John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I would further ask the chairperson if she has, as I have, heard from every single uniformed service leader of the four armed services, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that further effects of sequestration will do unsustainable damage to our national security, that the pain inflicted because of the way that sequestration acts in 2014, the really significant effects, are that we will destroy or certainly dramatically impact our ability to defend this Nation? Is that not the unanimous opinion of our uniformed service commanders to whom we give the responsibility to defend this Nation? I would ask the chairperson if she has heard from our military leadership in uniform as well on this entire proposal, particularly its effect from sequestration?

Mr. McCAIN. If I may ask the chairperson, in summary: One, there is no legislative proposal between now and January 15 that anyone sees that could pass both Houses of Congress and be signed by the President of the United States that would prevent another government shutdown on January 15. I would ask the chairman if that is true. Second, is it not true that if we go through the sequestration again, particularly because of the nature of the sequester legislation, that there is a sharp drop in 2014, and then a sort of a restoration in following years? In other words, the worst year of the entire sequestration process would be next year, unless we soften the blow. Is it not true that nobody cares more about those who serve in the military than their uniformed leaders, and unanimously those uniformed leaders have said they support this legislation? Is it not true that the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the Armed Services Committee, will have an entire year, because this legislation will not take effect--this cost-of-living adjustment will not take effect until January 15, 2015, so we have an entire year of authorization committee consideration of this particular provision? Is it also not true that it is recognized by all members of the Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee and the chairman of the Budget Committee that we have continued increases in costs and benefits forever because of our inability to fund our national security? In other words, the dramatic increase in personnel and benefit costs are such that we are not going to have money left over for the mission, the equipment, and the capabilities? Is it also not true--I would ask again what the obvious is: The Simpson-Bowles plan, which was embraced wholeheartedly by many of us, including this Senator, by the way, said to defer cost-of-living adjustment for retirees in all--that is all cost-of-living adjustments for retirees in the current system until age 62. Is this far more draconian, what is envisioned in Simpson-Bowles, than what is before the body today? So is it hard to understand why someone would embrace Simpson-Bowles and yet find this provision as objectionable as it is? I find the provision objectionable, but I have confidence, and I hope the budget chairperson would agree, that it deserves the review and legislating, if it needs to be fixed, because the fact is that we have to look at the entire retirement and benefits that are now present in the military--for example, TRICARE, where there has not been an increase in premiums I believe since 1985, while the cost of health care has skyrocketed. So, again, I would ask the chairman of the Budget Committee if that is true. If it is true, then does it not deserve some consideration for those who care, as I do and I know the chairperson does, about the men and women who are serving in the military, and should we not listen to our military leadership who literally are saying they cannot defend this Nation if this sequester continues, particularly in the fashion, the meat ax fashion, with which sequestration is now impacting our Nation's defense?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the chairperson for her hard work. I believe most Americans are a bit surprised that there is any agreement. I believe the chairperson would agree that this is a small step. But I think the chairperson should also deserve and be accorded great credit for tough negotiating, for a good agreement that I think will achieve many things, but, most of all, prevention of the shutdown of the government again which we should not and cannot inflict on the American people. I am sure the chairperson would have had different provisions in it if she had written it herself, just as Congressman Ryan would say the same thing. But this is the essence of what we are supposed to be doing. The option of shutting down the government is something I do not really understand, why anybody, after what we just went through, would want to have as a viable option of our failure to act. Again, I thank the chairperson. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I will vote in favor of the bipartisan budget compromise put forward by Senator Murray and Congressman Ryan. I understand some of my colleagues are not happy with this budget deal. If any of them had been able to show me a better alternative that had the votes to pass in both the House and the Senate and prevent a government shutdown next month, then I would vote no on the measure before the Senate. Unfortunately, we did not have a better plan. I share the concerns that many of my colleagues have with the provision that slows the growth of working-aged military retirees. This provision will not take effect until the end of 2015. I am confident that, before then, under the leadership of the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, we will overturn this unfair provision. My support for this budget deal centers primarily on two very important facts. First, this agreement will prevent another government shutdown; we cannot put the American people and the people in my State of Arizona through another government shutdown. And, second, the budget deal will go a long way in alleviating the devastating impact of sequestration on our military. It is imperative that we do what is necessary to avoid sequestration if we are to expect our military to properly defend this Nation and provide for our national security. Defense Secretary Hagel has stated his support for this budget agreement, as have GEN Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Christine Fox, Acting Deputy Secretary of Defense, GEN Ray Odierno, Chief of Staff of the Army, and GEN Mark Welsh, Chief of Staff of the Air Force.

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am introducing the Empowering Patients First Act, companion legislation to H.R. 2300, introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Tom Price. I thank Congressman Price for all the hard work he did on this legislation. I am very grateful for that. I believe this legislation would give patients, families, and doctors the power to make medical decisions, and not Washington. Specifically, this legislation would enable everyone to purchase health insurance through deductions, credits, or advanceable credits; equalize tax treatment of employer-sponsored plans and plans purchased by individuals by letting individuals buy health insurance with pre-tax dollars; let small business owners band together across State lines through association health plans, known as AHPs, and take advantage of the increased purchasing power which larger businesses are able to take advantage of through increased bargaining power, volume discounts, and administrative efficiencies. It would let consumers buy insurance across State lines, and let individuals own their insurance like a 401(k) plan so they can take it with them across State lines if they change jobs. I don't think there is any doubt in the majority of Americans' minds--and poll after poll indicates--that ObamaCare is a failure. The American people do not believe in it. And it isn't just the problems with the rollout of the Web site--it is all of the aspects of it which have become so complex and so difficult. Basically, it is as some of us who fought it day after day here on the floor said: an experiment in social engineering, where young people who are healthy are going to pay for the health care of those who are older and sicker--a redistribution of wealth that then-Senator Obama favored and stated when he was running for President. That is not the way to address health care needs in America. It has not bent the health care curve down. It has not allowed people, if they want to keep their insurance, to be able to keep it. I noticed that was voted as the biggest lie of the year by one of the periodicals here. And it is a failure. We on the other side of this issue are also required to come up with alternatives, because we vowed to repeal and replace ObamaCare, not just repeal it. I believe that what Congressman Price has introduced, and what I am introducing today as a companion bill, is a step in that direction. It is time that we on this side of the aisle came up with our agenda for health care in America because we know that the inflation associated with health care costs is unsustainable, that there are millions of Americans who do not have health care, and there is a particular problem for those with preexisting conditions. We need