John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, over the last few years, I have spoken on the floor about how the Department of Defense procures major weapons systems--a system that is, to a large degree, broken, unfortunately. It is now even more important. With defense funding likely to be constrained to reduced levels in the coming years, our role as legislators overseeing major defense acquisition programs to make sure they are efficient and effective is as important today as it has ever been--indeed, even more so. A recently released Government Accountability Office--GAO--report that is highly critical of the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship Program brings me to the floor today. On that program, the Navy plans to spend over $40 billion to buy a total of 52 seaframes and 64 so-called ``plug-and-play'' mission modules. These are modules that would be moved on and off, depending on the mission in which the Littoral Combat Ship is engaged. The combined capability of those modules with the seaframes is supposed to give these ships their intended lethality. Until recently, my main concern with this program has been the unbridled growth in the cost to build the seaframes of the lead ships: the Freedom--the steel hull version--and the Independence, which is an aluminum trimaran version. The Navy appears to have addressed that problem. While the cost to build the seaframes for the follow-ships is still about double the program's original, overly optimistic cost estimate--which is not unusual--the cost to complete the construction appears to have stabilized at about $450 million each. Today I am concerned about another very serious problem: that the Navy will buy too many of these ships before the combination of their seaframes, with their interchangeable mission modules, has been proven capable of performing the missions these ships are supposed to perform. In other words, the Navy will not know whether this Littoral Combat Ship meets the combatant commanders' operational requirements until after it has procured more than half of the 52 planned ships. This is particularly troubling inasmuch as the Littoral Combat Ship fleet will comprise more than one-third of the Navy's surface combatant ships. The Littoral Combat Ships' stated primary missions are antisubmarine warfare, mine countermeasures, and surface warfare against small boats, especially in the littorals. These three primary missions appear oriented toward countering, among other things, some of the littoral or coastal anti-access/area-denial capabilities that have been fielded in recent years by potential adversaries. The Navy took delivery of the first of two ships--the Freedom and Independence--more than 3 years ago. But the ship called Freedom actually deployed, albeit with limited capability, to Singapore in March and has experienced many of the technical challenges normally associated with a prototype ship. The decision to deploy the ship Freedom prior to the completion of critical developmental and operational testing may be good salesmanship on the part of the Navy, but the current plan to buy more than half of the total Littoral Combat Ship fleet prior to the completion of operational testing plainly contradicts defense acquisition guidelines and best procurement practices--and amounts to a case of ``buy before you fly,'' to borrow a phrase from aircraft acquisitions. It also increases the risk that the program will incur additional costs to backfit already built Littoral Combat Ships with expensive design changes identified through late testing and evaluation or, worse, operational use. As is the case in several other major defense acquisition programs, the problem here is ``excessive concurrency''--that is, an overlap between development and production that exposes the program to a high risk of costly retrofits to earlier units in the production run. It sounds simple, but this is the problem that for years rendered the Joint Strike Fighter Program effectively unexecutable and that led to the terminations of the Army's multibillion-dollar Future Combat Systems Program and the Air Force's Expeditionary Combat Support System Program. As to the Littoral Combat Ship, the General Accountability Office spelled out this problem in the report it released just a few days ago. According to the GAO: There are significant unknowns related to key LCS operations and support concepts and the relative advantages and disadvantages of the two variants. The potential effect of these unknowns on the program is compounded by the Navy's aggressive acquisition strategy. By the time key tests of integrated LCS capability are completed in several years, the Navy will have procured or have under contract more than half of the planned number of ships. Almost half of the planned ships are already under contract, and the Navy plans to award further contracts in 2016, before the Department of Defense makes a decision about full rate production of the ships. The Navy will not be able to demonstrate that mission packages integrated with the seaframes can meet the minimum performance requirements until operational testing for both variants [the Freedom and the Independence] is completed, currently planned for 2019. I repeat: 2019. I again voice my concern that the Navy plans to purchase many, if not most, of the Littoral Combat Ships in the program before knowing whether the ships will work as advertised and as needed. The GAO report's bottom line recommendation is to limit future seaframe and mission module purchases until the LCS Program achieves key acquisition and testing milestones that would help make sure that the program delivers required combat capability. I agree completely with the GAO. GAO's concerns are shared by the Pentagon's independent chief tester and even the Navy itself, in an internal report called the ``OPNAV Report'' or ``Perez Report.'' I highly recommend that anyone who has an interest in the Littoral Combat Ship read these reports. In terms of the costs to national security and to the taxpayer, we simply cannot afford to continue committing unlimited resources to an unproven program that may eventually account for more than one-third of the surface combatant fleet. The LCS seaframe and mission modules are at different points along the acquisition life cycle. We need to put a pause on additional ship purchases and synchronize the plans for testing the seaframes and the mission modules to make sure the Navy is executing a coherent acquisition strategy that will deliver combat capability responsive to what our operational commanders actually need. Also, the Navy has to lay out a clear top-level plan on how these ships will be used in response to reasonably foreseeable, relevant threats around the world. In other words, it needs to decide the concept of operation--or CONOPS--that this ship class will support. According to a declassified internal Navy report released last Tuesday, ``There are two options: Building a CONOPS''--that