments during our floor debate to do so. The bill takes care of our men and women in uniform and their families by providing military members with a 3.4-percent pay raise. It expands care for wounded warriors, supports families, and improves military health care. It fully funds the growth of the Army and Marine Corps. Indeed, it authorizes further growth of the Army should that be necessary to sustain our combat operations and further reduce the strain on our forces. The bill retains a balanced capability to deter aggression by increasing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities, investing in tactical aircraft and ships, and accelerating the purchase of mine-resistant all-terrain vehicles for our troops in Afghanistan. This bill acknowledges that the United States has a vital national security interest in ensuring that Afghanistan does not once again become a safe haven for terrorists. It supports a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy that is adequately resourced and funded by Congress based on identified needs to date and calls on the President to provide our U.S. military commanders with the military forces they require in order to succeed. In Iraq, the committee ensures that the Congress will support the President's plan to redeploy combat forces while providing our commanders the flexibility to hold hard-fought security gains and ensure the safety of our forces. One of the toughest issues this committee has taken a leading role in--both in past years and in this bill--is detainee policy. Since 2005, this committee has developed legislation on detainee matters-- sometimes in cooperation with the White House and sometimes over its strong objections--because it is critical to our national security and the preservation of our democratic principles. This bill makes changes to the Military Commissions Act of 2006. We have all--Senator Levin, Senator Graham, and others--worked closely together to address some of these difficult issues. We have not resolved all of the challenges military commissions and other aspects of detainee policy present, but I believe we have made substantial progress that will strengthen the military commissions system during appellate review, provide a careful balance between protection of national security and American values, and allow the trials to move forward with greater efficiency toward a just and fair result. The committee also had a healthy debate on the future of missile defense and our strategic deterrence capabilities. I welcome and share President Obama's aspirations, hope for a nuclear-free world. However, I believe we must also be prudent and practical in our reductions and remain vigilant about the global proliferation of advance missile and nuclear technology. While recently much of our national defense posture supports combating terrorists, we cannot grow complacent to the danger that rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran pose to us-- whether it is missile launches within range of Hawaii or transferring weapons to Hezbollah or Hamas. We must strengthen our commitment to enforcing the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the existing inspections regime. We must lead an international effort to interdict and prevent the world's most dangerous weapons from getting into the hands of the world's worst actors. I know there are varying views on the future of missile defense and our long-term strategic force posture, and I look forward to those debates. The bipartisan nature of our committee allows for candid discussion, lively debate, and, at times, disagreement. In that spirit, there are some items in the bill I do not support and were not in the President's budget request, such as continuation of the F-22 aircraft production line, funding for the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine, and earmarks totaling approximately $6.4 billion. I was disappointed that, in spite of a veto threat from the White House, our committee chose to add $1.75 billion for seven F-22 aircraft and at least $439 million for an alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. Neither the President nor the Pentagon asked for F-22s or the alternate engine in the budget request, nor were they part of the Service's Unfunded Priority List. Secretary Gates has consistently opposed the need for additional F-22 aircraft and has indicated on a number of occasions that additional F- 22 aircraft are not required to meet potential threats posed by near- term adversaries. I strongly support Secretary Gates' decision to end the F-22 production line at 187 aircraft and his commitment--and the President's commitment--to building a fifth-generation tactical fighter capability by focusing on the timely delivery of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to the Air Force, Navy, and Marines. I look forward to lively debates on these and other important issues over the next few days. I want to make very clear to my colleagues, the reason Senator Levin and I support the administration's and Secretary Gates' proposal to terminate at 187 the F-22 fighter aircraft is not because we believe we are going to leave the Nation undefended. We need the next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Our armed services are counting on them. We want to increase funding for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, an aircraft and weapon system that in the view of many experts--including my view-- would be far more capable of meeting the emerging threats of the future. So I want my colleagues to understand this debate is not just about cutting a weapon system or bringing to an end, frankly, the line of a fighter aircraft; it is bringing to the end the line of one fighter aircraft and moving forward with another generation-- for all three services, a very capable weapons system, one that meets the threats of the 21st century. So I think it is important that we look at the argument that will come forward about jobs created or jobs lost. There will be jobs created, but the rationale for defense weapons systems should never be the creation of jobs. It