John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order, and I want to ask the Senator from Indiana a question.

Mr. McCAIN. Maybe the Senator from Kentucky should know the rules of the Senate, that the Senator from Indiana has the floor and the gentleman is open to respond to a question. My question to the Senator from Indiana--and I want to say that his words are powerful and accurate.

Mr. McCAIN. I would ask the Senator from Indiana if he has seen--

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

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is to try to repeal one of the great ripoffs in the history of this body. We waste $15 million a year on a catfish inspection office which is not only duplicative but disgraceful. This is a classic example of protectionism and the kind of thing we are trying to avoid with a free-trade agreement. It is an outrage. Nine times the Government Accountability Office has said this is a waste of millions of taxpayer dollars. It is outrageous, and I urge my colleagues to vote aye on the amendment, because it is an absolute outrage and disgrace.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business, and when the Senator from South Carolina arrives, to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, today, the black flags of ISIL fly over the city of Ramadi, the capital of Iraq's Anbar Province. Anbar was once a symbol of Iraqis working together with brave young Americans in uniform to defeat Al Qaeda. Today, it appears to be a sad reminder of this administration's indecisive air campaign in Iraq and Syria and a broader lack of strategy to achieve its stated objective of degrading and destroying ISIL. Equally disturbing, reports indicate over 75,000 Iranian-backed Shiite militias are preparing to launch a counteroffensive in the larger Sunni province. Whatever the operational success Shiite militias may have in Anbar would be far exceeded by the strategic damage caused by their violent sectarianism and the fear and suspicion it breeds among Iraqi Sunnis. Moreover, the prominent role of these militias continues to feed the perception of a Baghdad government unable or unwilling to protect Sunnis, which is devastating to the political reconciliation efforts that must be central to ensuring a united Iraq can rid itself of ISIL. Shiite militias and Iranian meddling will only foster the conditions that gave birth to ISIL in the first place. Liberating Ramadi and defeating ISIL requires empowering Sunnis who want to rise and fight ISIL themselves, including by integrating them into Iraqi security forces, providing more robust American military assistance. Indeed, the Obama administration and its spokesperson have tried to save face for its failed policies by diminishing the importance of Ramadi to the campaign against ISIL and the future of Iraq. As ISIL forces captured and sacked Ramadi, the Pentagon's news page ran a story with the headline, ``Strategy to Defeat ISIL is Working.'' Secretary of State John Kerry said Ramadi was a mere ``target of opportunity.'' White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said yesterday we should not ``light our hair on fire every time there is a setback in the campaign against ISIL.'' Meanwhile, Ramadi, Iraq, and the region are on fire. How could anyone--how could anyone say we should not light our hair on fire when news reports clearly indicate there are burning bodies in the streets of Ramadi, that ISIL is going from house to house, seeking out people and executing them. Tens of thousands of people are refugees. What does the President's spokesman say? That we should not light our hair on fire every time there is a setback. The Secretary of State of the United States of America said Ramadi was a mere ``target of opportunity.'' Have we completely lost--have we completely lost our sense of any moral caring and concern about thousands and thousands of people who are murdered, who are made refugees, who are dying as we speak--and the President's Press Secretary says we should not light our hair on fire. What does the President have to say today? The President of the United States today says: Well, it is climate change that we have to worry about. I am worried about climate change. Do we give a damn about what is happening in the streets of Ramadi and the thousands of refugees and the people--innocent men, women, and children who are dying and being executed and their bodies burned in the streets? A few weeks ago, as ISIL closed in on Ramadi, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said the city ``is not symbolic in any way'' and is ``not central to the future of Iraq,'' the capital of the Anbar Province, the place where we lost the lives of some 400 brave Americans and some 1,000 in the first battle of Ramadi during the surge. These are quotes from the media reports: Bodies, some burned, littered the streets as local officials reported the militants carried out mass killing of Iraq security forces and civilians. Islamic state militants searched door-to-door for policemen and pro-government fighters and threw bodies in the Euphrates River in a bloody purge Monday after capturing the strategic city of Ramadi. . . . Some 500 civilians and soldiers died in the extremist killing spree. . . . They said [ISIS] militants were going door-to-door with lists of government sympathizers and were breaking into the homes of policeman and pro-government tribesmen. So the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said it is not symbolic in any way. It is not central to the future of Iraq. It was in response to those comments that Debbie Lee sent a letter to General Dempsey. Debbie's son, Marc Alan Lee, was the first Navy SEAL killed in the Iraq war. For his bravery he was awarded the Silver Star and his comrades renamed their base in Ramadi ``Camp Marc Alan Lee.'' ``I am shaking and tears are flowing down my cheeks as I watch the news and listen to the insensitive, pain-inflicting comments made by you in regards to the fall of Ramadi'' Debbie wrote General Dempsey. She continues: My son