John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Committee. I hope we can get these amendments filed as quickly as possible. In the meantime, I would like to make a comment about the recent situation in the Republic of Georgia. It has been just 8 months since the world's attention was riveted by Russia's invasion of neighboring Georgia. In the midst of the fighting, the United States, the European Union, and the international community decried the violence and called on Russia to withdraw its troops from sovereign Georgian soil. There was talk of sanctions against Moscow, the Bush administration withdrew its submission to Congress of a nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia, and NATO suspended meetings of the NATO-Russia Council. The outrage quickly subsided, however, and it seems that the events of last August have been all but forgotten in some quarters. A casual observer might guess that things have returned to normal in this part of the world, that the war in Georgia was a brief and tragic circumstance that has since been reversed. But in fact this is not the case. While the stories have faded from the headlines, Russia remains in violation of the terms of the ceasefire to which it agreed last year, and Russian troops continue to be stationed on sovereign Georgian territory. I would like to spend a few moments addressing this issue. It bears remembering. Last August, following months of escalating tension in the breakaway Georgian province of South Ossetia, the Russian military sent tanks and troops across the internationally recognized border into South Ossetia. It did not stop there, and Moscow also sent troops into Abkhazia, another breakaway province, dispatched its Black Sea Fleet to take up positions along the Georgian coastline, barred access to the port at Poti, and commenced bombing raids deep into Georgian territory. Despite an appeal from Georgian officials on August 10, noting the Georgian withdrawal from nearly all of South Ossetia and requesting a ceasefire, the Russian attacks continued. Two days later, the Russian president met with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and ultimately agreed to a six-point ceasefire requiring, among other things, that all parties to the conflict cease hostilities and pull back their troops to the positions they had occupied before the conflict began. Despite this agreement, the Russian military continued its operations throughout Georgia, targeting the country's military infrastructure and reportedly engaging in widespread looting. A follow-on ceasefire agreement signed on September 8 by French President Sarkozy and Russian President Medvedev required that all Russian forces would withdraw from areas adjoining South Ossetia and Abkhazia by October 10, but it took just 1 day for Moscow to announce that, while it would withdraw its troops to the two provinces, it intended to station thousands of Russian soldiers there, in violation of its commitment to return those numbers to preconflict levels. Russia also recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the only country in the world to do so other than Nicaragua. The leaders of both provinces have suggested publicly that they may seek eventual unification with Russia. Despite the initial international reaction to these moves, the will to impose consequences on Russia for its aggression quickly faded. To cite one example, the European Parliament agreed on September 3 to postpone its talks with Russia on a new partnership agreement until Russian troops had withdrawn from Georgia. Just 2 months later, the European Union decided to restart those talks. The U.N. Security Council attempted to move forward a resolution embracing the terms of the ceasefire, but Russia blocked action. The NATO allies suspended meetings of the NATO-Russia Council, then decided in March to resume them. Yet today, Russia remains in violation of its obligations of the ceasefire agreement. Thousands of Russian troops remain in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, greatly in excess of the preconflict levels. Rather than abide by the ceasefire's requirement to engage in international talks on the future of the two provinces, Russia has recognized their independence, signed friendship agreements with them that effectively render them Russian dependencies, and taken over their border controls. All of this suggests tangible results to Russia's desire to maintain a sphere of influence in neighboring countries, dominate their politics, and circumscribe their freedom of action in international affairs. Just last week, President Medvedev denounced NATO exercises currently taking place in Georgia, describing them as ``provocative.'' These ``provocative'' exercises do not involve heavy equipment or arms and focus on disaster response, search and rescue, and the like. Russia was even invited to participate in the exercises, an invitation Moscow declined. We must not revert to an era in which the countries on Russia's periphery were not permitted to make their own decisions, control their own political futures, and decide their own alliances. Whether in Kyrgyzstan, where Moscow seems to have exerted pressure for the eviction of U.S. forces from the Manas base, to Estonia, which suffered a serious cyberattack some time ago, to Georgia and elsewhere, Russia continues its attempts to reestablish a sphere of influence. Yet such moves are in direct contravention to the free and open, rules-based international system that the United States and its partners have spent so many decades to uphold. So let us not forget what has happened in Georgia, and what is happening there today. I would urge the Europeans, including the French President who brokered the ceasefire, to help hold the Russians to its terms. And in the United States, where there remain areas of potential cooperation with Moscow, from nuclear issues to ending the Iranian nuclear program, let us not sacrifice the full independence and sovereignty of countries we have been proud to call friends. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to take just a couple minutes to discuss the kinds of overruns we are talking about. I ask unanimous consent that this report by the GAO of 2009 on major weapons programs, changes in costs and quantities for 10 of the highest cost acquisition programs, be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to begin by thanking my friend from Michigan, the distinguished chairman of the committee, whom I have had the great honor of working with for many years. Senator Levin and I have not always agreed on every issue; we are of different parties. But we have had, in my view, a great opportunity to work together for the good of this Nation and its security and the men and women who serve it. I again thank Senator Levin for his leadership in bringing this legislation quickly through our committee in a unanimous, bipartisan fashion, and bringing it to the floor. As Senator Levin has mentioned, there may be some amendments or some modifications that our colleagues want to make, but I am confident we can get this bill done, into conference, and on the desk of the President. I am happy to say the President is very supportive. A meeting he and Senator Levin and I had with the leaders in the House Armed Services Committee indicates the President and the administration's commitment. I also want to say Secretary Gates--a man who I believe is one of the outstanding Secretaries of Defense in the history of our country--has always been forcefully in support of this legislation. There obviously is more to do because we have a broken system, a system that is broken so badly that in our attempt to provide a replacement for the President's helicopter--which is some 30 years old, known as Marine One--we came to a point where the helicopter costs more than Air Force One. You cannot make it up--where we have a future combat system with cost overruns of tens of billions of dollars; a joint strike fighter program that is completely out of control; and contracts--and there are many areas to place the blame and responsibility--but contracts that are let at certain cost estimates and then lose all touch with the original realities. Is there anybody who is an expert on defense acquisition, weapons systems acquisition, who believes the final cost will be anything near what the initial cost was as presented to Congress and the American people? Of course not. Of course not. So the title of this legislation is the ``Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009''--perhaps not a very exciting title. But the fact is, we have out- of-control costs of our weapons systems, which we cannot afford. We are expanding our Army and Marine Corps. We have increased obligations in Afghanistan, which has certainly been highlighted by the recent events in Pakistan, as well as Afghanistan. We cannot afford it. We cannot afford to take care of our obligations in at least two wars, and potential flashpoints all over the world, and continue the spending spree we are on on weapons systems acquisition. This is timely. It is needed. I again thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Levin, for his leadership in seeing this bill from introduction through floor consideration today. It shows, I think--and I do not want to make too much of it, but it does show when there is an issue that cries out for bipartisan action, this one can be an example now and in the future. I do not want to get into a lot of the details of how all this came about. But I would remind my colleagues that back some years ago, we used to have a thing called fixed-cost contracts. Those were the majority of the contracts that were let when we wanted to build a new weapons system: a new airplane, a new ship, a new tank. For many years, we were almost able to stay within those costs. There were some dramatic exceptions. I can remember back in the 1970s the cost escalation associated with new nuclear submarines. And I can remember some others. But, generally speaking, we built weapons systems and gave them to the military at very close to their original cost estimates. That is not the case today. Some will argue--as I have heard in the industry--well, there are technical changes that are ordered by the military which increase the cost. I think Secretary Gates pointed out some months ago: Are we allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good? Are we getting a weapon system which achieves 80 to 90 percent of what we want--which, it seems to me, is under reasonable costs--or are we making all these technical changes, which cause the cost of these systems to go up in the most dramatic fashion? We cannot afford to continue to do it. We cannot. I think this is an important step. I know the chairman would agree with me. This is not the only step that needs to be taken to bring an out-of-control system under some kind of control and accountability to the American taxpayer. In its most recent assessment of the Department of Defense's major weapons systems, the General Accountability Office observed that ``the overall performance of weapon system programs is poor [and] the time for change is now.'' So I say to my colleagues, as they come to the floor with amendments and debate--and we need to discuss this--we should keep in mind the General Accountability Office's observation that ``the time for change is now.'' I would also remind my colleagues and the American people this legislation has to pass through the House. We have to then go to conference. We then have to have the President sign it. And then the changes have to be implemented. So we are not seeing even an immediate turnaround with the rapid consideration of this legislation, as I think we can achieve today. I would ask my colleagues on this side of the aisle, if they have amendments, if they would notify the cloakroom, and we will make time for them. I know the chairman and I can enter into time agreements so we can dispense with the legislation in an expeditious way as possible, but also taking into consideration any concerns, amendments, our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have. The chairman has described, I think, this bill very well, and I do not want to repeat his assessment. But I do want to point out a couple things or emphasize a couple points the chairman made. The bill improves how the Department of Defense manages probably the single most significant driver of cost growth in our largest weapons procurement programs: technology risk. Basically, it does so by starting programs off right--with sound systems engineering, developmental testing, and independent cost estimates early in the program. We have seen these cost estimates particularly being unrealistic because we have not done the proper sound systems engineering and developmental testing that is necessary to get a correct assessment of costs. The bill, among many other things, requires the Department of Defense to assess each department's ability to conduct early stage systems engineering and fill in any gaps in that important capability. The bill provides for the creation or resumption of key oversight positions, including a Director of Independent Cost Assessment and a Director of Developmental Testing and Evaluation. I am not one who believes in creating new positions. I think our bureaucracy over on the other side of the river is big enough. But I do believe we need to create and resume key oversight functions, and those do require a Director of Independent Cost Assessment and a Director of Developmental Testing and Evaluation. The relationship between those who are doing the contracting, other contractors, and the awardee is way too close today for us to get truly independent assessments and cost controls. The bill requires that preliminary design and critical design reviews are completed early in a program's acquisition cycle so as to inform go/no-go purchase decisions on major weapons systems. The bill requires that the Department's budget, requirements, and acquisitions community consult with each other and make tradeoffs between cost, schedule, and performance