John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. So even though it is obvious that the cost of health care is going up, continues up dramatically--that is estimates of OMB, of literally every objective observer; the curve has not been bent down-- that unless employers keep exactly, with very little wiggle room, basically the same health insurance policy for their employees, then they will then have to comply with a government-mandated health insurance policy. Is that correct?

Mr. McCAIN. So I guess it was one of our colleagues and the President who intimated: Well, the American people really don't pay attention. The American people don't really--they are deceived by FOX News, et cetera. The American people knew this was a bad deal then, and they know it is a bad deal now. The majority of the American people want it repealed. And all of this is suspicions confirmed when you take 2 pages of legislation and turn it into 121 pages of regulation--a 2,733-page bill.

Mr. McCAIN. So here we are with an economy that the administration, the President, and his crack economic team said that if you pass this stimulus bill, maximum unemployment will be 8 percent. What is the problem with investment and hiring and economic growth in America today? The total uncertainty. We have just punted on the extension of the tax cuts or an Obama tax increase. We have just punted on a number of issues, and the American people now are going to have to--this small businessperson the NFIB represents is going to have to thumb through 121 pages of new regulations in order to understand. Big businesses and small businesses are going to say: What are the next 121 pages of regulations that are coming down for 2 pages of the bill? I guess the title page probably would not have regulations associated with it, but the other 2,732 would.

Mr. McCAIN. Yes, which our colleagues just voted down. They voted down a resolution by the Senator from Nebraska that would allow them not to have to report every single transaction of $600 or more. No wonder small and large businesses in America are reluctant to invest and hire with this kind of foolishness going on.

Mr. McCAIN. The CPAs come to me in Arizona and say: I can't advise my clients. I don't know what the tax structure will be. So here we are with a new 121 pages of regulation which obviously will affect 50, 60, 80 percent--let's say it only affects 50 percent of businesses in America--and we are going to vote down, probably, with the big-government majority here, this effort to not have this regulation implemented. All I can say to my colleague from Wyoming is, thank you for your leadership. Thank you for your thoughtful dissertation on this issue. And I guarantee you, maybe next January, we can take this up again. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. According to the administration.

