John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I think it is very possible that the Secretary of State will call another gathering in Geneva. After all, this is only the third. He has another year, and maybe we will have Geneva IV and V.

Mr. McCAIN. That is the point. There is no leverage, I say to my colleague. Meanwhile, while the Secretary of State is pressuring the Free Syria forces and threatening to cut off assistance to them, Russia is escalating their bombing campaign and continues the slaughter of innocent people. Meanwhile, there are also enclaves around Aleppo and other places where people are literally starving to death--literally starving to death. There are pictures, my friends, on the Internet, if you would like to see it. What does our Secretary of State do? He calls Lavrov. He calls Lavrov and complains. Lavrov, of course--it would be very interesting to know what is going through Mr. Lavrov's mind--but it is very clear that the Secretary of State is a supplicant, and this incredibly weak economy, with a brutal dictator in charge, is now achieving goals that have been age-old ambitions of the Russians. They are now playing a major role in the Middle East.

Mr. McCAIN. I want to mention one other aspect of this with my colleague, and that is the refugee issue. It is surprising to many people in the world, this flood of millions of refugees, not just from Iraq and Syria but Iraq and even as far away as Afghanistan. Our European friends have treated it like maybe it was an earthquake or flood or natural disaster. It was not a natural disaster. It was a natural occurrence when the situation became so terrible that people believed they couldn't stay and live where they were. Why did that happen? Because we watched the Russians, Bashar Assad, Hezbollah, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard--we watched them commit all of this slaughter in Syria. No one can live in Syria today without fear for their very lives, unless they happen to be one of Bashar Assad's allies. So now we have this huge refugee immigration crisis, which sooner or later we are going to have to be involved in, in some way or another, and it is a result of the failed policies of this President of the United States. This President sat by and watched the chemical weapons use. This President refused to keep a sustaining force in Iraq. This President, when asked by his Secretary of State, his Secretary of Defense, and the head of the CIA to provide a safe zone turned it down. I still say to my colleague--and I would be interested in his views--that we still could establish a safe zone in Syria, where these people could go, we could protect them, and they wouldn't have to leave and flood Europe and eventually try to come to the United States of America. That would be the best thing we could do in the short term, and this President refuses to do it.

Mr. McCAIN. Let me make a couple of additional points and then we will yield the floor. To go back, these refugees are putting a strain on Europe that may basically lead to the dissolution of the European Union. You cannot have so many thousands--tens of thousands or more people--flood into a country with which they are totally unfamiliar without there being some problems there. So the very fabric of the EU may be tested here. But one of the things I want to mention to my friend is that the apologists for the Obama Administration have constantly and persistently pursued a dishonest line of interpretation of history, and that is that after the surge was won--and it is a fact--at great sacrifice, at enormous sacrifice we had Iraq stable. The attacks were down. The Shiite militias were repressed. The battle of Fallujah had been won at great cost. There was a bright future that could lie ahead for Iraq, but it required a continuing American presence. That was an absolute necessity. It was the same reason why we didn't leave Korea after the Korean war, the same reason why we haven't left Bosnia, and the same reason why we didn't leave Germany or Japan. But the apologists in the liberal media--and we all know who they are--are saying: Oh, they couldn't stay because they didn't have a status of forces agreement through the Iraqi Parliament and it couldn't be done. That absolutely made it impossible for us to say.

Mr. McCAIN. Yes.

Mr. McCAIN. That is the point. Now we have at least 3,500 troops on the ground in Iraq.

Mr. McCAIN. We don't have a status of forces agreement. Their Parliament has not endorsed it. Where are our liberal friends on the other side? Aren't they concerned that there isn't a status of forces agreement and we continue to incrementally--a classic example of mission creep--gradually increase our presence more and more. Actually--and I don't use this line very often but these apologists, particularly in the liberal media, the so-called commentators--they are lying. They are lying when they say that we couldn't keep a sustaining force there. We could, and we could have done it without the approval of their Parliament, including the fact that we have troops in a number of other countries where their Parliaments haven't approved a specific status of forces agreement. So it is really aggravating. But the reason why they tell this lie is because if it were really a fact that at great sacrifice we had stabilized Iraq and it had a bright future at that time, their calls for a complete withdrawal and the President's announcement that the last combat soldier had left Iraq-- remember that? Remember that one of his underlings said: We are leaving behind the most stable, prosperous, democratic Iraq in history. That was the statement. I think it was Blinken or one of those guys. It was great. We have gotten everybody out of Iraq, just as the President promised when he ran for President of the United States. But leading from behind doesn't work. Just because you leave a conflict, that does not mean the conflict is over. Again, this morning, they are trying to make that same mistake in Afghanistan, although I pray they have learned that they cannot go to what the President originally announced--that they would go to an embassy specific force of about 1,000. The question is how many and what their missions will be. So I think it is important to emphasize that this did not have to happen. If we had kept that stabilizing force behind, you would never have had Baghdadi break off from Al Qaeda and move to Syria and seeing the things we are seeing today. I am afraid my friend from South Carolina is right. In fact, I know he is right. There will be further attacks on the United States of America and Europe because it is inevitable. When Mr. Baghdadi controls a large piece of geography from which he can train, equip, motivate, and send people out to commit acts of terror, that will happen, and the responsibility will lay at the doorstep of Barack Obama and his minions.