early in the procurement process, and get combatant commanders more involved in the requirements process. I want to emphasize that last point. The combatant commanders are the end users of the equipment we provide them with. Unfortunately, on many occasions, the combatant commanders have not been involved in the requirements process early enough on or too late, to the point where they cannot make significant changes. What we want to do is give the Department, under the leadership of our great Secretary of Defense and the Congress, a big stick--bigger than anything available under current law--to wield against the very worst performing programs. On the broadest level, this bill recognizes that only when a program is predictable; that is, when milestones are being met, estimated costs are actual costs, and performance-to-contract specifications and ``key performance parameters'' are achieved, only then can we rely on the acquisition process to provide the joint warfighter with timely optimal capability at the most reasonable cost to the taxpayer. The approach provided for in this bill, which allows the Department of Defense to manage technology risks effectively, should help it move away from cost-reimbursable contracts and instead maximize its use of fixed price-type contracts. When coupled with initiatives that subject programs to full and open competition, this approach could save taxpayers billions of dollars. While we do not intend this bill as a panacea that will cure all that ails the defense procurement process, as it is, it constitutes an important next step in Congress's continuing effort to help the Department reform itself. Two final points. Since the chairman and I originally introduced the bill, the Department of Defense and others have raised various concerns about discrete elements of the bill. The bill now under consideration has benefited from that dialog as it addresses their reasonable concerns, without undermining the underlying intent of the bill, to put in place an evolutionary, knowledge-based acquisition process that metes out technology risks early in a program. I note for the record that we received testimony on this bill in our March 3, 2009, hearing. A day later, the President came out in support of the bill's underlying principles. Just a few days ago, he offered an unqualified endorsement. In addition, Secretary Gates and Dr. Ashton Carter, the new Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, have spoken approvingly of the bill. Also, the General Accountability Office, two former Defense acquisition chiefs, and various taxpayer advocacy and think tank organizations, including the Center for American Progress, Business Executives for National Security, the Project on Government Oversight, known as POGO, the National Taxpayers Union, NTU, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, PIRG, and Taxpayers for Common Sense, have also weighed in in support of the bill. I ask unanimous consent to have their statements printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Finally, I wish to say that there is another ongoing battle I will continue to engage in for as long as I am here, and that is the earmarking and porkbarreling that goes on in the Defense appropriations bill. I am proud to have served for many years on the authorizing committee of the Armed Services Committee of the Senate. I see year after year, time after time, billions of dollars of unwanted, unnecessary porkbarrel-earmark spending, many of it having nothing to do with the defense of this Nation and the men and women who serve it. I see earmark-porkbarrel projects highlighted even as short a time ago as yesterday in the Washington Post, and the outrageous abuse of the taxpayers' dollars. When Members of Congress were put in Federal prison, it was the Defense appropriations bill that was the source of some of the corruption. So I look forward to passing this to help reform the Pentagon. We still need to reform the way the Congress of the United States does business in porkbarreling and earmarking scarce taxpayers' dollars that should be used to defend this Nation and not for the sources of porkbarrel and earmark spending that has become rampant. The last Omnibus appropriations bill had 9,000 earmark-porkbarrel projects in it, thousands of them on the defense side of the appropriations. It is unacceptable. It is outrageous. The American people are sick and tired of it. I will continue that fight. Again, I thank the distinguished chairman, Senator Levin, for his leadership on this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. For the Joint Strike Fighter, the first full estimate was that the cost would be $2.866 billion. The current estimate and percentage change is a 38-percent increase. The Future Combat System was first estimated to cost $89-and-some billion. It is now up to $129 billion, a 45-percent increase in cost. The Virginia class submarine was originally estimated to be around $58 billion. It is now $81 billion, a 40-percent increase. The F-22, which will be the subject of debate on the floor of the Senate, original cost estimate was $88 billion, and the cost has increased by 195 percent. The Globemaster has a 57-percent increase, the C-17. The V-22 Joint Services Advanced Vertical Lift Aircraft, a 186- percent increase in cost. The list goes on and on, with the exception of the nuclear aircraft carrier, which has a 13-percent decrease in cost. We ought to see what they are doing. The programs GAO reviewed in 2008, the most used initial cost estimates from sources previously found to be unreliable, many still began with low levels of technical maturity. The promised capabilities continued to be delivered later than planned, and 10 of the Pentagon's largest programs equaling half of the Department's overall acquisition dollars are significantly over budget and under delivery in capability. So these are the reasons we are absolutely in need of addressing weapons acquisition reform as early and quickly as possible.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Chairman explained what is necessary. I urge my colleagues to come to the floor, if they have additional amendments, so we can finish the bill. It seems to be remarkably free of controversy.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe we have cleared some amendments. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding, and I believe also the chairman's understanding, that we may have one or two other amendments pending.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I also would express my appreciation to the Senator from Missouri for her hard work, not only on this amendment but on the committee. I thank her and I think it has improved the legislation. In consultation, I think the chairman is going to talk about what we intend to do. I understand there are a couple of amendments that may require recorded votes, but we really need to have all amendments in so we can wrap up this legislation either tonight or tomorrow, depending on the wishes of the respective leaders. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from Oklahoma for his strong statement and his eloquent description of the consequences of the budget resolution we are about to pass. This is a $3.5 trillion budget resolution. Frankly, it amounts to little more than generational theft. It represents a massive growth in Government spending and sets our Nation solidly on a course to bankruptcy. The resolution assumes a deficit of almost $1.7 trillion in fiscal year 2009, which is then supposed to fall to $523 billion in fiscal year 2014. It is only a 5-year budget, not a 10 year; it doesn't show the massive deficit increases that will kick in after 5 years under the President's plan. I have seen games played with budget resolutions over the years, but I think it is really remarkable that this budget, by being only 5 years, doesn't show that the debt held by the public will rise from $7.7 trillion in fiscal year 2009 to $11.5 trillion in 2014. This represents an increase in the debt as a percentage of gross domestic product from the current 55 percent to 66.7 percent in 2014. After trillions of dollars for bailouts and huge amounts of spending disguised as stimulus, this budget makes no hard choices and doesn't do anything more to ensure the future fiscal viability of our Nation. It is irresponsible. It is an irresponsible act of generational theft which will mortgage our children's futures and our grandchildren's futures. We cannot have this level of spending because it is totally unsustainable. Mr. President, we didn't have to do this. We could have made tough choices here. We could have adopted a resolution that required us to embark on a path to a balanced budget. The conference report contains reconciliation instructions that would allow for a massive overhaul of America's health care system with little or no input from the minority--just as this conference report had little or no input from the minority. I don't have to tell the American people and my colleagues that the American health care system is too expensive, it is broken, and we have to fix it. We want to be part of that solution. And to include it in a budget resolution, obviously, does a great disservice to the American people who expect a full and complete ventilation of the issues surrounding our health care system in America. I realize that elections have consequences. However, it doesn't justify the misuse of a process intended to help reduce Federal deficits--and, I might add, the Democratic proposals floating around recently would have the opposite effect. So, again, we are not changing the climate in Washington; we are continuing it. I want to make it clear that I understand that Republicans have, in the past, used the reconciliation process to further their party's agenda. I wish it had not been done. I hope it will not be done now. But the groundwork was laid, and I think this would be a grave mistake. Apparently, it is also possible that climate change could be addressed in the budget reconciliation process. I noted during the consideration of the Senate's budget resolution that, unlike the budget submitted by the President, this one only budgets for 5 years. Budgeting for a 5-year period hides the cost of the expansion of Government that is sure to take place after 2014. In a recent Washington Post op ed, entitled ``Hiding a Mountain of Debt,'' probably the most respected columnist in America, David Broder, wrote: The Democratic Congress is about to perform a coverup on the most serious threat to America's economic future. The Congressional Budget Office sketched the dimensions of the problem on March 20, and Congress reacted with shock. The CBO said that over the next 10 years, current policies would add a staggering $9.3 trillion to the national debt--one- third more than President Obama had estimated by using much more optimistic assumptions about future economic growth. The ever-growing national debt will require ever-larger annual interest payments, with much of that money going overseas to China, Japan and other countries that have been buying our bonds. Reacting to this scary prospect, the House and Senate budget committees took the paring knife to some of the spending proposals and tax cuts last week. But many of the proposed savings look more like bookkeeping gimmicks than realistic cutbacks. But the main device the Democratic budgeteers employed was simply to shrink the budget ``window'' from 10 years to 5. Instantly, $5 trillion in debt disappeared from view, along with the worry that long after the recession is past, the structural deficit would continue to blight the future of young working families. Here are some cold, hard facts. Our current national debt is $11.2 trillion. The projected deficit for 2009 is $1.7 trillion. The total cost of the recently enacted ``stimulus'' bill is over $1.1 trillion. We gave the TARP, Troubled Asset Relief Program, $700 billion--with every expectation being that the administration will request hundreds of billions of dollars more. President Obama recently signed an Omnibus appropriations bill totaling $410 billion. The Federal Reserve pumped another $1.2 trillion into our markets, and we now have before us a budget resolution totaling nearly $3.6 trillion. We bailed out the banks, insurance giants, and automakers--and the list goes on and on. We are seeing the largest transfer of authority from the private sector to the Government that we have ever seen in the history of our country. I see the chairman of the Budget Committee on the floor, whom I admire and respect. I asked him on the floor, during the consideration of the budget, whether health care would be considered in the reconciliation. The Senator's response was that he was against it. I note that he voted for it. We are in the midst of a severe recession. The economy shrank at a rate of 6.1 percent in the first quarter of this year. Times are tough; I don't have to tell any of my colleagues or any fellow Americans. What we are doing is committing an act of generational theft. We are laying a debt on future generations of Americans that is not sustainable. The chairman of the Budget Committee has been involved in recent years in attempts to reform Social Security. I will--and I hope my colleagues will--join him in that effort. Unless we reform Social Security and Medicare, we will have an unsustainable debt. In the recent campaign, the President campaigned on a theme of changing the climate in Washington. The climate hasn't changed. Bills have been passed with Democratic majorities voting almost completely for them--whether it be the stimulus, the omnibus, and other major pieces of legislation, and also on this budget--on a totally partisan basis. I understand that. I understand that elections have consequences. But to say you are going to ``change the climate'' in Washington and then not sit down in serious negotiations, whether it be on a stimulus package or on a budget, is not changing the climate. Let me tell you what serious negotiations are. I have been involved in them over the last 20-some years. I have sat down