means concept of operations--``to match LCS' current capabilities or modifying the ship to better meet the needs of the Theater Commanders.'' The report goes on to say: ``The ship's current characteristics limit operations to a greater extent than envisioned by the CONOPS. . . .'' The second option is to ``modify the ship to support the warfighting requirements. Our review identified opportunities to modify several of the ships' characteristics to more closely align with the intent of the original CONOPS.'' Right now, it seems as though whatever combat capability LCS can muster is driving its mission, not the other way around, as in most ships. In other words, the Littoral Combat Ship appears to be a ship looking for a mission. But just to perform its three currently intended primary missions, the Navy is looking at significant design changes and increasing Littoral Combat Ships' crew size, even though it has already bought about 30 percent of all of the LCS ships it intends to buy. That could increase its procurement and life cycle operation and support costs well beyond current estimates and strain its affordability. Given how many frigates, minesweepers, and patrol crafts the Navy currently plans to retire over the next 5 years in favor of Littoral Combat Ships, this is particularly troubling. Notably, the Government Accountability Office also reports: ``Current LCS weapon systems are underperforming and offer little chance of survival in a combat scenario.'' In this regard, the Government Accountability Office appears to agree with the Pentagon's chief independent weapons tester. As this top Pentagon official has noted, before proceeding beyond early production, this program should complete initial operational testing and evaluation to determine that it is effective, suitable, and survivable. But LCS is not doing so. Why not? We need an answer to that. If, for whatever reason, the Navy believes it must deviate from that practice, what plan will it put in place to mitigate the resulting concurrency risk? Let me be clear. To justify the purchase of the remaining 32 ships in the program, the Navy must first provide credible evidence based on rigorous, operationally relevant and realistic testing and evaluation, that this ship will in fact be able to adequately perform its primary stated missions and meet combatant commander requirements. Congress must, at a minimum, thoroughly review this program before authorizing funding in fiscal year 2015 to buy the next four LCS's and require the Secretary of the Navy to certify, on the basis of sound written justification arising from sufficient initial operational testing and evaluation, that the LCS ships will be able to adequately perform their intended missions and provide our operational commanders with the combat capability they need. The American people are--quite rightly--tired of seeing their taxpayer dollars wasted on disastrous defense programs such as the Air Force's failed ECSS Program or the Army's Future Combat System Program or the Navy's VH-71 Presidential Helicopter Replacement Program. LCS must not be allowed to become yet another failed program in an already unacceptably long list of amorphous acronyms that--after squandering literally billions of taxpayer dollars--have long since lost meaning. On the LCS program, the Navy must right its course--today. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I honor a man whose bravery and sacrifice for this country have had no bounds; a fellow prisoner of war who I am proud to call my friend. This great American hero is Ernest C. Brace, and he was just authorized to be awarded the Purple Heart and Prisoner of War Medal. Mr. Brace was the longest held civilian prisoner of war in Vietnam, held captive for nearly 8 years. He was captured while serving as a civilian pilot for USAID and assisting Lao Special Forces United, who were organizing the civic action teams for hospitals and supply bases. He was captured by communist forces in Laos in 1965 and held prisoner in the jungle under some of the most horrific conditions imaginable for 3 years until he was moved to a prison camp in North Vietnam. It was there that Ernie and I shared neighboring cells for over a year. Amidst the pain and cruelty of our time together, I also vividly remember our conversations, Sunday night storytelling sessions, and how we kept each other's spirits up during those dark days when our hope never wavered. After his release, Mr. Brace married a nurse, Nancy, that he met at Naval Medical Center in San Diego, moved to Klamath Falls, OR, and resumed his career as professional aviator. Preceding the Purple Heart and Prisoner of War Medal, Mr. Brace earned the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Air Medal, with 3 stars, Navy Unit Commendation, a Distinguished Public Service Medal, a National Defense Service Medal, a Korean Service Medal, with 2 stars, a United Nations Korea Medal, and the Korean Presidential Unit Citation. I ask you all to join me in congratulating this incredibly brave man and American patriot, my friend Ernie Brace, on this long overdue recognition.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, Sunday brought the sad news that my dear friend Col. George E. ``Bud'' Day passed away. He was 88 years old. To say he lived a full life would be quite an understatement. His was filled with so many extraordinary experiences, adventures, challenges, accomplishments, and with such love, compassion, and courage that it could have supplied enough experiences, excitement, and satisfaction for 10 lifetimes. Bud knew defeats and triumphs on a scale few will ever know. He lived in moments filled with every conceivable emotion. He knew terror and suffering. He knew joy and deliverance. He knew solidarity, self- respect, and dignity. Knowing him as well as I did, I am certain he faced his end satisfied that he had made the most of his time on Earth. He will have faced it with courage as he faced all adversity. He will have faced it with gratitude for the love and companionship for his beloved wife and best friend Dorie, his sons Steve and George, and his twin girls, Sandra and Sonya. He will have faced it with humility for having had the honor to serve his country with distinction in three wars: World War II, the Korean war, and the Vietnam war. I had the honor of being Bud's friend for almost five decades of his 88 years. We met in 1967 when the Vietnamese left me to die in the prison cell Bud shared with Maj. Norris Overly. Bud and Norris wouldn't let me die. They bathed me, fed me, nursed me, encouraged me, and ordered me back to life. Norris did much of the work, but Bud did all he could considering he too had recently been near death--shot, bombed, beaten savagely by his captors, and his arm broken in three places. He was a hard man to kill, and he expected the same from his subordinates. They saved my life--a big debt to repay, obviously. But more than that, Bud showed me how to save my self-respect and my honor, and