and many others gave their future in Ramadi. Ramadi mattered to them. Many military analysts say that as goes Ramadi so goes Iraq. Debbie Lee is right. Ramadi does matter. It matters to the families of the 187 brave Americans who gave their lives and another 1,150 who were wounded, some of them still residing at Walter Reed hospital, who were wounded fighting to rid Ramadi of Al Qaeda from August 2005 to March 2007. And it matters to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, mostly Sunnis, who call Ramadi home, were forced to flee their homes, and feel their government cannot protect them against ISIL's terror. Ramadi's fall is a significant defeat, one that should lead our Nation's leaders to reconsider an indecisive policy and a total lack of strategy that has done little to roll back ISIL and has strengthened the malign sectarian influence of Iran. I wish to go back. Yesterday, as I mentioned, Press Secretary Josh Earnest said: ``Are we going to light our hair on fire every time there is a setback?'' It is one of the more incredible statements I have ever heard a public figure make. Well, General Dempsey's comments are equally as absurd. The New York Times headline: ``Iraq's Sunni Strategy Collapses in Ramadi Rout.'' The Washington Post: ``Fall of Ramadi reflects failure of Iraq's strategy against ISIS, analysts say.'' Wall Street Journal: ``US Rethinks Strategy to Battle Islamic State After Setback in Ramadi.'' Associated Press: ``Rout in Ramadi calls U.S. strategy into question.'' Bloomberg: ``Islamic State Victory Threatens to Unravel Obama's Iraq Strategy.'' The only problem with that statement is there is no strategy to unravel. The Daily Beast: ``ISIS Counterpunch Stuns U.S. and Iraq.'' According to the Associated Press: ``The United Nations says it is rushing aid to nearly 25,000 people fleeing for the second time in a month,'' after the Islamic State group seized the key Iraqi city. The U.N. reported 114,000 people fled Ramadi in April. The U.N. reports it has helped more than 130,000 people over the past alone. Continuing: ``Bodies, some burned, littered the streets as local officials reported the militants carried out mass killings of Iraq security forces and civilians.'' It goes on and on. Before I turn to my friend from South Carolina, I just want to point out, my friends, that this did not have to happen. This is the result of a failed, feckless policy that called for, against all reason, the total and complete withdrawal from Iraq after we had won with the enormous expenditure of American blood and treasure, including 187 of them in the battle of Ramadi. In 2011, Senator Lieberman, Graham, and I argued that the complete pullout from Iraq would ``needlessly put at risk all of the hard-worn gains the United States has achieved there at enormous cost in blood and treasure,'' and potentially be ``a very serious foreign policy and national security mistake for our country.'' We wrote a long article in the Washington Post. In October, 2011, on the day President Obama announced a total withdrawal of troops from Iraq, Senator McCain called the decision ``a strategic victory for our enemies in the Middle East, especially the Iranian regime,'' and warned that ``I fear that all of the gains made possible by these brave Americans in Iraq, at such grave cost, are now at risk.'' That was in 2011. In December of 2011, Senators McCain and Graham predicted that if Iraq slid back into sectarian violence due to U.S. pullout, ``the consequences will be catastrophic for the Iraqi people and U.S. interests in the Middle East, and a clear victory for Al Qaeda and Iran.'' It goes on and on. Time after time, Senator Graham and I warned exactly what was going to happen in Iraq. It was not necessary to happen. It is because of this President's refusal to leave a force behind. Now, my friends, before I turn to my friend from South Carolina, what was said at the same time that Senator Graham, Senator Lieberman, and I were warning of this catastrophe? What was said at the same time? February 2010, Vice President Biden: I am very optimistic about Iraq. I think it's going to be one of the great achievements of this administration. You are going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government. In December 2011, at a Fort Bragg event marking the end of Iraq war, President Obama said: But we are leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self- reliant Iraq. This is an extraordinary achievement, nearly 9 years in the making. In March 2012--this is perhaps my favorite--Tony Blinken, then national security adviser to Vice President Biden, stated: ``Iraq today is less violent, more democratic, and more prosperous than at any time in recent history.'' This is November of 2012, and President Obama on the Presidential campaign trail said: The war in Iraq is over, the war in Afghanistan is winding down, al Qaeda has been decimated, Osama bin Laden is dead. The war in Iraq is over. The war in Afghanistan is winding down. Al Qaeda has been decimated. Osama bin Laden is dead. So we have made real progress these last 4 years. In January 2014--I guess this is my favorite--President Obama on ISIS: The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn't make them Kobe Bryant. He was talking about ISIS: The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn't make them Kobe Bryant. We are seeing a dark chapter in American history, and it is the getting darker. In response to a slaughter in Ramadi, the answer seems to be: ``Let's not set our hair on fire [over this].'' That was by the President's Press Secretary, and that Ramadi isn't important at all, from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This is a ``temporary setback.'' This is, according to the Secretary of State, ``a target of opportunity.'' Where is our morality? Where is our decency? Where is our concern about these thousands of people who are being slaughtered and displaced and their lives destroyed? And we shouldn't set our hair on fire? Outrageous. I ask my friend, Senator Graham, what we should do next.