to repeal this horrendous mistake--which, by the way, was done on strictly party line votes, the first entitlement program ever enacted that was done without a single bipartisan vote on it. As many of us predicted back in 2009 when this legislation was passed, it was doomed to failure. Time after time, amendment after amendment, as we attempted to repeal it for 25 days, I believe it was, of floor consideration back in 2009, it was voted down on a party line basis. They sowed the wind and are now reaping the whirlwind. We need to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and we need to replace it because health care in America is still not satisfactory, nor have we fulfilled the needs and the obligations we have to all of our citizens. The problems with the Affordable Care Act are well known: A failed Web site rollout that has hindered enrollment and the purchase of mandated coverage. As of December 17, only an estimated 440,835 people have enrolled for a health plan. That is 6.2 percent of the enrollment goal of 7 million by March 31, 2014. There is a destructive tax on medical devices that will discourage innovation and encourage these businesses to move offshore. We have already seen medical device manufacturers leaving the United States of America as they said they would if they were taxed to the point where they could not be competitive with medical devices that were manufactured in foreign countries. There is disappointment for Americans who are happy with their current coverage and want to keep their coverage. It is estimated that 10 million Americans will have their health plans terminated due to ObamaCare. According to a December 17 Washington Post-ABC poll, only 19 percent of Americans believe ObamaCare is improving the country's health care system. Only 8 percent believe ObamaCare is improving their insurance coverage. Only 5 percent of Americans believe their health care costs are decreasing as a result of ObamaCare, and 47 percent of Americans believe the President's health care law is increasing the cost of their health care. It is clear that ObamaCare is not working for the American people, and they have little faith in the administration's efforts to fix our broken health care system. This legislation I am introducing today makes the purchase of health care financially feasible for all Americans--from deductions to advanceable, refundable credits so that everyone has an economic incentive to purchase coverage they want for themselves and their families, not what the government forces them to buy. In addition, it allows greater choices in portability, so that every health policy is owned by the patient, regardless of who pays. This means the coverage would go with the person if they change or lose their job. It gives employers more flexibility in the benefits offered and provides many more coverage options for people with preexisting conditions so that no one is priced out of the market, regardless of health status. It addresses increasing costs by clamping down on abusive lawsuits, ends the practice of defensive medicine, gains significant savings from health care efficiencies--sifting out waste, fraud, and abuse--and bringing our Nation's budget under control. Finally, it establishes doctor-led quality measures, ensuring that patients receive quality care defined by people who know medicine, not by government. It encourages healthier lifestyles by giving employers and health policies more flexibility to offer discounts for healthy habits through wellness and prevention programs. If enacted, this legislation would save trillions of dollars. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who is the former director of the Congressional Budget Office and one of the most credible people in this town, estimates this legislation would save American tax payers $2.37 trillion in its first decade alone. According to the analysis of Mr. Holtz-Eakin, compared to current law this legislation would produce smaller premium increases on average, yielding lower premiums than current law--nearly 19 percent for single policies and up to 15 percent for family policies; increase patient access to physicians; produce a 10-percent increase in medical productivity; and increase the number of insured individuals by 29 percent. Americans are looking for an alternative to ObamaCare. This legislation is a step in the right direction and will provide Americans an alternative that empowers patients, families, and doctors to make the medical decisions, not those in Washington, DC. I find of interest in the Wall Street Journal an opinion piece entitled ``ObamaCare's Troubles Are Only Beginning,'' by Michael Boskin, a very well respected economist. It says: Be prepared for eligibility, payment and information protection debacles--and longer waits for care. He says: The shocks--economic and political--will get much worse next year and beyond. Here's why: The ``sticker shock'' that many buyers of new, ACA-compliant health plans have experienced--with premiums 30% higher, or more, than their previous coverage--has only begun. The costs borne by individuals will be even more obvious next year as more people start having to pay higher deductibles and copays. If, as many predict, too few healthy young people sign up for insurance that is overpriced in order to subsidize older, sicker people, the insurance market will unravel in a ``death spiral'' of ever-higher premiums and fewer signups. The government, through taxpayer-funded ``risk corridors,'' is on the hook for billions of dollars of potential insurance- company losses. This will be about as politically popular as bank bailouts. The ``I can't keep my doctor'' shock will also hit more and more people in coming months. To keep prices to consumers as low as possible--given cost pressures generated by the government's rules, controls and coverage mandates--insurance companies in many cases are offering plans that have very restrictive networks, with lower-cost providers that exclude some of the best physicians and hospitals. Finally, there is an article entitled ``Second wave of health care plan cancellations looms.'' It goes on to say: An analysis by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, shows the administration anticipates half to two-thirds of small businesses would have policies canceled or be compelled to send workers into the ObamaCare exchanges. They predict up to 100 million small and large business policies could be canceled next year. I ask unanimous consent these articles be printed in the Record. It is time for us to begin to consider alternatives and recognize that this legislation needs to be repaired and replaced. I yield the floor. [Dec. 15, 2013] ObamaCare's Troubles Are Only Beginning Be prepared for eligibility, payment and information protection debacles--and longer waits for care. (By Michael J. Boskin) The White House is claiming that the Healthcare.gov website is mostly fixed, that the millions of Americans whose health plans were canceled thanks to government rules may be able to keep them for another year, and that in any event these people will get better plans through ObamaCare exchanges. Whatever the truth of these assertions, those who expect better days ahead for the Affordable Care Act are in for a rude awakening. The shocks--economic and political--will get much worse next year and beyond. Here's why: The ``sticker shock'' that many buyers of new, ACA- compliant health plans have experienced--with premiums 30% higher, or more, than their previous coverage--has only begun. The costs borne by individuals will be even more obvious next year as more people start having to pay higher deductibles and copays. If, as many predict, too few healthy young people sign up for insurance that is overpriced in order to subsidize older, sicker people, the insurance market will unravel in a ``death spiral'' of ever-higher premiums and fewer signups. The government, through taxpayer-funded ``risk corridors,'' is on the hook for billions of dollars of potential insurance- company losses. This will be about as politically popular as bank bailouts. The ``I can't keep my doctor'' shock will also hit more and more people in coming months. To keep prices to consumers as low as possible--given cost pressures generated by the government's rules, controls and coverage mandates--insurance companies in many cases are offering plans that have very restrictive networks, with lower-cost providers that exclude some of the best physicians and hospitals. Next year, millions must choose among unfamiliar physicians and hospitals, or paying more for preferred providers who are not part of their insurance network. Some health outcomes will deteriorate from a less familiar doctor-patient relationship. More IT failures are likely. People looking for health plans on ObamaCare exchanges may be able to fill out their applications with more ease. But the far more complex back- office side of the webssite--where the information in their application is checked against government databases to determine the premium subsidies and prices they will be charged, and where the applications are forwarded to insurance companies--is still under construction. Be prepared for eligibility, coverage gap, billing, claims, insurer payment and patient information-protection debacles. The