that is a debt I can never repay. Bud was a fierce--and I mean really fierce--resister. He could not be broken in spirit no matter how broken he was in body. Those who knew Bud after the war could see how tough he was, but, my God, to have known him in prison--confronting our enemies day in and day out, never, ever yielding. He defied men who had the power of life and death over us. To witness him sing the national anthem in response to having a rifle pointed at his face--well, that was something to behold. Unforgettable. No one had more guts than Bud or greater determination to do his duty and then some, to keep faith with his country and his comrades whatever the cost. Bud was my commanding officer but more, he was my inspiration, as he was for all the men who were privileged to serve under him. Nothing offers more compelling testimony to Bud's guts and determination and his patriotism than the account of his escape from captivity. In the entire war he was the only American who managed to escape from North Vietnam. In 1967 then-major Bud Day commanded a squadron of F-100s that served as forward air controllers over North Vietnam and Laos. They were called the Mistys, named for Bud's favorite song. Theirs was probably the most dangerous combat duty in the Air Force, and they suffered high casualties. On August 26 Bud Day was one of those casualties. Bud was shot down by a surface-to-air missile 20 miles inside of North Vietnam. He hit the fuselage of his F-100 when he ejected, breaking his arm, damaging his eye, and injuring his back. Bud was immediately captured by North Vietnamese militia. He was interrogated by his captors in an underground prison camp. When he refused to answer their questions, they staged a mock execution. Then they hung him by his feet for hours and beat him. Believing he was too badly injured to escape, they tied him up loosely and left him guarded by two green teenage soldiers. They misjudged him. On his fifth day of captivity he untied his ropes and escaped. Bud stayed on the run for about 2 weeks. He wasn't certain how long he was free. He lost track of time. He made it across the DMZ and into South Vietnam. A bomb, however, had fallen near him his second night on the run, striking him with shrapnel, concussing him and rupturing his eardrums. Limping, bleeding, starving, and in great pain, Bud kept heading south across rivers, through dense jungles, over hills, crawling sometimes on his hands and knees, evading enemy patrols and surviving on berries, frogs, and rainwater. On the last night of Bud's escape he arrived within 2 kilometers of a forward marine. Sensibly judging it more dangerous to approach the guarded base at night than to wait until morning when the marine guards could see he was an American, Bud slept one more night in the jungle. Early the next morning he encountered a Viet Cong patrol. He was shot trying to hobble to the base, recaptured, and returned to the camp he had escaped, where he was tortured some more. A few days later Bud's captors took him to the prison we called the Plantation, where I would meet him 2 months later. He was one of the most grievously injured pilots to arrive in Hanoi. Norris helped nurse him back to some semblance of health, although he would never fully recover from his wounds. Then Bud helped Norris nurse me. Whenever I felt my spirits and resistance flag, I looked to Bud for the courage to continue and for the example of how to serve my country in difficult circumstances. Bud was the bravest man I ever knew, and I have known more than a few. He was great company too and made it possible to actually have fun in prison once in a while. He received the Medal of Honor when he came home--the highest of his many decorations for valor. Despite his injuries, he managed to regain flying status and commanded a flight wing at Eglin Air Force Base. When Bud ultimately retired from the Air Force, he practiced law. After his service in World War II but before he deployed to the Korean war, he graduated from college and law school. He devoted his practice to defending the interests of his fellow veterans. Bud and I stayed close through all the years that have passed since our war. We talked often. We saw each other regularly. He campaigned with me in all my campaigns and advised me always. We argued sometimes, agreed more often, laughed a lot, and always enjoyed each other's company. I am going to miss him terribly. Even though Bud had reached advanced years, for some reason I could never imagine Bud yielding to anything--even, I thought, to the laws of nature. Tough old bird that he was, I always thought he would outlive us all. But he is gone now to a heaven I expect he imagined would look like an Iowa cornfield in early winter, filled with pheasants. I will miss Bud every day for the rest of my life, but I will see him again. I know I will. I will hunt the field with him, and I look forward to it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we are going to move forward to the Cordray nomination, which has been held up for some period of time. I would like to thank everybody on both sides of the aisle who was engaged in this debate and discussion. I would particularly like to thank all of my colleagues who engaged in a long but productive discussion last night--which is our custom--of the many issues that separate us, particularly some pending, what many of us believe to be a crisis in the history of the Senate. I wish to thank both our leaders, Senator McConnell and Senator Reid, and so many others who have been actively engaged in conversations that have been going on. I look forward to a vote as soon as possible on Mr. Cordray. I thank all of my colleagues for believing what I thought was very important in our relations with the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Warren of Massachusetts, Senator Cantwell of Washington, and Senator King of Maine, and also recognize the hard work of my friend from Ohio who has been heavily involved in this issue in the past. This legislation is bipartisan. The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, which will restore the much needed wall between investment and commercial banking to lessen risk, restore confidence in our banking system, and better protect the American taxpayer. The original 1933 Glass-Steagall Act was put in place to respond to the financial crash of 1929. Similar to the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act that we are introducing today, it put up a wall between commercial and investment banking with the idea of separating riskier investment banking from the core banking functions such as checking and savings accounts that Americans need in their everyday life. Commercial banks traditionally use their customer's deposit for the purpose of Main Street loans within their communities. They did not engage in high-risk ventures. Investment banks, however, managed money for those who could afford to take bigger risks in order to get a bigger return and