Mr. McCAIN. Could I interrupt my friend and point out that both of us, because of our perception that we were losing in Iraq, under our Republican President, called for the resignation of the Secretary of Defense and a new strategy. We saw with our own party in the White House that we were failing in Iraq and we could not succeed.

Mr. McCAIN. And that stuff happens.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Graham and me and many others, I have a message for Marc Alan Lee's mother--the mother of the first Navy SEAL who was killed in the Iraq war and who, for bravery, was awarded the Silver Star--and 186 other mothers who lost their sons in the battle for Ramadi: I will never stop. I will never stop until we have avenged their deaths. And we will bring freedom and democracy to Iraq. But more importantly than that is the threat this radical Islam and the Iranians pose to our Nation and the young men and women who are serving in the military. As a result of this President's feckless policies, we have put the lives of the men and women who are serving in the military in much greater danger. My highest obligation is to do everything in my power to see that this situation is reversed and that they get the support and the equipment they need and most of all that they get a policy and a strategy that will succeed and defeat ISIS and Iran in their hegemonic ambitions. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from New Hampshire for her support and continuing efforts to get rid of this wasteful, pork barrel, outrageous program that has cost the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and with regard to the catfish office alone, about $20 million to date. As the Senator from New Hampshire pointed out, this could put the entire TPP--Trans-Pacific Partnership-- Agreement in jeopardy. So this has a lot more to do with just catfish here; it has a lot to do with our international relations and the prospects of concluding or not concluding one of the most important trade agreements arguably of the 21st century, obviously. I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Shaheen, Ayotte, Isakson, Kirk, Crapo, Risch, Casey, Reed, Peters, Wyden, Warner, Cantwell, and McCaskill, in introducing this amendment, which has already been made pending to the trade promotion authority act, which would repeal a proposed Catfish Inspection Program at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The amendment would end the waste of taxpayer money pouring into the creation of a USDA catfish office, which is about $20 million to date. It would also save American farmers and livestock growers from potentially losing billions of dollars in lost market access to Asian nations. As the Senator from New Hampshire pointed out, I have been fighting this catfish battle for a long time. I first tried to kill an old catfish-labeling program in the 2002 farm bill. Later, during the Senate's debate on the 2012 farm bill, I offered a similar amendment to repeal this new catfish program, which was adopted by voice vote. But when the Senate took up the 2014 farm bill after failing to pass it in 2012, I was blocked from having a vote by the Democratic manager despite her assurances that my amendment would receive a vote. I note that my dear friend from Mississippi is here, and I know there may be others who will want to preserve this $14 to $20 million waste of taxpayer dollars. All I want is a vote. All I am asking for is an up-or-down vote on whether we should continue to squander millions of taxpayer dollars on a program that is not only duplicative but endangers the entire Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement we are discussing today. American agriculture is the heart of our efforts to pass TPA, particularly as negotiators move closer to completing the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. TPA can put wind in the sails of the 12-nation TPP, which will promote hundreds of billions of dollars of American exports, including beef, pork, poultry, soy, wheat, vegetables, and dairy products. The TPP covers an area of the world that accounts for about 40 percent of global GDP and one-third of all trade. The TPP will strengthen our security relationships with countries such as Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Australia, and provide a strategic counterweight to Chinese protectionist influence. So it is our responsibility to pass a trade promotion authority that signals to Asian trading partners that we are serious about free trade. Free trade is good for America. I am a representative of a State that has immeasurably benefited from the North American Free Trade Agreement. By the way, many of the same interests and people who opposed that are opposing this now--i.e., primarily the labor unions. Here, that means eliminating this catfish program, which is one of the most brazen and reckless protectionist programs that I have encountered in my time in the Senate. The purpose of the USDA catfish office is purportedly to make sure catfish is safe for human consumption. I am all in favor of ensuring that American consumers enjoy wholesome catfish. The problem is that the Food and Drug Administration already inspects all seafood, including catfish. The true purpose of the catfish program is to create a trade barrier to protect a small handful of catfish farmers in two or three Southern States. Let's be clear about what this is all about--protecting catfish farmers in two or three Southern States. Yet, we are endangering the entire agreement here. That is not right, and it is not right for the American people. In classic farm bill politics, southern catfish farmers worked up some specious talking points--which will probably be repeated here today--about how Americans need a whole new government agency to inspect catfish imports. As a result, USDA will soon hire and train roughly 95 catfish inspectors to work right alongside the FDA inspector doppelgangers in seafood-processing plants across the Nation. Experts say it could take as long as 5 to 7 years for foreign catfish exporters to duplicate USDA's new program, which would give southern catfish farmers a lock on the American seafood market. Growing government is not cheap. To date, the USDA has spent $20 million to set up the catfish office