next shock will come when the scores of millions outside the individual market--people who are covered by employers, in union plans, or on Medicare and Medicaid-- experience the downsides of ObamaCare. There will be longer waits for hospital visits, doctors' appointments and specialist treatment, as more people crowd fewer providers. Those with means can respond to the government-driven waiting lines by making side payments to providers or seeking care through doctors who do not participate in insurance plans. But this will be difficult for most people. Next, the Congressional Budget Office's estimated 25% expansion of Medicaid under ObamaCare will exert pressure on state Medicaid spending (although the pressure will be delayed for a few years by federal subsidies). This pressure on state budgets means less money on education and transportation, and higher state taxes. The ``Cadillac tax'' on health plans to help pay for ObamaCare starts four years from this Jan. 1. It will fall heavily on unions whose plans are expensive due to generous health benefits. In the nearer term, a political iceberg looms next year. Insurance companies usually submit proposed pricing to regulators in the summer, and the open enrollment period begins in the fall for plans starting Jan. 1. Businesses of all sizes that currently provide health care will have to offer ObamaCare's expensive, mandated benefits, or drop their plans and--except the smallest firms--pay a fine. Tens of millions of Americans with employer-provided health plans risk paying more for less, and losing their policies and doctors to more restrictive networks. The administration is desperately trying to delay employer-plan problems beyond the 2014 election to avoid this shock. Meanwhile, ObamaCare will lead to more part-time workers in some industries, as hours are cut back to conform to arbitrary definitions in the law of what constitutes full- time employment. Many small businesses will be cautious about hiring more than 50 full-time employees, which would subject them to the law's employer insurance mandate. On the supply side, medicine will become a far less attractive career for talented young people. More doctors will restrict practice or retire early rather than accept lower incomes and work conditions they did not anticipate. Already, many practices are closed to Medicaid recipients, some also to Medicare. The pace of innovation in drugs, medical devices and delivery is expected to slow significantly, as higher taxes and even rationing set in. The repeated assertions by the law's supporters that nobody but the rich would be worse off was based on a beyond- implausible claim that one could expand by millions the number of people with health insurance, lower health-care costs without rationing, and improve quality. The reality is that any squeezing of insurance-company profits, or reduction in uncompensated emergency-room care amounts to a tiny fraction of the trillions of dollars extracted from those people overpaying for insurance, or redistributed from taxpayers. The Affordable Care Act's disastrous debut sent the president's approval ratings into a tailspin and congressional Democrats in competitive districts fleeing for cover. If the law's continuing unpopularity enables Republicans to regain the Senate in 2014, the president will be forced to veto repeated attempts to repeal the law or to negotiate major changes. The risk of a complete repeal if a Republican takes the White House in 2016 will put enormous pressure on Democratic candidates--and on Republicans--to articulate a compelling alternative to the cost and coverage problems that beset health care. A good start would be sliding-scale subsidies to help people buy a low-cost catastrophic plan, purchasable across state lines, equalized tax treatment of those buying insurance on their own with those on employer plans, and expanded high-risk pools.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am introducing the Empowering Patients First Act, companion legislation to H.R. 2300, introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Tom Price. I thank Congressman Price for all the hard work he did on this legislation. I am very grateful for that. I believe this legislation would give patients, families, and doctors the power to make medical decisions, and not Washington. Specifically, this legislation would enable everyone to purchase health insurance through deductions, credits, or advanceable credits; equalize tax treatment of employer-sponsored plans and plans purchased by individuals by letting individuals buy health insurance with pre-tax dollars; let small business owners band together across State lines through association health plans, known as AHPs, and take advantage of the increased purchasing power which larger businesses are able to take advantage of through increased bargaining power, volume discounts, and administrative efficiencies. It would let consumers buy insurance across State lines, and let individuals own their insurance like a 401(k) plan so they can take it with them across State lines if they change jobs. I don't think there is any doubt in the majority of Americans' minds--and poll after poll indicates--that ObamaCare is a failure. The American people do not believe in it. And it isn't just the problems with the rollout of the Web site--it is all of the aspects of it which have become so complex and so difficult. Basically, it is as some of us who fought it day after day here on the floor said: an experiment in social engineering, where young people who are healthy are going to pay for the health care of those who are older and sicker--a redistribution of wealth that then-Senator Obama favored and stated when he was running for President. That is not the way to address health care needs in America. It has not bent the health care curve down. It has not allowed people, if they want to keep their insurance, to be able to keep it. I noticed that was voted as the biggest lie of the year by one of the periodicals here. And it is a failure. We on the other side of this issue are also required to come up with alternatives, because we vowed to repeal and replace ObamaCare, not just repeal it. I believe that what Congressman Price has introduced, and what I am introducing today as a companion bill, is a step in that direction. It is time that we on this side of the aisle came up with our agenda for health care in America because we know that the inflation associated with health care costs is unsustainable, that there are millions of Americans who do not have health care, and there is a particular problem for those with preexisting conditions. We need to repeal this horrendous mistake--which, by the way, was done on strictly party line votes, the first entitlement program ever enacted that was done without a single bipartisan vote on it. As many of us predicted back in 2009 when this legislation was passed, it was doomed to failure. Time after time, amendment after amendment, as we attempted to repeal it for 25 days, I believe it was, of floor consideration back in 2009, it was voted down on a party line basis. They sowed the wind and are now reaping the whirlwind. We need to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and we need to replace it because health care in America is still not satisfactory, nor have we fulfilled the needs and the obligations we have to all of our citizens. The problems with the Affordable Care Act are well known: A failed Web site rollout that has hindered enrollment and the purchase of mandated coverage. As of December 17, only an estimated 440,835 people have enrolled for a health plan. That is 6.2 percent of the enrollment goal of 7 million by March 31, 2014. There is a destructive tax on medical devices that will discourage innovation and encourage these businesses to move offshore. We have already seen medical device manufacturers leaving the United States of America as they said they would if they were taxed to the point where they could not be competitive with medical devices that were manufactured in foreign countries. There is disappointment for Americans who are happy with their current coverage and want to keep their coverage. It is estimated that 10 million Americans will have their health plans terminated due to ObamaCare. According to a December 17 Washington Post-ABC poll, only 19 percent of Americans believe ObamaCare is improving the country's health care system. Only 8 percent believe ObamaCare is improving their insurance coverage. Only 5 percent of Americans believe their health care costs are decreasing as a result of ObamaCare, and 47 percent of Americans believe the President's health care law is increasing the cost of their health care. It is clear that ObamaCare is not working for the American people, and they have little faith in the administration's efforts to fix our broken health care system. This legislation I am introducing today makes the purchase of health care financially feasible for all Americans--from deductions to advanceable, refundable credits so that everyone has an economic incentive to purchase coverage they want for themselves and their families, not what the government forces them to buy. In addition, it allows greater choices in portability, so that every health policy is owned by the patient, regardless of who pays. This means the coverage would go with the person if they change or lose their job. It gives employers more flexibility in the benefits offered and provides many more coverage options for people with preexisting conditions so that no one is priced out of the market, regardless of health status. It addresses increasing costs by clamping down on abusive lawsuits, ends the practice of defensive medicine, gains significant savings from health care efficiencies--sifting out waste, fraud, and abuse--and bringing our Nation's budget under control. Finally, it establishes doctor-led quality measures, ensuring that patients receive quality care defined by people who know medicine, not by government. It encourages healthier lifestyles by giving employers and health policies more flexibility to offer discounts for healthy habits through wellness and prevention programs. If enacted, this legislation would save trillions of dollars. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who is the former director of the Congressional Budget Office and one of the most credible people in this town, estimates this legislation would save American tax payers $2.37 trillion in its first decade alone. According to the analysis of Mr. Holtz-Eakin, compared to current law this legislation would produce smaller premium increases on average, yielding lower premiums than current law--nearly 19 percent for single policies and up to 15 percent for family policies; increase patient access to physicians; produce a 10-percent increase in medical productivity; and increase the number of insured individuals by 29 percent. Americans are looking for an alternative to ObamaCare. This legislation is a step in the right direction and will provide Americans an alternative that empowers patients, families, and doctors to make the medical decisions, not those in Washington, DC. I find of interest in the Wall Street Journal an opinion piece entitled ``ObamaCare's Troubles Are Only Beginning,'' by Michael Boskin, a very well respected economist. It says: Be prepared for eligibility, payment and information protection debacles--and longer waits for care. He says: The shocks--economic and political--will get much worse next year and beyond. Here's why: The ``sticker shock'' that many buyers of new, ACA-compliant health plans have experienced--with premiums 30% higher, or more, than their previous coverage--has only begun. The costs borne by individuals will be even more obvious next year as more people start having to pay higher deductibles and copays. If, as many predict, too few healthy young people sign up for insurance that is overpriced in order to subsidize older, sicker people, the insurance market will unravel in a ``death spiral'' of ever-higher premiums and fewer signups. The government, through taxpayer-funded ``risk corridors,'' is on the hook for billions of dollars of potential insurance- company losses. This will be about as politically popular as bank bailouts. The ``I can't keep my doctor'' shock will also hit more and more people in coming months. To keep prices to consumers as low as possible--given cost pressures generated by the government's rules, controls and coverage mandates--insurance companies in many cases are offering plans that have very restrictive networks, with lower-cost providers that exclude some of the best physicians and hospitals. Finally, there is an article entitled ``Second wave of health care plan cancellations looms.'' It goes on to say: An analysis by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, shows the administration anticipates half to two-thirds of small businesses would have policies canceled or be compelled to send workers into the ObamaCare exchanges. They predict up to 100 million small and large business policies could be canceled next year. I ask unanimous consent these articles be printed in the Record. It is time for us to begin to consider alternatives and recognize that this legislation needs to be repaired and replaced. I yield the floor. [Dec. 15, 2013] ObamaCare's Troubles Are Only Beginning Be prepared for eligibility, payment and information protection debacles--and longer waits for care. (By Michael J. Boskin) The White House is claiming that the Healthcare.gov website is mostly fixed, that the millions of Americans whose health plans were canceled thanks to government rules may be able to keep them for another year, and that in any event these people will get better plans through ObamaCare exchanges. Whatever the truth of these assertions, those who expect better days ahead for the Affordable Care Act are in for a rude awakening. The shocks--economic and political--will get much worse next year and beyond. Here's why: The ``sticker shock'' that many buyers of new, ACA- compliant health plans have experienced--with premiums 30% higher, or more, than their previous coverage--has only begun. The costs borne by individuals will be even more obvious next year as more people start having to pay higher deductibles and copays. If, as many predict, too few healthy young people sign up for insurance that is overpriced in order to subsidize older, sicker people, the insurance market will unravel in a ``death spiral'' of ever-higher premiums and fewer signups. The government, through taxpayer-funded ``risk corridors,'' is on the hook for billions of dollars of potential insurance- company losses. This will be about as politically popular as bank bailouts. The ``I can't keep my doctor'' shock will also hit more and more people in coming months. To keep prices to consumers as low as possible--given cost pressures generated by the government's rules, controls and coverage mandates--insurance companies in many cases are offering plans that have very restrictive networks, with lower-cost providers that exclude some of the best physicians and hospitals. Next year, millions must choose among unfamiliar physicians and hospitals, or paying more for preferred providers who are not part of their insurance network. Some health outcomes will deteriorate from a less familiar doctor-patient relationship. More IT failures are likely. People looking for health plans on ObamaCare exchanges may be able to fill out their applications with more ease. But the far more complex back- office side of the webssite--where the information in their application is checked against government databases to determine the premium subsidies and prices they will be charged, and where the applications are forwarded to insurance companies--is still under construction. Be prepared for eligibility, coverage gap, billing, claims, insurer payment and patient information-protection debacles. The next shock will come when the scores of millions outside the individual market--people who are covered by employers, in union plans, or on Medicare and Medicaid-- experience the downsides of ObamaCare. There will be longer waits for hospital visits, doctors' appointments and specialist treatment, as more people crowd fewer providers. Those with means can respond to the government-driven waiting lines by making side payments to providers or seeking care through doctors who do not participate in insurance plans. But this will be difficult for most people. Next, the Congressional Budget Office's estimated 25% expansion of Medicaid under ObamaCare will exert pressure on state Medicaid spending (although the pressure will be delayed for a few years by federal subsidies). This pressure on state budgets means less money on education and transportation, and higher state taxes. The ``Cadillac tax'' on health plans to help pay for ObamaCare starts four years from this Jan. 1. It will fall heavily on unions whose plans are expensive due to generous health benefits. In the nearer term, a political iceberg looms next year. Insurance companies usually submit proposed pricing to regulators in the summer, and the open enrollment period begins in the fall for plans starting Jan. 1. Businesses of all sizes that currently provide health care will have to offer ObamaCare's expensive, mandated benefits, or drop their plans and--except the smallest firms--pay a fine. Tens of millions of Americans with employer-provided health plans risk paying more for less, and losing their policies and doctors to more restrictive networks. The administration is desperately trying to delay employer-plan problems beyond the 2014 election to avoid this shock. Meanwhile, ObamaCare will lead to more part-time workers in some industries, as hours are cut back to conform to arbitrary definitions in the law of what constitutes full- time employment. Many small businesses will be cautious about hiring more than 50 full-time employees, which would subject them to the law's employer insurance mandate. On the supply side, medicine will become a far less attractive career for talented young people. More doctors will restrict practice or retire early rather than accept lower incomes and work conditions they did not anticipate. Already, many practices are closed to Medicaid recipients, some also to Medicare. The pace of innovation in drugs, medical devices and delivery is expected to slow significantly, as higher taxes and even rationing set in. The repeated assertions by the law's supporters that nobody but the rich would be worse off was based on a beyond- implausible claim that one could expand by millions the number of people with health insurance, lower health-care costs without rationing, and improve quality. The reality is that any squeezing of insurance-company profits, or reduction in uncompensated emergency-room care amounts to a tiny fraction of the trillions of dollars extracted from those people overpaying for insurance, or redistributed from taxpayers. The Affordable Care Act's disastrous debut sent the president's approval ratings into a tailspin and congressional Democrats in competitive districts fleeing for cover. If the law's continuing unpopularity enables Republicans to regain the Senate in 2014, the president will be forced to veto repeated attempts to repeal the law or to negotiate major changes. The risk of a complete repeal if a Republican takes the White House in 2016 will put enormous pressure on Democratic candidates--and on Republicans--to articulate a compelling alternative to the cost and coverage problems that beset health care. A good start would be sliding-scale subsidies to help people buy a low-cost catastrophic plan, purchasable across state lines, equalized tax treatment of those buying insurance on their own with those on employer plans, and expanded high-risk pools.