who bore their own losses. Unfortunately, core provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act were repealed in 1999, shattering the wall dividing commercial banks and investment banks. Since that time, we have seen a culture of greed and excessive risk-taking take root in the banking world, where common sense and caution with other people's money no longer matters. When these two worlds collided, the investment bank culture prevailed, cutting off the credit lifeblood of Main Street firms, demanding greater returns that were achievable only through high leverage and huge risk-taking, which ultimately left the taxpayer with the fallout. Leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, the mantra of ``bigger is better'' took over, and sadly it still remains. The path forward focused on short-term gains rather than long-term planning. Banks became overleveraged in their haste to keep in the race. The more they lent, the more they made. Aggressive mortgages were underwritten for unqualified individuals who became homeowners saddled with loans they could not afford. Banks turned right around and bought portfolios of these shaky loans. I know the 2008 financial crisis did not happen solely because the wall of Glass-Steagall was knocked down. But I strongly believe the repeal of these core provisions played a significant role in changing the banking system in negative ways that contributed greatly to the 2008 financial crisis. I believe this culture of risky behavior is still in play. For example, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, on which I serve as ranking member, held a hearing in March of this year to discuss the findings of the subcommittee investigation report entitled, ``JPMorgan Chase Whale Trades: A Case History of Derivatives Risks and Abuses.'' The hearing and the findings of the investigation described how traders at JPMorgan Chase made risky bets using excess deposits that were partially insured by the Federal Government. If they wanted to make these bets on deposits and money that was not insured by the Federal Government, the Senator from Massachusetts and I would not be here today. They used federally insured deposits, putting the taxpayers on the hook for their risky and ultimately failed investments. I say again, the Dodd-Frank bill, the whole purpose of it, as sold to this Congress and to the American people, was to ensure that no investment company or investment financial enterprise would ever be too big to fail again. Is there anybody who believes these institutions such as I just talked about, JPMorgan Chase and others, are not too big to fail? Of course they are still too big to fail. The investigation revealed startling failures and shed light on a complex and volatile world of synthetic credit derivatives. In a matter of months, JPMorgan Chase was able to vastly increase its exposure to risk while dodging oversight by Federal regulators. The trades ultimately cost the bank a staggering $6.2 billion in loss. This case represents another shameful demonstration of a bank engaged in wildly risky behavior. The London Whale incident matters to the Federal Government and the American taxpayer because the traders at JPMorgan Chase were making risky bets using excess deposits, a portion of which were federally insured. These excess deposits should have been used to provide loans for Main Street businesses. Instead, JPMorgan Chase used the money to bet on catastrophic risk. The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act will return banking back to the basics by separating traditional banks that offer savings and checking accounts and are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation from riskier financial institutions that offer other services such as investment banking, insurance, swaps dealing and hedge fund and private equity activities. I believe big Wall Street institutions should be free to engage in transactions with significant risk but not with federally insured deposits. The bill also addresses depository institutions' use of products that did not exist when Glass-Steagall was originally passed, such as structured and synthetic financial products, including complex derivatives and swaps. Finally, the bill provides financial institutions with a 5-year transition period to separate their activities. Many prominent individuals in the banking world support returning to a modern day Glass-Steagall banking system, including FDIC Vice Chairman Thomas Hoenig. Last year in his opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, entitled ``No More Welfare For Banks. The FDIC and the taxpayer are the underwriters of too much private risk taking,'' he lays out his plan to strengthen the U.S. financial system by simplifying its structure and making its institutions more accountable for their mistakes, which he calls Glass-Steagall for today. He ends his piece by stating: Capitalism will always have crises and the recent crisis had many contributing factors. However, the direct and indirect expansion of the safety net to cover an ever- increasing number of complex and risky activities made this crisis significantly worse. We have yet to correct the error. It is time we did. I could not agree more. Almost 3 years ago, Congress passed Dodd- Frank with the intent to overhaul our Nation's financial system. I did not vote for Dodd-Frank because it did little if anything to tackle the tough problems facing our financial sector. What Dodd-Frank did, though, was create thousands of pages of new and complicated rules. Is there any Member of this body who believes that Dodd-Frank has resulted in the end of too big to fail? The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act may not end too big to fail on its own, but it moves the large financial institutions in the right direction, making them smaller and safer. This bill would rebuild the wall between commercial and investment banking that was successful for over 60 years and reduced risk for the American taxpayer. I ask unanimous consent that the Thomas Hoenig article be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. I would like to thank the Senator from Massachusetts, whom I will freely admit has a great deal more knowledge, background, and expertise on this issue than I do. I appreciate her leadership. When the Senator sought to join us in the Senate, she committed to the people of Massachusetts and this country that she would be committed to certain significant reforms to ensure that we never again have the kind of crisis that devastated my State. Still today, nearly half the homes in my State are underwater, which means they are worth less than their mortgage payments, while Wall Street has been doing well for years. That bailout is one of the more unfair aspects that I have seen in American history. We cannot revisit or fix history, but we sure can make sure we have made every effort to make sure these large financial institutions do not gamble with taxpayers' money. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. It is a pleasure to join her in this effort as her junior partner. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Warren of Massachusetts, Senator Cantwell of Washington, and Senator King of Maine, and also recognize the hard work of my friend from Ohio who has been heavily involved in this issue in the past. This legislation is bipartisan. The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, which will restore the much needed wall between investment and commercial banking to lessen risk, restore confidence in our banking system, and better protect the American taxpayer. The original 1933 Glass-Steagall Act was put in place to respond to the financial crash of 1929. Similar to the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act that we are introducing today, it put up a wall between commercial and investment banking with the idea of separating riskier investment banking from the core banking functions such as checking and savings accounts that Americans need in their everyday life. Commercial banks traditionally use their customer's deposit for the purpose of Main Street loans within their communities. They did not engage in high-risk ventures. Investment banks, however, managed money for those who could afford to take bigger risks in order to get a bigger return and who bore their own losses. Unfortunately, core provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act were repealed in 1999, shattering the wall dividing commercial banks and investment banks. Since that time, we have seen a culture of greed and excessive risk-taking take root in the banking world, where common sense and caution with other people's money no longer matters. When these two worlds collided, the investment bank culture prevailed, cutting off the credit lifeblood of Main Street firms, demanding greater returns that were achievable only through high leverage and huge risk-taking, which ultimately left the taxpayer with the fallout. Leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, the mantra of ``bigger is better'' took over, and sadly it still remains. The path forward focused on short-term gains rather than long-term planning. Banks became overleveraged in their haste to keep in the race. The more they lent, the more they made. Aggressive mortgages were underwritten for unqualified individuals who became homeowners saddled with loans they could not afford. Banks turned right around and bought portfolios of these shaky loans. I know the 2008 financial crisis did not happen solely because the wall of Glass-Steagall was knocked down. But I strongly believe the repeal of these core provisions played a significant role in changing the banking system in negative ways that contributed greatly to the 2008 financial crisis. I believe this culture of risky behavior is still in play. For example, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, on which I serve as ranking member, held a hearing in March of this year to discuss the findings of the subcommittee investigation report entitled, ``JPMorgan Chase Whale Trades: A Case History of Derivatives Risks and Abuses.'' The hearing and the findings of the investigation described how traders at JPMorgan Chase made risky bets using excess deposits that were partially insured by the Federal Government. If they wanted to make these bets on deposits and money that was not insured by the Federal Government, the Senator from Massachusetts and I would not be here today. They used federally insured deposits, putting the taxpayers on the hook for their risky and ultimately failed investments. I say again, the Dodd-Frank bill, the whole purpose of it, as sold to this Congress and to the American people, was to ensure that no investment company or investment financial enterprise would ever be too big to fail again. Is there anybody who believes these institutions such as I just talked about, JPMorgan Chase and others, are not too big to fail? Of course they are still too big to fail. The investigation revealed startling failures and shed light on a complex and volatile world of synthetic credit derivatives. In a matter of months, JPMorgan Chase was able to vastly increase its exposure to risk while dodging oversight by Federal regulators. The trades ultimately cost the bank a staggering $6.2 billion in loss. This case represents another shameful demonstration of a bank engaged in wildly risky behavior. The London Whale incident matters to the Federal Government and the American taxpayer because the traders at JPMorgan Chase were making risky bets using excess deposits, a portion of which were federally insured. These excess deposits should have been used to provide loans for Main Street businesses. Instead, JPMorgan Chase used the money to bet on catastrophic risk. The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act will return banking back to the basics by separating traditional banks that offer savings and checking accounts and are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation from riskier financial institutions that offer other services such as investment banking, insurance, swaps dealing and hedge fund and private equity activities. I believe big Wall Street institutions should be free to engage in transactions with significant risk but not with federally insured deposits. The bill also addresses depository institutions' use of products that did not exist when Glass-Steagall was originally passed, such as structured and synthetic financial products, including complex derivatives and swaps. Finally, the bill provides financial institutions with a 5-year transition period to separate their activities. Many prominent individuals in the banking world support returning to a modern day Glass-Steagall banking system, including FDIC Vice Chairman Thomas Hoenig. Last year in his opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, entitled ``No More Welfare For Banks. The FDIC and the taxpayer are the underwriters of too much private risk taking,'' he lays out his plan to strengthen the U.S. financial system by simplifying its structure and making its institutions more accountable for their mistakes, which he calls Glass-Steagall for today. He ends his piece by stating: Capitalism will always have crises and the recent crisis had many contributing factors. However, the direct and indirect expansion of the safety net to cover an ever- increasing number of complex and risky activities made this crisis significantly worse. We have yet to correct the error. It is time we did. I could not agree more. Almost 3 years ago, Congress passed Dodd- Frank with the intent to overhaul our Nation's financial system. I did not vote for Dodd-Frank because it did little if anything to tackle the tough problems facing our financial sector. What Dodd-Frank did, though, was create thousands of pages of new and complicated rules. Is there any Member of this body who believes that Dodd-Frank has resulted in the end of too big to