without inspecting a single catfish. I am not making that up. Moving forward, the USDA estimates it will spend around $14 million a year once the program is operational. GAO has investigated this catfish office and warned Congress in nine different reports--nine different reports to GAO, which is probably clearly the most trusted organization here--nine different reports. The catfish office should be repealed. It is wasteful and duplicative. The FDA already inspects seafood. It fragments our food inspection system. Nine different reports. One GAO report is simply titled ``Responsibility for Inspecting Catfish Should Not Be Assigned to USDA.'' The Government Accountability Office has repeatedly found that catfish inspectors are a phony issue and warned that implementing the USDA program might actually make food less safe for Americans by fragmenting seafood inspections across two Federal agencies. Here are a few GAO excerpts. GAO, May 2012: USDA uses outdated and limited information as its scientific basis for catfish inspection. The cost effectiveness of the catfish inspection program is unclear because USDA would oversee a small fraction of all seafood imports while FDA, using its enhanced authorities, could undertake oversight of all imported seafood. GAO, February 2013: Congress should consider repealing provisions of the Farm Bill that assigned USDA responsibility for examining and inspecting catfish. GAO, April 2014: We suggested that Congress consider repealing these provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill. However, the 2014 Farm Bill instead modified these provisions to require the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Commissioner of FDA that would ensure that inspection of catfish conducted by the FSIS and FDA are not duplicative. We maintain that such an MOU does not address the fundamental problem, which is that FSIS's catfish program, if implemented, would result in duplication of activities and an inefficient use of taxpayer funds. Duplication would result if facilities that process both catfish and other seafood were inspected by both FSIS and FDA. Even if my colleagues do not care about ballooning government spending and taxpayer waste, then consider the risk this catfish program presents to jobs and agriculture exports from their home States to an area of the world that accounts for 40 percent of the world's GDP and one-third of its trade. Ten Asian-Pacific nations have sent letters to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative warning that this USDA catfish office is hurting TPP negotiations. At least one nation--Vietnam--has threatened trade retaliation if the program comes online. American trade experts are equally outraged. In a legal opinion written by the former chief judge at the World Trade Organization--the chief judge at the World Trade Organization said: The United States would face a daunting challenge in defending the catfish rule . . . there was, and still is, no meaningful evidence that catfish--domestic or imported--posed a significant health hazard when Congress acted in 2008 . . . the complete lack of scientific evidence to justify the catfish rule combines with substantial evidence of protectionist intent. He further notes that when it came to creating the USDA Catfish Inspection Program in the dead of night using a farm bill conference report--that is interesting, my colleagues; a farm bill conference report was how this whole thing came about--``Congress shot first and asked questions later.'' This is perhaps Mr. Bacchus's most poignant warning: If Congress continues to mandate the transfer of jurisdiction over catfish, it will not only be inviting a WTO challenge to the rule; it will be giving other nations an opening to enact ``copycat legislation'' which will disadvantage our exports. Moreover, if the United States somehow prevails in defending the catfish measure in a WTO case, it will truly be ``open season'' in the rest of the world for new restrictions on U.S. agriculture exports of all kinds. Mr. Bacchus is not alone in his assessment. The Wall Street Journal has covered this catfish debacle over the years. The Wall Street Journal has editorialized and reported on this many times. This past weekend, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal penned an editorial entitled ``Congress's Catfish Trade Scam.'' The Wall Street Journal, lead editorial, ``Congress's Catfish Trade Scam.'' ``The U.S. slams a trade partner and raises prices for Americans.'' ``Senate Democrats dealt a blow to economic growth Tuesday by refusing to advance . . . Japan, Vietnam,'' et cetera. The problem dates to 2002, when Congress barred Vietnamese exporters from marketing as ``catfish'' an Asian cousin known as pangasius with similar taste, texture and whiskers. But that failed to curb American enthusiasm for the cheaper foreign creature, which is common in fish sticks and often called ``basa'' or ``swai'' on menus. So in 2003 Washington slapped tariffs on the Vietnamese fish, claiming they were ``dumped'' into the U.S. market at unfairly low prices. That didn't work either, so Mississippi Republican Thad Cochran slipped a provision into the 2008 farm bill to transfer regulatory responsibility over catfish, including pangasius, to the U.S. Department of Agriculture from the Food and Drug Administration. The pretext was public health, but pangasius posed no risk, and the USDA regulates meat and poultry, not fish. The real aim was to raise costs for Vietnamese exporters and drive them from the U.S. market. Thus was born one of Washington's most wasteful programs, which the Government Accountability Office has criticized nine times and estimated to have cost $30 million to start, plus $14 million a year to operate--as opposed to the $700,000 annual cost of the original inspection regime. This is ``everything that's wrong about the food-safety system,'' said former FDA food-safety czar David Acheson recently. ``It's food politics. It's not public health.'' Pangasius imports continue for now as the USDA sets up its expensive new office, with the fish passing cod and crab last year to become America's sixth most-popular. (Shrimp is first.) Meanwhile, Vietnam has threatened to respond to a ban by demanding the right to retaliate against U.S. beef, soybeans and other products as part of TPP negotiations and suing the World Trade Organization, where it would probably win. Most Members of Congress understand the damage, but Mr. Cochran has used his seniority to block repeal. The latest effort at repeal, sponsored by John McCain and nine other Republicans and Democrats, could get a vote when the Senate reconsiders the trade-promotion bill, then would have to go through the House. Ending catfish protectionism would be a sign that at least some in Washington are serious about free trade. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the aforementioned Wall Street Journal editorial.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article dated June 27, 2014, entitled ``U.S. Catfish Program Could Stymie Pacific Trade Pact, 10 Nations Say''; a letter by Jim Bacchus dated May 14, 2015; a letter dated May 13, 2015, from the National Taxpayers Union, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Taxpayers Protection Alliance, and Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, all of them urging Congress to repeal the catfish program in TPA; a letter dated May 14, 2015, from the National Restaurant Association; and a letter dated April 22, 2015, from the Vietnamese Ambassador to the Senate Finance Committee.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the National Restaurant Association sent a letter: On behalf of the National Restaurant Association, I strongly urge you to support the bipartisan McCain-Shaheen catfish amendment to the Senate's pending trade related legislation. . . . As members of the foodservice industry, we are committed to food safety. However, this new program would provide no benefit. In fact, the USDA itself has stated that its Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) would not provide additional food safety protection. Finally, implementation of this program could strongly impact U.S. agricultural relations with key trading partners. The Taxpayers Protection Alliance: We support your efforts to repeal the program restoring some measure of fiscal discipline and we urge your colleagues in the Senate to do the same. Mr. President, I understand that the parliamentary situation is that we have a number of pending amendments and that probably it is very likely that a cloture motion will be filed. That, of course, would then mean I would not be allowed to have this amendment. If we do not allow this amendment, I have to say that we will be really showing a degree of contempt and arrogance for the taxpayers of America. I have watched this program and this incredible--I have seen $14 million wasted. I have seen an example of protectionism. I was told in the last bill on agriculture that I would receive a vote on my amendment. All I am asking for is a straight up-or-down vote so we can save the taxpayers $14 million, $20 million, $30 million, $40 million on a program that is both wasteful and not needed. I understand my colleagues from Mississippi and other Southern States want to protect their catfish industry, which I have enjoyed many samples of over the years. I do not understand the rationale for continuing--particularly under conditions of sequestration--any program that costs the taxpayers unending millions of dollars per year. I urge my colleagues to demand a vote. All I am asking for is an up- or-down vote on an amendment that is clearly relevant to the consideration of this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Enzi and members of the Budget Committee for the 2016 budget conference agreement that we are currently considering in the Senate. Included in the budget conference agreement are policy provisions that I believe begin to move this country in the right fiscal direction, including balancing the budget within 10 years without the need to raise taxes on the hardworking American taxpayer--something the administration's budget fails to do. In addition, the budget agreement provides a pathway to repeal the failed policies of ObamaCare. I am pleased the resolution does provide some relief from sequestration's devastating cuts to our national defense. The good news is that there is some relief. Providing additional resources for defense through the Overseas Contingency Operations account, known as OCO, is a good one, but it is temporary and it is a Band-Aid. Again, I thank Senator Enzi for the great job he has done, but the fact is that this body and this Congress is guilty--is guilty--of not repealing sequestration, which is devastating our military and destroying our ability to defend this Nation in these most perilous and difficult times. Before the Senate Armed Services Committee on January 29, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger testified: As we look around the world, we encounter upheaval and conflict. The United States has not faced a more diverse and complex array of crises since the end of the Second World War. What are we doing? We are slashing defense year after year through something called sequestration, which was never intended to happen. That is a devastating indictment of the Congress of the United States in our first priority, which is protecting this nation. Gen. Mark Welsh, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, stated: We are now the smallest Air Force we've ever been. When we deployed to Operation Desert Storm in 1990, the Air Force had 188 fighter squadrons. Today, we have 54, and we're headed to 49 in the next couple of years. In 1990, there were 511,000 active duty airmen alone. Today, we have 200,000 fewer. . . . We currently have 12 fleets of airplanes that qualify for antique license plates in the state of Virginia. General Odierno, Chief of Staff of the Army, said: In the last three years, the Army's active component and strength has been reduced by 80,000; the reserve component by 18,000. We have 13 less active component brigade combat teams. We've eliminated three active aviation brigades. . . . We have already slashed investments in modernization by 25 percent. He went on to say: The number one thing that keeps me up at night is that if we're asked to respond to an unknown contingency, I will send soldiers to that contingency not properly trained and ready. We simply are not used to doing that. Admiral Greenert, the Chief Of Naval Operations: [D]ue to