Mr. McCAIN. So in a 2,733-page bill, if we have 121 pages of regulation for every 2 pages, that is going to be pretty interesting, isn't it? And the fun has just begun. The fun has just begun. If the Senator might recall, I ask my friend from Wyoming, President Obama--quote after quote, time after time: And if you do have health insurance, we'll make sure that your insurance is more affordable and more secure. We know that is not true from every estimate. It is neither affordable nor secure. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. This is not some government takeover. . . . I don't want government bureaucrats meddling in your health care. . . . That's what reform is about. I quote from the President of the United States. So now they have taken 2 pages of a 2,733-page bill, and that is 121 pages of regulation. Now, isn't it true, I would ask my colleague from Wyoming, who knows as much or more about this than anyone, that it will result in 50 percent of all employees being in plans ineligible for grandfathered status? Is that a correct statement?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. McCAIN. I would say to my friend from Wyoming, this seems like old times--what we tried to stop for over a year, and now our predictions came true, beginning with they turned 2 pages of this 2,733-page bill--2 pages--into 121 pages of regulation. Is that correct, I would ask my colleague from Wyoming?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, obviously we are 1 day away from the end of the fiscal year. We have before us a continuing resolution, better known as a CR. It totals over $1.1 trillion to fund the operations of the Federal Government through December 3, after the elections. In addition to continuing appropriations, this measure also includes numerous authorizing provisions from the fiscal year 2011 Defense authorization bill. We shouldn't have to selectively tack important, defense-related provisions on to appropriations bills in order to meet the pressing needs of the Armed Forces. The majority has decided to wait until the very last minute to bring this stopgap measure to the floor with the hope that Members will simply vote yes so that we can all go home and focus on the upcoming elections. I will not be voting yes. I will be voting no. If we pass this resolution, we can be assured that we will be considering yet another massive omnibus spending bill in December. The simple fact that we are considering this continuing resolution is evidence of the majority's inability to lead effectively and do the people's business. As I said, we are 1 day from the end of the fiscal year. This body has not considered a single one of the annual appropriations bills on the floor. We have a $13.5 trillion debt and a deficit of nearly $1.4 trillion. Yet we have not debated a single spending bill or considered any amendments that would cut costs or get our debt under control. Furthermore, the majority decided they just didn't feel like doing a budget this year, so we didn't do a budget this year. On top of all of this, the majorities in both Houses have decided there will be no debate, no vote on extending the tax cuts that are due to expire at the end of this year. On Monday of this week, the New York Times published an editorial called ``Profiles in Timidity.'' The editorial stated, in part: We are starting to wonder whether Congressional Democrats lack the courage of their convictions, or simply lack convictions. Last week, Senate Democrats did not even bother to schedule a debate, let alone a vote, on the expiring Bush tax cuts. This week, House Democrats appeared poised to follow suit. The New York Times goes on to say: This particular failure to act was not about Republican obstructionism . . . This was about Democrats failing to seize an opportunity to do the right thing and at the same time draw a sharp distinction between themselves and the Republicans. Those are not my words; those are the words of the New York Times. Anyone who converses with people in the business community around this country, whether it be small businesspeople or whether it be the largest, all of them will say the same thing: We have no certainty about what the financial future will hold, whether we will see tax increases or whether we will see tax cuts. What about the estate tax? What about all of these other ``tax cuts'' that will or will not be extended? So rather than act one way or the other, we have now punted the ball down the field until after the election. At least we should have taken it up and debated and voted. I will stand by my vote to extend all the tax cuts because I don't believe we should increase anybody's taxes in tough economic times. But instead we will punt, go home, campaign, and then sometimes be curious why the approval rating of Congress is somewhere in the teens. We have no business at the eleventh hour considering a continuing resolution so we can pack up and go home. We should stay here, in session, and consider each and every appropriations bill in regular order and give Members ample opportunity to offer amendments. Following that, we should debate the Defense authorization bill and consider all amendments by Members, not just those the majority deems necessary to please their base. When the authorization bill was proposed to be brought up on the floor of the Senate, on this side, we said: Let's have 10 amendments on either side--10 amendments on each side--and we will move forward with regular debate and votes. The majority leader didn't want that to happen. The majority leader only wanted to consider don't ask, don't tell, secret holds, and the DREAM Act, and then take the bill off the floor and wait until--guess what--after the elections. That is not how this body should operate. We should consider all amendments. We would agree to time agreements. And if there are tough votes to be taken, that is why we are sent here--to take tough votes. We should debate and vote on whether to extend the tax cuts, as I said. Each day this issue is left unresolved, millions of American taxpayers and small business owners are left without the ability to properly budget for the next year. At a townhall meeting, a guy stands up and says: I am a CPA. I make a living advising people how they should adjust their estates and their expenses and their investments based on, at least in part, what kinds of tax liabilities they will be facing. I can't do my job because we don't know. The environment of uncertainty is holding back investment and job creation in this country, and at least the people of this country should have the right to know what their taxes are going to be next year. That won't be the case. Let me return for a minute to the continuing resolution and the very serious concerns I have about one of its provisions. According to the Appropriations Committee and press reports, section 146 of this bill would authorize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to continue buying and guaranteeing mortgages up to $730,000 in expensive housing markets through September of next year. Under current law, that amount was scheduled to drop to $625,000 at the end of this year. One would think that by now we would all be sensitive to the disastrous fiscal implications of Fannie's and Freddie's performance and find ways to rein them in rather than maintain or expand their operations. Fannie and Freddie are synonymous with mismanagement and waste and have become the face of too big to fail. Congress had the responsibility to ensure that Fannie and Freddie were properly supervised and adequately regulated. Congress failed, and the devastation caused by that failure continues to reverberate across the Nation every day. A recent editorial in the Dallas Morning News said: They--Fannie and Freddie--had long ago evolved from the modest backer of loans that met high underwriting standards into full-scale casino players in high-risk mortgages. By purchasing or backing the loans of mortgage companies and banks, Fannie and Freddie made it possible for lenders to create more money for new loans to new homeowners. But Fannie and Freddie also conveniently benefited from their hybrid status: They could make loans at advantageous rates and run to Washington at the first sign of trouble. As a major political donor, they seldom heard the word ``no'' anywhere inside the Beltway. That is right. They seldom heard the word ``no'' anywhere inside the beltway. Some suggest that because of their deep pockets and generous campaign contributions, Congress routinely overlooked the growing problems at Fannie and Freddie and allowed them to continue operating in the most obscene, corrupt fashion. So where are we now? To date, the American taxpayer has spent $160 billion to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and experts estimate those costs could rise to over $1 trillion. Isn't it time we phase them out of being a government-supported enterprise? So why in the world would we provide these failing institutions with authority to continue to buy these high-dollar mortgages? It makes no sense. My colleagues might recall that in May I offered an amendment to the financial regulatory reform bill to address the serious problems surrounding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The amendment was designed to end the taxpayer-backed conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by putting in place an orderly transition period and eventually require them to operate without government subsidies on a level playing field with their private sector competitors. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, that amendment failed. The time has come to end Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's taxpayer-backed free ride and require them to operate on a level playing field. Fannie and Freddie continue to post loss after loss and are failing right in front of our eyes. For Congress to yet again allow them to continue business as usual is the height of irresponsibility. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would assist several communities in northern Arizona, and any other community in the United States, whose homes were damaged or destroyed in flash flood event caused by wildfires on federal lands. I am saddened to report that the flood in Arizona which is the genesis of this bill also killed a 12-year-old girl and caused an estimated $8 million in damage to the area's public infrastructure. While the flood itself occurred on July 20, 2010, the true account of this disaster actually began one month prior with a wildfire on the Coconino National Forest. The human-caused ``Schultz Fire'' severely burned 15,000 acres of forest land along the steep terrain of the San Francisco Peaks leaving little ground vegetation to absorb and hold back rainwater. After the fire was contained, the U.S. Forest Service quickly determined that residents living near the base of the Peaks would face a daily flooding threat from summer monsoon storms and publically urged them to purchase flood insurance. Less than two weeks later, a monsoon storm created a flash flood of rainwater, mud and wildfire debris that slammed into the homes below the Schultz burn area. Tragically, the affected homeowners who had purchased flood insurance as soon as they were alerted to the danger of flooding were deemed ineligible for coverage because Federal law mandates a 30-day waiting period before the policy takes effect. This August I had an opportunity to tour the Schultz Fire burn and flood areas and also met with several affected homeowners. Needless to say they are deeply concerned that their homes remain threatened with every severe storm that passes through. This rural unincorporated community simply does not have the resources to cope with a flood plain that didn't exist before the wildfire. While we were able to get a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers team to study and recommend some interim and long-term flood mitigation measures, much work remains to be done including additional soil and hydrological data collection which would assist in the planning and design of more permanent flood control projects. This legislation would enable the FEMA Administrator to waive the 30- day waiting period for flood insurance for private property owners affected by wildfires. This bill would also clarify that the recently created FLAME Act Accounts, which were established by Congress to pay for wildfire supersession, can also be used for burn area recovery, including post-fire watershed flood prevention. With respect to the Schultz Fire, the bill would enhance coordination between the Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and other Federal, State and local government agencies by establishing a Schultz Fire Flood Area Task Force headed by the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. This bill would also direct FEMA to complete a detailed study of the affected area to evaluate the potential of integrating various federal projects and programs into a long-term flood protection system. Finally, this bill would require that the Attorney General disclose any payments made under the Equal Access to Justice Act program that went to activist litigants who blocked the forest thinning project that many experts agree would have prevented the Schultz Fire from occurring. The flood risk to this community will remain high for many years unless action is taken now. I strongly believe that because the Schultz Fire occurred on Federal land, the Federal Government is obligated to provide an appropriate level of disaster assistance, including Federal flood insurance, to these homeowners. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would assist several communities in northern Arizona, and any other community in the United States, whose homes were damaged or destroyed in flash flood event caused by wildfires on federal lands. I am saddened to report that the flood in Arizona which is the genesis of this bill also killed a 12-year-old girl and caused an estimated $8 million in damage to the area's public infrastructure. While the flood itself occurred on July 20, 2010, the true account of this disaster actually began one month prior with a wildfire on the Coconino National Forest. The human-caused ``Schultz Fire'' severely burned 15,000 acres of forest land along the steep terrain of the San Francisco Peaks leaving little ground vegetation to absorb and hold back rainwater. After the fire was contained, the U.S. Forest Service quickly determined that residents living near the base of the Peaks would face a daily flooding threat from summer monsoon storms and publically urged them to purchase flood insurance. Less than two weeks later, a monsoon storm created a flash flood of rainwater, mud and wildfire debris that slammed into the homes below the Schultz burn area. Tragically, the affected homeowners who had purchased flood insurance as soon as they were alerted to the danger of flooding were deemed ineligible for coverage because Federal law mandates a 30-day waiting period before the policy takes effect. This August I had an opportunity to tour the Schultz Fire burn and flood areas and also met with several affected homeowners. Needless to say they are deeply concerned that their homes remain threatened with every severe storm that passes through. This rural unincorporated community simply does not have the resources to cope with a flood plain that didn't exist before the wildfire. While we were able to get a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers team to study and recommend some interim and long-term flood mitigation measures, much work remains to be done including additional soil and hydrological data collection which would assist in the planning and design of more permanent flood control projects. This legislation would enable the FEMA Administrator to waive the 30- day waiting period for flood insurance for private property owners affected by wildfires. This bill would also clarify that the recently created FLAME Act Accounts, which were established by Congress to pay for wildfire supersession, can also be used for burn area recovery, including post-fire watershed flood prevention. With respect to the Schultz Fire, the bill would enhance coordination between the Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and other Federal, State and local government agencies by establishing a Schultz Fire Flood Area Task Force headed by the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. This bill would also direct FEMA to complete a detailed study of the affected area to evaluate the potential of integrating various federal projects and programs into a long-term flood protection system. Finally, this bill would require that the Attorney General disclose any payments made under the Equal Access to Justice Act program that went to activist litigants who blocked the forest thinning project that many experts agree would have prevented the Schultz Fire from occurring. The flood risk to this community will remain high for many years unless action is taken now. I strongly believe that because the Schultz Fire occurred on Federal land, the Federal Government is obligated to provide an appropriate level of disaster assistance, including Federal flood insurance, to these homeowners. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe the chairman has agreed that he and I would have 5 minutes each before the vote this afternoon; is that true?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues on this side, we will recognize in the proper order as we go from one side to the other: On my side Senator Inhofe would be recognized for 10 minutes, Senator Brown for 5 minutes, Senator Sessions for 5 minutes, Senator Chambliss for 5 minutes, and Senator LeMieux for 5 minutes. I believe that comes out to approximately 40 minutes. Mr. President, I want to make it clear why I am opposed to moving to the National Defense Authorization Act of fiscal year 2011 at this time. I am not opposed in principle to bringing up this Defense bill and debating it, amending it, and voting on it. I am not opposed to having a full and informed debate on whether to repeal the don't ask, don't tell law and then allowing the Senate to legislate. What I am opposed to is bringing up the Defense bill now, before the Defense Department has concluded its survey of our men and women in uniform, which gives them a chance to tell us their views about don't ask, don't tell. Whether you agree or disagree with this policy, whether you want to keep it or repeal it, the Senate should not be forced to make this decision now, before we have heard from our troops. We have asked for their views, and we should wait to hear from them and then give their views the fullest consideration before taking any legislative action. This isn't just my view. This is the view of all force service chiefs: GEN George Casey, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army; ADM Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations; GEN James Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps; GEN Norton Schwartz, Chief of Staff of the Air Force. Let me quote from my colleague, GEN George Casey. Remember, these are the service chiefs who are responsible for the training, equipment, morale, and well-being of the men and women in uniform who serve under them. What did General Casey say? He said this: I remain convinced that it is critically important to get a better understanding of where our soldiers and families are on this issue, and what the impacts on readiness and unit cohesion might be, so that I can provide informed military advice to the President and the Congress. I also believe that repealing the law before the completion of the review will be seen by the men and women of the Army as a reversal of our commitment to hear their views before moving forward. The survey is not complete and will not be complete for some time. Admiral Gary Roughead said this: We need this review to fully assess our force and carefully examine potential impacts of a change in the law. My concern is that legislative changes at this point, regardless of the precise language used, may cause confusion on the status of the law and the Fleet and disrupt the review process itself by leading Sailors to question whether their input matters. GEN James Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps, said: I encourage the Congress to let the process the Secretary of Defense created to run its course. Collectively, we must make logical and pragmatic decisions about the long-term policies of our Armed Forces--which so effectively defend this great nation. GEN Norton Schwartz, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, said: I believe it is important, a matter of keeping faith with those currently serving in the Armed Forces, that the Secretary of Defense commissioned review be completed before there is any legislation to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law. Such action allows me to provide the best military advice to the President, and sends an important signal to our Airmen and their families that their opinion matters. To do otherwise, in my view, would be presumptive and would reflect an intent to act before all relevant factors are assessed, digested and understood. It could not be more clear what our uniformed service chiefs are saying: Complete this review before repealing the law. Then the question is: Why would the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the majority leader ignore the very explicit recommendation of the four service chiefs? One can only draw one conclusion: November 2 is a few days away. The President of the United States, we all know, made a commitment to the gay and lesbian community that he would have as one of his priorities repeal of the don't ask, don't tell policy. Looking at a bleak electoral situation, they are now going to jam this legislation through--or try to--in direct contravention to the views of our service chiefs. I spend a great deal of time with the men and women in the military. It is my job. It is my job to do so, both the Guard and Reserve in Arizona and traveling around the world to visit our men and women in places such as Kandahar, Baghdad, and other places around the world. Every place I go, the men and women are saying: Look, let's assess the impact of the repeal of this law. I get that from the senior enlisted men whose responsibilities are great. Why are we now trying to jam this through without the survey being completed and without a proper assessment of its impact? I urge Members not to vote in favor of bringing the bill to the floor at this time so the troops can be heard. Let us hear from the men and women who are serving in the military. I remind my colleagues that last year, they brought up the hate crimes bill and then put amendments on the hate crimes bill so there were no other amendments allowed until the hate crimes issue was resolved. That is the concern of the Senator from Maine, that the majority leader and/or the chairman will fill up the tree--in other words, make it so other amendments are not allowed until this issue is disposed of and then, of course, other issues. In light of all the challenges that the Defense authorization bill entails--training, equipment, pay, benefits, all of the aspects of Defense authorizations that are so vital--why would the majority leader and the chairman want to bring up don't ask, don't tell, then the DREAM Act, then secret holds, and then reserve the rest of the issues for after we come back after the election? Again, one can only draw the conclusion that this is all about elections, not about the welfare and well-being and the morale and the battle effectiveness of the men and women who are laying it on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan today. The most fundamental thing we could do to honor the sacrifices of our troops is to take the time to listen respectfully and carefully to what they have to say about this major change before the Senate takes any legislative action. If the Senate goes down this path, we would be ignoring the views of the troops and casting aside the professional military advice given by each of the four service chiefs, all four of whom oppose the Senate taking any action on don't ask, don't tell before we hear from the troops. By the way, the way the legislation is framed, the service chiefs are not involved in the final decision; only the President, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of Defense are. Why in the world before the certification is made would not the service chiefs be required to certify that as well? This is not about filibustering. It is not about the reasons why we are not taking up this legislation or why I am opposing this legislation. It is all about the battle effectiveness, the morale of the men and women who are serving in the military today who have volunteered to put their lives on the line so the rest of us may live in a safe and secure environment. We owe them a right to have their voices heard before we act legislatively, motivated by the upcoming election. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. McCAIN. We are depriving the men and women in uniform from having a voice in this by short-circuiting a process by passing legislation before the study is completed. That is a fact. That is the view of all four service chiefs, and I read it and I will continue to put it in the Record. Senator Sessions, I believe, is next?

