John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. The mailer. I was trying to find a polite word--the mailer that was sent out to all Medicare enrollees and what conclusions he drew from that infomercial?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as I understand it, it is about 90 days since the President signed the legislation known to some as ObamaCare and to others as the Medicare reform bill. But there have been some interesting developments in the intervening 90 days. To quote the Speaker of the House, she said at the time, ``We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it.'' We are finding out what is in it. Remarkable events have taken place, ranging from the implementation that means that more than half--51 percent--of all employees in 2013 will be in plans that aren't grandfathered, despite the President's comment that if you like your insurance policy, you can keep it. Nearly 7 in 10--69 percent employees, 80 percent of workers, and small businesses--would lose their current plan within 3 short years. Mr. President, I would like for my friend, Dr. Barrasso, to explain exactly how that happens. First, I would like to mention the issue du jour which, of course, is headlined on Politico this morning: ``Medicare Tussle Stymies Hill. Rift between Pelosi and Reid stands in the way of funding compromise.'' I think it is important to recognize the reason we did not do the so- called doc fix is because the majority did not want to do the doc fix, which means not implementing the 21-percent cut in reimbursement for doctors who treat Medicare patients. The reason we did not was because they had cooked the books on the cost of ObamaCare. The fact is, they kept counting into the cost--in order to keep their commitment that it would cost less than $1 trillion--they kept counting in that there would be the 21-percent cut, a $281 billion difference over 10 years. The AMA and all of those people who signed up with this bill are now saying: Why are you not doing the doc fix? We did the doc fix on Friday, I believe. It is now in the House, and we will probably do the doc fix. But why the delay? The delay is simply because they did not want to. On the floor of this Senate, they did not want to do the doc fix because of the budgetary impact on how they were selling this proposal to the American people. I ask my colleague, Dr. Barrasso, to comment on that point and also what we are finding out as to how many Americans are actually going to lose the insurance policy they have. By the way, there is also an article this morning in USA TODAY entitled ``Doctors limit new Medicare patients,'' which was also predicted by some of us. One thing my friends on the other side of the aisle might have forgotten is we cannot force doctors--they have not enacted a law yet that forces doctors to see Medicare patients. Therefore, a number of doctors are voting with their fee in the respect that they are not enrolling new Medicare patients they would treat. I ask my colleague, Dr. Barrasso, if he would comment on the doc fix and also maybe a better explanation than I have been able to give as to why so many people face the loss of their health insurance policy between now and 2013.

Mr. McCAIN. May I ask, is that because of a minor change in the insurance policy they now have that then forces them out of the policy, even though there is a minor change? Maybe Dr. Barrasso can give us some of those examples of how minor they are, how they basically force them out of the policy they have into the ``exchanges.'' Is that what happens?

Mr. McCAIN. As well as the Mayo Clinic.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Dr. Barrasso for his leadership on this issue. Those who are interested in his Web site, which is titled ``Second Opinion,'' might be interested in gaining more information from that Web site. My colleagues might be interested in that. I thank Dr. Barrasso for his leadership on this issue, for his in depth knowledge of it. I noted the luncheon we had with the President of the United States. I applaud Dr. Barrasso's attempts to inform the President on this issue. I am not sure how receptive the audience was to it, but what he had to say made a lot of sense to me. I know Dr. Barrasso shares my view that we are not going to quit on this issue. We are not going to quit on this issue. It is going to be repealed and replaced because we are not going to do this to the American people. Still the overwhelming majority of the American people disapprove of this proposal. As the Speaker of the House said, we have to pass the bill so we can find out what is in it. As they are finding out what is in it, more and more Americans dislike it. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 allowed to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from Arizona.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, there has been a lot of conversation about the issue of illegal immigration and the results of different meetings. I know my colleague from Arizona wishes to discuss that aspect of the issue, but I take to the floor with my friend and leader from Arizona to discuss the overall issue of immigration in light of a meeting and a trip he and I had to the border on Saturday, where we visited with ranchers, with citizens, with Border Patrol, and where we had a thorough trip throughout the area. So we come to the floor to share our conclusions and concerns with our colleagues. Let me begin by saying that unfortunately--or fortunately--the head of the Customs and Border Protection recently said that parts of Arizona were like a ``third country.'' You know, in some respects--in some respects--he may have been correct. Let me quote him. This is David Aguilar, the Acting Deputy Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. He was quoted in the Arizona Republic as saying: the border is not a fence or a line in the dirt but a broadly complex corridor. It is . . . a third country that joins Mexico and the United States. A third country that joins Mexico and the United States is obviously not as secure as the United States of America. If my colleagues will look at this map here and see this area here, this is the sign that is posted as far away as 50 miles from the Arizona-Mexico border. Danger. Public Warning. Travel Not Recommended. Active Drug and Human Smuggling Area. Visitors May Encounter Armed Criminals and Smuggling Vehicles Traveling at High Rates of Speed. Stay Away From Trash, Clothing, Backpacks and Abandoned Vehicles. If You See Suspicious Activity, Do Not Confront. Move Away and Call 911. BLM Encourages Visitors to Use Public Lands North of Interstate 8. North of Interstate 8 is the area north of this shaded area. In other words, visitors are encouraged not to go south of the interstate, which is a huge part of the State of Arizona. That is the posted sign put up by the Federal Government. Then the Secretary of Homeland Security says, ``The border is secure as ever.'' If the border is as secure as ever, then you have to draw the conclusion that it isn't secure, because otherwise you wouldn't have to be posting signs such as this 50 miles north of the border, if the border was secure. Our whole point is that we need to get the border secure. We don't see the necessity in the United States of America placing a sign such as that. If we are doing fine on border security, why would it be necessary to put up a sign such as that all the way up to the interstate? Here is another sign from our Park Service in the Coronado National Forest. This is in our national forest, from the Park Service. Smuggling and/or Illegal Entry Is Common in This Area Due to the Proximity of the International Border. If we had a secure border, why would we have to put up signs such as that? If we had made such great progress at that time the Secretary of Homeland Security was trumpeting this, why in the world would we have to put up signs such as that? That is the question. I will let my colleague discuss the results of our visit, but I can tell you that the citizens residing in the southern part of our State do not feel secure. When you have 241,000 illegal immigrants apprehended last year, that means that, depending on who you talk to, it is nearly a million people apprehended in just that part of the border. When you have 1.2 million pounds of marijuana intercepted in the Tucson sector, it is not a secure border. When you have the violence--the incredible violence--that continues to rise on the other side of the border, you know it is just a matter of time before it spills onto our side of the border. Unfortunately, just south of the Arizona-Sonora border resides the most vicious of all the drug cartels--the Sinaloa cartel--headed by Juan ``El Chapo'' Guzman, who walked out of a Mexican prison a few years ago and, unfortunately, this cartel has corrupted officials at very high levels. I report to my colleagues that the people living in the southern part of the State of Arizona do not feel secure. They see signs such as this one, which I mentioned; and they see the destruction of our wildlife preserves; they see the in-home invasions. And, yes, our Border Patrol and the men and women who are serving in it are doing a magnificent job. We are proud of the job they are doing. But they do not have the assets in order to complete the job of securing our border. Senator Kyl and I have a 10-point plan that, if implemented, will do the job.