sequestration of 2013, our contingency response force, that's what's on call from the United States, is one- third of what it should be and what it needs to be. Gen. Joseph Dunford, Commandant of the Marine Corps, now nominated to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Of Staff, testified: We're investing in modernization at a historically low level. We know that we must maintain at least 10 percent to 12 percent of our resources on modernization to field a ready force for tomorrow. To pay today's bills, we're currently investing 7 percent to 8 percent. I asked every single one of our service chiefs and our area commanders the same question: If we do not repeal sequestration, will it put the lives of our men and women who are serving in the military in greater danger? The answer by every single one of these uniformed leaders--not just civilian leaders--was, yes, we will put the lives of the men and women who are serving in the military in greater danger unless we repeal sequestration on defense. I say to my colleagues of the United States Senate, this is not acceptable. It is not acceptable for us to ask the young men and women who are serving in our military in uniform to put their lives in greater danger because we copped out, we failed to address the issue of increasing an unsustainable deficit. We are making them pay the price. Thirteen percent of the budget is allocated to defense; defense is taking 50 percent of the cuts. The Ryan-Murray agreement was something that was welcomed. We need another Ryan-Murray. We need the men and women who are serving as Members of Congress to understand that we have no greater responsibility than the defense of this Nation. I can assure my colleagues that, working with my friend Senator Reed of Rhode Island, the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, we will be working. We will reduce waste and mismanagement. We will address acquisition. We will reform acquisition and the terrible cost overruns that plague our ability to do business in the defense business. We will be cutting the size of these huge staffs that have grown and grown. We will be making significant reforms in the way the military does business, but these reforms will not have the impact that is necessary in the short term, and that is that we are putting the lives of American soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen in greater danger. I come to the floor to thank my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, for the great job he has done on this budget. But I would tell my colleagues that we must work together in a bipartisan fashion to fix the damage sequestration is doing. I will only add one other point that is very important. Some of us have forgotten that in the days after the Vietnam war, the military was in terrible disarray. Ronald Reagan came to the Presidency on the slogan ``Peace through strength.'' We rebuilt the military. We put it back in the condition of being the greatest military and effective force in the world, and we won the Cold War. Right now, if you look at a map of the world in 2011 and look at a map of the world today--in 2011 when we enacted sequestration--you will find that Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Madeleine Albright, Brent Scowcroft, and every person who is respected on national security in this country will tell you that we are in grave danger. Whether it be from ISIS, whether it be from Iran, whether it be aggressive behavior by the Chinese--no matter what it is, there are severe crises, no matter where it is in the world. We are in the midst of serious challenges to our national security, and the last place--the last place--we should continue to cut is on our defense and capability to defend this nation. I yield 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. Mr. President, Senator Reed and I are introducing, by request, the administration's proposed National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2016. As is the case with any bill that is introduced by request, we introduce this bill for the purpose of placing the administration's proposals before Congress and the public without expressing our own views on the substance of these proposals. As Chairman and Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee, we look forward to giving the administration's requested legislation our most careful review and thoughtful consideration.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, today I underscore my opposition to the nomination of Loretta Lynch to be the next Attorney General of the United States. While her experience is extensive, both her judgment and independence were called into question by her expressed views on President Obama's clearly unconstitutional actions on immigration, and this is something that cannot be overlooked when considering a nominee to be our Nation's chief law enforcement officer. Let's review Ms. Lynch's testimony before the Judiciary Committee on whether she believes the President's actions are constitutional. During that hearing, Ms. Lynch stated that she ``thought the legal opinion was reasonable'' and that the President's actions were a ``reasonable way to marshal limited resources to deal with the problem.'' When asked for a yes or no answer on whether she thinks Obama's executive actions on immigration were legal and constitutional, she stated, ``[A]s I've read the opinion, I do believe it is.'' What do these statements tell us? On the specific question of whether she thought the executive action was constitutional, Ms. Lynch was, at best, ambiguous. She attempted to obfuscate by saying that she found the underlying legal opinion ``reasonable.'' In my view, all obfuscation aside, she sufficiently conveyed to the committee that she, in fact, thought the executive actions were legal and constitutional. Many have asked me: But, Senator McCain, wouldn't you expect a Presidential nominee to support a position being taken by the President who is nominating her? In most cases, the answer is yes. And, it is well known that, historically, I have been deferential to the President's prerogative to select his senior advisors--even those who require Senate confirmation. But, on matters regarding the U.S. Constitution--particularly those that implicate