Mr. McCAIN. Could I just add one other point to my friend from South Carolina? The President is very good at setting up straw men. He says that we only have two choices--to send in a couple of hundred thousand troops or to do nothing. Neither Lindsey Graham or I or any smart person I know are advocating that. What we are advocating is about a 10,000 American force providing the capabilities of ISR training, forward air controllers and others, with a large contingent of Arab countries that would then move to Raqqa on the ground with the use of American air power. Please do not be fooled by this constant barrage of untruths that are being said about those of us that we want to send in hundreds of thousands. We do not. This has to be an Arab coalition with the United States a small part of it, and, by the way, have them pay for it as well. With the proper American leadership and commitment and credibility, which is totally absent now in the region, that could be done. Otherwise, we will fight them there or we will fight them here. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Last week, Senator Tillis and I agreed to a friendly--or not so friendly--wager on the NFC championship game. The terms of that friendly wager are that the loser would deliver a congratulatory speech on the Senate floor and wish the winner luck in the Super Bowl. Unfortunately--even tragically--this is what brings me before you today. It is also why I am wearing this unsightly blue tie, which I am sure is an assault on the senses of C-SPAN viewers all over the world. It is with all sincerity that I wish the Carolina Panthers luck as they play the Denver Broncos in Super Bowl 50. The 15-1 NFC championship season has been nothing short of remarkable. Led by head coach Ron Rivera and the sensational quarterback Cam Newton, the Panthers have been a dominant force all season long as they certainly were against the Arizona Cardinals. I have no doubt we will see the Panthers' explosive offense continue to have success in Super Bowl 50. While I could go on about the Panthers' impressive offensive line and coaching staff, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my Arizona Cardinals on an exceptional season that included numerous milestones. The Cardinals' wide receiver Larry Fitzgerald wrote recently that the Cardinals ``broke the mold of what kind of football people expect to be played in the desert.'' Witnessing this team achieve a franchise record of 13 regular season wins and a No. 2 seed in the NFC, Arizonans could not agree more. Perhaps there is no better example of the Cardinals' toughness and never-say-die attitude than their thrilling January 16 overtime win over Green Bay. After an improbable Hail Mary touchdown pass from Green Bay quarterback Aaron Rodgers to send the game into overtime, the Cardinals--boosted by two amazing and memorable plays by the legendary Larry Fitzgerald--scored the game-winning touchdown to advance to the NFC championship game. I have always been proud to count myself among the most loyal and spirited Cardinals fans, and I am confident Arizona will continue to see exciting Super Bowl-caliber performances in the season to come. Congratulations to Arizona Cardinals' president Michael Bidwell, head coach Bruce Arians, and the members of the 2015 Arizona Cardinals on a banner season. I also recognize Larry Fitzgerald, Carson Palmer, Patrick Peterson, Mike Iupati, Justin Bethel, Calais Campbell, and Tyrann Mathieu, known as the Honey Badger, for being selected to represent the Cardinals in the Pro Bowl this year. All season long, these two teams stood among the best in the NFL. On any given Sunday, anything can happen. Unfortunately, for my Cardinals last Sunday was not their day. Senator Tillis, you may have gotten the best of me this year, but I have a good feeling this is not the last time one of us will stand before the body to offer our congratulations. You would be wise to get a head start and purchase a Cardinals' red and white tie now because you will be standing in my shoes this time next year. I guarantee it. To Carolina Panthers head coach Ron Rivera, the NFL's probable MVP Cam Newton, and every member of the Carolina Panthers football team, good luck on Sunday. To my beloved Cardinals, thanks for an exciting season. I look forward to your bringing a Super Bowl trophy home to the valley next year. Go Cards. Mr. President, I gladly yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business for whatever time I may consume.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, last month I came to the floor and called attention to a provision in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2016. I will remind my colleagues about the 2,000-page omnibus bill that all of us had approximately 48 hours to view before voting yes or no on it. I specifically objected to a provision that, in an egregious exercise of pork barrel parochialism, reversed reasonable restrictions on the Air Force's use of the Russian-made RD-180 rocket engine for national security space launches. I explained how that provision was secretly airdropped into the 2,000-page omnibus bill and overruled the authorizing committee--in other words, an outrageous overruling of the authorizing committee. They dropped this provision into the middle of this 2,000-page bill while we had hearings, discussions, markups, and debates on the floor of the U.S. Senate which considered 100-and-some amendments. So what we saw buried in this 2,000-page bill was a direct contradiction to the authorizing process. This process must stop. We have to stop allowing the appropriators to make policy. That should come from the authorizing committee. I tell my colleagues now: I will not stand for it any longer. Sometimes we wonder why the Americans are angry and why they are supporting Trump, Sanders, or some outsider. All they have to do is look at the process we went through with this 2,000-page bill. It wasn't just the rocket engines; it also included hundreds of millions of dollars in unnamed projects, including $225 million for a ship that the Navy neither wants nor needs. By the way, that was the second one. We were supposed to build 10. So the appropriators--the Senator from Alabama--again added a $225 million ship that the Navy neither wanted nor needed, which was made and manufactured in Mobile, AL. We can't do that. It has to stop. Of course, they acted in a way that it now provides tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars to Vladimir Putin and his corrupt cronies. How do we justify such action? The American taxpayers should be outraged to learn that some U.S. Senators want American taxpayers to continue subsidizing Russian aggression and comrade capitalism. But those very Senators thought that if they snuck their blank check to the Putin regime into an unamendable omnibus bill, no one would stop them. I rise in the hope that Congress will prove them wrong. That is why I will be joining with House majority leader Kevin McCarthy to introduce legislation that would repeal this section of the omnibus bill and reassert the will of the Congress and the American people. It is morally outrageous and strategically foolish to ask the American taxpayers to subsidize Russia's military industrial base when Vladimir Putin, whom the Treasury Department has reportedly accused of being personally corrupt, occupies Crimea, destabilizes Ukraine, menaces our NATO allies in Europe, violates the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force Treaty, sends weapons to Iran, and bombs U.S.