should only be about the best way to defend this Nation in a very dangerous world. So it is my understanding it is the wish of the chairman--and I join him--that the first amendment for debate will be the administration proposal to finish the F-22 aircraft production line, saving some $1.75 billion. So I look forward to that debate. I look forward to my colleagues coming to the floor who would oppose that amendment. I hope my colleagues understand we would like to get this done this week, if possible. One more comment about the F-22 and the alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter: The President of the United States, I am told, and the Secretary of Defense have made it very clear a veto is very likely if the Congress does not act to end production of the F-22 line. I would strongly recommend the President of the United States go ahead and veto this bill if the F-22 is included. At some point, with unemployment at 9.5 percent, with people not being able to stay in their jobs, with health care being less available and less affordable in America, we cannot afford to spend $1.7 billion additional taxpayer dollars for a system that can be replaced by a more capable weapons system and one that can defend our Nation with greater efficiency and less cost. So I believe, frankly, there is more at stake than just whether we adopt the Levin-McCain amendment to terminate production of the F-22 as originally scheduled. I think this is a much larger issue, and I hope my colleagues understand the importance of it. I hope, if the Levin- McCain amendment is defeated--I hope it is not because I believe Senator Levin and I can make a convincing argument on behalf of the administration and the Secretary of Defense--but if it is, that there be no doubt that the President of the United States would veto this bill. I say that with great reluctance. I say it with almost a sense of deep regret because there are so many things in this bill that are important to the defense of our Nation, whether it be the care and pay raises and hospitalization and care of our wounded warriors, along with many other issues. But at some point this Congress and this Nation have to exercise the fiscal discipline the economic crisis we are in today demands. I again wish to thank Senator Levin for the long and close relationship and work we have done together. Sometimes we have had very spirited but very informative discussions, and I know those will continue as we address this very important legislation before the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record material in support of my remarks.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. No, I will not speak.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank Senator Levin for his eloquent statement and comments concerning this amendment. I thank him for his leadership on it. I have been for many years engaged in the Senate consideration of the Defense authorization bill. This is probably one of the most interesting--I think my colleague will agree--because we are beginning with a measure that, if not passed, will result in a veto by the President of the United States of America. I appreciate this letter the President of the United States sent to Senator Levin and to me and to the entire Senate. I appreciate the President's courage because right now the votes are not there. Right now I think my friend from Michigan would agree the votes are not there to pass this amendment. What the President has said, not only do we need to stop the production of the F-22, of which we have already constructed 187, but we need to do business differently. We need to have a change in the way we do business in order to save the taxpayers billions of dollars spent unnecessarily. So this will be kind of an interesting moment in the history of a new Presidency and a new administration and, frankly, an old Secretary of Defense. I say ``old'' in the respect that he obviously covers both administrations. I do not know of a Secretary of Defense who has had more appreciation and admiration from both sides of the aisle than Secretary Gates. I appreciate very much Secretary Gates' letter, also, where he describes in some detail, as does the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, why we need to have this amendment passed to remove the additional F-22s. I want to emphasize ``additional.'' I wish to pay special appreciation to President Obama for taking a very courageous step in making it very clear, as he says: As Secretary Gates and the military leadership have determined, we do not need these planes. That is why I will veto any acquisition of F-22s beyond the 187 already funded by Congress. The statement is very clear. I appreciate it. I hope it has a significant impact on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Again, my appreciation to President Obama and my appreciation to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the Secretary of Defense, who lay out in more detail why it is that we need to eliminate this unneeded $1.75 billion for seven additional F-22s. I emphasize to my colleagues that these funds will go to the acquisition of the F-35, the Joint Strike Fighter, which when produced will provide a careful balance between the air superiority provided by the F-22 and the other capabilities of the Joint Strike Fighter, which is also badly needed. This argument is not about the capability of the F-22, although that will be brought to the floor and I intend to talk a little bit about many of the difficulties the F-22 has had. But I would also like to point out that the F-22 has never flown in Iraq or Afghanistan. That is a remarkable statement. It has been in production since December 2005. We are in July of 2009, and the F-22 has yet to fly in combat in the two wars in which we are engaged. It has been plagued with some significant maintenance problems, not to mention dramatic cost overruns. This is not an argument about whether the F-22 is an important capability for our Nation's defense. It is. The question is, When do we stop buying them? I quote from the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff letter: It is important to note that the F-35 is a half generation newer aircraft than the F-22, and more capable in a number of areas such as electronic warfare and combating enemy air defenses. To sustain U.S. overall air dominance, the Department's plan is to buy roughly 500 F-35s over the next five years and more than 2,400 over the life of the program. So I think arguments that may be made on the floor that somehow we are curtailing or inhibiting the ability of the U.S. Air Force to carry out its responsibilities to defend this Nation are contradicted at least by the views of the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and literally every other individual or position that is involved in this debate. The Secretary of Defense goes on to say: Furthermore, under this plan the United States by 2020 is projected to have some 2,500 manned fighter aircraft. Almost 1,100 of them will be fifth generation F-35s and F-22s. There is going to be a lot of debate and discussion about China and its emerging capabilities. The Secretary of Defense goes on to say: China, by contrast, is expected to have only slightly more than half as many manned fighter aircraft by 2020, none of them fifth generation. I am concerned about the rising military capabilities of China. They are increasing their naval and maritime capabilities. They are increasing the efficiency of their army and their entire overall inventories, and it is of great concern. But with the combination of the F-35 and the F-22, we will clearly have a significant advantage over the Chinese for some period of time. That is not to in any way denigrate the long-term aspect of the Chinese military buildup. But in the short term, this is the best way to make sure we maintain complete superiority with a mixture of the F-35 and the F-22. The Secretary goes on to say: The F-22 program proposed in the President's budget reflects the judgment of two different Presidents, two different Secretaries of Defense, three chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the current secretary and chief of staff of the Air Force. My colleagues are going to come to the floor and say the Chairman of the Air National Guard says we need additional F-22s. We do not disregard that opinion, but we do weigh that opinion as opposed to the opinion and judgment of the individuals whom I just cited. If the Air Force is forced to buy additional F-22s beyond what has been requested, it will come at the expense of other Air Force and Department of Defense priorities--and require deferring capabilities in areas we believe are much more critical for our Nation's defense. There is no free lunch. There is no free $1.75 billion. There is no free money. Here we are with a projected $1.8 trillion deficit, a decrease overall in some defense areas that is coming sooner or later, and we cannot afford a $1.75 billion procurement that is not absolutely needed. Again, I wish to state very clearly, F-22 is a good airplane. The fact that it has not flown in Iraq or Afghanistan is telling, and some of the issues I will mention later on are telling. But this is not an attack on the F-22. What it is is an assessment of the Nation's national security needs and what we need in its inventory to maintain our superiority over all other nations and meet various threats ranging from radical Islamic extremism to the conventional capabilities of a rising power in the east. Again, I wish to say thanks for the great leadership of our Secretary of Defense and Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the importance they place on this amendment. I would like to refer my colleagues to an article that appeared last Friday in the Washington Post. It was entitled ``Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings.'' I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. I will quote in part from this article, which I think is worthy of my colleagues' examination. It is by Mr. R. Jeffrey Smith, a person who is widely respected on defense issues. He says: The United States' top fighter jet, the Lockheed Martin F- 22, has recently required more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour in the skies, pushing its hourly cost of flying to more than $44,000, a far higher figure than for the warplane it replaces, confidential Pentagon test results show. It goes on to talk about some of the problems it has experienced. It goes on to say: While most aircraft fleets become easier and less costly to repair as they mature, key maintenance trends for the F-22 have been negative in recent years, and on average from October last year to this May, just 55 percent of the deployed F-22 fleet has been available to fulfill missions guarding U.S. airspace, the Defense Department acknowledged this week. The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan. I point out that the cost per aircraft is around $350 million, depending on how you calculate it. We have a $350 million airplane investment by the taxpayers of America that has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan, the two conflicts in which we are engaged. We know for a fact that much older aircraft--the A-10, the F-18, many of the older aircraft are flying routine missions, plus our newest kinds of technology in drone and predator aircraft. Sensitive information about troubles with the nation's foremost air-defense fighter is emerging in the midst of a fight between the Obama administration and the Democrat- controlled Congress-- I point out to my colleagues, the Democrat-controlled Congress-- over whether the program should be halted next year at 187 planes, far short of what the Air Force and the F-22's contractors around the country had anticipated. There are divisions over in the Pentagon. It says: Votes by the House and Senate armed services committees last month to spend $369 million to $1.75 billion more to keep the F-22 production line open were propelled by mixed messages from the Air Force--including a quiet campaign for the plane that includes snazzy new Lockheed videos for lawmakers-- I do not think that the chairman or I received