Mr. McCAIN. And may I also make the comment that my colleague from Arizona points to about the terrible and unspeakable treatment that is inflicted upon these individuals who are brought in by human smugglers. Almost all are brought up by human smugglers. Where are the human rights advocates and activists? Shouldn't they be standing up and saying: You have to have a secure border so that these unspeakable indignities--the rape and ransom and all these things--will be stopped? Secondly, I want to point out very quickly to my colleagues that in recent years, 80 percent of the wildfires in our Coronado National Forest have been human caused--75 percent of those are attributed to undocumented aliens who fail to properly extinguish fires started to signal for rides, cook food, or dry clothing. The Coronado National Forest now has to send armed officers to clear wildland fire areas and to provide security for firefighters. The Forest Service has reported accounts of armed smugglers walking through the middle of active firefighting operations. And now, in its fourth week today, as we speak, the human-caused Horseshoe fire is burning in the Chiricahua Mountains in the Coronado National Forest, 5 miles from the town of Portal, AZ. It is the site of very heavy drug trafficking and border- crossing activity. With the few minutes we have remaining, I want to engage Senator Kyl in a conversation about what we need to do and why we need to secure the border first. There has been a lot of publicity in the last 24 hours about a conversation that Senator Kyl had with the President of the United States. I was not there, but I was there a few weeks ago when the President of the United States came and had lunch with Republican Senators and gave a list of the issues that he was concerned about, with immigration being one of the items he mentioned. So Senator Kyl and I responded to the President of the United States. It was made very clear to me in the conversation we had--and I am sure our 39 other colleagues who were there will recall--that the President basically conditioned his support for border security to overall comprehensive immigration reform. We went back and forth. I tried to explain to the President that we gave amnesty back in the 1980s. Somewhere around 3 million illegal immigrants were given amnesty, but the promise was that we would secure the border. Obviously, we didn't secure the border and we now have 12 million people in the country. As Senator Kyl mentioned, there are some hundreds of thousands in the State of Arizona illegally. So our point is that even if we went through comprehensive immigration reform, if we don't have a secure border, then some time from now we will have another group of illegal immigrants we will have to address, and so the issue argues for getting the border secured first. It can be done in 1 or 2 years. It isn't that expensive, when you look at the costs of a wildfire and all of the things, drugs and everything else associated with it, not to mention a violation of human rights. There is a big stir about the conversation the President and Senator Kyl had. It was clear to me in the conversation, in front of 39 Republican Senators, that the President of the United States said yes, he would secure the border, but we had to have ``comprehensive immigration reform.'' This is the difference between our position and that of the President. We say secure the border, have the Governors of the border States certify it is secure, and then we can certainly move on. But the American people have to have the assurance that we are not going to revisit this issue time after time. Every nation has the obligation to secure its borders.

Mr. McCAIN. What Senator Kyl and I are trying to report to our colleagues is, No. 1, the border is not secure. The border is not secure. No. 2, it can be secure. How could someone claim our border is more secure than ever if the Federal Government has to put up that kind of warning to American citizens on American soil? If nothing would convince my colleagues that we need to do a lot more, it is the actions of the Federal Government. That is not a private landowner who put up that sign. That is the Bureau of Land Management. So have the Department of Interior and other agencies. The point is, we are trying to tell our colleagues it is not secure. We can secure it. Our citizens deserve that. But the second point we want to make as forcefully as possible is: Let's get this border secure, which we can do, and then we can move forward with comprehensive immigration reform and work together with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. But for us to go back to our constituents and to the American people, and say: Hey, we moved forward with this legislation, yet we still are having to put up signs such as this, that people should avoid being in an active drug and human smuggling area, in the United States of America, is not a convincing argument that they are ``as secure'' as ever.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, there is no way I can elaborate on that very strong statement, so I yield the remainder of our time.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with Dr. Barrasso.