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I come to the floor to speak in support of the 2-year bipartisan budget agreement reached by Representative Ryan and Senator Murray. I am pleased that the budget agreement passed the House of Representatives with overwhelming bipartisan support and that cloture was invoked in the Senate today. I understand there are many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle who are very unhappy with this deal and intend to vote against it. My only response to that is I respect their vote, but I would like to know what we do in order to avoid another shutdown of the government. The American people steadfastly reject a shutdown of the government. I have concerns about the budget deal--I think everybody does--because of the nature of the way business is done. But to somehow vote against it without an alternative to keep the government from shutting down lacks some intellectual integrity. My support and vote will be based on two important facts: It will prevent another government shutdown, which we cannot put the American people through or the people of my State through again. It goes a long way in alleviating the devastating impact of sequestration on our military. Have no doubt that the sequestration has had a devastating effect on many aspects of our ability to defend this Nation. Don't just talk to our leadership but talk to the men and women who are serving. They don't know where they are going to go next. The pilots aren't flying, the ships aren't sailing, and the training is not being conducted. That is unfair to the men and women who are serving their military, and I would remind us that all have volunteered to serve this country in harm's way. This budget deal will avert another government shutdown and reduce the impact of sequestration. It will reduce the deficit by roughly $23 billion without raising taxes. Peggy Noonan is a noted conservative columnist who writes for the Wall Street Journal and served in the Reagan administration. She observed in a Wall Street Journal op-ed: [t]he government is now unable even to pass a budget, to perform this minimal duty. Instead, Congress and the administration lurch from crisis to crisis, from shutdown to debt-ceiling battle. That gives a sense the process itself is broken, and this lends an air of instability, of Third World- ness, to the world's oldest continuing democracy. We can't even control our books. We don't even try. That's my context for the Ryan-Murray budget deal. She continued: Should it be passed? Yes, yes and yes. The good things about it are very good. The idea that Republicans and Democrats are capable of coming to a budget agreement is good. The idea that they can negotiate and make concessions and accept gains is good. The idea the U.S. government is able to produce anything but stasis and acrimony is good. That we can still function even in the age of Obama--good. She noted: [This] agreement moves us an inch or two in the right direction. Let me tell you what that's better than: It's better than moving a few inches in the wrong direction! And it's better than where we've been, in a state of agitated paralysis. Only weeks ago we all witnessed firsthand the impact a government shutdown had on our constituents, and none of us wants to go through that again. In my home State of Arizona, the impact was very significant. Nearly 500,000 visitors were turned away from Arizona's national parks during the shutdown. Arizona lost about $33 million in visitor spending. At Grand Canyon National Park, food banks had to rush supplies to 2,200 employees of the concessionaires inside the park who were furloughed or laid off. Arizona spent about $500,000 in donations to reopen the Grand Canyon for 5 days during the shutdown. The list goes on and on. Our approval rating, I would say to my friends on this side of the aisle, and our party's approval rating plummeted. The damage was severe. Now we have an agreement. I repeat to my colleagues who would vote against this--both on that side of the aisle and this side of the aisle--if you have a better idea, bring it up, let's consider it, and let's vote on it because the only alternative to this is a government shutdown. Let's not deceive ourselves about why we are voting and what we are voting on. I admit it is not perfect. I think it has caused heartburn for all of us. One potentially problematic provision--and it is problematic--would slow the growth of cost-of-living adjustments for working-age--and I emphasize ``working-age''--military retirees. Let me point out that the COLAs for working-age military retirees under the age of 62 will continue to grow after 2015, in most cases more slowly than before. The fact is that the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee--one of the most admired and respected individuals in this Senate--has stated that we will review this provision, and we will review it in the context of the work that is already being done on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and that is a review of all paid benefits and aspects of our military that, in the words of former Secretary of Defense Mr. Gates that these entitlements in the military are ``eating us alive.'' I would like to give an example. In 2012 military retirees and survivor benefit recipients received $52 billion. In 10 years that will grow to $59 billion. By 2034 it will grow to $108 billion per year. From 2001 to 2011 payments to military retirees grew by 49 percent. Every penny of it is deserved. Every penny of it we are proud we gave them. But I don't think there is any doubt that we are going to have to look at this whole issue of the pay, benefits, retirement, and all of that of members of the military in a prospective fashion. I am confident that one of the items taken up next year in the Senate Armed Services Committee will be what we are passing today, but it will be brought up in the context of all of the aspects of personnel costs in the military today--keeping in mind that we have an all-volunteer service and we are proud and pleased of the fact that we have America's finest in the military. But I can say for a fact that with this lurching from shutdown to shutdown, these draconian effects of sequestration--and I know my colleagues know that in 2014 there will be a more severe cut than at any time--these brave young men and women are getting sick and tired of not being able to do their jobs, and the best and the brightest are already making decisions as to whether to remain in the military. I wish to mention one small aspect that I think is indicative. About 20 years ago there was a very large influx of pilots into the civilian airlines as airlines began to expand rather dramatically. That very large number of pilots is now nearing retirement age. There is going to be a dramatic demand for airline pilots, who, as we all know, are very well paid. We are offering pilots $225,000 to stay in and fly airplanes in the military. Do you know that the vast majority of these young pilots, these aviators, are not accepting that? One of the reasons they are not signing up is because a lot of times they don't fly anymore. They are not operating anymore, and they are spending time away from their homes and their families without being able to do what they were trained to do. This is only a small example of the impact of sequestration on the military. I wish all of my colleagues who are members of the Armed Services Committee would listen to the testimony of our military leaders who tell us that already they may not be able to defend this Nation in the most efficient fashion because of the effects of sequestration. All I can say is that if I had written this legislation--I think each one of us individually would have written it differently, but we didn't--the option of shutting down the government and the option of further damage inflicted by sequestration I hope would override the problems we see with this agreement. I want to promise my colleagues that I will work in every way with Senator Levin under his leadership next year--remember, this