the snazzy new Lockheed video-- and intense political support for States where the F-22's components are made. The full House ratified the vote on June 25, and the Senate is scheduled to begin consideration. After deciding to cancel the program, Defense Secretary Robert Gates called the $65 billion fleet a ``niche'' silver- bullet solution to a major aerial war threat that remains distant. He described the House's decision as ``a big problem,'' and has promised to urge President Obama to veto the bill. The administration's position is supported by military reform groups. In the article it talks about pilots who have flown the aircraft who talk about its impressive capability. I do not disagree with those assessments at all. Its troubles have been detailed in dozens of Government Accountability Office reports and Pentagon audits. But Pierre Sprey, a key designer in the 1970s and 1980s of the F-16 and A- 10 warplanes, said that from the beginning, the Air Force designed it to be ``too big to fail, that is, to be cancelation proof.'' Lockheed farmed out more than 1,000 subcontracts to vendors in more than 40 States. I would like to repeat that. Lockheed farmed out more than 1,000 subcontracts to vendors in more than 40 States. And Sprey, now a prominent critic of the plane, said that by the time skeptics ``could point out the failed tests, the combat flaws, and the exploding costs, most Congressmen were already defending their contractors' revenues.'' John Hamre--this is an individual known to all of us--a very capable individual, who was on the Senate Armed Service Committee staff and served in previous administrations, was the Pentagon Comptroller from 1993 to 1997. He says the Department approved the plane with a budget it knew was too low because projecting the real costs would have been politically unpalatable on Capitol Hill. We knew that the F-22 was going to cost more than the Air Force thought it was going to cost and we budgeted the lower number, and I was there [Hamre told the Senate Armed Services committee in April.] ``I am not proud of it,'' Hamre added in a recent interview, which I think is a mark of the quality of the individual, that he admits he made a mistake, as we all do from some time to another. So I do not want to quote and spend too much time on this article because it is a long one. But it is an important item for our colleagues to consider when we consider the vote on this amendment. The cancellation decision got public support from the Air Force's top two civilian and military leaders who said the F- 22 was not a top priority in a constrained budget. But the leaders' message was muddied in a June 9 letter from Air Combat Commander John D. W. Corley to Chambliss [that is Senator Chambliss, the Senator from Georgia] that said halting production would put ``execution of our national military strategy at high risk in the near to mid-term.'' The right size of the fleet, he said, is 381. So it is enough to say that given our overall joint capability to obtain air superiority, stopping the F-22 at 187 fighters is vital to achieving the correct balance. I have discussed already the importance of a fifth-generation aircraft. I discussed earlier the importance of us making these tough decisions. Not irrelevant to this debate is the view of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Cartwright. He is a Marine General aviator. He is the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and he serves as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs' most senior adviser on joint operational requirements. In recent testimony before the Armed Services Committee, General Cartwright outlined why, in his best military judgment, the F-22 program should be terminated. He said: Looking at the lines in hot production, the number one priority was to get fifth generation fighters to all of the services. Number-two priority was to ensure that we had a hot production line in case there was a problem. And, number three, was to have that hot production line producing F-18Gs, which support the electronic warfare fight. In General Cartwright's view: Those issues stacked up to a solid position that it was time to terminate the F-22. It is a good airplane. It is a fifth-generation fighter. But we needed to proliferate those fifth-generation fighters to all of the services, and we needed to ensure that we were capable of continuing to produce aircraft for the electronic warfare capability. In the F-18, we can also produce front-line fighters that are more capable of addressing any threat that we'll face for the next 5 to 10 years. Interesting comment. He is saying, in the F-18, we can also produce frontline fighters that are more capable of addressing any threat we will face for the next 5 to 10 years. In any case, let me clear up the record on some discussions about the risk the Air Force is taking on by ending the F-22 line at 187 aircraft. References to some of that discussion appear to have been taken out of context. The Air Force's acceptance of risk by discontinuing the program needs to be understood in the context of the Air Force's overall combat Air Force restructure plan, a plan that is intended to bridge the Air Force's current fleet to the predominantly fifth-generation force of the future. Basically, that plan works by restructuring the Air Force's current fleet of fighters now and directing the results and savings to fund modifying newer or more reliable fighters in the legacy fleet, weapons procurement, and joint enablers. Under this plan, those investments will help create a more capable fleet that can bridge the Air Force to a future fleet with a smaller, more capable force. As you can imagine, the effectiveness of the plan depends on a lot of moving parts, perhaps most importantly stopping the F-22 program at 187 fighters now. While some short-term risks in the Air Force's fighter force may arise from stopping the program at 187 aircraft, the Combat Air Force Restructure Plan is designed to accept that risk to ensure a more capable fleet in the long term. I believe this strategy is sound and needs the support of this