John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. That would make the vote at 5:25. I have no objection.

Mr. McCAIN. Parliamentary inquiry: Is it necessary to call up amendment No. 2918 or is it in order according to the unanimous consent agreement?

Mr. McCAIN. At this time, I call up amendment No. 2918 to be in order according to the unanimous consent agreement propounded by the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Washington be recognized for 14 minutes and then followed by the Senator from Kentucky for 12 minutes; and then I see the Senator from Montana on the floor, so the Senator from Montana for 5 minutes, followed by the Senator from Connecticut--this is going back and forth on both sides--for 14 minutes. I hope by then we will have been able to have the speakers and their times together so we could set a limit on this debate when everybody is heard.

Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will take a minute to say to my colleagues we have several speakers lined up, and if Senators would come over and speak and also call as to whether you wish to speak and how much time, because we, I think, are close to entering into an agreement on speakers and also a time agreement so we can set a time for the vote on the Webb amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the Webb amendment, that a side-by-side alternative to the Webb amendment be considered, which is in keeping with the agreement--well, I withdraw my request because I will wait until Senator Levin comes so there is no misunderstanding, except to say we do intend, after the disposition of the Webb amendment, to propose a side-by-side amendment which then we, I hope, could act on quickly because it is basically the debate we have been having. There is also the habeas amendment pending, as I understand it, and negotiations I think are still going on with regard to that issue. I hope we could get that resolved, and then we will try to nail down the number of amendments so we can address the issue of Iraq and associated amendments so we can then move forward with the rest of the DOD authorization bill. I will very soon have conversations with Senator Levin, but in the meantime, if there are those on either side who wish to speak on this amendment, please make their wishes known, and the length of their statement, so we can begin to put together a unanimous consent agreement, which would then allow for a vote on the Webb amendment. I say this after having had discussions with Senator Webb on the issue. I wish to make one additional comment. Dr. Kissinger had a piece in the Washington Post on Sunday which I had printed in yesterday's Record. I also commend to my colleague an article by Frederick W. Kagan entitled ``A Web of Problems.''

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, and I would not object, but I ask my friend from Michigan, will the vote on this amendment have a 60-vote requirement?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend from Michigan. We would like to get a time agreement on debate on the Webb amendment, but I do not know how many speakers we have on our side. We will be proposing an amendment that has been put together by my other colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, as a sort of side-by-side effect. I thank the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, for working on an amendment that I think expresses very clearly we all want all our troops home. We understand the stress and the strain that has been inflicted on the men and women in the military--and the Guard and Reserves--and we admire the motivation and the commitment of Senator Webb from Virginia. We are, obviously, in opposition to his amendment and think his colleague from Virginia has an alternative idea that expresses the will of practically all of us to relieve this burden on the men and women in the military. So I wish to thank my friend from Michigan, and I also wish to say again, hopefully, within a relatively short period of time we can get a time agreement on debate and vote as soon as possible on this issue. This same amendment has been debated before in the Senate and it is pretty well known to our colleagues, although it is very clear that many want to speak on it because of its importance. So I thank my friend from Michigan and both Senators from Virginia, for whom I have the greatest respect, and we will look forward to a rather unusual situation here in the Senate--a vote on a resolution by one Senator from Virginia and a resolution from another Senator from Virginia on the same issue. I look forward to this debate. I know it will be both educational and, I hope, enlightening and informative not only to our colleagues but to the American people.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I reserve the right to object.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, let us proceed with this debate, keeping in mind that the underlying bill, the National Defense Authorization Act, contains many non-Iraq provisions which constitute good defense policy and which will strengthen the ability of our country to defend itself. That is why the committee voted unanimously to report the bill, which fully funds the President's $648 billion defense budget request, authorizes a 3.5-percent pay raise for all military personnel, increases Army and Marine end-strength, reforms the system that serves wounded veterans, and provides necessary measures to avoid waste, fraud, and abuse in defense procurement. It is a good bill. It is a bipartisan bill. I believe we need to send it to the President's desk. While the Senate moved off the bill in July and on to other things and then went on to a month-long recess, America's soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen continued fighting bravely and tenaciously in Iraq in concert with their Iraqi counterparts. Some Senators undoubtedly welcomed the delay in considering the Defense bill, believing that General Petraeus would deliver to Congress a report filled only with defeat and despair. If this was their hope, they were sorely disappointed. As we all now know, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker reported what some of us argued before the bill was pulled 2 months ago: that the surge is working, that we are making progress toward our goals, and that success, while long, hard, and by no means certain, is possible. We are succeeding only after 4 years of failures, years which have exacted an enormous cost on our country and on the brave men and women who fight in Iraq on our behalf. Some of us from the beginning warned against the Rumsfeld strategy of too few troops, insufficient resources, and a plan predicated on hope rather than on the difficult business of stabilization and counterinsurgency. We lost years to that strategy, years we cannot get back. In the process, the American people became saddened, frustrated, and angry. I, too, am heartsick at the terrible price we have paid for nearly 4 years of mismanaged war. But I also know America cannot simply end this effort in frustration and accept the terrible consequences of defeat in Iraq. We cannot choose to lose in Iraq. I believe we must give our commanders the time and support they have asked for to win this conflict. Ralph Peters, the distinguished military strategist, summed it up best, noting that Congress's failure to support General Petraeus: Would be a shame, since, after nearly 4 years of getting it miserably wrong in Iraq, we are finally getting it right. In 2 days of testimony and countless interviews, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker described how we are finally getting it right. We finally have in place a counterinsurgency strategy, one we should have been following from the beginning, which makes the most effective use of our strength and does not advance the tactics of our enemy. This new strategy, backed by a tactical surge in troops, is the only approach that has resulted in real security improvements in Iraq. General Petraeus reported that the overall number of ``security incidents'' in Iraq has declined in 8 of the last 12 weeks and that sectarian violence has dropped substantially since the change in strategy. Civilian deaths nationwide are down by nearly half since December and have dropped by some 70 percent in Baghdad. Deaths resulting from sectarian violence have come down by 80 percent since December, and the number of car bombings and suicide attacks has declined in each of the past 5 months. Anyone who has traveled recently to Anbar or Diyala or Baghdad can see the improvements that have taken place over the past months. With violence down, commerce has risen, and the bottom-up efforts to forge counterterrorism alliances are bearing tangible fruit. This is not to argue that Baghdad or other areas have suddenly become safe--they have not--but such positive developments illustrate General Petraeus's contention that Americans and Iraqi forces have achieved substantial progress. There are many challenges remaining, and the road ahead is long and tough. The Maliki government has not taken advantage of our efforts to enable reconciliation and is not functioning as it must. While violence has declined significantly, it remains high, and success is not certain. We can be sure, however, that should the Congress choose to lose by legislating a date for withdrawal, and thus surrender, or by mandating a change in mission that would undermine our efforts in Iraq, then we will fail for certain. Make no mistake, the consequences of America's defeat in Iraq will be terrible and long lasting. There is in some corners a belief that we can simply turn the page in Iraq, come home, and move on to other things. This is dangerously wrong. If we surrender in Iraq, we will be back--in Iraq and elsewhere--in many more desperate fights to protect our security and at an even greater cost in American lives and treasure. Two weeks ago, General Jim Jones testified before the Armed Services Committee and outlined what he believes to be the consequences of such a course: ``a precipitous departure which results in a failed state in Iraq,'' he said, ``will have a significant boost in the numbers of extremists, jihadists, in the world, who will believe that they will have toppled the major power on Earth and that all else is possible. And I think it will not only make us less safe; it will make our friends and allies less safe. And the struggle will continue. It will simply be done in different and in other areas.'' Some Senators would like to withdraw our troops from Iraq so we can get back to fighting what they believe to be the real war on terror. This, too, is inaccurate. Iraq has become the central front in the global war on terror, and failure there would turn Iraq into a terrorist sanctuary, in the heart of the Middle East, next door to Iran, the world's largest state-sponsor of terrorism. If we fail in Iraq, we will concede territory to jihadists to plan attacks against America and our friends and allies. The region could easily descend into chaos, wider war, and genocide, and we should have no doubt about who will take advantage. The Iranian President has stated his intentions bluntly. This is the same fellow who announced his dedication and his nation's dedication to the extinction of the state of Israel the same President of the country that is exporting lethal explosive devices of the most lethal and dangerous kind into Iraq, killing American service men and women. This President said this: Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap. We cannot allow an Iranian dominated Middle East to take shape in the context of wider war and terrorist safehavens. General Jones is just one of many distinguished national security experts who warn against the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. As Brent Scowcroft said, ``The costs of staying are visible; the costs of getting out are almost never discussed . . . If we get out before Iraq is stable, the entire Middle East region might start to resemble Iraq today. Getting out is not a solution.'' Natan Sharansky has, written that a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces ``could lead to a bloodbath that would make the current carnage pale by comparison.'' And