across the table in negotiations. What they are is compromise. They are compromise, where you say, OK, I give this and you give that. It is not visits and conversations, and it is not phone calls. It is face-to-face, hard- nosed negotiations based on compromise. That is how we got the gang of 14 and averted a crisis in this Senate that would have required only 51 votes for the confirmation of judges. That is how we got numerous pieces of legislation done on a bipartisan basis. That is not happening now in the Senate. I understand that. I understand that elections have consequences and the votes are there on the other side of the aisle. But I also say to my colleagues that I have been here quite a while. I have seen the Democrats in the majority and I have seen the Republicans in the majority. I saw abuses over on this side of the aisle. I am now seeing those same abuses repeated, reinforced, and done in a more egregious fashion than I have ever seen it in the years I have been a Member of the Senate. I believe our economy will recover. I am confident, because, as I said during the recent campaign, I believe with the foundations of our economy--entrepreneurship, productivity, the finest workers in the world, and best technology--we will come out of this malaise and crisis we are in, and our economy will be restored. But I can also tell you that we will have to debase the currency and experience inflation if we pass this kind of budget and we continue on this spending spree. What was the administration's reaction? It was that we will get together and cut $100 million in spending--after spending trillions and trillions of dollars in the most irresponsible fashion, in my view. Now we are the owners of the automobile industry and of banks. What is the Government going to own in America as we continue on this incredible takeover of the free enterprise system? The automobile manufacturers should have gone into structured bankruptcy a long time ago, and they could have come out and been viable. Instead, we are spending billions and billions of dollars of American taxpayer dollars to prop up an industry that needed to go into prestructured bankruptcy--which they probably will do after we have spent billions of dollars propping them up. I vigorously, strongly condemn and will vote against and oppose this budget resolution. It is laying the path to a crisis in America that may be as severe as this one if we experience the hyperinflation and debasement of the currency that can only be the result of deficits as far as the eye can see. With great respect for the chairman of the Budget Committee and those who worked hard on this issue, this is a product that the American people will pay a very heavy price for in the years to come. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I regret that I must oppose the nomination of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to be the next Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS. I reached this decision after examining her qualifications and positions on matters important to the health and well-being of the American public. I did not treat this decision lightly, only reaching it after very careful deliberation. The next Secretary of HHS is expected to oversee an effort to overhaul our Nation's health care system in the coming year, and Americans need to know that their rights as patients will be respected and protected by Washington. While I appreciate Governor Sebelius's efforts to respond to some of my concerns about different health care proposals that the administration supports, her responses did not offer the assurances that I sought. Namely, I am concerned over her responses to questions posed to her by the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP, Committee and Finance Committee members on the role of public health plans in health reform and over the role of comparative effectiveness and its potential role in dictating medical practice patterns. I believe that our Nation's health system is broken and in order to fix it, we must address health insurance as part of the overall reform effort. However, I believe that reforms should invigorate the free market system and promote competition among health insurance plans to cover every individual. I do not think that our Nation can afford, as Governor Sebelius and President Obama suggest, a government-run health plan included in a National Health Insurance Exchange. Such a plan would have many unfair advantages over private plans, including having the weight of the Federal Government to potentially administratively set prices. Additionally, and more importantly, a recent Lewin Group study estimated that about 120 million Americans could lose their employer-based coverage and be pushed into a government-run plan-- contradicting then Candidate Obama's promise that if Americans like the insurance they have today, nothing will change. My fears that a public plan would be unfairly advantaged and be the start to a single-payer system were unfortunately not alleviated by Governor Sebelius's responses. I strongly oppose a European style approach to health care where care is effectively rationed. Americans deserve the best health care system in the world--and with appropriate reforms we can continue to assure everyone access to quality health care. I also understand that today's medical research is increasingly focused on an individualized treatment approach for patients, and I believe that this treatment trend is threatened by efforts to embrace comparative effectiveness research. While I believe that comparative effectiveness research can provide patients and doctors with the vital information necessary to make the right decisions in an individual's medical case, I am greatly concerned over how this research could be used by the Federal Government. One only need look at Great Britain where centralized authorities--rather than a patient's doctor--decide whether cancer patients can receive lifesaving care and which patients are denied access to beneficial treatment options to see why so many of us are alarmed. While Governor Sebelius said that the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 prevented using comparative effectiveness research for coverage decisions, the National Institutes of Health appears to be moving in that direction by funding comparative effectiveness research that includes treatment cost comparisons. This trend is alarming and should be of concern to all individuals in vulnerable populations, such as minorities, women, or individuals with multiple conditions, who could be forced into a one- size-fits-all treatment model. Overseeing health reform will be a herculean task and Americans need to be assured that they will not lose the private health coverage that they want to keep or that their treatment options will have to be approved by a government bureaucrat. Mr. President, while I respect the right of President Obama to nominate Governor Sebelius to be the next Secretary of HHS, she has failed to provide us with those assurances, and I regret that I