body. Please do not be deluded by references to risk associated with ending the F-22 program. Given the strength of the reasons cited by the National Command Authority, the best professional military advice by the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the considered recommendations of the service Secretaries, I can find no good reason why I should replace their judgment on this critical national defense issue with my own and call for funding for the continuation of the F-22 program. I, respectfully, suggest the Members of this body do the same and support the amendment under consideration. I understand where votes are. I understand that right now, probably this morning, anyway, and I hope that the very forceful letter by the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the very strong letter from the President of the United States will move my colleagues in support of this amendment. But I have no illusions about the influence of the military industrial complex in this town. Long ago, President Eisenhower, when he left office--probably the most noted military leader or certainly one of the most noted military leaders ever to occupy the White House-- warned America about the military industrial complex and the power and the increasing influence he saw that military industrial complex having over the decisionmaking made in the Congress and in the administration and in the funding of different programs and the expenditure of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. We are at a very interesting moment, if not a seminal one, in the history of this administration. If we accept the threat of the President of the United States to veto and overcome the individual concerns, I think it will be a great step forward to providing the taxpayer with a far better usage of their hard-earned dollars. These are difficult and terrible economic times for America. We cannot afford business as usual. We cannot afford to continue to purchase weapons systems that are not absolutely vital to this Nation's security. I would point out, again, and maybe it is not appropriate to keep mentioning, this plane has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan. It is never part of the two wars we have been in. It is a good airplane. It will probably be important, the 187 of them we are procuring, to the security of the Nation. But to continue production and procurement at some $350 million a copy, when in the judgment of the people we give the responsibility to make the judgment in the strongest possible terms have told us: We need to move on to another aircraft. We need the Joint Strike Fighter, and we do not need any more of the F-22 aircraft, it is a very interesting time. I look forward to the debate and vote on this amendment as soon as possible. I respect the views of my colleagues who feel very strongly that we need to continue the production of this aircraft. But I think it is wrong. I hope we can have an enlightened and respected debate on this issue. I understand the passion that some of my colleagues have about it and the importance it is to jobs in their States and communities. I would point out, again, defending this Nation and expenditures of the taxpayers' dollars for its defense should not be based on jobs. It should be based on our national security needs. There are not unlimited amounts of money. I wish to thank my colleague, the distinguished chairman again. I am sure that both those letters have been included in the Record. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleague, the distinguished chairman. Can I ask the distinguished chairman what he thinks is going to be the situation as regarding the disposition of this amendment?

Mr. McCAIN. Could I say to my friend, the distinguished chairman, from our past experience, there will be at least a couple hundred pending other amendments. I do not mean to diminish the importance of this one. But I would hope we could spend whatever time in debate that anyone might want to talk about the amendment today and into tomorrow and at least have a target to have a final disposition on this amendment tomorrow, since we will have many other amendments. Would that be the desire of the chairman?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we encourage colleagues to come to the Senate floor so we can debate this important amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the chairman. I hope all colleagues will bring their amendments as well as debate on the pending amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that LCDR Ryan Farris, Mr. Yariv Pierce, and Mr. Stratton Kirton be granted the privileges of the floor for the remainder of the week on the behalf of Senator Nelson of Florida.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to note, in the context of my remarks, the announcement yesterday that the deficit for the first 9 months of this year is now $1.1 trillion, headed for, at the end of this year, $1.8 trillion, perhaps the highest percentage of GDP in the history of this country outside of wartime. We are now in the process of adding amendment after amendment in the HELP Committee without any idea of the cost. As one of my colleagues who proposed a massive expansion of women's health care yesterday said in the committee: It is not the cost that is important; it is the cause. A remarkable approach to the fact that we are mortgaging our children and grandchildren's futures in a fashion which is the commission of generational theft. Chairman Dodd received a new score on his bill last week by hiding the real cost of the bill. A few weeks ago, the preliminary cost was over $1 trillion. Now it is at $900 billion--same bill, just different numbers. On the one hand, we are told reform is urgent and, at the same time, they don't implement the bill for 4 years; conveniently, after the next Presidential election. Then they will tax employers with a job-killing employer health mandate, collect $52 billion from small employers, the engine that will take us out of our recession. Nobody disagrees about the role of small business in our economy. Then this