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I am pleased to be here to cosponsor and support my friend from South Dakota, Senator Thune, on this amendment. As the Senator from New Hampshire just stated, isn't it time we stopped burdening our children and our grandchildren with massive debt? Our office is being flooded with calls concerning the extension of unemployment benefits. We want to extend the unemployment benefits under this amendment until November, but we want to pay for it. We want to do something groundbreaking around here that hasn't happened in a long time: We want to pay for it. We want to pay for the expiring unemployment provisions until November. We want to extend the expired tax provisions, including a tax credit for research and experimentation, and the State and local sales tax deduction through the end of the year. We want to drop the tax increases, drop the $4 billion extension of Build America bonds, and drop the $24 billion in State Medicaid bailouts. We want to fully pay for this with spending cuts. The amendment does provide relief for the doctors by adding an additional 2 years to the doc fix and reforming our broken and onerous medical malpractice system. Let me point out that day after day during the ObamaCare debate we came to the floor and said: You are using phony assumptions as to assessments of the entire cost of ObamaCare, and part of that was the ``doc fix'' which wasn't going to happen, which was going to cut Medicare payments to physicians by some 21 percent. We said every time: You are not going to do this. You are not going to cut physician payments by some 21 percent for doctors who provide care for Medicare enrollees. Over on the other side, they even admitted it. So now we have to do the doc fix. We have to make sure doctors who treat Medicare patients are adequately reimbursed; otherwise, they will stop treating Medicare patients. So it is kind of hypocritical for us to be blamed for the delay in the ``doc fix'' when that was the assumption--that was the assumption, that there would be a 21-percent cut in the selling of ObamaCare to the American people. This amendment saves the taxpayers $113 billion in unnecessary spending. It rescinds $38 billion in the unobligated spending of stimulus funds. It cuts wasteful and unnecessary government spending. It collects the unpaid taxes of Federal employees. It freezes their salaries and caps their numbers. It imposes a 5-percent, across-the- board cut in government spending for all agencies except the VA and the DOD, and it creates a new deficit reduction trust fund where rescinded balances and monies saved through this amendment will be deposited for the purposes of paying down the Federal debt. Now, regarding the 5-percent across-the-board cut in government spending for all agencies except Veterans and Department of Defense, do Americans know the size of government has doubled since 1999; that the cost of government has spiraled out of control? A 5-percent cut would be minuscule as compared to the dramatic increases we have imposed-- yes, during the previous administration, as well as this administration--including a $1 trillion unpaid-for Medicare Part D prescription drug program. So this amendment cuts taxes, it cuts spending, and it reduces the deficit. The deficit has now spiraled so far out of control that there is no rational economist who believes this is sustainable without some kind of profound financial crisis. Now we are up to a projection of a $16 trillion deficit by the end of the next decade. We are amassing as far as the eye can see--I think now it is up to $1.6 trillion--debt just for this year alone that we are laying on our children and our grandchildren. As I have said several times on this floor, there is a revolution going on out there. It is a peaceful revolution. It has been derided by the liberal left and many in the media. But the fact is, they are angry and they have every right to be angry. They have every right. The greatness of America is that every generation has passed on to the following generation a better Nation than the one we inherited. With this overwhelming burden of debt and deficit in the name of economic stimulus, in the name of job creation--which, obviously, has not met the predictions at the time of the passage of the stimulus package-- have turned out to be totally false. So here we are. We are in a situation where we have an opportunity to extend the expiring unemployment provisions, extend the expired tax provisions, including an important tax credit for research and development. It drops things such as Build America bonds. Build America bonds. Please. Right now, that is just an additional $4 billion. We are going to cut spending, and we will provide relief for doctors by adding an additional 2 years for the doc fix. Obviously, that fix needs to be enacted. I am in support of that. But isn't it a little bit of a hypocrisy to come to the floor and say we have to get this done, we have to have the doc fix, when all during the debate on so-called health care reform, the 21-percent cut for Medicare patients was part of our selling the American people that the cost of ObamaCare would be less than $1 trillion? Isn't that a little hypocritical? I wish to quote from the New York Times recently: If the economists are divided about what just happened, the rest of the world is not divided about what should come next. Voters, business leaders and political leaders do not seem to think that the stimulus was such a smashing success that we should do it again, even with today's high unemployment. There is no better example than last May's unemployment numbers that show a drop from 9.9 to 9.7, until you get into the not-so-fine print: 41,000 jobs created in the private sector, and 440 new jobs, approximately, to hire census takers. That is what the stimulus