John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, quoting from that article: President Obama is in Vietnam and Japan this week, where he'll probably be getting an earful about America's rising antitrade sentiment and the threat that poses to the Trans- Pacific Partnership trade deal. So here's hoping the U.S. Senate can provide at least some leadership by ending the protectionist treatment of one of Vietnam's most valuable exports: catfish. This is from the Wall Street Journal. Most of us--at least on this side of the aisle--have a great deal of respect for the opinions that are on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. The article goes on to say: Vietnamese exporters have competed with U.S. catfish farmers from the Mississippi delta since the 1990s. Trouble began in 2002, when Mississippi Republican Thad Cochran and other southern lawmakers barred foreigners from calling their product ``catfish'' because technically it's pangasius, also called basa or swai, an Asian cousin with similar taste, texture and whiskers. This didn't stop Americans from buying the tasty, cheaper imports, and neither did a round of spurious antidumping tariffs imposed on the Vietnamese fish in 2003. So Mr. Cochran went further, using the 2008 farm bill to transfer oversight of catfish to the Department of Agriculture from the Food and Drug Administration, even though the meat and poultry experts at the USDA regulate no other fish. This required classifying pangasius as catfish after all, and claiming that there was a public-health risk where none existed. The true motive was to impose high new compliance costs on Vietnamese exporters, who might then be priced out of the U.S. market. The Government Accountability Office has slammed the new inspection regime 10 times, estimating its cost at $30 million to start and $14 million annually to operate, as compared with $700,000 a year for the original program. Repeal would ``save taxpayers millions of dollars annually without affecting the safety of catfish intended for human consumption,'' says the GAO. It would also let Americans keep buying the fish they prefer, while eliminating the likelihood that Vietnam and others will sue at the World Trade Organization and retaliate against U.S. exports of beef, soybeans, and other products. Yet multiple bipartisan efforts at repeal have failed, so the wasteful program took effect in March, beginning an 18- month phase-in period. Exporters in Vietnam are already feeling the squeeze and our sources say that Vietnam's top leader planned to raise the issue with Mr. Obama in Hanoi. The good news is that more than 30 Senators from both parties introduced a measure Monday to repeal the program in a straight up-or-down vote under the Congressional Review Act. That may be easier than attaching it to larger bills, as in the past, that Mr. Cochran and his allies could block. A vote could come before Mr. Obama leaves Asia. Repeal would boost U.S. credibility in a region that needs trade leadership. It is pretty clear that we have the highest regard for the Government Accountability Office. Now, sometimes we don't always agree, but this is why 10 times the Government Accountability Office has found this program duplicative and a waste of tax dollars. This is why the Citizens Against Government Waste, the Taxpayers for Common Sense, the National Taxpayers Union, Heritage Foundation, FreedomWorks, and the Center for Individual Freedom--literally every watchdog organization in this town and in America--support this resolution. The disapproval resolution is the means to stop this wasteful rule because all efforts to work within the normal procedures have been blocked. Whether it be the farm bill or TPA, efforts for the Senate to debate this issue have been shut off. The sole time the Senate voted on this program, it voted overwhelmingly to eliminate the program. I think at least on this side of the aisle there is an organization we are pretty respectful of, and it is the Heritage Foundation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement from Heritage Action for America, which weighs in regularly, as we know, on this issue.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, quoting from the statement of Heritage Action for America, they say: There is no policy justification for carving out catfish from the broader seafood regulatory structure. The statement goes on to say: While this $140 million program may appear small relative to the overall budget picture, it nevertheless looms large as a poster child of government cronyism, with special interests benefiting at the expense of everyone else. It is difficult to state it better than former FDA seafood inspection chief Bryon Truglio, who stated: ``[A] group of lobbyists and a trade association representing elements of the American catfish producers . . . has bullied Congress into moving catfish regulation to the USDA, making it harder for their foreign competitors to enter the U.S. market. This move is a win for U.S. catfish producers, but ultimately, a loss for American taxpayers and consumers.'' Fortunately, Congress may actually have the chance to block the catfish rule this year. The Obama administration acknowledges the duplication inherent in the USDA's catfish inspection program, and proposed eliminating it in a recent budget. By sending the President this CRA for him to sign, Congress will allow this duplicative and wasteful catfish inspection rule to be blocked consistent with the rule of law. That is from the Heritage Foundation. Now, this is FreedomWorks: As one of our over 5.7 million FreedomWorks activists nationwide, I urge you to contact your Senators and ask them to vote YES on S.J. Res. 28, a resolution that would repeal the U.S. Department of Agriculture's catfish inspection rule. The FreedomWorks statement goes on to say: The program was developed to assess the risks associated with catfish consumption. And it goes on as to how they want it overruled. Also, I have a statement from the Taxpayers Protection Union, the Campaign for Liberty, the Center for Individual Freedom, Independent Women's Forum, the National Taxpayers Union, R Street Institute, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and the list goes on and on. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter to Senator Ayotte which is signed by David Williams, president, Taxpayers Protection Alliance; Norm Singleton, president, Campaign For Liberty; Jeff Mazzella, president, Center for Individual Freedom; Tom Schatz, president, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste; Sabrina Schaffer, executive director, Independent Women's Forum; Heather R. Higgins, president and CEO, Independent Women's Voice; Brandon Arnold, executive vice president, National Taxpayers Union; Andrew Moylan, executive director, R Street Institute; Karen Kerrigan, president and CEO, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council; and Steve Ellis, vice president, Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the National Restaurant Association strongly supports what we are trying to do, and the list goes on and on. I know there are my colleagues who want to speak on this issue, but this is more than a vote on catfish, I would say to my colleagues. What this is all about is government overriding the taxpayers of America, which is why we are seeing so many of these watchdog organizations supporting what we are trying to do. Some of us, including this Member, have been surprised--been surprised by the American people's votes recently for both parties, both for Mr. Trump, who has never stood for public office before and has based his campaign, to a large degree, on campaigning against Washington, DC, and those of us who serve here, and of course on the other side is Senator Sanders, a Member of this body, but clearly one who is running his campaign against the status quo. So we have been surprised to see this uprising of the American voter, and I don't believe there is a Member of this body on either side of the aisle who would have predicted 6 months ago that we would be where we are today. This kind of program is exactly what our hard-working citizenry who work hard and pay their taxes--they don't get it. They don't get it, when the GAO 10 times--10 times--said that this program is wasteful and duplicative, and tens of millions of dollars are being wasted on behalf of one industry, and that is the catfish industry--and it has been done by powerful appropriators, powerful members of the Appropriations Committee. There was never a debate. There was never a bill before this body. There was never amendments proposed. It was put in a large omnibus appropriations bill and kept there. So sometimes we wonder why the American people have had it, why they are fed up. This is the best example I can come up with recently, $30 million per year being wasted on a duplicative--10 times--10 times that the GAO has said it is not only unneeded but unnecessary: a special catfish office, $14 million a year. I don't know how many low-income taxpayers make $14 million, but I know this; that when I go back to Arizona and tell my constituents that we have a program GAO 10 times has said is totally unnecessary and duplicative and the government is spending $14 million of their tax dollars on it, they don't get it. They don't get it. Then, after they don't get it for a while, they say: We have had it. They say: We have had it. We have had it with programs that nobody ever debated, nobody ever discussed. There was never a vote. It has been in existence since 2012, but it began in 2002. So this is why Americans are fed up. This is why our hard-working citizenry does not understand why we would ever have such a program that wastes $12 million per year and, I believe, was $30 million to set up. That is chickenfeed to us. It is in the margins. To them, it is something. It means, to them, that we are not taking care of them. It means we are taking care of a powerful interest called the catfish industry, which happens to be in a number of Southern States. There was a large number of Republican votes against this proposal-- as I recall, a majority of Republican votes, Republicans who say: We are watchdogs of the Treasury. We don't waste money the way the Democrats do. But on the resolution just taken, if it had been only up to Republican Members, we wouldn't be debating this right now. Isn't that a little embarrassing? Isn't that a little embarrassing that a majority of Members on this side would not even vote to at least debate this? All I can say is I have been fighting this issue for about 12 or 13 years. We finally now have a chance to get rid of it. Does it make the debt and the deficit any less? Is it a huge undertaking that somehow is going to save the taxpayers billions of dollars? I will tell you what. If we keep this program in, with a majority vote of the United States Senate, I tell my colleagues on this side of the aisle: Just don't go back and say you are a fiscal conservative. Say you take care of the fat catfish industry. Maybe some people like that. But don't go back and call yourself a fiscal conservative. I know others want to speak. They are going to raise problems; that there could be contamination, there could be all these kinds of things, that it is the end of Western civilization as we know it, it is going to be worse than Ebola; that it means we don't trust the Food and Drug Administration, the people who are supposed to be inspecting all seafood--and if that is true of catfish, don't we have to worry about all the other seafood that the Food and Drug Administration inspects? Of course not. So we are going to hear that it is the end of Western civilization, that there has been some pollution detected, et cetera. All we have to do is have the Food and Drug Administration do their job and inspect all seafood, just as they do today, including catfish. We don't have to have a new $30 million bureaucracy set up at a cost of $14 million per year. I have a lot more to say, but the hour grows late. I just hope we will show the American taxpayer that we are at least willing, in a small way, to eliminate some government duplication and waste. I say that there is a lot of symbolic aspects of this vote that far exceed $14 million per year. It is now going to be a vote on how we do business in the United States Senate. If we don't succeed in eliminating this program, I then think we would be embarrassed. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. We need to move forward with this legislation. We need to move forward with it now for the sake of the men and women who are serving and defending this Nation and putting their lives on the line. This is disgraceful.

Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to.

Mr. McCAIN. None. I am unhappy to say that the three votes against happened to be on this side of the aisle.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am sure that all of our colleagues made note of the latest tragedy, which is most likely a terrorist attack, and that is the airliner that disappeared, and now they are finding pieces of that airliner. We don't know positively what happened, but it has all the earmarks of a terrorist attack. I know that many of my colleagues know that the Director of National Intelligence, General Clapper, testified before our committee and said that there are most likely going to be additional attacks in Europe and in the United States, either the type that took place in San Bernardino or attacks that--Mr. Baghdadi has sent his people into the refugee flow to commit attacks on the United States of America. We just finished up a couple weeks ago--a few days ago a defense authorization bill. That bill is a very large bill, and it contains reforms and changes in the way we do business. It changes a whole lot of things. It also takes care of the men and women who are serving in the military. It provides them with greater capability to fight this virus of radical terrorist Islam, which is threatening the United States of America in a way that has been unprecedented in 70 years. We are subject to attacks like San Bernardino, like what we just saw with the airliner, which is most likely--I am not positive, but it has all the earmarks. I have seen enough to know that this is most likely a terrorist attack. Meanwhile, ISIS is metastasizing Libya. It is committing attacks in Baghdad which are killing hundreds of people. We see the terrible atrocities committed by ISIS or Daesh--whichever one you call it--all over the world, in Africa and other parts. So we need this legislation. We need this legislation for the men and women who are serving. The former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey, said that what we are doing now puts us on the ``ragged edge'' of being able to defend this Nation. The Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps said the same thing. The Chief of Staff of the United States Army said: ``We are putting the men and women in the military at greater risk.'' Those are his exact words. ``We are putting the men and women in the military at greater risk.'' So what are we doing here? We are not moving forward with the bill. For some reason, the majority leader is having to file cloture, and then we wait a number of days, and then we take up the bill, and then maybe we don't finish the bill while we go into recess. Don't we owe the men and women in the military better than that? Shouldn't we take up this bill and dispense with it, do a conference with the House and send it to the President's desk so that the President of the United States will sign it and the men and women in the military will be better equipped, better trained, better able to defend themselves and this Nation, or are we going to go through some kind of foolishness of having the majority leader having to file cloture and then we wait 48 hours? It is being totally divorced from the reality of what is happening in the world. Just a few days ago, a brave young SEAL was killed in Syria, a young man named Keating. I happen to know his family very well. The President of the United States still will not say we are in combat, but the fact is, we are dramatically increasing our presence, both in Syria and Iraq and now Libya. These men and women need equipment to fight with. They need to have a military that is the best we can provide them with. So why shouldn't we do it now? Why should we wait a couple of days? There is no justification for not moving to this bill right now. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration--the immediate consideration--of Calendar No. 469, S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let me just say, the bill was reported from the committee by a vote of 24 to 3. So what the Democratic leader is saying is that because we don't fund the IRS, we then should not proceed with defending this Nation. That is a remarkable statement. If the Democratic leader is interested in money for the FBI, Homeland Security, and others, I would be more than happy to consider that, to authorize some additional funding for those agencies of government that protect the government. But what my colleagues have just heard is that we will not move forward to provide for the well-being of the men and women who are serving, their ability to defend us, take them out of risk as much as possible by providing them what they need--which, by the way, 95 percent is input and requests from the executive branch, the Defense Department. So we are not going to move forward on this because we don't include the other agencies of government. That is now putting our Nation's security and other functions of government on exactly the same plane and totally disregards the fact that we are being attacked. We are being attacked by cyber. There are plans to attack the United States of America. The Director of National Intelligence said there will be attacks on the United States of America. Where is the Democratic leader? What is he thinking? What could he be thinking?