Henry Kissinger warns that, ``An abrupt withdrawal from Iraq would not end the war; it would only redirect it.'' The proponents of withdrawal counter that none of these terrible consequences would unfold should any of their various proposals become law. On the contrary, they argue, U.S. forces could, when not engaged in training the Iraqi forces, engage in targeted counterterrorism operations. But our own military commanders say that such a narrow approach to the complex Iraqi security environment will not succeed, and that moving in with search and destroy missions to kill and capture terrorists, only to immediately cede the territory to the enemy, is a recipe for failure. How can they be so sure? It's simple--this focus on training and counterterrorism constitutes the very strategy that so plainly failed for the first four years of this war. To return to such an unsuccessful approach is truly ``staying the course,'' and it is a course that will inevitably lead to our defeat and to catastrophic consequences for Iraq, the region, and the security of the United States. General Petraeus and his commanders have embraced a new strategy, one that can, over time, lead to success in Iraq. They are fighting smarter and better, and in a way that can give Iraqis the security and opportunity to make decisions necessary to save their country from the abyss of genocide and a permanent and spreading war, and in a way that will safeguard fundamental American interests. They ask just two things of us: the time to continue this strategy and the support they need to carry out their mission. They must have both, and I will fight to ensure that they do. As we engage in this debate, I hope that each of us will recall our most solemn allegiance, which is not to party or politics but to country. I have heard on this floor the claim that our efforts in Iraq somehow constitute ``Bush's war'' or the ``Republican war.'' Nothing could be farther from the truth. Presidents do not lose wars. Political parties do not lose wars. Nations lose wars and suffer the consequences, or prevail and enjoy the blessings of their success. All of us want our troops to come home, and to come home as soon as possible. But we should want our soldiers to return to us with honor, the honor of victory that is due all of those who have paid with the ultimate sacrifice. We have many responsibilities to the people who elected us, but one responsibility outweighs all the others, and that is to protect this great and good Nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. This is a serious debate and one we engage at a time of national peril. The Americans who make the greatest sacrifices have earned the right to insist that we do our duty, as best we can and remember to whom and what we owe our first allegiance--to the security of the American people and to the ideals upon which our Nation was founded.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I would like to repeat what my friend and distinguished chairman said: We need to get opening statements done. The debate has now begun on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. We are looking at the date of September 18, and we want to get this bill done as quickly as possible and to conference with the House so we can provide the much needed equipment, training, pay, and care for our veterans as well as our military personnel. I urge my colleagues, if they have any statements to make on this bill, that they come over and make them. I also would like to point out, as my friend from Michigan has, that we will be working on the large number of amendments on the bill as well as the provisions on Iraq. The sooner we complete action on this legislation, the sooner we can get it to conference with the other body and to the President's desk for signature. This is not the first time we have addressed this bill, and I hope it is the last for the National Defense Authorization Act, at least for fiscal year 2008. I again express my appreciation and admiration for the distinguished chairman, Senator Levin, who has not only worked closely with this side of the aisle but also has worked very hard to forge a bipartisan bill that received a unanimous vote from the committee upon its reporting to the floor of the Senate. Obviously, we have a great debate here again on the issue of Iraq with the consideration of several amendments, so I hope we will be able to also dispose of those as quickly as possible. As all of my colleagues know, we have received the much anticipated testimony of GEN David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, and the Senate now begins a debate of historic proportions. In my opinion, at stake is nothing less than the future of Iraq, the Middle East, and the security of all Americans for decades to come. The Senate faces a series of stark choices: whether to build on the success of the surge and fight for additional gains or whether to set a date for Americans to surrender in Iraq and thereby suffer the terrible consequences that will ensue. As we consider each of the Iraq-related amendments filed on this bill, let us understand the enormous consequences of decisions that are taken here. Henry Kissinger framed the debate in a Washington Post article this weekend, saying: American decisions in the next few months will affect the confidence and morale of potential targets, potential allies, and radical Jihadists around the globe. Above all, they will define the U.S. capacity to contribute to a safer and better world. I ask unanimous consent to have the article by Dr. Kissinger from the Washington Post over the weekend printed in the Record at this time.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, it is my understanding in my conversations with the chairman, we are moving forward in narrowing down amendments so we have an additional managers' package so we have a manageable number of amendments that need to be debated and voted on, and we will try to get time agreements on those, as well as the Iraqi amendments.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, will the distinguished chairman yield for a question?