Mr. McCAIN. Before my colleague speaks, very briefly, maybe the Senator from Michigan has forgotten what happened last year on hate crimes. The bill was brought up, then the majority leader filed, as is his right, the first amendment. Then only amendments that the majority leader agreed to were allowed on hate crimes. So we got stuck for a week on it. I predict to you that is exactly what would happen with the DREAM Act and with this issue as well because the majority established that precedent last year.

Mr. McCAIN. How much time is remaining on both sides?

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

Mr. McCAIN. How much time is remaining?

Mr. McCAIN. How much time is remaining on the other side?

Mr. McCAIN. Well, again, I would point out again that not only do the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and our service chiefs object to this truncated process, being left out of the final decisionmaking process, they do not have to sign on to any conclusions that are reached as a result of this ongoing survey. But there are others, such as the incoming Commandant of the Marine Corps, who says, my personal view, the current law and associated policy have supported the unique requirements of the Marine Corps. Thus, I do not recommend its repeal. My primary concern with proposed repeal is the potential disruption to cohesion that may be caused by significant change during a period of extended combat operations. We are in two wars, and now we are pursuing the social agenda of the Democratic Party instead of taking the priority, as it is much called for; that is, the welfare, the morale, the battle effectiveness of the men and women in the U.S. Marine Corps. So last year there was an amendment allowed, but procedurally, when we did the hate crimes bill, there were only amendments that were agreed to by the majority leader. That is what we fear will happen in this debate, and certainly the DREAM Act, which is also on the agenda for the elections is clearly not something that should be addressed by the Armed Services Committee. By all rights, it should be done by the Judiciary Committee. I regretfully reach this stage. But I urge my colleagues to vote in opposition to the cloture vote. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN

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