fail? The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act may not end too big to fail on its own, but it moves the large financial institutions in the right direction, making them smaller and safer. This bill would rebuild the wall between commercial and investment banking that was successful for over 60 years and reduced risk for the American taxpayer. I ask unanimous consent that the Thomas Hoenig article be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. I would like to thank the Senator from Massachusetts, whom I will freely admit has a great deal more knowledge, background, and expertise on this issue than I do. I appreciate her leadership. When the Senator sought to join us in the Senate, she committed to the people of Massachusetts and this country that she would be committed to certain significant reforms to ensure that we never again have the kind of crisis that devastated my State. Still today, nearly half the homes in my State are underwater, which means they are worth less than their mortgage payments, while Wall Street has been doing well for years. That bailout is one of the more unfair aspects that I have seen in American history. We cannot revisit or fix history, but we sure can make sure we have made every effort to make sure these large financial institutions do not gamble with taxpayers' money. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. It is a pleasure to join her in this effort as her junior partner. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. First, I thank the Senator from Delaware for his kind words about me and my friend and colleague from Arizona, who I believe is carrying on in the fine tradition of his predecessor Senator Kyl in a spirit of bipartisanship and dedication to the people of Arizona. I come to the floor with my colleague from Arizona to offer a resolution honoring the fallen heroes of the Granite Mountain Interagency Hotshot Crew. Yesterday, Senator Flake and I were privileged to attend a memorial ceremony in Prescott, AZ, honoring the life and sacrifice of the 19 brave men of the Granite Mountain Hotshots who lost their lives last week battling the Yarnell Hill Fire in Yavapai County, AZ. I know I speak for all of my fellow citizens in expressing our gratitude to the Vice President of the United States, who came all the way to Arizona and gave a moving, stirring, and wonderful testimony to these brave Arizonans. I believe it is typical of my friend for so many years, the Vice President of the United States, that he and his wonderful wife would come to Arizona to join us to honor the efforts of these brave men. These were not men merely worth knowing, they were men to admire. They were men to emulate if you have the courage and character to live as decently and honorably as they lived. Not many of us can. But we can become better people by trying to be half as true, half as brave, half as good as they were and to make our lives count for something more than the sum of our days. The news accounts of their lives and the testimonials to their virtues that have appeared in the days since we lost them give the rest of us a glimpse of what a blessed memory they are to those who knew and loved them. Some of them were the sons of firefighters who grew up wanting to be like dad, their hero. Some leave behind wives and children. Some were expecting the birth of their first child. Some married their high school sweethearts. Some were engaged and looking forward to being husbands and fathers. Two were cousins and best friends. One rescued horses. One aspired to preach the word of God. One was a standout ball player. One dressed in a yellow raincoat when he was 6 and pretended to put out fires. Some were born in Arizona. Some came from other places and fell right in love with the beauty and people of Arizona. Some were shy. Others were practical jokers. They were all respected and admired, the kind of men you just like being around. They all loved the outdoors. They were athletic and adventurous. They loved their jobs. They wanted to serve others. They wanted to make a difference. They all had a purpose greater than themselves. They were all young, so young. They were all brave, so brave. They were all loved and were loved, so loved. They will all be missed, so terribly missed. I will forever be touched by what their families and friends have told me about them and how much they meant to them and their communities. Their stories teach us how to be better people. Their loss reminds us to hold each other a little tighter, to love each other a little harder. I will always consider myself disadvantaged for not having known them. From the little I know about hope in the face of daunting challenge and the indomitability of the human spirit, it is so vital to helping us keep our faith and to endure. I hope I can offer some solace when I say the courage of those we honor today is immortal. It does not perish with them. How they lived and what they did will inspire others to live courageously, purposefully, selflessly. Of these qualities, we tend to see merely flashes throughout our lives. In these men of the Granite Mountain Hotshots, we see grand examples--sublime, shining, and unforgettable examples--that will summon good men and women today and long after our time has passed to live bravely, compassionately, and honorably. In a fierce and terrifying encounter with extreme danger, they stood their ground like the heroes they were and fought for their community. While they did not come home to the people who loved them so much and will miss them always, I firmly believe we will see them again in the better world that is to come. Until then, we fondly remember the humanity and the heroism of these brave men, their wonderfully unassuming down-to-Earth nature, all of their marvelous imperfections known only to their closest family and friends, and how, in the face of dire peril, they rose beyond all that makes us merely ordinary and let God cradle them in his arms and carry them away. The lost men of the Granite Mountain Hotshots died having taught us all to live. For that, as we honor them and pay our respects to their loved ones today, I submit we should all find great solace. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 193, submitted earlier today.