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I will object. I say to my friend from Oregon, I understand this is the hate crimes bill. I appreciate his passion and commitment on this issue. There is no one more respected in the Senate who has had the situation of my distinguished friend from Oregon. But we are on the Defense bill. We have to move forward with the amendments. We have to get it done. We have both Iraq as well as the impending 1st of October date staring us in the face. At this time I object to the request by the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman for his kind remarks. All things considered, I would rather the situation be reversed, but I certainly do appreciate the opportunity. One of the nice things about this body is that over a 20-year period, the Senator from Michigan and I have had the honor of working together on behalf of this Nation's defense on this very important committee, the Armed Services Committee. One of the previous chairman's statues presides in the office named after him--the office in which we both work and where we spend our time on the committee. I believe given our past history, I say to the chairman, that it is very possible we could dispose of this bill by the end of the week. One of the reasons why the chairman and I both made the argument to our colleagues to get it done is because we have to go to conference with the House, the other body, which has a number of different provisions that have to be reconciled. Then we have to get it to the President's desk, and October 1 is the beginning of a new fiscal year. So I hope our colleagues all appreciate the urgency. One of the provisions of this legislation is the Wounded Warriors. We were all appalled at the conditions at Walter Reed. That is why we in the committee, with some guidance from a distinguished commission--a lot of guidance from a distinguished commission, headed by Senator Dole and former Secretary Shalala. These are very important issues for the medical care of the men and women who are serving. It will not happen unless we get this legislation passed. So we are kind of asking for a higher calling here to understand the necessity to get this bill to the President's desk before the October 1. Of course, we can have a continuing resolution. We have done that, not on the DOD bill, as I recall. I don't know if the chairman recalls it. That, obviously, does not do what these thousands of hours of hard work on our part and on the part of the military leaders and the members of staff do. It is my fine hope, I say to the chairman, that we are able to finish this bill this week with the cooperation of all involved. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the bill before us is a budget buster. It is over $3 billion above the President's budget request and contains numerous earmarked projects, worth over $2 billion. It should be soundly rejected. Funding for transportation infrastructure and transportation safety is of enormous importance and I know all of us support doing what we can to improve our Nation's transportation system, from our roads and bridges to our air service. The tragic bridge collapse in Minnesota in August was a harsh reminder of just how critical our responsibilities are to balance competing transportation funding needs. But we simply must do so in a fiscally responsible manner. The Senate's action Monday to increase the obligation limitation for the highway trust fund by $1 billion is not the answer nor was it responsible. It might have been politically expedient, but it is not the answer. We cannot afford to simply spend more and more of taxpayers' hard- earned dollars without consequences. It is time for Congress to start making choices among competing priorities, just as American families do each month with their family budgets. In this bill, we are not underfunding transportation; we are misdirecting infrastructure funding to earmarked projects that are questionable and certainly not urgently needed. According to the Reason Foundation's 16th Annual Highway Performance Report, 24 percent of our Nation's bridges were deficient or obsolete in 2005. Minnesota actually ranked 5th best in the Nation, yet we watched with horror as one of the State's major thoroughfares crumbled from disrepair. The Wall Street Journal reported on August 22, 2007, that a week before the bridge collapse, a Congressman from Minnesota inserted over $10 million in earmarks for rail transit, bike trails and the ``Kids Peace Mesabi Academy,'' but not a penny for bridge or infrastructure repair. In addition to our aging bridges, our Interstate Highway System is over 50 years old and not equipped to handle today's traffic levels. So what has Congress done in response to this reality? We have increased earmarking of our highway program funding by a staggering level: The 1982 highway bill included 10 demonstration projects totaling $386 million; the 1987 highway bill included 152 demonstration projects totaling $1.4 billion; the 1991 highway bill included 538 location- specific projects totaling $6.1 billion; the 1998 highway bill included 1,850 earmarked projects totaling $9.3 billion; and the 2005 highway bill included over 5,634 earmarked projects totaling $21.6 billion. So instead of allowing states the ability to allocate their highway dollars to their most pressing needs, like deficient bridges, we are funding a significantly higher level of bike paths and highway beautification projects and sidewalk improvements. When will we learn? When will we learn that this is not what the American people want or deserve from their elected representatives. How many more infrastructure tragedies will occur before we change our earmarking