-backed forces in Syria to prop up the murderous regime of Bashar Assad, and all for the benefit of a rocket plant in Alabama. I won't go into too many details here, except to point out that after the United States imposed sanctions against Russia in March of 2014, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who oversees the space industry in Russia, indicated several times that Russia expects that the United States will not use RD-180 engines for military launches and threatened to stop supplying them. Rogozin declared: ``We are not going to deliver the RD-180 engines if the United States will use them for non-civil purposes. We also may discontinue servicing the engines that were already delivered to the United States.'' He also threatened to deactivate all GPS sites in Russian territory and ban U.S. astronauts from the International Space Station by 2020. Rogozin suggested that in the future, the United States should deliver ``its astronauts to the ISS with a trampoline.'' Later that year, Rogozin appeared to reconsider. After all, in order to design and build more rocket engines in Russia, Rogozin said, ``we need free money. This is why we are prepared to sell them . . . taking the sanctions very pragmatically.'' So what are Russia's two desired outcomes? On the one hand, America continues its dependency on Russian rocket engines. On the other hand, America helps Putin go around sanctions by getting ``free money'' for rocket engines. And this is who ULA and its congressional sponsors want us to do business with? At the same time, Russia has threatened to cut off supply, Energomash has pursued other business opportunities with other countries that would give Russia a freer hand in making good on its threats--most notably, China. In July 2015, President Putin signed a new law that consolidated the Russian space industry under a single state corporation, an entity called Corporation Roscosmos. This was done to enhance the power of the Russian Government to better implement state-based policy and control the space industry. He signed an order that will effectuate this law. In addition, Putin appointed Igor Komarov chief executive of the newly created Corporation Roscosmos. Komarov was the former chairman of one of Russia's largest carmakers and an adviser to Sergei Chemezov. Chemezov, who was also appointed to the board, is said to have served as a KGB officer with Vladimir Putin in Germany back in the 1980s, and he has been targeted by our sanctions. Under the same order, Putin also appointed Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, and the list goes on and on. So why do we want U.S. taxpayers sending millions of dollars to the Russian Government when Vladimir Putin occupies Crimea, destabilizes Ukraine, et cetera. To add insult to injury, this last year, on the defense bill, we had to legislate to stop--to stop--the U.S. Defense Department from giving $800 million per year to ULA. That is the outfit that now launches using Russian rockets--ULA--with Russian rocket engines. We had to prohibit the continued payment of $800 million a year they were paying them to stay in business. It is amazing. I figured out that roughly, since 2006, we have paid this ULA, which is a combination of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, some $7 billion to stay in business. It used to be called the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about when he was leaving office. It is now the military industrial congressional complex that puts in a 2,000-page bill a requirement to build a $225 million ship that nobody wants and that the Navy doesn't need, for the second year in a row. That is $450 million of your tax dollars that went to build two ships that the Navy neither needs nor wants. My friends, do you wonder about the cynicism of the American people? Do you wonder why they think the way we are doing business in Washington is corrupt, when we spent $240 million in 2 years on two ships that the Navy doesn't want or need and when we subsidize an outfit--the only one that until recently does space launches--and paid them $800 million a year to stay in business, spend hundreds of millions of dollars on unspecified scientific programs, take hundreds of millions of dollars from medical research that has nothing to do with defense and take it out of defense? Would we wonder that the American people are angry and frustrated? Look at what we are doing with their tax dollars. I don't know if it was 48 or 72 hours that we had to vote up or down on a 2,000-page, $1.1 trillion document, and no amendments were allowed. So I say to my colleagues: Do not wonder; do not be curious why they are out there flocking to the banner of Senator Sanders, the only announced socialist in the U.S. Senate and on the other side people like Donald Trump, who has never had anything to do with Washington, DC. They should not be surprised. Well, all I can say to my colleagues is that I am not going to stop, because I owe the people of Arizona a lot better than what we are giving them. We owe them an accountability of why we would spend $800 million a year to keep a company in business. We owe them an explanation of why we would over the last 2 years spend $450 million for two ships that the Navy neither wants nor needs because they are made in Mobile, AL. We owe them a lot better than our performance on this omnibus appropriations bill. I will be glad to talk more about how each individual was blocked by the other side and would not agree to move forward and the rules of the Senate and all that, but that really doesn't make much difference at the Rotary Club. What makes a difference is that we have wasted billions of dollars of the taxpayers that were neither wanted nor needed nor ever had a hearing in the authorizing committee. I am proud of the work we do on the Armed Services Committee. We have literally a hearing every day. We spend hours and hours and hours in markups and debate and discussion on these various programs. We have hearings with administration officials. We have hearings in the subcommittees. I am so proud of the bipartisan approach that we take on our Defense authorization bill, working closely with Senator Reid and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I am proud of the product, after literally thousands of hours of testimony, of study, of voting, and all of that. Then we get a 2,000-page omnibus appropriations bill stuffed with billions of dollars of projects that we never, ever would consider in the authorizing committee. So the system is broken. The system is broken, and it better be fixed. I am telling my colleagues, especially those on the Appropriations Committee: This will not stand. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, today I wish to pay tribute to a dedicated, long-time public servant, wife, and mother, Diana Tabler Forbes. Diana died peacefully at her home in Alexandria, VA, on December 28, 2015, after a courageous 3-year battle with esophageal cancer. Diana was a truly remarkable public servant. For over three decades, she served senior government leaders from both the executive and legislative branches of government in the areas of military health and personnel policy. Throughout her career, Diana often played a central role in responding to both international crises and domestic challenges. From 2004 until her retirement in 2013, she served as the senior professional staff member primarily responsible for oversight of the military health system on the Senate Armed Services Committee, serving me as ranking member and previously Chairman John Warner. In that role, she helped shape the legislative response to improving care and services to wounded, ill, and injured military servicemembers following a series of Pulitzer prize-winning Washington Post stories on health care support provided at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Additionally, Diana played an instrumental role in developing legislation that established TRICARE benefits for military reservists and their families; provided community support for military families with disabilities; expanded combat casualty care research; and ensured access to healthcare services for servicemembers suffering from behavioral health conditions, like post-traumatic stress, and from traumatic brain injury. In 2001, Diana was the senior health leader in the Pentagon on September 11. After relocating to other government buildings following the attack on the Pentagon, she oversaw the coordination of military medical support in both Washington, DC, and New York City. Shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime, Diana volunteered to serve in Iraq as a civilian in 2003, where she played a key role in the reconstruction of health systems in Iraq while serving as an adviser to the coalition provisional authority with U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. During the 1990s, Diana served in executive positions within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Health Affairs, and helped oversee and implement many of the major components of the military health system now in place today, to include the establishment of TRICARE--the military's global health benefit that serves 9.5 million Americans today. Following her retirement from Federal service, Diana continued to serve others. She remained closely connected with the Department of Defense, and she supported military servicemembers and families on the board of the National Military Family Association. Diana's limitless energy and passion for the well-being of servicemembers and their families was legendary. She ensured everyone in Congress remembered who we served and why we served them. She knew how to cut through the bureaucracy and provide real solutions for those in need. I express my sympathy to her husband, Ripley Forbes; her daughter, Meredith, a schoolteacher in Alexandria; and son, Jonathan, a junior at Virginia Commonwealth University. As they mourn, they should know that Diana's legacy lives on in them and in the many thousands of servicemembers and their families that she selflessly served.