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge the passing of longtime tribal leader Dr. Clinton Pattea, the president of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation in Arizona. Dr. Pattea was one of the longest serving Native American public officials in the Nation. Last year--coinciding with the State of Arizona's centennial celebration--we marked Dr. Pattea entering his 50th year of service to the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation's tribal council. While he held a variety of elected posts, including tribal councilman and vice president, most of his time in office was spent serving as the tribe's president. President Pattea was a true visionary in his community and throughout Indian Country. He was a strong advocate for the principles of tribal self-governance and Indian self-determination, which over the years helped bring about positive change in the relationship between the Federal Government and all Native Americans. He was among the first tribal leaders in Arizona to acknowledge the tremendous economic potential that Indian gaming offered his people. Dr. Pattea was a fierce advocate for developing a government-to- government relationship with the State of Arizona and worked tirelessly to spearhead a voter-approved tribal gaming compact that has made Arizona the pinnacle of regulated Indian gaming that we know today. Over the past 30 years, I have personally witnessed the Fort McDowell Yavapai make tremendous strides as a community, and I attribute much of that success to Dr. Pattea's leadership. He directed his tribal government to develop business ventures to help take his community out of poverty; he successfully fought for the Nation's Federal water rights settlement; and he assembled a tribal government that is among the best examples of a sovereign governing body in the country. Today, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation stands as a leader in the Valley of the Sun as well as the United States. We were fortunate to have been enriched by Dr. Pattea's passion for public service. His work with the tribal council brought him immense satisfaction. It is fitting that his legacy will continue on through the recently established Dr. Clinton M. and Rosiebelle Pattea Foundation, which will fund tribal scholarships for education, culture, health and wellness programs in his name. I offer my deepest condolences to the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation on Dr. Clinton Pattea's passing. My thoughts and prayers are with his tribal members and his loved ones.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I join my friend from New York in stating that I am aware that the Department of Defense has a number of concerns with section 1103 and some ideas on how to address those concerns while allowing us to take the necessary steps to ensure the security of our southern border. I would also tell my friend from Michigan, with whom I have served for many years on the Armed Services Committee, that I would be willing, at the appropriate point, to consider ideas to address the Defense Department's concerns.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank Senator Durbin for his compelling remarks and his deep and abiding concern for many years for the so-called DREAMers. I thank my other my six colleagues for their involvement, and I also thank Senator Corker and Senator Hoeven for their effort on this bill. I thank my colleague Senator Flake for his outstanding work. I would like to also mention Senator Lindsey Graham, who gave his own unique perspective, as well as my friend from Colorado Senator Bennet and also Senator Schumer, who has played such an important and valuable leadership role. The word ``friend'' is tossed around this body quite often, perhaps with not as much sincerity as we would like, but these seven individuals are my friends. More importantly, they are friends of America. They are friends who realize that we were sent here by our constituents to achieve results, and I don't know at this particular time of a greater issue in which we should be involved. We have heard a lot of personal stories here today, and I am deeply moved by all of them. There is another human story. In fact, there are millions of them. I would like to tell a few of them. Over the last week the Arizona newspapers have reported that eight bodies were found in the Arizona desert. The Arizona desert today, my friends, is in triple-digit temperatures. On June 21 the Arizona Republic reported: Four men may have been dead three days before their bodies were found in the Arizona desert by U.S. Border Patrol agents . . . Two men had Mexican identifications, and the other two didn't have identification. On June 24 the Associated Press reported: Maricopa County Sheriff's deputies found another dead body in the Arizona desert near Gila Bend . . . just days after four bodies were found in the same area . . . No identification was found on the body and there were no signs of trauma or foul play. On June 27, today, the Arizona Daily Star reported: Three decomposing bodies were found by Tucson Sector Border Patrol agents in the desert in two separate incidents over the weekend. The Yuma Sun reported yesterday: There have been 12 people rescued from the desert by Yuma Sector agents. Six others were not located and died in the wilderness. The list goes on and on. Since 2007--the last time we tried to pass this legislation--more than 2,425 immigrants have died trying to cross our southwest border. These are people who wanted to come to this country because they wanted to realize the American dream. That is what they wanted. That is what they risked their lives and, in fact, gave their lives for--and, yes, they did so illegally. They were willing to pay a penalty for crossing our border illegally. Shouldn't we give them the same chance we have given generation after generation of immigrants who have come to this country? There has been wave after wave of Irish, Italians, Jews, Poles, and now people from all over the world who want to come to this country. Shouldn't we do that? Isn't it in us to bring 11 million people out of the shadows who are now being exploited and have none of the protections of citizenship? Well, how do we address that? This legislation does secure the border, and I can tell everyone, from 30 years of being on the border, this bill secures the border, and anyone who says it doesn't does not understand our security needs. I have been there, and I have seen the technology. This is technology that was developed in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will give us surveillance. Yes, there is a bill with 20,000 new Border Patrol agents, but the fact is that the technology that is there now will give us the ability for 100 percent situational awareness and the ability to intercept. I guarantee it to my friends because I saw it work. There are 700 miles of total fencing that will be added--700 miles. As we all know, we will also have additional Border Patrol agents. What is the key to this bill? The key to this bill is not only that we have the fencing on the border and the Border Patrol, but it is the 40 percent of the people who are here illegally who came here and overstayed their visas. They didn't cross the southwest border. What do we do about that? We dry up the magnet, and that is the E-Verify program, which makes sure that every person who wants to come to this country illegally will know they cannot get a job here. Within 5 years we will have an E-Verify system that I am confident--and more importantly, so are the people who are really knowledgeable about this--will be a full-proof system with 95 percent effectiveness. This legislation