the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, the Attorney General is different. It is the job of the U.S. Attorney General to represent the people of the United States and to ``do justice.'' It is not to serve as a policy instrument or cheerleader for the President. We have had years of that with Attorney General Holder. It has to stop with this nomination. Inasmuch as, by her own testimony, Ms. Lynch sees merit in a position that impinges on the constitutional prerogatives of the branch of government that I serve, I must vote in opposition to her nomination. By the President's own repeated appraisal, the executive actions on immigration are unconstitutional. At least 22 times in the past few years, President Obama claimed he did not have the authority to unilaterally change the law in the way he did. For years, he pointed to Congress as the only way this change could take place, but reversed that position last November with his executive actions declaring the law as currently drafted to be inapplicable to millions of people. The following is a just a sampling of these oft-repeated statements: ``Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. . . . Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.'' ``I can't simply ignore laws that are out there. I've got to work to make sure that they are changed.'' ``I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself.'' ``But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.'' ``With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case . . .'' ``Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how our system works. That's not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.'' Whether you call it prosecutorial discretion or prioritizing enforcement, the argument does not survive scrutiny. With the stroke of a pen, the President's Executive action on immigration unilaterally changed the law as he saw fit, in violation of our Constitution and the way our system of government wisely provides for laws to be changed. To the extent Ms. Lynch is willing to characterize this as reasonable and even constitutional, I cannot support her nomination. For all these reasons, I cast my vote in opposition to her confirmation to be U.S. Attorney General and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Good Samaritan Hunger Relief Act of 2015, which was introduced today by Senator Patrick Leahy and cosponsored by Senators Bob Casey, Thad Cochran, Debbie Stabenow, and Roy Blunt. This bipartisan bill would benefit food banks and hunger charities around the nation. At its core, the bill would provide tax incentives for small and medium business who donate food or resources to food banks. This means restaurants, farms, and other food providers can do even more in their local communities to help fight hunger. Speaking for my state, I can tell you that hunger is a very real problem in Arizona. Currently about one in five Arizonans live below the poverty line. In some parts of the State, one-in-four children and one-in-seven seniors live in poverty--particularly on Indian reservations where unemployment rates approach 75 percent, and in minority communities. Often these individuals are left to wonder where their next meal will come from. I am proud that Phoenix, Arizona is home to the world's first food bank, the St. Mary's Food Bank. Since its founding in 1967, St. Mary's has grown into a leading hunger organization and has distributed more than 700 million pounds of food to people all over Arizona. I believe this bill's projected cost to the Treasury can be offset by reducing unnecessary and wasteful agriculture subsidies. I would encourage my colleagues to look at the most recent Farm Bill that was signed into law in 2013 and is projected to cost over $996 billion over the next 10 years. It is fraught with special interest farm subsidies that we could instead reduce or terminate and use the savings to pay for the important tax incentive programs provided by this bill. For example, the Farm Bill includes crop insurance subsidies for tobacco products, which are estimated to cost taxpayers $33 million each year. It also provides for the USDA Market Access Program, which has long been criticized by taxpayer watchdogs as a form of corporate welfare because it spends roughly $200 million annually to subsidize advertising, market research and trade shows for large corporations overseas. The Farm Bill also includes an obscure set of USDA grants that subsidizes scientific research for large agriculture operations, such as $25 million earmarked for the study of the health benefits of lima beans and peas, and $1.3 million set-aside for genome sequencing of Christmas trees. Further, it calls for the creation of a USDA Catfish Office, which I have long criticized along with the Government Accountability Office and the Obama administration for being wasteful and duplicative of FDA's catfish inspection program and will ultimately cost the American taxpayer $14 million a year. These are just a few of the many wasteful Farm Bill programs that could be eliminated to offset the estimated costs of our proposed tax incentive legislation. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and consider these and other Farm Bill spending offsets as the bill moves through the legislative process.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Good Samaritan Hunger Relief Act of 2015, which was introduced today by Senator Patrick Leahy and cosponsored by Senators Bob Casey, Thad Cochran, Debbie Stabenow, and Roy Blunt. This bipartisan bill would benefit food banks and hunger charities around the nation. At its core, the bill would provide tax incentives for small and medium business who donate food or resources to food banks. This means restaurants, farms, and other food providers can do even more in their local communities to help fight hunger. Speaking for my state, I can tell you that hunger is a very real problem in Arizona. Currently about one in five Arizonans live below the poverty line. In some parts of the State, one-in-four children and one-in-seven seniors live in poverty--particularly on Indian reservations where unemployment rates approach 75 percent, and in minority communities. Often these individuals are left to wonder where their next meal will come from. I am proud that Phoenix, Arizona