COLA issue does not kick in until 2015--I will work with my colleagues under Senator Levin and Senator Inhofe's leadership to review this provision in this bill as to whether it is fair and whether it needs to be changed. Again, I challenge my colleagues who will come to this floor and speak against this agreement to tell me what we can vote on and pass to prevent another government shutdown, and then I will be pleased to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I regret that I was absent from the Senate yesterday and was unable to vote on the nomination of Jeh Johnson to be Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Had I been here, I would have voted in opposition to this nominee. Reforming our broken immigration system is one of the Nation's top priorities. To that end, ensuring that our borders are secure and preventing illegal entry is absolutely vital. In my capacity as the senior Senator from Arizona and one of the lead advocates of comprehensively reforming our immigration system, I have a solemn obligation and a constitutional prerogative to make sure that the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, accomplishes that mission. In furtherance of that obligation and that prerogative, I--indeed Congress--must count on DHS cooperation to provide any relevant information I and this body request. Unfortunately, in connection with the Senate's effort to craft legislation to help secure our borders, the former DHS Secretary unjustifiably refused to provide such information. The information I asked for was intended to let Congress and the American people judge for themselves if progress is being made to protect our borders from illegal entry. To date, I never received that information from this administration. So first during his confirmation hearing and then in writing, I asked Mr. Johnson to commit to me that, if confirmed as the new DHS Secretary, he would provide me that same information. Unfortunately, on grounds that I find to be specious and unacceptable, he declined. On the basis of his response, I can only conclude that, if confirmed, the level of cooperation between DHS and me, particularly on the vitally important issue of border security--when comprehensive immigration remains such a vitally important issue--would remain business as usual, and that is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to me and to the people who interests I am committed to representing. For this reason, I have no choice other than to oppose Mr. Johnson's nomination. I have known Jeh for some time. I have respect for his work while General Counsel for the Department of Defense. In particular, I applaud his efforts in the development of the Department of Defense's policy regarding the use of deadly force in connection with counterterrorist operations and other important defense and national security issues. But what I have seen all too frequently is the inability or unwillingness of appointed officials within this administration to free themselves from the unelected, unpointed, political staff in the West Wing that put political expediency ahead of meaningful governance. I can have no tolerance for another Secretary who will act as nothing more than a road block on behalf of those with a political agenda and is either unwilling or unable to provide transparency into the actions of this department and its components. Congress, particularly those of us who are the border, has the right to have that information. It is our responsibility and obligation to our constituents. I have constituents in my State who every night, there are people who are crossing their border illegally. I have constituents that every day, drug smugglers are going across their property and their homes. They certainly have the right, as citizens, to know what measures need to be taken in order to control our border. Earlier this year, the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill with 67 votes that included unprecedented increases in spending to help secure the border. The information we based these spending increases on came directly from leadership within the Border Patrol, and I believe it will be successful. But the American people deserve to have more than my faith in the efforts of the Border Patrol as to whether the border is made secure. Our constituents are relying on us to finally secure the border but also be good stewards of their tax dollars and to have the capabilities to ensure their money is being used wisely and if not, to make the appropriate adjustments. When developing this legislation, we requested information from Secretary Napolitano that I believe would have helped make the legislation stronger and potentially garner more support from my Republican colleagues. This information was never provided to us, I believe, for solely political reasons but has ultimately harmed our ability to get comprehensive immigration reform legislation signed into law. This is the source of my disappointment with Mr. Johnson: His refusal to commit to provide the information necessary would prevent Members of Congress from making reasonable and informed decisions that serve the American people. And Mr. Johnson did so under circumstances that other Members of this body have sought--and obtained--commitments of cooperation. For example, here is what Secretary Kerry said in response to a request for answers regarding the Bengazi raid: ``[H]ere's what I say to you. After 29 years here--in my 29th, I respect the prerogatives of the United States Senate and the members of Congress. You represent the American people, you're the other branch of government, you have the right to know what took place. And I have an obligation commensurate with the, you know, regulations and classifications and privacy and other things that are at play here, to help you get the answers, and we'll do that.'' And what did I get from Mr. Johnson? ``If I am confirmed . . . I promise that addressing your letter will be a top and immediate priority for me.'' For years, we were told that apprehensions are down and the border is more secure. In reality, we all knew that the economy was the primary driver in reducing potential illegal border crossers. In the last 2 years, with slight improvements in the economy, we have seen a 20 percent increase in the number of apprehensions. Does that mean the border is less or more secure? For years DHS has been telling us they are developing a border security index in a shift away from using apprehensions as the sole measure of success and to get a true measure of security along the border. We have been waiting 3 years with no sign that the index will be made public. All indications are the development of the index has been shelved. Until Congress is provided greater information on the capabilities and deficiencies of the Department of Homeland Security's abilities to secure the border, Congress will not be able to determine if the border is secure. I regret that Jeh Johnson has refused to commit to providing this information to Congress, and I do not support his nomination.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my friend from Oklahoma.

Mr. McCAIN. First, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his leadership and his dedication to getting this authorization bill passed. I think my friend from Oklahoma would agree with me there is no reason we are where we are today. Is it not true this bill was passed out of the Armed Services Committee in May and here we are now in December just now contemplating bringing it to the floor of the Senate?

Mr. McCAIN. With all due respect, one has to wonder about the priorities of the group and the leader who sets the agenda for the Senate. One of the real advantages of being in the majority is you set the agenda. So rather than take the bill to the floor, as we have for 51 years--for 51 years the Congress of the United States has taken up and passed a Defense authorization bill--we are now here in December, with the House of Representatives going out of session tomorrow, and we are faced with an unsavory parliamentary situation where we are having to maneuver in a way that a ``message''--and my friend from Oklahoma can correct me if I am wrong--a message that cannot be amended, otherwise it would have to go back to the other body, which is going out of session, which would then take us into January. I ask my friend from Oklahoma: Isn't that where we are, and isn't that a commentary on the concern my friends on the other side of the aisle, the majority leader, has about the men and women who are serving in the military? We will talk a little about what a failure to pass a Defense authorization bill is. But we are now in a situation which is a disservice not only to the men and women who are serving but to all of us--to every one of the 100 Senators--because every one of these Senators would want to have an amendment to make this bill better and that will impart to the rest of the body their knowledge, their expertise, and their priorities. So what are we doing? We are asking Members on this side of the aisle and the other side of the aisle to accept a piece of legislation without a single amendment to it. That, my friends, when we are talking about the defense of this Nation, is absolutely outrageous. Would my friend from Oklahoma agree?