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we wish to speak today about the Arizona Statehood and Enabling Act Amendments of 1999 concerning the investment allocation and distribution of revenues in the State of Arizona's permanent land endowment trust fund. This fund consists of moneys derived from the sale of State trust land that was conveyed to the State of Arizona on admission to the Union in 1912. The State of Arizona was granted approximately 10.9 million acres of land at statehood and today holds in trust over 9 million acres. Every year, revenues generated from trust land uses must be deposited in the fund and used solely for the benefit of beneficiaries specified in the Constitution of the State of Arizona, predominately Arizona's K-12 public schools. The Arizona Statehood and Enabling Act Amendments of 1999 repealed strict investment and distribution limitations imposed on the fund by the Congress in the State's enabling act. It also granted the voters of the State of Arizona the authority to adjust distributions to the fund beneficiaries. To accomplish that objective, Congress specifically amended section 28 of the Arizona Enabling Act of 1910 to read, ``Distributions from the trust funds shall be made as provided in article 10, Section 7 of the Constitution of the state of Arizona.'' The Congressional Budget Office estimate, which was included in the House of Representatives Committee report, indicated that ``[e]nactment of this bill would give Arizona state officials greater flexibility in investing and distributing the assets of the state's permanent funds.'' My understanding is that this reference to the Constitution of the State of Arizona, in section 28 of the enabling act, authorizes the voters of the State of Arizona to amend their constitution to authorize different distributions than those in place in 1999, including distributions that may pay out more funds to the beneficiaries. I ask the senior Senator from Alaska: Would she agree?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank Senator Murkowski for her answer. I have one further question. I believe, should the voters of the State of Arizona change the amounts distributed to the fund beneficiaries by amending article 10, section 7 of the Arizona Constitution, that the consent of Congress is not required prior to the change taking effect. Would the Senator agree?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Alaska for her response.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Maine for her consideration. I wish to provide further detail on the provision included in the omnibus requiring the Federal Aviation Administration to improve community involvement policies and address concerns stemming from changes associated with performance based navigation projects, including what we expect the FAA to do to provide relief for impacted communities, and what that means for the people of Arizona. I appreciate the Senator from Maine for acknowledging that community outreach on the part of the FAA to date has been lacking, and that efforts underway at the FAA to update their community involvement practices have not been sufficient. I look forward to working with her to continue to accomplish the intent of the language I introduced which was adopted by unanimous consent earlier this year during Senate consideration of the transportation and housing appropriations bills. Since September 2014, residents in Arizona around the Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport have had their daily lives impacted by changes to flights paths made without formal notification to the airport or community engagement before the changes were implemented. The intent the language included in the omnibus is to improve outreach to the community and airport, providing an opportunity for notification and consultation with the operator of an affected airport and the community before making future flight path decisions. Furthermore, for changes that have already been implemented, as is the case in Phoenix, the Administrator shall review those decisions to grant a categorical exclusion under Section 213(c) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to implement procedures in which the changed procedure has had a significant effect on the human environment in the community in which the airport is located, if the airport can demonstrate that the implementation has had such an effect. If this review indicates that the flight path changes have had such an impact, the FAA shall consult with the operator of the airport to identify measures to mitigate the effect of the procedure on the human environment, including considering the use of alternative flight paths. This would not impede the efforts to modernize our Nation's airspace through NextGen or substantially undermine efficiencies and safety improvements realized through those efforts. It does create a long- awaited, much-needed opportunity for residents around Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport negatively impacted by flight noise to have their voices heard by the FAA.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. What is going on here?

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate in morning business and take as much time as I may consume.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, 70 years ago, a group of American leaders forged the rules-based international order out of the ashes of World War II. Those who were there recall that they were ``present at the creation.'' We may well look back at 2015 and realize we were present at the unravelling. We were present at the unravelling. At the beginning of this year, President Obama was still committed to degrading and ultimately destroying ISIL. He had warned: If left unchecked, ISIL could pose a growing threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States. In 2015, that is exactly what happened in Paris and San Bernardino, and it will not be the last. I promise my colleagues that under this administration, with the present policy and lack of strategy, there will be other attacks on the United States of America. I deeply regret having to say that, but I owe it to my constituents and Americans whom I know and respect to tell them the truth. More than 1 year into the campaign against ISIL, it is impossible to assert that ISIL is losing and that we are winning. And if you are not winning in this kind of warfare, you are losing. Stalemate is not success. We asked the witnesses before the Senate Armed Services Committee the following question: Is ISIS contained? It is not. ISIS is not contained, contrary to the statements--bizarrely--made by the President of the United States literally hours before the attack on San Bernardino. This year our Senate Armed Services Committee held several hearings specifically focused on the threat of ISIL, including three hearings specifically with Secretary of Defense Ash Carter. We heard about nine lines of effort. We heard about three ``arrrghs.'' We never heard a plausible theory of success, nor a strategy to achieve success. What do I mean by that? There is no time line on when Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq, will be taken. There is no strategy to take Raqqa. Raqqa is the base of the caliphate. Raqqa is the place where the attacks are being planned and orchestrated. We have news reports that they are developing chemical weapons in Raqqa. This is the first time that a terrorist organization has had a base, a caliphate, from which to operate. What has happened? They are expanding globally. By the way, they have lost some of their territory on the margin. Hopefully, one of these days, Ramadi will fall to our forces, even though there have only been a few hundred ISIL there for the last few weeks. The fact is that ISIL has expanded its control in Syria; it continues to dominate Sunni Arab areas in both Iraq and Syria; it maintains control of key cities such as Mosul, Fallujah, and Ramadi; and efforts to retake these territories have stalled, at least to some degree. Meanwhile, ISIL is expanding globally. On Tuesday, GEN John Campbell, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, told the Associated Press that ISIL is seeking to establish a regional base in eastern Afghanistan as it attracts more followers and foreign fighters. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that an article detailing the AP interview titled ``U.S. general says the number of Afghan IS loyalists growing,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. It says: ``Supporters of the Islamic State group in Afghanistan are attempting to establish a regional base in the eastern city of Jalalabad, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, General John Campbell, said on Tuesday.'' The Wall Street Journal reports that ISIL has expanded in Libya and established a new base close to Europe, where it can generate oil revenues and plot terror attacks. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Wall Street Journal article entitled ``Islamic State Tightens Grip on Libyan Stronghold of Sirte''--the hometown, by the way of Muammar Qadhafi--be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. It states: ``Even as foreign powers step up pressure against Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, the militant group has expanded in Libya and established a new base close to Europe where it can generate oil revenue and plot terror attacks.'' Libya is an oil-rich country--a very oil-rich country. If you let ISIS get control of Libya, my friends, they will have unlimited sources of revenue. The Wall Street Journal: ``Its presence there has grown over the past year from 200 eager fighters to a roughly 5,000-strong contingent which includes administrators and financiers, according to estimates by Libyan intelligence officials, residents and activists in the area.'' By the way, during these debates, I will comment a little bit on it-- that those who are against any intervention cite Libya as the case for not going in. Facts are a stubborn thing. The fact is, Muammer Qadhafi was at the gates of Benghazi and was going to slaughter thousands of people. We brought about his downfall and walked away. If we had walked away from Japan and Germany after World War II, it would have collapsed. If we had walked away from Korea, where we still have 38,000 troops, it would have collapsed. If we had walked away from Bosnia, it would have collapsed. I am telling you, my colleagues, we walked away. This President and this administration did not do the things necessary after the fall of Qadhafi to build a democracy, and the people of Libya wanted it, and I can tell you that for sure because I was there. One of the great tragedies of the 21st century is our failure to act in a way to help the Libyan people transition from all of those years of being under a brutal leader. By the way, he was also responsible for the deaths of Americans in a bar in Berlin and an airliner being shot down. Yet we should have left him in power? Sure we should have. ISIL is operating in Lebanon, Yemen, and Egypt, and other radical Islamic groups, such as Boko Haram in Nigeria and al-Shabaab in Somolia, have pledged allegiance to ISIL. This appearance of success only enhances ISIL's ability to radicalize, recruit, and grow. There has been some progress. I was recently in Iraq, and the operation to retake Sinjar was important. Iraqi forces, as I mentioned, have closed in on Ramadi for weeks. They haven't finished the job. Our counterterrorism operations are taking a lot of ISIL fighters off the battlefield in Iraq and Syria. All of this represents tactical progress, and it is a testament to our civilian and military leaders, who are outstanding, as well as thousands of U.S. troops helping to take the fight to ISIL every day. I would like to point out that significant challenges remain. As a direct result of President Obama's decision to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq and squander hard-won American influence, the Iraqi Government is weak and beholden to Iran. I tell my colleagues, have no doubt what the dominant influence in Iraq is today: It is the Iranians. There was no more vivid example of this than when it was reported that Iraqi Prime Minister al-Abadi turned down Secretary of Defense Ash Carter's offer of new military assistance, including the use of Apache helicopters and Special Operations forces to help recapture Ramadi. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that an article titled ``Iraq Declines Offer of U.S. Helicopters for Fight Against ISIS, Pentagon Chief Says'' from the New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. I met with Prime Minister al-Abadi in Iraq. He is a good man. He knows he needs this help, but because of the dominating influence of Iran and Shia militias in Iraq, he turned it down anyway. General McFarland, one of the greatest generals I have met--he is up there in the category of David Petraeus--is leading the fight against ISIL. He reacted with a very interesting comment. He said: ``This is a very complex environment. It is kind of hard to inflict support on somebody.'' What General McFarland is saying is that because of the Iranian dominant influence, the Iraqis, as a body, are reluctant to accept the help they need to retake the second largest city in Iraq. The second largest city in Iraq, Mosul, is under ISIS control, and he knows full well that Apache helicopters and Special Operations forces could help him do that. But who is telling him not to? The Iranians. When I was there, we met with the Prime Minister of Iraq, Mr. al- Abadi, and he said: If you Americans come and you lose one pilot or one plane, you will leave. That was the opinion of the Prime Minister of Iraq, and one of the reasons--along with the Iranian influence--is because there is no trust or confidence of the United States in Iraq or in the region. It comes as no surprise that the training of Iraqi security forces has been slow. The building of support for the Sunni tribal forces has been even slower. ISIL captured Mosul in June of 2014, and at the end of 2015, ISIL still controls the second largest city in Iraq. How do you think the families of those brave Americans who have sacrificed themselves and those individuals who are still at Walter Reed feel after the sacrifices they made and the victories they won? Now, of course, we see all of that is gone--just a glimmering--thanks to the President of the United States withdrawing all of our troops in the mistaken belief that if you pull out of wars, wars end. They don't end. It is hard to talk to the Gold Star Mothers. Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports that ISIL is still making $1.5 million a day in oil sales. Worse, Reuters reports that ISIL has made more than $500 million trading oil, with significant volumes sold to-- guess who. Guess who ISIL is selling oil to. The government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. It is hard to make some of this stuff up, and it gets a little complicated. We are now making nice--and I will talk a little bit more about it later--with Bashar al-Assad and their stewards, the Russians and the Iranians. Meanwhile, Bashar al-Assad is buying oil from--at least $1.5 million a day--from ISIL. Even as an Oval Office speech and a Pentagon photo op failed to reassure the American people, this administration has doubled down on its indecisive approach to ISIL, using limited means and indirect ways to achieve aspirational ends on a nonexistent timeline. The administration now admits we are at war with ISIL--wonderful--but proceeds at every turn to minimize any American role in fighting and winning that war. America has never waged anything we have called to war and then so profoundly limited our role in the hope that some other force will emerge to win it for us. The administration says we cannot ``Americanize'' the conflict. I also want to point out that the President has a unique and really dishonest approach to those of us who have said for a long time that we have to have more involvement and predicted what would happen. Unfortunately, we have been wrong by saying, yes, the ``popoffs''--as he called us in a speech from the Philippines--want to send hundreds of thousands of troops. That is a total falsehood. I will repeat again what we have been asking for for years, and that is another 5,000 or so Americans on the ground in Iraq and a multinational force led by the Sunni Arab countries with European participation--I would hope that people like the French would join in a--about 10,000 of 100,000-person force to go to Raqqa and take them out. As long as Raqqa exists, they will be able to export this evil throughout the world, including to the United States of America. There is no plan by this administration to retake Raqqa. There is no strategy, and that is, indeed, shameful. The war against ISIL was Americanized when ISIL inspired terrorists who murdered 14 Americans on our own soil in San Bernardino. This attack should be a wake-up call and we need a strategy, as I mentioned. In Syria, there is no plausible strategy to achieve this goal on anywhere near an acceptable time line. We were briefed that it would be a year before they retake Mosul. There is no time limit on how