is home to the world's first food bank, the St. Mary's Food Bank. Since its founding in 1967, St. Mary's has grown into a leading hunger organization and has distributed more than 700 million pounds of food to people all over Arizona. I believe this bill's projected cost to the Treasury can be offset by reducing unnecessary and wasteful agriculture subsidies. I would encourage my colleagues to look at the most recent Farm Bill that was signed into law in 2013 and is projected to cost over $996 billion over the next 10 years. It is fraught with special interest farm subsidies that we could instead reduce or terminate and use the savings to pay for the important tax incentive programs provided by this bill. For example, the Farm Bill includes crop insurance subsidies for tobacco products, which are estimated to cost taxpayers $33 million each year. It also provides for the USDA Market Access Program, which has long been criticized by taxpayer watchdogs as a form of corporate welfare because it spends roughly $200 million annually to subsidize advertising, market research and trade shows for large corporations overseas. The Farm Bill also includes an obscure set of USDA grants that subsidizes scientific research for large agriculture operations, such as $25 million earmarked for the study of the health benefits of lima beans and peas, and $1.3 million set-aside for genome sequencing of Christmas trees. Further, it calls for the creation of a USDA Catfish Office, which I have long criticized along with the Government Accountability Office and the Obama administration for being wasteful and duplicative of FDA's catfish inspection program and will ultimately cost the American taxpayer $14 million a year. These are just a few of the many wasteful Farm Bill programs that could be eliminated to offset the estimated costs of our proposed tax incentive legislation. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and consider these and other Farm Bill spending offsets as the bill moves through the legislative process.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is simple. It says that children who show up at our border will not be allowed to stay. They will be returned to the country they came from. Right now they are being transported up by the lowest form of life that ever existed on the Earth. Young women are being raped, people are being killed, people are being molested, and the drug cartels are the ones that are bringing them up. This has got to stop. They can go to the consulate and the embassies in their countries--I am talking about the three Central American countries, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua. But to have the drug cartels and parents paying thousands of dollars to have them transported up, many of the young women being raped on the way, is unacceptable. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. Amendment No. 360, as Modified Mr. President, I have a modification at the desk and ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to briefly mention the topic of wildfires. This year, Arizona and the West face an active wildfire season. Already 20 percent of Arizona's pine forests have been consumed by wildfires over the past decade. The fire situation is made worse by the ongoing drought and the unhealthy state of our overgrown forests. That is why I want to commend the chairman for reporting a budget resolution that calls on Congress to address funding shortfalls in the Forest Service's suppression budget but also promotes wildfire prevention using industry-led forest thinning and forest stewardship contracts. Senator Flake, Senator Barrasso, myself, and many others have made the case for years that the best way to control ballooning wildfire costs is to thin our forests so that fires become less severe and less costly to fight. The budget resolution's existing provision on wildfires is largely based on a bill that we recently reintroduced in Congress, the FLAME Act Amendments of 2015, which the Budget chairman supported. I am pleased that our goals are reflected in this resolution under section 319. I also want to commend my colleague, Senator Wyden, who offered an amendment, S.A. 434, that focuses purely on suppression funding, which I agree should be paired with the wildfire language in the budget resolution. Senator Wyden and I have talked about merging some elements of our two proposal in order to cover both suppression and prevention. Our mutual goals were advanced today when Senator Wyden modified his amendment to state that Congress may incorporate additional criteria in any proposal that enables limited wildfire adjustments for the Disaster Relief Fund.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that Cindy and I would like to express our sincere condolences to our friend, Arizona State Senator Steve Pierce, his wife, Joan, and their entire family on the loss of their son, Stephen Morris Pierce II. Sadly, Steve leaves behind his wife Amilyn and their unborn child. I wish there were a way to make sense of such a sudden and tragic loss. It is impossible for Steve's family and friends to understand how someone with such a bright future could be taken from them so quickly. Raised on one of the last great cattle ranches in Arizona, Steve's imagination thrived. He was an all-American boy who enjoyed fishing, football, and baseball. His love of the ocean took Steve to San Diego State University, where he studied computer information and decision systems. Always adventurous and playful, Steve found a way to turn play into work when he started working in the online-gaming industry. He was able to fulfill his dream of starting his own online-gaming company. Steve touched the lives of many and will never be forgotten. His generosity of spirit will always be treasured. We can take comfort in the fact that those who loved him will keep his memory alive when they remember his easy laugh and acts of kindness. Cindy and I express our deepest sympathies for the tragic loss of such a fine son, husband, brother, and friend. Through this difficult time, the Pierce family will remain in our thoughts and prayers.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, the Senator from Kentucky and I would just like to make our amendments pending. If we could just get that done.