is all about? Give me a break. So this is our chance. This is our chance to show the American people that we are going to cut their taxes, we are going to take care of the unemployed, we are going to make the doc fix, and we are going to at the same time cut spending and start at least a beginning attempt to get this burgeoning deficit under control. It reduces the deficit by some $68 billion. Are there tough things in this measure? Of course. Of course there are tough things in this measure. But it is about time we started making some tough decisions because we do have an obligation to our children and our grandchildren which we have, up until now, clearly abrogated. I hope my colleagues will consider voting for this amendment and get us on the path toward reducing this debt burden we are placing on future generations of Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. McCAIN. After passage of legislation that was trumpeted everywhere that from now on we were going to pay for additional spending, how could that happen?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am here to speak on the Murkowski resolution before us. The American people deserve to fully understand what this vote is really about and what is at stake for them if Congress fails to prevent EPA from unilaterally imposing massive regulations that will damage our economy and destroy jobs. I wish to be clear to my colleagues and to the American people. This vote is not about the science of climate change. It is not about whether Congress should or should not create policies to limit carbon emissions. It is not about protecting oil companies or, as the White House has absurdly claimed, the oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico. What this resolution is really about is whether the American people, through their elected representatives, get a say in our Nation's energy policy through their elected representatives or if they will be bound by the whims of the unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency. More importantly, it is about protecting the American people from a crippling backdoor energy tax that we, and small businesses and large, cannot afford. I wish I could provide my colleagues and the American people with a detailed assessment of the impact EPA's proposed regulations would have on our economy, but the EPA has refused to provide Congress a comprehensive analysis of the potential economic impact. To paraphrase Speaker Pelosi's comment that we have to pass ObamaCare so we can find out what is in it, I guess EPA will need to impose new regulations on 6 million buildings, facilities, farms, and other ``stationary sources'' before we find out how much it will cost or what impact it will have on the economy. There is one thing we can all agree on: Allowing the EPA to be turned loose on the American people is a terrible idea that will be extremely expensive. A spokesman from the Edison Electric Institute, which, to their shame, supports congressional efforts to pass a cap-and-trade bill, stated that the only certainty is that EPA regulations to limit carbon emissions would be far more expensive than if done by Congress. Let's not forget what we now know about the legislation that was passed in the other body. That would cost families upwards--every family--of $1,000 a year. In fact, the Office of Management and Budget warned that: Making the decision to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small business and small communities. Even some bureaucrats at the EPA must have realized how crippling these regulations would be to small businesses and farmers, which is why they proposed a tailoring rule to delay the effect these regulations would have on the American public. Unfortunately for the American people, the tailoring rule stands on shaky legal ground. This is really an Orwellian kind of experience. Demonstrating an unparalleled disregard for congressional intent, the EPA is attempting to make a case that Congress intended to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, even though greenhouse gas emissions were not formally addressed by the act. Conversely, EPA claims that the tons-per-year threshold set by Congress in the Clean Air Act should not apply to greenhouse gases. In simpler terms, EPA believes that although Congress didn't cover greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, it really did, and although Congress set thresholds for covered pollutants, it really didn't. Finally, for those who claim this is somehow about protecting oil companies, I suggest we listen to what over 425 companies and organizations are saying about these regulations. Small business men and women across the country are telling us that EPA's proposed greenhouse gas requirements will stifle economic growth and disadvantage them in the global marketplace. I suggest we listen. So here we are. Here we are. Last Tuesday, we had a vote where people turned out in massive numbers against what is going on in Washington. They believe their Constitution is being taken away from them. They believe they no longer have a voice in what we do here. What this EPA decision would do is deprive the Congress, our Nation's elected representatives, of a role in profound decisions that would have tremendous effects on the economy of this country. I strongly suggest that no matter how you stand on the issue of greenhouse gas emissions or climate change, you reject this government, unelected bureaucrat takeover of a significant portion of the U.S. economy. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, here we are the day after some elections in various States around the country. I think everybody will draw their own conclusion as a result of those elections, but it is hard to dispute the assertion that the so-called tea party candidates did rather well in the elections around the country. Those people who believe the disconnect between themselves and their neighbors and their fellow citizens and what we do here in our Nation's capital is clearly disconnected. The anger and dissatisfaction continues to be displayed in poll after poll and election after election. And why are they so upset? Well, our national debt has just surpassed $13 trillion for the first time. We now, this morning, in a prediction, have predictions that it will surpass $19 trillion in 5 years. In the first 206 years of this Nation's existence, we were able to accumulate a national debt of $1 trillion. Now it is going to take us 5 years to add $4 more trillion, up to $19 trillion. So what is the response now by the administration and my colleagues across the aisle? Another bill that addresses $10, $20, $30, $40, $50, $100 billion additional to the debt and, of course, not paid for. And here we are, after spending a good part of a $787 billion stimulus package, where we were promised and assured that if we passed that the maximum unemployment in the United States would be 8 percent. As we all know, it is now at 9.7 percent, with the latest job information with a paltry 41,000 new jobs, and 400,000 temporary government Census jobs. So is it surprising to anyone that there is great anger and dissatisfaction throughout the country? We seem to be not just tone deaf but deaf, which brings me to the issue of the so-called health care reform. CBO recently came forward and said, the real cost of the reform in its new authorization is over $1 trillion, something we were assured at the time, in the year-long debate, that it would not be over $1 trillion. It will cost over $2.6 trillion over its first 10 years of full implementation. I guess there was the assumption that either the American people would forget the debate that was held here in the Congress or would forget these promises were made about the benefits of health care reform, but they were wrong. Recent polls show that about 60 percent of the American people still oppose the legislation that was passed through the Congress and signed by the President, to great fanfare. In the immortal words of the Speaker of the House, who said, ``We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,'' the American people are finding out what is in it, including medical device makers who assert that the new tax on them will cost jobs because of a 2.3-percent excise tax on companies that supply medical devices such as heart defibrillators and surgical tools to hospitals. It will cost an estimated $20 billion. The list of taxes goes on and on. The response of those on the other side of the aisle is to launch a $125 million health campaign. They will spend an estimated $25 million a year over 5 years so that, quoting from a Politico story: The extraordinary campaign, which could provide an unprecedented amount of cover for a White House in a policy debate, reflects urgency among Democrats to explain, defend and depoliticize health care reform now that people are beginning to feel the new law's effects. Interesting--$125 million. To do its bit, the Medicare people have decided to spend--because we have lots of money; there are no worries--$18 million--chicken feed--in Medicare funds to send a mailer to Medicare beneficiaries. The flier is entitled ``Medicare and the New Health Care Law, What it Means for You.'' It was sent to 43 million Medicare beneficiaries under the guise of explaining how the new law will impact them. However, the brochure goes into great detail about provisions of the law that do not even apply to seniors and leaves out any mention of the cuts they will face. For example, 330,000 of my fellow citizens in Arizona are enjoying a program called Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage does what the government doesn't want our Medicare recipients to do, and that is to give people choices on dental care, eyeglasses, other decisions they would make. Of course, those people will see the Medicare Advantage program, which is very popular, dismantled under this law. The flier and the President point out that over $500 billion in Medicare cuts could jeopardize seniors' health care, forcing millions to pay more. The cuts, according to the Obama administration's own Medicare actuaries, will lead to 7.4 million Medicare beneficiaries losing their health plan because of the $206 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage. The CBO estimates that Medicare prescription drug coverage premiums will increase by 9 percent as a result of that law. I look forward to continuing this debate with the President and my friends. He took time out from his musical evenings to have a health care townhall yesterday to talk about this great benefit to the American people that his legislation has brought. Unfortunately, seniors and the American people are not fooled. I quote from a Wall Street Journal article of May 28, 2010: In the full-circle department, recall the moment last September when Senator Max Baucus and Medicare went after the insurer Humana for having the nerve to criticize one part of ObamaCare. It turns out those same regulators have different standards for their own political advocacy. This