they could even approach regaining Raqqa. There is no ground force that is both willing and able to retake Raqqa, nor is there a realistic prospect of one emerging anytime soon. The Syrian Kurds could take Raqqa but won't, and the Syrian Sunni Arabs want to but can't, partly due to our failure to support them. Meanwhile, the administration has continued its inaction and indifference and has allowed Bashar al-Assad to slaughter a quarter of a million people. Have no doubt who is responsible for these millions of refugees; his name is Bashar al-Assad, the godfather of ISIS. He is the one who has barrel-bombed thousands and thousands of his people. Bashar al-Assad used poison gas and crossed the redline, we might recall. It is Bashar al-Assad who continues the butcher of his own people. I will get to what Secretary Kerry has had to say in a minute. The administration continues its policy of inaction and indifference. It has allowed Vladimir Putin to intervene militarily and protect this murderous regime. My friends, the last time the Russians had influence in the region was when Anwar Sadat threw them out in 1973. Now they are back. Now they are major players in the Middle East. This is the headline from the Associated Press yesterday: ``Russian Airstrikes Restore Syrian Military Balance of Power.'' The airstrikes of the Russians have taken out significant capabilities of the moderate resistance--not ISIS but the moderates whom we had trained and equipped and we refused to protect. I quote from the Associated Press story, ``Russian Air Strikes Restore Syrian Military Balance of Power.'' Weeks of Russian airstrikes in Syria appear to have restored enough momentum to the government side to convince President Bashar Assad's foes and the world community that even if he doesn't win the war he cannot quickly be removed by force. That realization combined with the growing sense that the world's No. 1 priority is the destruction of the Islamic State group, has led many to acknowledge that however unpalatable his conduct of the war, Assad will have to be tolerated for at least sometime further. Let's get this straight. Assad will be tolerated to continue to barrel bomb and slaughter innocent people. ``However unpalatable his conduct of the war. . . . '' This kind of Orwellian understatement not only obscures the truth, but it cripples the conscience. My friends, it cripples the conscience. Bashar Assad's conduct of the war, the barrel bombs, chemical weapons, slaughtering women and children, not only killed one-quarter of a million people, it is what gave rise to ISIL to start with, and it is what fuels them still. Secretary Kerry seems not to understand that fact. While in Moscow searching for ``common ground'' with Russia on Syria and Ukraine, Secretary Kerry said--and I am not making this up; I am telling my colleagues, I am not making this up--``Russia has been a significant contributor to the progress'' the world has made on Syria. Was Russia making progress when it bombed U.S.-backed Syrian forces fighting the Assad regime or was that when it took a brief pause from bombing Syrian moderates to indiscriminately drop dumb bombs in ISIL's territory in eastern Syria, killing untold numbers of civilians? Is that the Russian ``significant'' contributions? Secretary Kerry then said: ``The United States and our partners are not seeking so-called regime change.'' The focus now is ``not on our differences about what can or cannot be done immediately about Assad''--i.e., Dear Mr. Assad, here is a blank check. Here is your card. Do whatever you want to. Do whatever you want to. Continue your barrel bombing, continue your torture, and continue the war crimes that you have committed. You have only killed 250,000 of your own people. Drive some more into exile and murder more. At the beginning of this year, this administration still believed that Assad must go, but now, as one official said, ``the meaning of `Assad has to go' has evolved.'' I repeat, the administration official said ``the meaning of `Assad has to go' has evolved.'' This kind of Orwellian double-speak has become all too common in the administration and is exactly why our allies and partners around the world are losing confidence in American leadership. A very seminal event happened the day before yesterday, my friends, that will be the best indicator of what I am saying. Thirty-four Muslim nations formed an alliance to fight terrorism; i.e., ISIL, and the United States of America didn't even know about it. They didn't even tell the United States of America that they were forming their own organization with their own strategy, their own tactics, to fight against ISIS? My friends, that is an incredible statement about the total loss of American influence and prestige in the region. I have had more than one leader in the Middle East tell me: ``Sometimes we think that it is better to be America's enemy than its friend.'' So why has the meaning of ``Assad has to go'' evolved? Because this administration was overpowered, outplayed, and outmatched. This administration consoled themselves with the mantra of ``there is no military solution'' rather than facing the reality that there is a clear military dimension to a political solution in Syria. That is what Russia and Iran have demonstrated. They have changed the military faction on the ground and created the terms for a political settlement much more favorable to their interests. I believe as a result the conflict will grind on, ISIS will grow stronger, and the refugees will keep coming. Unfortunately, America's troubles in 2015 were not contained in Iraq and Syria. Despite conditions on the ground, President Obama elected to withdraw roughly half of the U.S. forces from Afghanistan by the end of next year. Do you know the President of the United States, even when he announces a buildup, announces a withdrawal. So he sends the message to any potential enemy or any enemy we are engaged with: We are going to build up now, but don't worry, we are going to pull out. We will withdraw. So what happens? Here we are. The Pentagon says violence is on the rise in Afghanistan. The AP report says ``Violence in Afghanistan is on the rise, according to a new Pentagon report to Congress that says the Taliban was emboldened by the reduced U.S. military role and can be expected to build momentum from their 2015 attack strategy.'' It is inevitable, I say to my colleagues, there will be greater violence in Afghanistan, an increase in Taliban activity, and--I am sorry to say--ISIS, who is already establishing a foothold there, will increase their presence. Meanwhile, the Iranians, in their attempt at hegemony, will provide weapons to the Taliban. This Senator will save the rest of my comments about what is going on with the Iran nuclear deal, about what the Iranians have already violated, and what continues with the Russian occupation of Ukraine. Our much respected leader in Europe, General Breedlove, has said that he expects increased military activity by Vladimir Putin in eastern Ukraine. He still has the ambition of establishing a land bridge all the way across eastern Ukraine to Crimea so he doesn't have to continue to supply by air and sea. We seem to have forgotten that over 8,000 people have died since Russia's invasion, including 298 innocent people aboard Malaysia's Flight 17, murdered by Vladimir Putin's loyal supporters with weapons that were sent to Ukraine by Putin--not to mention the murder of Boris Nemtsov, one of the great leaders of the opposition, in the shadow of the Kremlin. The destabilization continues, even in countries as far away as Sweden. I will not go into that because the Defense authorization bill calls for the provision of defensive weapons to Ukraine. One of the more shameful chapters--although they have written more shameful chapters--but one that is really shameful is our failure to provide defensive weapons to Ukraine. There are Russian-supplied tanks in eastern Ukraine. All of us have seen the pictures of them. They have slaughtered many Ukrainians, and we refuse to give the Javelin, the most effective anti-tank weapon we have, to Ukrainians. It is beyond shameful. So I will not talk about China, which has reclaimed 400 acres earlier and now has reclaimed more than 3,000 acres in the South China Sea, and our one foray within the 12-mile limit, the Secretary of Defense failed to acknowledge before the Senate Armed Services Committee. So, my colleagues, we depart on this holiday season, hopefully sooner rather than later, with a world in turmoil, with a world that because of a failure of American leadership now poses direct threats, as we just found in San Bernardino, to the United States of America. We saw too many dark days in 2015. It didn't have to be this way. It is still within our power to choose better courses. We must never be disheartened or resigned to a world where suffering and evil are always on the ascent. On the contrary, it is in our character as Americans to face adversity with hope and optimism. We must see plainly and fully the threats to our values in order to defeat them. As Churchill said, we recover our ``moral health and martial vigor, we rise again and take our stand for freedom.'' I have no doubt America can succeed and will succeed. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016. I am obviously pleased we are not going to pass another continuing resolution, which I believe is irresponsible, but at the same time the process by which we are now considering this legislation is just as irresponsible. As my colleague from Texas just pointed out, we are here where we are because my colleague and leader on the other side of the aisle refused to allow the appropriations bills that had been passed through committee one by one to be considered and voted on and amended in the fashion that the American people expect us to behave, and, frankly, the Constitution demands. So here we are after months and months of gridlock with the Democrat leader not allowing us to bring up these bills one by one. We are now faced with a $1.1 trillion bill that, in the view of many, is must-pass with literally hours to review and debate and no amendments--no amendments. So we are faced with a parliamentary situation of $1.1 trillion we are considering without an amendment-- without a single Member on either side of the aisle being able to propose an amendment to make it better. My friends, this is a recipe for corruption. It is a recipe for corruption. A few people--a very few people--not all 100 Members of the Senate or 435 Members of the House but a handful of people behind closed doors work, and then 48 hours or so, or whatever it is, before the vote, it is presented to us as ``take it or leave it,'' with the choice being this: Well, you can sign on to it; you will probably have to hold your nose, but we have no choice. Well, my friends, I believe we do have a choice. I believe we do have a choice. I believe we should behave in the manner in which our constituents expect us to behave: Take up a bill, have an amendment, have a debate, have a discussion, and do what we are supposed to do. And if the Democratic leader wants to block us, then let him take the responsibility for doing so. Now we are faced with a $1 trillion spending bill that includes numerous policy provisions that have never been debated and discussed, pork barrel spending that would never stand the light of day--never, ever--and I will be talking about some of them. I will give you some examples of the pork that has been snuck into this bill. Let me give you a few examples here that I think might interest our constituents. This is in this bill, in law: $3.6 million for 30 vineyards, breweries, and distilleries to build tasting rooms, conduct whiskey production feasibility studies, and other alcohol marketing gimmicks. Yeah, the one thing we really want to do is give money to help alcohol marketing. There is $100,000 in funding to sell goat whey sodas and soft-serve frozen goat yogurt, $247,677 to develop pecan snacks, and $49,750 to introduce Americans to flavored beef bratwurst and beef chili. If there is anything I think the American people need to be educated and introduced to, it is bratwurst and chili. There is $49,990 for spinning raw alpaca fiber into a very fine yarn, $42,000 to produce cheese from buffalo milk, $250,000 to produce and market lamb jerky, $26,270 to determine the feasibility of producing blue cornmeal from Navajo corn, and $200,000 to make apple pies. Now this list goes on and on. My favorite, my friends, of many of them is a thing called the catfish inspection office--the catfish inspection office. Most of us enjoy catfish and we appreciate the benefits to our nutrition and of course the sizeable industry around catfishing. What we have again this year is a Department of Agriculture catfish inspection office. Now there is the Department of Agriculture catfish inspection office, but the FDA also has a similar catfish inspection office, and the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, has issued more than six reports calling the U.S. Department of Agriculture catfish Inspection Office ``wasteful and duplicative.'' As a result of this protectionist program, an estimated $15 million of your tax dollars per year will be spent on enabling government bureaucrats to impose barriers on foreign catfish importers, which will in turn increase the price of catfish for American consumers, restaurants, and seafood producers. So, my friends, in this bill $15 million every year of your tax dollars will be spent for a catfish inspection office. That is the kind of thing that happens when you get to this date at the end of the year with a mammoth bill worth $1 trillion. It is too ripe. It is too ripe for the picking by the pork barrellers who we have in the Senate and the House. I will quickly give a couple more examples: $1.7 million for the Senate kitchen exhaust systems upgrades; $65 million for Pacific coast salmon restoration for States. On the face of it, you would think that money for Pacific coast salmon restoration would perhaps be a beneficial expenditure of your tax dollars. Guess what. The State of Nevada is included in this $65 million salmon restoration. A cursory glance at a map of the United States might indicate that the State of Nevada is not exactly an ideal place for salmon restoration, but they are going to get some of these millions of dollars, and I am sure it has nothing to do with the makeup of the U.S. Senate from Nevada. There is $15 million for an ``incentive program'' that directs the Department of Defense to overpay on contracts by an additional 5 percent if the contractor is a Native Hawaiian-owned company. So if you have a contract with a Native Hawaiian-owned company, the Department of Defense will add approximately 5 percent of taxpayers' dollars. There is language that makes it easier for the Department of Defense to enter into no-bid contracts. If there is anything in my years I have seen that lends itself to outrageous spending, of course it is no-bid contracts. The Department of Defense may eliminate competition and use a no-bid contract for a ``product of original thinking and was submitted in confidence by one source.'' That is interesting. Well, anyway, there are many more of those. I am proud of what this Congress has done this year. There are many good things that have been done. There has been the Defense authorization bill. For the first time, there has been a budget. For the first time, we have reformed education. For the first time, we have done so many things. We have finally sent a bill to the President's desk repealing and replacing ObamaCare, but to end the bill with this is really an embarrassment. So here we are looking at $1 trillion, and I particularly want to talk a little bit about national defense. I could not be more proud of the bipartisanship--both Democratic and Republican--that has been involved in the Senate Armed Services Committee and the bipartisanship with our friends on the other side of the Capitol. We have come up with legislation that has been described as the biggest reform bill for defense in 30 years--I am proud of it--and we have a lot further to go. We had hours and hours of hearings, hours and hours of markups. We had over 130 amendments to the Defense authorization bill considered on the floor of the Senate. We did things we have never done before. For example, we are completely reforming the retirement system for the military. It used to be that you had to stay 20 years before you could receive any financial benefit. Now, after 2 years and 1 month, you can get into a matching- funds agreement with the Federal Government. So now, instead of 85 percent of those who joined the military never receiving a financial benefit, 85 percent of those who join will receive it. So I am very proud, and I am very proud of the work I did with my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, as well as our friends on the other side of the aisle. Then at the last minute, these earmarks, these pork barrel projects, these egregious, wasteful projects are airdropped into what I believe is a 2,000-page--whatever it is, it is huge, and we saw it for the first time at about 10 p.m. or 12 a.m. last night, and they want us to vote on it tomorrow. That is crazy. What the appropriators did, they included over 150 different programs and initiatives where the appropriations exceeded what they were authorized, totaling $9.4 