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I note with some interest that the Senator from Wyoming did not have the same zeal for the $1.1 billion that we just passed in emergency spending for Zika that is not paid for, but the important issue is, that this is a program for 1.4 million appointments for veterans who would otherwise wait for delayed care, over 2.5 million separate payments to doctors, 450,000 Choice health care providers--the list goes on and on. All I am asking for is an extension of a program that is in effect and helping our veterans. The fact is, the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee said last night: What Senator McCain is trying to do to improve access to health care is maintain the access through the choice of a private sector provider or VA provider. There is no additional cost unless you assume that you want to take away a benefit that was given 2 years ago in the omnibus bill we passed. He goes on to say he would support this amendment. Who is taking advantage? The majority of the people who are taking advantage of this Choice Card, I will tell the Senator from Wyoming, are the young men and women who are just returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. We are giving them a choice. We are giving them a choice to be able to get the care they need and deserve. In my home State of Arizona, 50 veterans died while on a nonexistent waiting list--50 of them. That is why we have a Choice Card, so they can go out and get the care they need and want and not be on a nonexistent waiting list. I don't know what the priorities are of the Senator from Wyoming, but I can tell him now, they are not mine, and they are not of the men and women who are serving this Nation who deserve the best care and the choice of going to the provider that they want to within certain parameters. This is simply an extension of a program that is in existence that cares for our men and women who served our Nation with sacrifice, and some of them didn't even come back to have a chance to have a Choice Card. Mr. President, I ask to waive the budget point of order. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for the purposes of my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss my amendment with Senator Blumenthal that would extend the Veterans Choice Card Program for 3 years and restore funding that was moved out of the program last year. Our amendment is critically important. It extends the Veterans Choice Card Program so it does not expire prematurely next year. It restores funding removed from the program last year to pay for other VA programs, provides additional funding to stabilize the VA Choice Card Program for the next 3 years while Congress works on a long-term solution to reform veterans health care, and allows the Secretary of the VA to standardize and modernize the way it pays all the doctors, hospitals, and clinics participating in the many programs the VA offers to veterans to get the care they need in their communities. I was very proud 2 years ago that Congress acted quickly to pass major VA reform legislation following the scandal in care that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of veterans waiting endlessly for care. We now know that what was originally uncovered in Phoenix, AZ, had been occurring throughout the country. Fortunately, we acted decisively, and in a bipartisan manner, by passing the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act in near-record time. That law provided extra emergency funding for the VA to hire doctors and nurses and to build more hospitals and clinics. Perhaps the most important and the most promising piece of the legislation was the $10 billion emergency fund for the Veterans Choice Card Program. This program allows any veteran who has to wait more than 30 days for an appointment or lives more than 40 miles from a VA facility to visit a participating doctor in their community instead of continuing to wait for care with no options. After an extremely difficult start, the Veterans Choice Card Program is now authorizing more than 150,000 appointments for veterans care per month--over 6,000 per workday. According to the VA, as of the end of March, nearly 1 million appointments for veterans had been scheduled under the Veterans Choice Card Program. Each of these appointments represents a veteran's appointment that would have otherwise been delayed potentially for months in the VA's scheduling system. An extra advantage of the Choice Card is it also helps veterans who don't use it. By enabling some veterans to receive care in their community, the VA is able to free up its appointment backlog and accommodate veteran appointments sooner. Over the last year, the number of participating doctors and medical professionals in the Veterans Choice Program in the western region has jumped from around 95,000 to nearly 160,000. The turnover rate is very low. More than 90 percent of all doctors are being paid within 30 days, and the great majority of doctors are choosing to stay in the Veterans Choice Card Program to treat our Nation's veterans. Unfortunately, under current law, the Veterans Choice Card Program is scheduled to expire in the middle of next year. The Veterans Choice Card Program is capped at $10 billion in emergency spending and 3 years of operation, whichever is reached first. I know Members on both sides of the aisle don't want to return to the status quo of never-ending wait times for appointments and poor care at the VA. Too many of our constituents have been harmed, too many lives devastated. I remember standing on the Senate floor in 2014 and urging passage of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act. At that time, we acknowledged the Veterans Choice Program was a first step toward fully reforming the VA. That law created a blue-ribbon Commission on Care that is still meeting and owes Congress recommendations this summer on long-term reform, but we need time for hearings, investigations, oversight and analysis of the Commission's report to get long-term reform right. As the chairman and ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee will attest, this is the dictionary definition of an emergency. While we cannot rush the reforms the VA health care system needs, we also cannot bring the Veterans Choice Program to a full stop. Too many veterans and VA hospitals depend on the Veterans Choice Program to provide care in a timely fashion. I have heard from multiple Administrators and VA officials who have told me and my staff that they do not know what they will do if the Veterans Choice Card Program ends. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and commit to continuing the hard work of enacting long-term reform to the VA health care system. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to call up amendment No. 4039 with the changes that are at the desk.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I don't know what the credentials are of the Senator from New York as far as veterans are concerned, but I know this. I know that what the Senator from New York is stopping is 160,000 veterans--160,000 veterans--from participating in this program in the western part of the United States.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would tell Senator Schumer's staff that he may want to come back. What Senator Schumer is asking for is a 25-year lease on a clinic in Rochester, NY, according to his staff. I have been privy to examples of blocking the greater good because of a specific geographic area, but I have to say that I haven't seen anything quite like this one. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I will talk one more time with the Senator from New York.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Warner from Virginia and Senator Schumer from New York. They are committed to the veterans in their States and in this country. I believe we have worked out an agreement to try to get the veterans the services they have earned and are not receiving at this time. Amendment No. 4039 to Amendment No. 3896 Mr. President, the usual calm and quiet conversation has led to a conclusion that now I can ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to call up amendment No. 4039.

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

Mr. McCAIN

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

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, over the last few months, we have witnessed ObamaCare crumbling in my home State of Arizona. Several Obamacare-established co-ops collapsed, including Arizona's Meritus Mutual Health Partners, forcing nearly 63,000 Arizonans scrambling to find new coverage. Last month, UnitedHealth, the Nation's largest health insurer, announced it will exit the Arizona marketplace and leave about 45,000 Arizonans to find new coverage in 2017. Now, as a direct result of the President's failed law, health insurer Humana just announced it, too, will exit the marketplace in 2017 in my home State. All together, over half of Arizona's counties will be left with a single insurer, and another third will be left with just two. In turn, this will cause premiums to skyrocket even higher than last year. While Democrats continue to stand by a failed law, Arizona families are bearing the burden. This is unacceptable. More than 6 years after ObamaCare was rammed through Congress without a single Republican vote--and I was on the floor on Christmas Eve morning as it was passed on a strict party-line vote--Democrats are still trying to spin their overhaul of America's health care system. We continue to hear from advocates of ObamaCare who make their claims that continue to leave me speechless, such as that insurance markets are stable and premiums are not rising quickly. Unfortunately, as is often the case with advocates of the President's disastrous law, these statements are largely devoid of reality. ObamaCare's upheaval and disruption to our Nation's health care system is a direct result of the efforts of the White House and Democratic leadership to write this massive bill behind closed doors, with no input from this side of the aisle. The process was anything but bipartisan, as promised on the campaign trail by the then-Presidential candidate, Barack Obama. Instead of crafting health care reform that works for the American people, the administration cut deals with drug companies to get their support, ensuring they would see increased profits and consumers would face increased costs. Democrats' partisan effort to write and pass ObamaCare without Republican participation flies in the face of how every other major reform in American history was enacted. I have worked with Democrats on many occasions to solve some of the country's most urgent problems. Never in my experience has one party attempted to increase the government's influence in one-sixth of the American economy over the unanimous opposition of the other party. Unfortunately, Americans are now facing the consequences of this massive overhaul of our health care system. The biggest problem in our health care system, and Americans' most pressing concern, is out-of- control cost increases, but ObamaCare does nothing to address this issue. That is why we continue to see health care costs balloon, while health insurance becomes increasingly expensive and unaffordable for citizens and their employers. Sadly, as we have seen in recent weeks, the situation is only getting worse. Just last month, a poll by Gallup found that Americans cite health care costs as the most important financial burden facing their families. They name health care costs ahead of other financial burdens, such as low wages, debt, and being able to afford college or a mortgage. The American people are now experiencing firsthand exactly what Republicans have been warning about ever since ObamaCare was written: The law will ultimately do far more harm than good, and they have