week Medicare sent a flyer to seniors, ostensibly to inform them of what ObamaCare ``means for you.'' Many elderly Americans are worried--and rightly so--about where they'll rank in national health care, given that the new entitlement is funded by nearly a half-trillion dollars in Medicare cuts. They must have been relieved to hear that ``The Affordable Care Act passed by Congress and signed by President Obama this year will provide you and your family greater savings and increased quality health care.'' That's the first sentence of the four-page mailer, and it gives a flavor of the Administration's respect for the public's intelligence. It goes on to mention ``improvements to Medicare Advantage,'' the program that Democrats hate because it gives nearly one out of four seniors private health insurance options. ``If you are in a Medicare Advantage plan, you will still receive guaranteed Medicare benefits.'' But that's not what Medicare's own actuary thinks. In an April memo, Richard Foster estimated that the $206 billion hole in Advantage will reduce benefits, cause insurers to withdraw from the program and reduce overall enrollment by half. Doug Elmendorf and his team at the Congressional Budget Office came to the same conclusion, as did every other honest expert. I don't know if my colleagues will recall, but the first amendment we had proposed from this side when the bill came to the floor was to prohibit cuts in Medicare. Now we are seeing that there will be a $206 billion hole in Medicare Advantage that will reduce benefits and cause insurers to withdraw from the program and reduce overall enrollment by half, just as we predicted on the floor of the Senate. I look forward to coming back to the floor with my friend from Tennessee and others as we continue this debate. Perhaps we should have been discussing it more all along. I can assure my colleagues, from the many townhall meetings I am having all over the State of Arizona, the people of Arizona, especially those in programs such as Medicare Advantage and others, are deeply concerned and deeply skeptical. Our proposal still remains valid. Starting next January, we will make every effort to repeal and replace because we cannot lay this burden on future generations of Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I appreciate the involvement of Senators from other parts of the United States of America. I invite them to come to the border and talk with my citizens. I invite them to talk with the Border Patrol agents who are overwhelmed in their task in trying to stop the flow of goods and human beings across our border. I hope they will weigh in on behalf of the human rights of the people who are being terribly abused, kept in drop houses, held for ransom, and subjected to unspeakable atrocities. It is another human rights argument for getting our border secure. We can get it more secure by sending these National Guard troops to the border, as former Governor and now Secretary of Homeland Security called for in 2006. I urge a ``yea'' vote on this amendment. I yield the floor. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. McCAIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, how much time do I have to discuss my amendment?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague from Texas and other Senators from border States who are deeply concerned about the issue of broken borders and the drug cartels and human smuggling that has put the lives and security of our American citizens in some danger. A fact: The kidnapping capital of the world is Mexico City. The city that ranks second in kidnapping to Mexico City is Phoenix, AZ, which is a long way from the border. It happens to be a place where drop houses exist where people are held for ransom, where unspeakable cruelties are inflicted upon those who are being smuggled, where they have become a distribution center for drugs coming up through the so-called central corridor. We are badly in need of assistance. Yesterday, May 26, 2010, 12:20 p.m.: Sierra Vista, Ariz.--Acting on a tip, Sierra Vista police went to a drop house and recovered close to 2,000 pounds of marijuana Tuesday. Police spokesman Sgt. Lawrence Boutte said officers found a total of 83 bails weighing 2,054 pounds. The marijuana has an estimated street value of $821,000. Police arrested a 21-year-old Mexican citizen. Officers said the man was expected to be charged with possession of marijuana for sale. It's not known if the man was in the U.S. illegally. Boutte said drug smugglers use stash houses to store drugs coming from Mexico before transporting them elsewhere. ``Elsewhere'' means different parts of the country. By the way, there is an argument that this amendment may be unconstitutional. I remind my colleagues, the Constitution--article I, section 8, clause 15--preserves to the Congress the power to call ``forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,'' including the immigration laws. This is an independent constitutional power that does not rest on any power exercised by the President as the Chief Executive in article II. A recent example of Congress's power to task the executive branch in this area, even outside calling forth the militia, is the Secure Fence Act of 2006 in which the Congress tasked the Secretary of Homeland Security to secure the border. Even though Congress was not relying on its article I, section 8, clause 15 power, the Secure Fence Act of 2006 was and is constitutional. The President announced he was sending 1,200 National Guard to