billion. By passing the Defense authorization, we set an expectation on how to allocate funds. This was obviously completely broken. As an example, the appropriators included $160 million for humvees even though the Army requested zero dollars for humvees. We had hearings on this. We had hearings on the issue of what the Army needed, and it was abundantly clear that the Army did not need any more humvees. Somehow the appropriators decided that there would be $160 million for humvees; $7 million for a machine gun--five times the current size of the program. Again, our Army and Department of Defense said they didn't need it. But this is the worst one of all, my friends, and it will not surprise anyone that it is manufactured in Alabama. There is $225 million for the addition of a joint high-speed vessel, which is, of course, manufactured in Alabama. This will be the 12th ship of this class. The Navy's requirement was 10--10 vessels. Remember, this is $225 million for this vessel. The Navy said stop at 10. We stopped at 10. Last year the appropriators added one for $225 million; this year, another $225 million. By my calculation, that is $450 million for two joint high-speed vessels that the military--the Navy and the Department of Defense--said they don't need or want. What could we have done for the men and women in the military with that $450 million we just wasted on two ships the Navy and the military said they didn't need? It is unacceptable. The bill includes over $2 billion in funding--I am not making this up--it includes almost $1.2 billion on top of the $1 billion for medical research within the Defense Department. My friends, I want to emphasize that I am all in for medical research. I think medical research is vital to the future of all Americans. But what in the world does most of this have to do with Defense appropriations? Nothing. Nothing. It is the Willie Sutton syndrome at its best. Mr. Sutton was once asked why he robbed banks, and he said, ``Because that's where the money is.'' My friends, the Department of Defense is where the money is, so we have seen this gradual creeping up of funding out of defense funds for programs--which I will read a few of--that have nothing to do with defense. I will say again that I am for funding medical research. I think it is vital, and I think it is important. But someone is going to have to explain to me how tuberculosis, autism, lung cancer, gulf war illness-- actually, that is one of them--spinal cord injury, ovarian cancer-- those research funds should come out of the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill, not out of defense at a time of sequestration, when we have planes that can't fly and guns that won't shoot and ships that can't sail. So what have we done? Let me show you what they have done this year. You can see the gradual increase. Beginning in 1992, there was about $20 million, I guess, something like that. Then in 1994 it went up and then up. Then something happened and it went down. Then you can see the gradual, almost steady increase of funding for medical research as the funding for defense has remained constant or even in some cases reduced. So what have we done this year, my dear friends? Here it is: $2.2 billion of your tax dollars is now earmarked for medical research--all of them worthy causes. Almost none of them have anything to do with guns, ships, planes, barracks, or medical research that is directly connected to our military. To add to that, the Army received an additional $16 million to conduct research on Parkinson's disease, and the list goes on and on. So what do we have here. By the way, the bill also includes nine ``Buy American'' provisions, which will inevitably add to weapons systems and other contracting costs. The ``Buy American'' provisions are a handout to labor unions and are a ploy to protect defense companies in a particular State. I won't waste time and go too much longer except to say that today we see an interesting political environment in America. We see on the Republican side--my side--we see the leading candidates, people who are basically seeking the nomination of the Republican Party because they are running against Washington; that they don't want business as usual; that they are frustrated by the fact that, in their view, the Congress doesn't work for them. The approval rating of Congress is consistently somewhere in the teens, and Americans are frustrated and they are angry. Many of them support an individual who says: We will make America great again; it will be huge. It is language that is not very specific, but it inspires them to see change take place. Although I disagree with that and I think we have a record this year that we can be proud of in many respects--whether it be education reform or whether it be finally sending a bill to the President's desk to repeal ObamaCare or fixing education, as I mentioned, or better ways of defending the Nation with many reforms of how the Pentagon does business--there are many things I am very proud of. I think we can return to our constituents and tell them that for the first time this year, Congress has done some things that will be helpful to the everyday man and woman who has not received really much benefit over the last 8 years since the economic collapse. But then we send them this Christmas turkey. We send them a bill laden with millions and millions of dollars in wasteful and unnecessary spending. We send them a bill that purchases for $225 million a ship that nobody wants or needs. That, my friends, gives substance and reason behind the frustration many of our constituents feel. It is probably over for this year. I think it is probably going to be a situation where there are sufficient votes to pass this ``omnibus bill'' worth $1.1 trillion of taxpayers' money without a single amendment, not a single one. Then we will go home, enjoy Christmas, and then come back in January hopefully refreshed. But I hope that in January we will make a commitment to the American people that we will stop doing business this way, that we will stop waiting until the last days and having these extensions that last 2 days or 3 days before the threat of a government shutdown--which no American I have ever met enjoys--and learn that the American people expect better of us than this process. I am not proud of this. In fact, I am a bit ashamed because, particularly on defense, there are so many critical needs of the men and women who are serving in our military. Their carriers are going on 10-month cruises. Some of our men and women who are serving are on their fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh tour to Afghanistan. Even now many are going back to Iraq, and they will be going back, my friends. They will be going back. They will also be in Syria because, I predict to you now, there will be another attack on the United States of America because this President cannot lead. We are paying the price for a feckless foreign policy that is a disgrace and will be judged by historians as one of the low points in American history as far as national security is concerned. So instead of providing for those critical needs--and I guarantee I can come up with billions of dollars of critical needs. By the way, I can also come up with reforms that will save billions of dollars in our legislation. We are proud of that. For example, we require a reduction of 7.5 percent per year for 4 years in the size of the staff in the military. That will save over $3 billion over time. I am proud of that. So we come to the American people with a defense bill that is lean and efficient. We have a long way to go, but we are proud of it. Then we look at things like this. It is not acceptable. I hope I don't have to stand up here again next year. I hope we can finally sit down and work for the American people, and that means taking up the appropriations bills one by one by one and giving them the same attention the Defense bill got. The Defense bill got 2 weeks, 133 amendments, debate on every issue conceivable concerning national defense. We need to do that with each of the 12 appropriations bills. That way we can give the American people a product that is the most efficient, that is the least wasteful, and something we can be proud of. I urge my colleagues to understand that this legislation on the Defense appropriations part of it does not help America defend itself in these difficult times. In fact, because of the waste, because of the pork-barrel spending in this, because of the earmarks in it, we have actually harmed the ability of our Nation to defend itself and the welfare of the men and women who are serving. That is something we cannot be proud of. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.