Mr. McCAIN. So we have established, by the calendar and by what has happened since May, that, obviously, the majority and the majority leader had a higher priority for whatever the hell it is we did rather than the defense of this Nation. That is a fact. I would challenge anyone on the other side of the aisle to come and argue differently. It is outrageous. Now that we have established that, could I ask my friend what happens--and I know he has gone through it--what happens to the men and women in our military if we do wait until January, if we do wait until February or March or don't act at all? For example, one of the best examples I have seen is that right now a married sergeant in the U.S. military who is serving as a helicopter crew chief in Afghanistan, beginning on the 1st of January-- please correct me if I am wrong--will lose $890 a month; is that correct?

Mr. McCAIN. So we send people into combat, and while we dither around here we are going to keep the men and women who are serving in harm's way from getting the benefits they have earned and deserve and are theirs by law. But we are not going to act, at least until January, perhaps. I know the Senator from Oklahoma has gone on with a very long list about the completion of ships, about the health programs, and about a number of other issues, but I wish to focus for 1 minute on one area with my friend from Oklahoma. I think all my colleagues are aware, and the American people are aware, there is a serious issue in the U.S. military. It is a very serious issue and it is the issue of sexual assaults. It is the issue the Senator from Oklahoma has spent untold hours in discussions and debate and learning about this issue because it is a terrible thing that is going on in our military today. Under the leadership of the Senator from Oklahoma and the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Levin, we have--and with the participation of every member of the committee, under their leadership--come up with a way to, at least to a significant degree, address this problem in the military. There are still some controversial aspects of it that are not necessarily either side of the aisle but just a different viewpoint. But I would argue and ask my friend from Oklahoma, is it not true that we have made significant improvements in the Defense authorization bill on the issue of sexual assaults? These changes, after hearings, after debate, after discussion were put into law and they were agreed to as being very necessary measures to try to bring this terrible situation of sexual assaults in the military under control. I ask my colleague from Oklahoma if this isn't, among many others, an issue that needs to be addressed.

Mr. McCAIN. Would the Senator agree that even though there is significant difference between Senator Gillibrand and Senator McCaskill, they were in agreement with the many provisions my colleague just pointed out, which, whether we address their disagreements or not, they were both agreed these are very important measures they both agree on, that the entire committee agreed on in addressing this issue of sexual assaults in the military.

Mr. McCAIN. I know long ago both the Senator from Oklahoma and I served in the military, which is not too relevant anymore, but both of us keep track of the military. We visit our military installations, and we spend time with the men and women who are serving both here and overseas. We are in communication with them. It is part of our privileges as their representatives, whether they happen to be in our home State or serving overseas in harm's way. When you talk to these young people--and they are the bravest of the brave and we all know the best of America--they do not understand why, when they are serving in combat and they are entitled to some additional pay because of being in danger, that will not happen. They do not understand why the bonus of special duty and incentive pay will lapse. They don't understand why that should happen. They do not understand why we are not addressing the issue of sexual assaults in the military. Many of them are deeply concerned about that. By the way, I would also add--and I think my friend from Oklahoma will agree--this issue impacts on recruiting the most highly qualified young Americans. So here we are on December 12 and we have still not completed our duty, our obligation to the men and women who are serving. They rely on us. They rely on us to take care of them. They rely on us to provide them with the weapons and the capabilities and the pay and benefits and to take care of their families. They rely on us. I am getting feedback from them that they are now beginning to believe we don't care that much. Frankly, I can't argue with that because why are we here in December? Why are we here in December? The fiscal year ended on 1 October. They ask: Why is it that you in Congress can't act to provide us with the tools we need to carry out our mission of defending the Nation? Frankly, I don't have a very good answer, but maybe the Senator from Oklahoma does.

Mr. McCAIN. I finally say to my friend, I thank him for his leadership. I thank him for his willingness to really short circuit what should have been a 2- or 3-week exercise, where every Member of the Senate would have had the opportunity to propose amendments, to debate those amendments. My colleague just mentioned the issue of detainees which is still something that deserves great scrutiny by this body. The issue of surveillance is clearly one that needs debate and discussion on the floor of the Senate. There are so many issues that we are not discussing in the slightest because we are now entrapped by a process which doesn't allow us to pass a single amendment to this absolutely vital piece of legislation. I thank my friend from Oklahoma for understanding that even though we are placed in this incredibly unsavory situation where we are not able, every Member of the Senate who chooses to--and as the Senator from Oklahoma knows well, when we consider the Defense authorization bill, there are literally hundreds of amendments that we consider because of the interest and the commitment that all of our colleagues have. We are not going to be able to do that this time. But it seems to me too, at least we ought to get the bill passed so we can get our Defense Department and the men and women who are serving in it in the kind of condition they deserve.

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 permitted to speak as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have been engaged in the back-and-forth for many years concerning the rights of the minority to oppose legislation or nominations for Senate advice and consent, which, obviously, as we all know, is part of the Constitution of the United States. After investing all of those hundreds of hours in compromises, both when Republican leadership wanted to act to curtail the rights of the minority and when Democrats were doing it--I fought hard. A short time ago Senator Levin and Senator Schumer and others changed the rules to try to expedite the consideration of legislation for a whole lot of reasons, including the fact that a majority of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have never been here in the minority. We have now acted in a draconian fashion and, in my view, have fundamentally, historically damaged this institution. Among other things, for the first time since the Senate has been a body, we have now changed the rules to 51 votes rather than 67. First time in history. Unfortunately, the repercussions will be that we are moving a step--a very significant step--toward a majority-rule body. As my friend from Michigan Senator Carl Levin quoted Senator Vandenberg, a former Senator from Michigan and a highly regarded individual in this institution, we have now broken the rules to change the rules. On the night we changed the rules, I read a letter from Senator Robert Byrd--who was one of the most outstanding leaders and clearly the expert on the Constitution and this institution--cautioning against it. The reason I come to the floor today is not so much to revisit that because it is done. I wish to point out that I see the first manifestation now of the majority-rule vote. I have been a member of the Homeland Security Committee, and I have been involved in these issues for many years. I was also involved in the so-called Gang of 8, where we came up with a comprehensive immigration reform bill which was passed through this body. We still hope that the other body will address, at least in some way, the issue of comprehensive immigration reform. I come from a border State, as my colleagues know. Our border is not secure. In fact, the majority of drugs that still come across our southern border come across the Arizona-Sonora border in Mexico. My constituents, many who live in the southern part of the State of Arizona, have home invasions, people crossing their property. In one case a rancher was shot and killed, and a Border Patrol agent was killed. In fact, the reality is that they don't have the same security in the southern part of my State as the rest of our citizens do in other parts of the country. Border security was a fundamental and vitally important issue in the hundreds of hours of debate and discussions that