latest proposal hides the cost of the additional hundreds of billions of dollars of Medicaid expansion. The State of California is offering IOUs to pay their bills. They have a $26 billion deficit. We are going to increase Medicaid's burden on the States to the tune, in the case of California, of several more billion dollars. How are they going to pay for it? It is an impossible task. I am told that is not about the cost, but it is about the cost. Just as the stimulus package was about the cost, just as the continued bailout of industries such as the automotive industry, banks, financial institutions and anybody who is ``too big to fail,'' when small business people all over America are closing their doors because they are too small to save. For the first 9 months, the deficit is $1.1 trillion. That is $800 billion greater than the deficit recorded last year. The American people have a right to know what this health care bill will cost, what it will cost now and what it will cost our grandchildren. The Washington Post today tells us how not to reform health care, in opposing the government insurance President Obama now says is so critical. According to today's Washington Post: . . . it would be tragic if this issue were to drag down health reform or make it impossible to secure Republican votes. Restructuring the health-care system is risky enough that Democrats would be wise not to try to accomplish it entirely on their own. I certainly hope my friends on the other side of the aisle pay attention to that comment. It has turned into a partisan effort, and it is too bad. From today's Wall Street Journal, ``Democrats Hoodwinked the Health Lobby. Americans's health-care CEOs are being taken for a ride by Congress and their own lobbyists.'' It is a very interesting article by Kimberly Strassel. The industry's calculation is that by cutting deals, it can set the terms of its contributions to ``reform'' and even wangle upsides. The insurers came first, promising to squeeze $2 trillion in costs out of the system. Democrats are letting Ms. Ignagni believe that in return she will get a mandate to require all Americans to carry insurance (which her members will supply) and be spared a public option (which would decimate her industry). It goes on to talk about Mr. Tauzin who: . . . came along pledging that drug makers would cough up $80 billion to narrow a gap in Medicare drug coverage. He's been led to think that Washington will forgo its plans to allow drug reimportation or give him a hand on generics. The word is that the administration is now saying drug reimportation is not important, in exchange for this deal with Mr. Tauzin. How unsavory is that. Drug reimportation will save the American people $50 billion a year. It is a fact. PhRMA, the large prescription drug lobby--a very powerful one here in our Nation's capital--in return for saying they will save $80 billion, the administration in return will give up their support for what would save the American people $50 billion, when the $80 billion they are talking about is purely illusory, to say the least. The Wall Street Journal article goes on to say: Democrats have complemented their smiling encouragements with behind-the-scene threats. After retaking the House in 2006, the party made clear that companies that did not hire Democratic lobbyists would not get a hearing in Washington. The ruling party is now seeing the fruits of its bullying. These days a meeting of health-care lobbyists is better described as a reunion of Senate finance Chairman Max Baucus's former aides. Health-care lobbying has been turned on its head: The new cabal of Democratic lobbyists does not exist to protect the industry from Congress. It exists to present Democratic ultimatums to business. When Senate Republicans last month hosted a meeting to discuss reform ideas, Mr. Baucus's office called in a block of these Democratic lobbyists to deliver a message. ``They said, 'Republicans are having this meeting and you need to let all of your clients know if they have someone there, that will be viewed as a hostile act,'' reported one attendee to the Baucus caucus. Interesting. All these actions--the White House meetings, the strung-out negotiations, the muzzling--have been taken with one aim: To buy silence. President Barack Obama is committed to a public option. Liberal Democrats intend to make the private sector fund their plans. They figure by the time they drop a bill that contains odius elements, it'll be too late for any industry player--big or small--to cut a Harry & Louise ad. Industry players this week got a glimpse of how they will be treated. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman dismissed the $80 billion drug deal, claiming it did not have House support, and moreover that the White House ``told us they are not bound to that agreement.'' The question is just how long it is going to take for America's health-care CEOs to realize they are being taken for a ride both by Congress and their own lobbyists. Americans are wary enough about ObamaCare to maybe appreciate some straight talk from corporate America. If only corporate America can find the smarts to give it. The debate and discussion continues in the House and the Senate. They still haven't found a way to pay for the health care reforms they want to make. It is still around a trillion dollars. We hear everything from a 10-cent tax on soft drinks to the employer benefit proposal which was so strongly derided and attacked during the last campaign. So far we are talking about laying another trillion or two of debt on the American people, in addition to the $1.8 trillion deficit we have already amassed this year. Again, I urge colleagues and the administration to sit down in true negotiations, in bipartisan fashion together, and maybe we can solve this issue. We all know the quality of health care in America is the highest in the world. But the costs of health care in America and the inflation associated with it are something we must address so that health care is affordable and available to all Americans. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.