ways? Instead of raising the gas taxes, as some Members of Congress have suggested, for the millions of Americans who are already paying more for gas than ever before, the Federal and State governments must prioritize transportation spending to focus on projects with the most need rather than building ``bridges to nowhere.'' If Congress fails to recover from its addiction to earmarks, then crumbling bridges, congested highways, and crowded airports will continue much to the determent of all Americans. Congress recently passed an ethics reform bill that requires the disclosure of the authorship of earmarks. Ninety-one Members of this body requested transportation earmarks in this appropriations bill. For example, this bill contains $4 million for a bridge in Arkansas that does not appear in the Arkansas State transportation improvement plan, thereby questioning its necessity. The bill also includes almost $2 million for a study on the effects of dust suppressant chemicals on Federal highways, $2 million above the administration's request for volcano monitoring in Alaska, and $2 million to prevent the frequent U turns at the gates of the Los Alamos labs in New Mexico. Of course, the bill includes a wide range of transportation earmarks. The bill also contains $8 million for airport improvements to Cape Cod and Nantucket, $2.5 million for improvements at the Niagara Falls International Airport, and $1.5 million for improvements at the airport in Palm Springs, CA. No doubt these popular tourist destinations could have helped to pay for these improvements themselves rather then requiring all taxpayers to subsidize such marvelous destinations that many taxpayers may never be able to afford to visit. The bill also provides $3.5 million to construct an airport in Akutan, AK--population 767--when an alternative airport is less than 55 miles away and $1 million for airport improvements at Lewis University, IL, for its 1,000 students. There are also earmarks for ferry service, such as $1 million for Nassau County, NY, which is the sixth richest county in the Nation. Again, taxpayers nationwide must support and sustain these projects despite their use by a few. The underlying bill provides funding for the Department of Transportation's 1-year pilot program that would allow a maximum of 100 Mexican trucks to enter and travel to a single destination in the United States this year. This pilot program is the result of planning and preparation over the past 14 years. NAFTA, passed by Congress in 1993 and signed into law by President Clinton in 1994, mandated the opening of our southern border to Mexican trucking operations. Congress set forth stringent preconditions for opening the border in section 350 of the fiscal year 2002 transportation appropriations bill, and DOT complied with all 22 of those requirements. The Inspector General has reported five times that the Department has substantially met those safety requirements. It is now time to allow these two countries to move forward with this 1-year pilot program that will have numerous economic benefits for the two nations. Unfortunately, the Senate has voted 74 to 24 to prevent the pilot from going forward. As such, we continue to fall short of abiding by the obligations we committed to when we approved NAFTA. In addition to my concerns with the transportation title, this bill provides more than $3 billion above the President's budget request for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Like previous years, the accompanying report contains an enormous number of earmarks in the Economic Development Initiative and neighborhood initiative accounts to the tune of more than 300 earmarks totaling nearly $300 million. Again, I would like to express my disappointment that Senate leadership has brought to the floor a bill that is $3 billion over the administration's request containing hundreds of earmarks. Rightly, the administration has announced that the President will veto this bill unless its price tag is reduced. That is the correct action. During my recent travels around the Nation, I hear again and again from citizens who are fed up with pork barrel spending and yet, Congress fails to listen. It is a shame, and I can only hope that the American people will join me in expressing their displeasure with this bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I support amendment No. 2708 that would prevent contributions to organizations that perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning. I was unable to be in attendance for this vote. However, if I had been present, I would have voted in favor of this amendment. Similarly, I support amendment No. 2707 that would prohibit funding of organizations that support coercive abortion. If I had been present, I would have voted in favor of this amendment. I oppose amendment No. 2719 that would rescind the ``Mexico City Policy'' in its entirety, and, had I been present, I would have voted against it. Life is the most important gift each of us is given, and I believe that abortion unfairly takes the innocent life of an unborn child who deserves protection, morally and legally. For this reason, I oppose abortion, except in the case of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is endangered. The ``Mexico City Policy'' denies U.S. population assistance funds to private organizations that campaign to legalize abortion in foreign countries, or which otherwise promote abortion as a method of family planning. I believe that we must be committed to protecting the life of unborn children, and I do not support the expenditure of U.S. taxpayer dollars for the purposes of funding abortions, whether inside or outside the United States. While I understand the need for family planning services, particularly in developing countries, and support efforts to meet these needs, I do not believe that abortion is an appropriate form of birth control. For this reason, I oppose the allocation of taxpayer money to organizations that promote and provide abortion services.