the southwest border. This is one-fifth of what is needed. If the Congress will not heed the call of the Governors of Arizona and Texas, who have asked the President to send troops to the border, the Congress should do so now. During Operation Jump Start, the National Guard was deployed to the southwest border and provided logistical support, conducted surveillance, and built and repaired critical infrastructure. Until DHS has the technology and infrastructure in place to fully secure the border, at least 6,000 National Guard must be deployed to assist the Border Patrol in stopping the illegal immigration, drug smugglers, and human traffickers flowing across the border. The borders are broken. There has been improvement. We have shown in San Diego, in Texas, even in the Yuma sector of Arizona that we can secure our border, but we need manpower, surveillance, and fences. We can do it. We have an obligation to our citizens to secure our border and allow them to lead lives where they do not live in fear of home invasions, of property being destroyed, where well-armed, well-equipped drug smugglers, as well as human smugglers, operate with--if not with impunity, certainly with great latitude. There will be the statement made that the border is more secure. I am sure the Senator from New York will say that. The fact is the border is not secure. It is more secure; it is not secure. The citizens in the southern part of my State do not have a secure environment in which to live and raise their children. Every enforcement agent on the border with whom I have talked says we need additional National Guard and we need it now. I am sure that in New York City and other major cities in America there is a secure environment, frankly, thanks to Mayor Giuliani. This is not the case in parts of my State, including Phoenix, AZ, having the dubious distinction of being No. 2 as far as the kidnapping capital of the world is concerned.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be included in the colloquy with the other Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Texas.

Mr. McCAIN. I will respond to the Senator from Texas, and I thank him. We who are from border States have perhaps a better understanding of the violence--the dramatically increased violence over the last several years. In the last 3 years, 22,000 Mexican citizens have been murdered in this struggle between the drug cartels and the Mexican Government. It is the worst kind of brutality: people being beheaded, bodies hanged from the overpasses. I think it was on the Mexican side of the Texas border the other day. There was a wedding--if the Senator recalls--and the drug cartel people went in and took the groom, the brother, and nephew out and murdered them. That brutality and violence, we all know, is spilling over the border. I believe three American citizens were murdered in Juarez--who were coming back from Juarez. So the violence and the connection between human smuggling and drug cartels now is incredibly intertwined. They use the same routes, the same intelligence, the same sophisticated communications equipment. It is a threat to our security. That is why we Senators have asked for the Guard to be sent to the border. What happened yesterday in what was clearly a PR stunt, the President announced 1,200 National Guard to the border. Now we find out they are going to do desk jobs. One of the things we have found out is that the presence of the uniformed Americans on the border has a significant effect on the drug cartels because the only threat they feel from Mexico is from the Mexican Army because of the terrible corruption that exists. These people who have come across the Nogales border into Tucson and Phoenix have been distributed nationwide. People all over America are beginning to appreciate--according to the polling number the Senator from Texas pointed out--the American people are beginning to understand that our broken borders affect all of America. This violence is increasing, certainly, on that side of the border. The drug cartels make--the number I hear is as high as $65 billion a year. When I tell people we intercepted, in the Tucson sector alone, over 1.2 million pounds of marijuana, people don't believe it. When we tell them we intercepted 241,000 illegal immigrants--and we figure that 4 to 5 to 1 crossed our border to Tucson illegally--over 1 million people--what does the President do? He said he is going to send 1,200 troops to the border. We need 6,000. We need 3,000 for the border and 3,000 for the Arizona border. That is what we hear from the people who are enforcing the law. This is a national security issue. It is something that all Americans are now more and more aware of and are supporting. I hope the administration and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who also are being affected by this will understand we need to secure the borders first. Then we can work out an orderly system to address the results of our failure to secure the border. I ask my friend and colleague from Arizona, what would happen if we enacted comprehensive reform and didn't secure the border?

Mr. McCAIN. I ask the Senator from Texas this: There is another important point. There is the belief that we can't secure our borders, that there is just going to be an unending flow of illegal immigrants into this country. I ask my friend from Texas, isn't it true that in at least parts of Texas, with the combination of surveillance, fencing, and proper staffing, there has been basically a secure border?