I and my seven colleagues engaged in as we shaped the comprehensive immigration reform legislation, which was largely passed intact in the Senate. I went back to my constituents and I said there is a very vital and important provision in this bill; that is, when this legislation is passed, we will embark on the goal of achieving 90 percent effectiveness at our border. We can never get complete control of our border--we all recognize that--but 90 percent effective control through surveillance, through hiring new people, through capabilities that we have--we can achieve 90 percent effective control. Then comes the nomination hearing of Mr. Jeh Johnson for Secretary of Department of Homeland Security. I asked Mr. Johnson a simple, straightforward question. The question was: Mr. Johnson, when you are Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, will you provide this committee and me, Senator McCain, with a description of the measures that need to be taken in order for us to achieve what we have turned into legislation--at least in the Senate--90 percent effective control of our southern border? His answer was no. His answer, believe it or not, was no, that he could not provide that information. In fact, I was so astonished that I wrote him a letter and received a response, which I will read: November 19, 2013. Dear Senator McCain, I regret that in my current posture as a nominee and private citizen, I am not now in a position to commit to provide the information you seek from the Department of Homeland Security. At this point, I must respectfully refer you to the Department's current leadership. I know this was a matter of discussion between you and Secretary Napolitano, and I understand your frustration. As I believe I have demonstrated to you and others on the Senate and House Armed Services Committee-- Why he said Senate Armed Services Committee, I am not sure. --I have a strong respect for Congress' oversight role. If I am confirmed, and if your request is still outstanding at that point, I promise that addressing your letter will be a top and immediate priority for me. This is the November 19, 2013, letter from Mr. Jeh Charles Johnson. In other words, the nominee for the Department of Homeland Security, who has direct responsibility for securing our borders, direct responsibility as outlined in legislation passed by this body, the comprehensive immigration reform bill, refuses to give me and this body the information. I hope there are other Senators who might be interested in what is necessary to achieve 90 percent effective control of our borders. He refuses to give me that information. Thanks to the good offices of my beloved friend Carl Levin and my dear friend Senator Carper, I just came from a meeting in my office with Mr. Jeh Johnson. Mr. Jeh Johnson again repeated to me that he could not give me the information of what is necessary, what tools are necessary to ensure 90 percent effective control of our border. Allegedly, he is being prevented from doing that by the White House. It is stunning. Why would the White House prevent the nominee for Secretary of Homeland Security from providing this to Members of the Senate and members of the committee that has oversight of homeland security, which is fundamental information if we are going to achieve effective control of our border? I go home to Arizona and I say: Yes, it is in the law, my friends. It is in the law that we are going to have to get 90 percent effective control of our border, but I don't know how we do it because the agency that will be required to do it will not give me the necessary information to do it. My friends, we will voting on Monday to confirm Mr. Johnson. He will be confirmed. There is no doubt about it now that we have majority vote. We have now deprived Republicans of their advice and consent responsibilities and authority. We have not only changed the rules of the Senate, we have abridged the Constitution of the United States because the only way that I could have received this information from Mr. Johnson was if I had said: I can't approve of your nomination until you provide the information which, by any objective observer, I am entitled to--not only entitled to; it is my responsibility to know that. It is my responsibility. That is why we have a committee. That is why we have a committee, the homeland security committee, that has oversight of the functions of the executive branch. That is how equal branches of government are supposed to function. Mr. Johnson will be confirmed, and the message will go out, believe me: You don't have to answer a question by a Republican Senator. You don't have to respond to a straightforward question. There was nothing devious about the question I asked Mr. Johnson. There was nothing complicated. They certainly should have the information of what steps and measures are necessary to ensure 90 percent effective control of our border--which is a requirement in the law, if it is ever passed. Certainly the requirement was passed by the Senate. It is kind of a sad day. It was a sad day for me when we changed the rules. It was a sad day for me to see people who have been here a very short period of time basically shatter the comity which exists and which is vital to doing business in the Senate. I also would point out to my colleagues--particularly those who are new and who drove this change in the Senate rules--what goes around comes around and what goes around will come around. To their deep regret, some day--I say to the President and I say to my colleagues who voted for it on a party-line vote, for the first time in history changing the rules of the Senate from 67 votes to 51 votes--they will regret it. The people who will suffer greatly from this are the American people because this place is largely dysfunctional anyway. If we think it was dysfunctional before, wait and see. I say that with deep regret because I value and treasure my relationships with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Some of the best friends I have are on the other side of the aisle. But to expect to do business as usual when I can't even get a straight answer for a question that--now by not having the answer inhibits and in many ways prohibits my ability to respond and carry out my responsibilities to the citizens of my State--cannot go without being responded to. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the chairman and ranking member if necessary as we discuss this legislation----

Mr. McCAIN. Or lack of legislation, which may be unique in the history of the Senate in that for 51 years this body has passed a defense authorization bill, gone to conference between the two Houses, and sent a bill to the President's desk--legislation that I think most Americans would agree is our first priority, and that is to defend the security of this Nation. I guess one of the questions I have for the distinguished chairman of the committee, and obviously the ranking member, is that by us not acting on this bill before the end of the year, is it not true, I would ask Chairman Levin, that we have already done some damage to the military and our readiness? Is it not also true that in the years that Senator Levin and I and Senator Inhofe have been together in the Armed Services Committee, we have never tried to do an authorization bill in a week? There are too many issues that are worthy of debate and votes on the part of this body. So is it not true, I would ask Senator Levin, that if we fail to take up this legislation, we will be embarking into unknown and uncharted waters because then we will be leaving it, isn't it true, to various appropriations bills or continuing resolutions or a patchwork kind of addressing what I would argue--and I do not know how anyone could dispute--is the most important obligation the Congress of the United States has; that is, to authorize the provisions in law that are necessary to defend this Nation? I would ask the Senator from Michigan those questions.

Mr. McCAIN. Would the chairman mention a couple of those?

Mr. McCAIN. I should have stated at the beginning that I am very proud of the leadership that both Senator Inhofe and Senator Levin have provided to the Armed Services Committee. I serve on a number of committees and have served on a number of committees in my time in the Senate. The bipartisanship and cooperative legislating that is exemplified by both Senators makes me proud and makes me believe there is still some hope for bipartisanship in the Senate. Their leadership has been vital in putting together an authorization bill which is, as we have described, incredibly important. I ask both of my colleagues, I am hearing--especially now from this side of the aisle--it is OK if we let this go over into January. After all, we only have another week. We have the farm bill, we have the budget agreement, et cetera. The House, the other side of the Capitol, is going out of session. Why isn't it OK to wait until January? We will be back early in January and work on this legislation then. I am sure I know the answer, but I ask of the chairman if that isn't nearly as easy as it sounds, even if, contrary to custom in January, we would do anything legislatively.

Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator from Oklahoma have a response?