cannot support her confirmation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I see my colleague from Connecticut is waiting, so I will be brief. There is not much I can add to the words of my friend and colleague Senator Dorgan of North Dakota, whom I have had the privilege of working with in the past on a number of issues, especially the investigation of a scandal that is still ongoing, as a matter of fact, concerning Mr. Abramoff and his corrupting effect on both sides of the aisle. All of us just came back from a recess. All of us had an extended opportunity to visit with our constituents. In Arizona, I had that opportunity. Traveling around my State, I saw that there is confusion, there is frustration, and there is justified anger. People are not able to stay in their homes, and they are unable to keep their jobs, with unemployment continuing to go up. A State such as mine was hurt very badly because we were on the crest of the wave of the housing and the crashdown in the most dramatic fashion. So I understand and appreciate and sympathize with the fear and anger and frustration people feel about what is going on in America's economy today, and they want answers. Actually, they want two things: They want answers and they want relief. But they also want to know what are we going to do to prevent a crisis of this nature from ever happening again. So far we haven't given them any real good answers. That is why the proposal of Senator Dorgan, which I am pleased to join in, is so important at this time. The American people deserve to know what caused this crash, what caused this catastrophe which caused them to lose their homes, their families, their jobs, and futures. A select committee could get to work right away. We could be in business for a year. I have been on select committees before, including the one on POW and MIA issues. We were able to resolve the issue to a significant degree in a bipartisan fashion. I have no doubt this could be a bipartisan select committee. There have been select committees in the past and there may be select committees in the future, but this is vital to Americans now because they lack confidence in our economy today and in their future. Americans deserve to know what happened, to apportion responsibilities, and most importantly to know this will never befall them again. So I urge my colleagues to act and act quickly. We can talk about a commission. I have no objection to commissions. Some have been successful, some have not. The 9/11 Commission, which I was proud to sponsor, had magnificent results. The Commission on Social Security and Medicare disappeared like a stone. I understand there are various areas of jurisdiction. The distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee is here, the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee is here, and I know they are working hard, and I know they are going into their areas of responsibility. But I would allege that these areas of examination include economic, financial, banking, housing, trade, and a broad range of issues which are not under the jurisdiction of a specific committee. I understand jurisdictional proprietorship. I also understand some people may view this as some kind of encroachment upon their responsibilities. But another thing about a select committee is that it gets the kind of attention that select committees get. I have been around the Congress long enough to see that when there is a crisis, select committees get the kind of attention and the kind of results that can lead to the kinds of reforms that are necessary. We are in the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Everyone knows that. The American people deserve to know what happened, who caused it, and what we are going to do about it. It does not just lie under the jurisdiction of one committee. It crosses all lines, and it should be composed, frankly, of the most qualified people and staff we can come up with. So I urge my colleagues, in the interest not of specific committee jurisdiction but in the argument that this crisis, in its size and severity, is nearly unprecedented in American history and requires extraordinary actions. That is not business as usual. I urge my colleagues to set aside any partisan or jurisdictional differences and vote in favor of an immediate appointment of a select committee to immediately address this crisis which has affected the United States of America in the most painful fashion. I thank my colleague from North Dakota, who fits the best and finest and most admirable definition of a prairie populist. I thank him and I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I also thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and floor manager for his cooperation. We are trying to get the request for a recorded vote vitiated. Right now, there is a request on this side for a recorded vote. Whatever, I know the distinguished manager wants to move forward with the bill. We are ready to dispense with it as quickly as possible. Senator Dorgan and I have spoken at sufficient length. I thank Senator Dorgan again for this very important legislation. Why is it important? Mr. President, America is in the midst of the greatest economic crisis of our lifetime. The American people are angry and confused. They have a right to know what caused this. But, most of all, they have a right to know the path out so that we can prevent it from ever happening again to the American people. All the cards have to be put on the table. Everything that happened that caused this--somebody called it a ``house of cards'' that collapsed. Many Americans lost homes, jobs, health insurance, and their very futures. They deserve to know. The most effective way to do that, in my view, is a select committee. I have seen select committees in action before. They have been efficient and effective. The American people have a right to know what caused this train wreck and how we can prevent it from ever happening again. I hope my colleagues cannot only voice-vote it but put enough pressure on so that we could act immediately with the appointment of this select committee with subpoena powers, which I am confident will have bipartisan participation, bipartisan support, and the nonpartisan support of the American people. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the confirmation of Assistant Secretary Christopher Hill as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. I do not often come to the floor and object to nominees of the President of the United States. I believe elections have consequences, and that gives a President of the United States the benefit of the doubt and, even more, as far as the selection of the team he assembles in order to do the best job possible. So it is on a rare occasion that I object to a nominee of the President. But for too long and too deeply the United States of America has been involved in Iraq. There is a fragile situation there. We have recently seen an uptick in violence and attacks by extremist elements within Iraq. Now is not the time to send a person who I believe is not only unqualified on the face of it but also, in my view, has not conducted himself in the most admirable fashion in his previous work. Today, we find ourselves in a situation few could have foreseen just a few years ago. In late 2006, the situation in Iraq was deteriorating at an alarming rate. The Government was mired in internal strife and deadlock, sectarian violence crippled the lives of everyday Iraqis, and the outlook for the country's future was increasingly bleak. Yet in the face of seemingly unsurmountable challenges, a drastic change in strategy was introduced. GEN David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker launched and executed a civil-military counterinsurgency plan for Iraq that turned the tide of violence in a timeframe and to a degree that surprised even the optimists. The result has been a decrease in violence to the lowest levels since 2003 and real hope about the future of the country in which we have expended so much precious American blood and treasure. Yet as our commanders have repeatedly warned, these gains, though real, are fragile. The recent uptick in violence demonstrates anew that there remain elements within Iraq who wish to continue the violence and use their power to disrupt the transition to a more stable, democratic, and tolerant society. There also remain a number of difficult political and economic issues that lay ahead, including the distribution of oil revenues, the resettlement of refugees and internally displaced Iraqis, and ongoing tensions between Arabs and Kurds. Ambassador Ryan Crocker was able to tackle these and other issues with great skill and expertise, ensuring unprecedented cooperation between the military, the Embassy, and their counterparts in the Iraqi Government. Ambassador Crocker's remarkable tenure was a byproduct of his lengthy career in the Middle East, not simply incidental to his long record of experience in the region. He had served two tours in Baghdad previously, including in the Coalition Provisional Authority, and he also served as Ambassador to several neighboring countries, including Lebanon, Kuwait, and Syria. His longstanding relationships with the region's leaders, his deep understanding of the complexities of Arab and Iraqi culture, and his ability to speak fluent Arabic were instrumental to his success. Now, as we reduce the number of combat forces in Iraq, our national interests there will depend to an increasing degree on the skill of our diplomacy. I believe Ambassador Crocker's successor should possess many of the same traits he demonstrated, including experience in the region, an understanding of its players and dynamics, and relevant language skills. While Ambassador Hill has developed regional expertise, it is not in the Middle East. He has served as Ambassador in Europe and Asia, and speaks, admirably, three European languages but does not speak Arabic. He has not had the opportunity to work with leaders in Iraq or in the region. In fact, he has never been to Iraq. He has limited experience at best in working with the military in the areas of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency. The next U.S. Ambassador to Iraq will take over at a critical time in history of our involvement there. The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad is the world's largest and, along with our Embassy in Kabul, one of the two most important. The next Ambassador will play a vital role in consolidating our hard-won gains and ensuring that the country does not backslide into violence and turmoil. Given the enormity of our stakes in Iraq, I do not believe it is appropriate to select as our next Ambassador someone who will require on-the-job training in Iraqi affairs and in Middle East issues. This may well be, I am afraid, the case with Mr. Hill. There are a number of well-qualified individuals both within the Foreign Service and without it who would make excellent U.S. Ambassadors to Iraq. I do not believe Mr. Hill is among this number. Our next Ambassador must hit the ground running and quickly work with the ground commander, Iraqi leaders, and others to confront the still great challenges that will present themselves over the next several years. We have made many mistakes in Iraq over a number of years, and they have cost us dearly. We have seen individuals take charge of U.S. efforts there without the background and experience necessary to succeed. I do not want us to repeat this mistake. In addition to my concerns about Ambassador Hill's lack of Middle East experience, I also have questions arising from his tenure as U.S. Envoy to the six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear program. His legacy in those talks was controversial, as evidenced by complaints that other members of the interagency process were cut out of crucial policy deliberations. In a cable reported in the Washington Post, Thomas Schieffer, then-U.S. Ambassador to Japan, warned of irreparable harm to our relations with Tokyo resulting from an agreement that did not adequately address Japanese interests, including the issue of abductions. Ambassador Schieffer added that he could not play a role in remedying this state of affairs because Ambassador Hill had cut him out of the flow of information on North Korea. Members of the Senate, including my colleague from Kansas, have asserted that Ambassador Hill broke a commitment made before a congressional committee to include North Korean Special Envoy for Human Rights Jay Lefkowitz to all future negotiating sessions with North Korea. I am aware that Ambassador Hill has asserted that he did not, in fact, break such a commitment, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Lefkowitz was not included in these subsequent negotiating sessions. Given the key role the Congress and non-State Department agencies play in our Iraq policy, however, I believe it is crucial that the next Ambassador to Iraq begin with a surplus of trust and good will with both. Ambassador Hill, I am afraid, starts with a deficit. Ambassador Hill testified on October 25, 2007, before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee that ``clearly we cannot be reaching a nuclear agreement with North Korea if at the same time they are proliferating. It is not acceptable.'' Yet, just months later, Ambassador Hill reached an agreement with Pyongyang despite its alleged nuclear proliferation to Syria, and reports have emerged of Iranian- North Korean cooperation in missile technology. In recent weeks alone, North Korea has tested a ballistic missile in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions, expelled inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, removed seals on equipment, and turned off surveillance cameras at the Yongbyon nuclear plant and announced that it is withdrawing from the six-party talks. While Mr. Hill did not bear sole responsibility for the content of U.S. policy toward North Korea, nor for the outcomes I have just described, it is nevertheless inescapable that he has played the key U.S. role in the formulation of