every right to question what the future holds. The fact is, the crumbling of ObamaCare should come as no surprise to anyone. UnitedHealth--which will exit from all but a handful of States in the individual marketplace in 2017--lost $475 million on the ObamaCare exchanges in 2015 and is projected to lose $650 million on the exchanges in 2016. Its exit from ObamaCare exchanges will send an estimated 45,000 citizens of my State, Arizona, scrambling to find new coverage with even fewer options to choose from. Humana's announcement that it will follow in UnitedHealth's footsteps by exiting Arizona's exchanges should also come as no surprise, given the fact that it continues to incur losses as a result of ObamaCare's onerous regulations. Humana and UnitedHealth's exit means fewer options, less competition, and most certainly higher costs for consumers. This is especially true after Blue Cross Blue Shield, the only remaining provider in several Arizona counties, increased premiums last year by 27 percent merely to recover the $185 million in losses it incurred in the ObamaCare marketplace between 2014 and 2015. The health insurer has noted that continuing to suffer losses in the marketplace is unsustainable, meaning significant premium increases are on the horizon for 2017. All of this news of insurance companies exiting the marketplace and others increasing premiums is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the consequences of this disastrous law. Since ObamaCare became law, prescription drug costs have continued to skyrocket. Instead of encouraging innovation and competition, ObamaCare places heavy taxes on manufacturers and prescription drug importers to the tune of $27 billion over 10 years. According to Standard & Poor's, the cost of drugs on the individual insurance market jumped 50 percent in 2015. Just as some are forgoing a visit to the doctor because of higher out-of-pocket costs, we are starting to see more and more individuals with chronic conditions not getting their prescriptions filled because of the increasing cost of drugs. The fact is, ObamaCare was a failure from the start and Americans are paying the price. The best thing government can do to expand access to health insurance is to institute reforms that will rein in costs and make health care more affordable. I have introduced legislation to replace ObamaCare with real reform that would expand quality access to health care without compromising individual liberty, competition, or innovation. Regrettably, every Republican effort to meaningfully bring down the cost of health care has been met with rigid opposition by Democrats who are more concerned with protecting President Obama's legacy than making health care accessible and affordable. Every day that goes by, with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continuing to dig in their heels, leads to another day that millions of Americans face higher health care costs, decreased quality of care, and fewer choices. It is past time for the President of the United States and Democrats in Congress to answer to the thousands of citizens across my State and the Nation who have been let down time and again by this disastrous law. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I am here with my good friend from Kansas and dedicated Member of the U.S. Senate--an expert on national security, a person who has served with honor in the U.S. Marine Corps, and has served in this body and in the other body honorably in positions of responsibility. Where we may have had a disagreement, my friend has shown he is a man of conviction regarding the detainees from Guantanamo coming to the United States of America. But he also understands fully the importance of the position of the Secretary of the Army. Senator Roberts and I have worked closely together on this year's Defense Authorization Act to ensure the administration does not have the authority to release or transfer detainees on the mainland. Unfortunately, the administration has failed for over 7 years to present a substantive plan on how they intend to close Guantanamo Bay, to me, to the Congress, to my colleagues, or the American people. Thanks to Senator Roberts' efforts, this year's bill extends the prohibition to any reprogramming request to transfer or release detainees. These provisions confirm that President Obama will not be able to move detainees to the mainland of the United States of America in the coming year. I want to point out that I understand Senator Roberts' emphasis and value that he places on Fort Leavenworth. Fort Leavenworth is the intellectual center of the United States Army. This is where General David Petraeus spent 2 years developing strategy for the surge--at Fort Leavenworth. This is where the up-and-coming leaders of the U.S. Army-- and other services as well, but primarily the U.S. Army--go to get their training, their intellect, and their ability to lead. So I can fully understand why my friend from Kansas would be adamantly opposed to the transfer of detainees to Fort Leavenworth, which would change the complexion and the makeup of that very important place in the past, present, and future of the U.S. Army. So I thank my colleague from Kansas for his agreement today. I would ask him to say a few words before I ask consent that this nomination be considered. Again, I appreciate my old friend whose passion, whose commitment to the people of Kansas is without equal--which also accounts for the fact that they have sent him here to represent them on several occasions. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I again thank my old friend from Kansas for his agreement to move forward. I look forward to continuing our long, many years' effort together to keep this Nation safe.