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is debating the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. This is a vital safety net program that offers health care coverage to one of our most vulnerable populations, low-income children. I support a timely, fiscally responsible reauthorization of this program. The SCHIP program has served a critical purpose for many years. In 1997, Congress created SCHIP to come to the aid of the millions of children who were going without health insurance because their families were stuck between earning too much money to qualify for Medicaid and not having enough money to purchase private health care coverage. I was pleased to join many of my colleagues in supporting its establishment. Thanks to this program, low-income children have been able to count on a safety net program that can provide them with health care coverage that they might otherwise go without. I strongly support the central purpose of SCHIP and believe that children of low-income families should have health insurance coverage. In some ways, this program has been a great success, as we have been able to drop the rate of uninsured children by nearly 25 percent from 1996 to 2005 and SCHIP covered about 6.6 million children last year. At the same time, however, I am greatly concerned that the program has expanded beyond what Congress first intended. In some cases, SCHIP coverage has been extended to middle-income children and to certain adult populations. I don't believe that was the intention of Congress when we created this program. This has complicated SCHIP reauthorization, and I believe that if we allow SCHIP to grow beyond its original purpose, SCHIP spending will grow exponentially and jeopardize its future success. Several options have been proposed to reauthorize the SCHIP program. One, the CHIP Reauthorization Act, which was reported by the Finance Committee, would greatly expand SCHIP beyond its original framework, lead to an explosion in new spending, and reduce private health coverage in our country. The other, the Kids First Act, which I support, would keep SCHIP's focus on providing low-income children with health insurance in a fiscally responsible manner. I am concerned over the direction that the CHIP Reauthorization Act would take SCHIP and the precedent it would set for future authorization bills. The current SCHIP baseline is currently $25 billion; however, under the Finance Committee's proposal, spending would explode by an additional $35 billion and will end up costing $60 billion over 5 years. Not only that, according to CBO, at the end of 5 years, in order to comply with pay-go rules, this bill reduces the SCHIP allotment in the fifth year 2013 from $8.4 billion to $600 million. If there is anyone who seriously believes Congress will cut SCHIP funding by $8 billion in 1 year and cause millions who would then rely on SCHIP to lose coverage, I have got some beachfront property in Yuma, AZ, that I am willing to sell. The CBO report also points out that if the costs of the program continue to grow according to enrollment projections, the total cost of the program over the fiscal year 2008-2017 period would be $112 billion. Even the massive tobacco tax increase included in the bill, which would raise about $71 billion from fiscal year 2008-2017, can't cover that cost. I am not sure where the extra money will come from to cover the cost of the bill, and it is unfair that we leave this for a future Congress to figure out how to cover our overspending. In other words, let's put a halt to business as usual. The CHIP bill also represents a change in the mission of SCHIP by further eroding private health coverage of children. With expanded eligibility for SCHIP, we are likely to see families who already have private coverage drop that coverage and opt for a Government-run, Government-subsidized program. CBO estimates that, among newly eligible populations covered under this bill, each additionally enrolled individual in SCHIP will be matched by one individual leaving private coverage. We will be spending billions and billions of dollars providing coverage for children who already have coverage, and I believe this is a dangerous step toward Government-run health care insurance. Instead, Congress should remember the central mission of SCHIP and focus the program reauthorization on providing low-income children with health insurance coverage if they don't otherwise have it. Several of my colleagues offered the Kids First Act as a substitute amendment to the CHIP bill. It would reauthorize SCHIP, provide an increase in funding, and avoid a costly regressive tax increase. This bill would ensure that SCHIP mission remains covering low-income children and will focus efforts on enrolling children who are already eligible for SCHIP and Medicaid but are not currently enrolled. It also recognizes that millions of children receive private health coverage and would improve current laws that allow States to offer premium assistance for coverage through private plans. Additionally, the Kids First Act also includes small business health plan reforms. Unfortunately, the Kids First Act failed after it was offered as an amendment during debate earlier this week. At this time, I cannot support the CHIP Reauthorization Act. While I applaud the sponsors efforts to reauthorize SCHIP, I believe that bill differs drastically from the original intention of the SCHIP law and is fiscally irresponsible. I support the ideas contained in the alternative bill, the Kids First Act, which I believe would keep SCHIP focused on providing health insurance coverage to low-income children and would do so without dramatic increases in Federal spending or higher taxes on Americans.