policy toward Pyongyang for the past several years. To the eyes of most objective observers, those policies have failed. Finally, I am troubled at comments and characterizations that appeared in a recent book by New York Times reporter David Sanger. In a statement to associates, for example, Ambassador Hill is quoted--and it is a direct quote--as saying of members of the administration--the administration which he supposedly served--``these [expletive] don't know how to negotiate. Everything is Appomattox. It's just `Come out with your hands up.' It's not even really Appomattox, because at the end of Appomattox they let the Confederates keep their horses.'' This is perhaps the most colorful but not the only reference along these lines. Mr. Sanger quotes Ambassador Hill as saying that his instructions ``showed a complete lack of understanding about how the world works,'' and the book, along with other accounts, cites numerous examples of Mr. Hill going beyond his instructions as authorized by the Department of State. I know loyalty is a rare commodity in this town, and I do not expect a lot of it. I have seen a lot of situations where people seek to burnish their own images and their own reputations. I guess in some ways this is kind of a classic example, this quote of Ambassador Hill's, talking about the people he works for: ``These [expletive] don't know how to negotiate.'' And he says--and it is a direct quote again--that his instructions ``showed a complete lack of understanding about how the world works.'' I wonder if Mr. Hill really felt this strongly, as these quotes indicate in Mr. Sanger's book, that he might have felt motivated for the good of the country to speak out publicly to remonstrate that ``These [expletive] don't know how to negotiate.'' Instead, many times we see people more interested in how a New York Times reporter describes them than they are in serving the people who appoint them to the positions of responsibility. In response to a lengthy set of questions I submitted to Ambassador Hill, he wrote that fulfilling the oath taken by a Foreign Service officer ``means respecting the chain of command and remaining loyal to my leadership.'' In this, I agree with Mr. Hill. Mr. Hill, if those quotes are accurate--and I have no reason to believe they are not-- obviously did not feel so at the time. But, most importantly, the stakes in Iraq today could hardly be higher. We have been at this war for 6 long and difficult years. We made many mistakes. We paid an enormous price for the gains we see in that country today. And I must say, in all candor, we have seen another Ambassador to Iraq who went there without experience, and things did not turn out so well. There are qualified individuals who are serving this Nation in and out of the Foreign Service. It well known that Marine General Zinni was offered the job, at least by some members of the administration, and then somehow that offer disappeared. The fact is, we have sacrificed a lot. We owe it to the brave men and women who have sacrificed so much to ensure that the remarkable progress they have achieved translates into long-term stability as our combat troops begin leaving the country. After meeting with Ambassador Hill and examining his record, the concerns I raised following his nomination last month remain. For this reason, I must oppose his nomination as the next U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the McCain substitute amendment be modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the chairman in allowing me to do this modification. I am aware it could have been objected to, and I would like to say that the sense-of-the-Senate provision is removed because I believe that sense-of-the-Senate resolutions are not done this year in the budget resolution. There was a formula glitch that affected some of the funding levels. We have corrected the problem in the modification. We have corrected budget authority and spending levels. I thank my friend for allowing me to make this modification.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Republican time be allocated as follows, between now and the time of the vote: that Senator Hutchison be allowed 5 minutes on the substitute amendment, Senator Graham 5 minutes, Senator Coburn 5 minutes, myself 5 minutes, Senator Gregg 10 minutes, Senator Inhofe 3 minutes, Senator Sessions 5 minutes, Senator Chambliss 2 minutes, and Senator Wicker 2 minutes.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison.

Mr. McCAIN. I yield myself a couple of minutes. First, the fundamental difference between the proposal before us and my proposal is that the budget as proposed has a growth in 2010 for nondefense spending of 8 percent, with about 1 percent growth in each of the following years from 2011 to 2014. That is an old gimmick. The budget proposal before us caps discretionary funding in 2010, which front-loads all the higher costs in the first year. Without caps in the outyears, we will find ourselves right back here next year listening to why the administration can't possibly live with an increase in 2011 of less than 1 percent as recommended in the budget. Mandatory spending is more than Social Security and Medicare. It is general sciences, space, energy, natural resources. Every estimate we have is that we could cut 10 percent immediately in unnecessary and wasteful spending and fraud across the board, including Medicare, including all of these other programs. We are asking Americans who are tightening their belts, we are asking every State legislature in America to make tough decisions, and we are not making those tough decisions. We are just going on as if it were business as usual. An 8- percent increase in spending for 2010? Tell me one State legislature in America or any family in America that can afford an 8-percent increase in their budget. Only we can because we print money. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. I yield myself 30 seconds. I didn't mention at the beginning of my response, but I wish to express my appreciation for the way the chairman, Senator Conrad, and Senator Gregg have handled this debate. People have had a good opportunity to express their views. The worst part, obviously, is coming up in about 20 minutes. Both the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the committee have handled the debate in a fashion better than I have ever seen in the past. I congratulate both of them for allowing virtually every Member of the Senate to express their views on this important issue. I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. I think he is on his way.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank both leaders. I thank my friend from Nevada. He and I came to the House of Representatives together many years ago. I thank him for his leadership. As he mentioned, we have strong disagreements from time to time, but we have always made a strong effort--and I think successfully--to remain respectful of each other's views. I appreciate his kind words today and that of the Republican leader. I thank them.