will not only give us a secure border, but it will address the key element because people who now want to come here illegally will know they cannot. Employers will know that if they hire someone who is here illegally, they will pay a severe penalty for doing so. We have to dry up the magnet. So today there are 11 million people who are in violation, and they don't have the protection of our laws. I would like to mention again the people who are coming across our borders. There is a thing called coyotes. Does anyone know what coyotes are? They are drug cartel people. They are the most evil people on Earth. They take these people in groups, and they bring them across the border. Many times, the reason we find these bodies in the desert is because they say: We are leaving you here. Tucson is right over the hill. Thousands have died in the desert. Do my colleagues know what they do sometimes when they get them all the way up to Phoenix? They keep them in drop houses jammed together and they hold them for ransom under the most unspeakable conditions. Do my colleagues know what else they do? They abuse the people they bring up. I won't go into the details of how they do that. It is an unacceptable situation. Fifty thousand Mexican citizens have been killed by the drug cartels. Last year, hundreds of migrants were missing or killed in Mexico, more than 20,000 were kidnapped, and many are regularly beaten. The Mexican Government doesn't know exactly how to handle this situation, and it is all complicated by drugs which we are creating the demand for. I have had the great opportunity in my life to have many experiences, and the one I will never forget was on July 4 of 2007. Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Joe Lieberman, my beloved friend, and I were in Baghdad for the Fourth of July. General Petraeus had requested that we speak at a reenlistment ceremony where about 800 brave young men and women serving in the military were reenlisting to stay and fight. There was another group of some 80-some who were green card holders who, because they had joined the military, had an accelerated path to citizenship. I was honored to be there. I was honored to speak to them. In the front row, there were four empty seats with boots on them representing men who were green card holders who had lost their lives in combat in the previous 48 hours, men who had been willing to risk their lives and serve our country in order to be citizens of this country. I have never been so deeply moved. Let's give these 11 million people a chance to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. My understanding is that there were 17 amendments that were just proposed by the majority leader, and it was opposed by the Senator from Iowa because we were not allowing votes. Did I hear correctly that after a unanimous consent request for 17 Republican amendments--1 of them very critical to the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Ohio because of E-Verify, which is something which is a fundamental key to making sure that those 40 percent of the people who are in this country illegally, who did not cross our border but came on visas and overstayed--and then it is my understanding that after those 17 votes, with 10 minutes allowed for each side, if I understand the unanimous consent request by the majority leader, then we would do 17 more and even 17 more, if necessary. Yet the Senator from Iowa says we are not allowing amendments. I have to say, I think in honesty, if I would ask the Senator from New York this, there was a delay of a couple days there that was unnecessary, which frankly was from the other side. But to somehow allege that the rights on this side of the aisle are being abridged, when there is a unanimous consent request to have 17 votes right now with 10 minutes in between--perhaps the Senator from New York can explain to me that logic.

Mr. McCAIN. Would the Senator yield? The Senator from Iowa may allege that the amendments he wants considered are not in that package. I would ask the Senator from New York, and perhaps the majority leader, would we then agree to have votes on the amendments the Senator from Iowa wants? This is a beginning and something we could continue to vote on as long as it takes. When we were doing the budget, we stayed up all night. That was another great moment in the history of the Senate. Again, I am not saying all amendments are not equal. But I think it is pretty clear that the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Ohio Mr. Portman have a very important amendment that has to do with E-Verify, a fundamental of this legislation. We can assure the American people that the magnet disappears because of the certainty of penalties for employers, which is embodied in E- Verify, which the Senator from Ohio has spent weeks on. Only a nerd such as the Senator from Ohio could come up with the absolute detailed and absolute complete and comprehensive approach to E-Verify, a man I admire enormously. Anybody who could be the Director of the budget has to be a nerd, as we know. But I admire the work of the Senator from Ohio, along with the Senator from Montana. Is there anyone who would disagree that what the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Montana are proposing would not improve the bill enormously and the confidence of the American people that we can verify whether someone is in this country illegally and applying for a job? I guess my other question is, if the Senator from Iowa does not like the list that the majority leader read from, why do we not do some of the other amendments or are we not going to do any amendments? Finally, may I say to my friend from Ohio, I have the greatest respect for his intellect and his capabilities. I know he knows I was just joking with my comments. As a personal aside, when I was practicing for a failed run for the Presidency, the Senator from Ohio played my opponent, and I began to dislike the Senator from Ohio enormously. He did a great job, as he did in the last election.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. McCAIN. It is my understanding the Senator from Ohio, it is true, worked for weeks, literally consulting industry, consulting labor, the best high-tech people in America, and has come up with these fixes which all of us, no matter how we are on this issue, agree would dramatically improve our capability to make sure if anyone is in this country illegally before they obtain a job. Maybe it might be helpful to our colleagues if the Senator could describe for a couple of minutes, if he would, what he has been through in this process of coming up with this product to make sure this is a system that can work. I am not sure people are aware of that. Again, I say only someone with his background, knowledge, and expertise, in my view, could have come up with this amendment, along with the Senator from Montana.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Has the Senator ever been to the Arizona-Mexico border?