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, over the last 20 years, I have found myself in a lonely fight against earmarks and porkbarrel spending year after year. I have come to the floor and read list after list of the ridiculous items we are spending money on, hoping enough embarrassment might spur some change. I was encouraged in January, when this body passed by 96 to 2, an ethics and lobbying reform package which contained real, meaningful earmark reform. I thought at last we would finally enact some effective reforms. Unfortunately, the victory was short-lived. One of my happier days, I will admit, was when Dr. Coburn was elected to the Senate in 2004. There is no better advocate of earmark reform; no one more consistent in standing firm to fight the worthy fight against wasteful spending, and I am proud to call him my friend. I would like to commend my friend, Senator DeMint, and Senator Graham, Senator Cornyn, and others for joining our effort. Sadly, I say to my friends, that given the very watered-down earmark provisions contained in the measure brought to us by the majority, our good fight clearly will have to continue. Not only does this bill do far too little to rein in wasteful spending, it has completely gutted the earmark reform provisions we passed overwhelming in January. It provides little more than lip service, unless, of course, you happen to be a committee chairman of the majority leader. Under this majority-written bill, with no input from the Republicans, this bill will, unless you hold one of the top positions, you will now wield even more power, even more power with your porkbarrel pen. Let me be clear. The ethics and lobbying reform bill has some good provisions which I strongly support: A ban on gifts and travel paid for by lobbyists or groups, although, if you want to get a free meal, count it as a campaign contribution. But, anyway, increased disclosure is welcome reform. But the bill before us fixes only part of the problem and does not go to the heart of the problem. The heart of the problem that has bred the corruption is the earmark process. We all know that as my friend, Dr. Coburn, has said from time to time, it is the gateway drug to corruption--it is the gateway drug to corruption. I do not throw around the word ``corruption'' lightly. But there are former Members of Congress in jail. There are investigations going on right now, and you can trace it all back to the influence of money which has corrupted a process which then allows money, our tax dollars, to be given to special interests or even accrue to the benefit of the author of the earmarks. We come to the floor a lot and talk about a lot of the earmarking. Some of them are fun to talk about, but they make you sad: $225,000 for a historic wagon museum in Utah; $1 million for a DNA study of bears in Montana; $200,000 for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. You notice all these earmarks are geographically designated so there will be no mistake that that money might go someplace else other than where it had been intended by the appropriator. One of my favorites is the $37 million over 4 years to the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board to promote and develop fishery products and research pertaining to American fisheries. So how does this board spend the money so generously? I have a picture I will not show. Well, they spent $500,000 of your tax dollars to paint a giant salmon on the side of an Alaska Airlines 747, and nicknamed it the ``Salmon Forty Salmon.'' So the fact is, we are not going at the heart of the problem. Let me quote from yesterday's Wall Street Journal that says it even better than I can: Our favorite switcheroo: Under the previous Senate reform, the Senate parliamentarian would have determined whether a bill complied with earmark disclosure rules. Under Mr. Reid's new version, the current majority leader, that is, Mr. Reid himself, will decide if a bill is in compliance. When was the last time a Majority Party Leader declared one of his own bills out of order? I have only been here 20 years, but I have never seen it. I do not think you are going to see it in the future. So while under this new version of the bill earmarks should be disclosed in theory, the fact remains that only the committee chair or the majority leader or his designee can police it. If they say all the earmarks are identified, we take it as gospel. Our only option is to appeal the ruling of the chair that a certification was made. Of course, that is business as usual, requiring 60 votes. The new version does retain the requirement that bills and conference reports be available 48 hours before a vote, but the searchable database is no longer a requirement when it comes to conference reports; conference reports, where we have seen inserted some of the most egregious porkbarrel projects in this system as it exists today. Of course, conveniently the bill was modified between its release Monday morning and another version Monday afternoon. It was a modification to the benefit of the business-as-usual crowd. It would now require a 60-vote threshold to appeal the ruling of the chair, compared to a mere majority vote under the version released a few hours earlier. Let's be clear. Sixty Members are not going to overrule the majority leader. Fact. Business as usual. Business as usual. I am a bit saddened, too, because there was an opportunity here. There is enough outrage and anger out there amongst the American people that they are demanding reform. They are not demanding an increase from 1 year to 2 years for disclosure; they are not demanding about meals, they are demanding we fix the earmark process which has led to corruption. We have taken a pass. I regret it very much. I predict to you now the earmarking and porkbarrel spending will creep back into the process sooner rather than later, and we will not regain the confidence of the American people. I wish to thank again my colleagues, both Senators from South Carolina, the Senator from Oklahoma, and others who have fought sometimes a lonely fight to try to clean up this mess. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today the Senate adopted, by unanimous consent, legislation that will make a significant difference in the lives of America's wounded warriors and veterans. I applaud the passage of the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act and the 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for the men and women of the U.S. military. This legislation bridges the gap in health care coverage for the severely wounded, and ensures their access to the broadest possible range of health care services. It authorizes additional care and support for families who are caring for the wounded. The bill increases traumatic brain injury care for veterans, and access to mental health evaluations. It requires the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to develop and implement new policy to better manage the care and transition of our wounded soldiers. It also empowers a special board to review disability ratings of 20 percent or less, and to restore to wounded soldiers, if appropriate, a higher disability rating or retired status. And, it authorizes additional funding for traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. The disability evaluation systems of the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs are out of date and in need of reform. This legislation advances that reform by requiring the immediate initiation of pilot projects to fundamentally change and streamline those antiquated systems. The bill also improves benefits related to administrative separation from the military due to injury, increasing severance pay and eliminating the requirement that severance pay be deducted from VA disability compensation for injuries incurred in a combat zone. The legislation requires the Secretary of Defense to inspect and improve medical treatment and residential facilities, and to study the accelerated construction of new facilities at the National Military Medical Center at Bethesda, MD. This legislation is an important step toward restoring trust for America's wounded soldiers and veterans. The Senate can be proud that it has put the needs of wounded warriors and our selfless service men and women ahead of partisanship, jurisdictional boundaries and disagreements over policy. We are now ready to move foward to conference with the House of Representatives and make overdue improvements for our soldiers, their families, and our veterans. While I am pleased we have been able to take this action today, very critical improvements to defense policy and programs remain in the unfinished work on the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008, which the Democratic Senate leadership pulled from the Senate floor last week because of policy disagreements on Iraq. Failure to pass the Defense authorization bill will curtail many needed initiatives to support our military personnel and their families and to continue the fight on the global war on terror. Our military forces deployed throughout the world, including Iraq and Afghanistan, need the resources, training, and equipment that this bill would provide. Examples of the important authorities that are being held hostage to the contentious debate on policy in Iraq include: increasing in end-strength for the Army and Marine Corps; providing combat-related special compensation to serve members who are; medically retired because of a combat-related disability; paying over 25 special pays and bonuses designed to improve military recruiting and retention; improving military equipment needed to protect deploying forces, including $4.0 billion for mine-resistant vehicles known as MRAPs; updating Army combat systems and additional funding for armor and aviation survivability equipment; building five warships and funding for Virginia class submarines; increasing the number of Department of Defense and Department of Energy programs to help reduce the threat of nuclear materials from the former Soviet Union falling into the hands of terrorists; encouraging more focused competition for the billions of dollars that the Department of Defense spends on contract services; and providing critical authorities to combatant commanders to address security priorities and support allies, coalition partners, and others in the war on terror. I call on the Senate leadership to resume consideration of the Defense authorization bill at the earliest possible time, so that these and many other critical pieces of the legislation will become law for the benefit of our troops. Swift passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008, coupled with support for our wounded warriors and hard-working troops together represent the full measure of support for our military forces that they need, and that they unquestionably deserve.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. We will be debating the Reed-Levin amendment throughout the day?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Regular order, Madam President.

Mr. McCAIN. Regular order.