John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. This is from our highest ranking official and from our highest defense official, the Secretary of Defense. At that time I said: What makes you so sure? How can you be so sure with the help from Hezbollah, with the help from the Russians at the time, the equipment and arms they are getting? They said: Don't worry. The fall of Asad is inevitable. Is there anybody today who believes he is going to fall? I don't think so. Because the facts on the ground are he is winning and the slaughter continues. The latest is 93,000 people have been massacred. As the Senator from South Carolina indicated, there are well over 1 million refugees overwhelming the neighboring countries. It is my understanding the President has not made the final decision on arming, but he has made the decision that chemical weapons are being used. I think it is obvious they will be providing weapons. They need a no-fly zone. I would say there are military officials in the Pentagon who will say we can't do it, and we have to have total mobilization of every single Reserve in the world and the United States, and it is so hard. We spend tens of billions of dollars a year on defense. If our military can't establish a no-fly zone, then, by God, American taxpayer dollars have been terribly wasted and we ought to have an investigation as to why we can't handle a situation in a third-rate country. I believe we can, I know we can. I know, because I talked to people, such as the head of our Central Command, a former head of our Central Command, our former head of NATO, and others, such as General Keane, the architect of the surge. We can go in and establish a no-fly zone, and we can change this equation on the battlefield. Finally, I would ask my colleague, we understand the American people are war weary. They are weary because of what happened in Iraq. We remain in Afghanistan. Iraq is unraveling, by the way, but Americans are weary. They are tired of reading the casualty lists, of the funerals, and the terrible tragedies that have befallen American families. That is why neither I nor the Senator from South Carolina is saying we want boots on the ground. In fact, we don't want boots on the ground. We know it would be counterproductive. We know it would not lead to victory. We do know we can provide incredible assistance and change this battlefield equation. Finally, because a lot of Americans haven't paid perhaps as much attention as some of us, and maybe because they are war weary, I think it would be wise for the President of the United States to go on national television to explain to the American people why we are stopping this genocide, explain why we are assisting these people who are struggling for the same things we stand for and believe in, why the United States of America went to Bosnia with air power, not boots on the ground, and why we went to Kosovo and didn't put boots on the ground. Explain how we can help these people while alleviating the unspeakable misery of the Syrian people. Does my colleague from South Carolina agree with that?

Mr. McCAIN. I would mention one other thing, as I know one of my colleagues is waiting on the floor. There is no other experience that I think anyone can have to see the terrible ravage of war than to go to a refugee camp. The Senator from South Carolina and I have been to refugee camps on both the Turkish and the Jordanian border to see thousands of people living in terribly primitive conditions; to see, as I did in one camp we visited--there had been a rainstorm the night before and people were literally living in water--the desperation on the faces of the people and the children. I have had many moving experiences while visiting these refugee camps, but I also think there is an aspect we ought to understand and appreciate as Americans. They are angry and they are bitter because we wouldn't come to their assistance. I will never forget a woman who was a schoolteacher escorting me around the refugee camp. She said: Senator McCain, do you see all these children here? Do you see all these children? She said: These children are going to take revenge on those who refused to help them stop this slaughter by Bashar Asad. So there are long-term implications both on the humanitarian side as well as other aspects of this issue. Believe me, it is the greatest blow to Iran in 25 years if Bashar Asad fell. So it is not just a humanitarian issue. If Bashar Asad goes, Hezbollah is disconnected from Iran, and the whole equation in the Middle East dramatically changes. If Iran and Bashar Asad succeed, we will see a direct threat of the State of Israel, which the Israelis understand, coming from the Golan Heights. So this is not only a humanitarian issue, it is a national security issue. If Iran succeeds, keeping Bashar Asad in power, that will send a message throughout the Middle East about Iranian power, Iranian ability, and the Iranian ability to change governments throughout the Middle East. So there is a lot at stake. I hope the President will go to a no-fly zone and give these people the weapons with which to defend themselves, as Russian arms and Iranian arms pour into the country on the side of Bashar Asad. My friends, it is not a fair fight, and we know, in that kind of climate and terrain, air power is the deciding factor. I thank my colleague from South Carolina, and I appreciate the patience of the Senator from Texas. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity for all Members of this body to participate in a debate and amendments and discussion of the bill that was reported out through the Judiciary Committee in the regular order. If my colleagues have any doubt about this so-called Group of 8, I wish to assure them we are continuing to look for ways to improve the legislation. In fact, I have a couple amendments myself that I believe would help improve the legislation and make it better and stronger. But the fact is this legislation is absolutely needed. It is needed for a variety of reasons, most of which I will not go into at this time. But right now I hope my colleagues and the American people understand--and I think they do because recent polling overwhelmingly supports this legislation--I hope they understand that the status quo is totally unacceptable. The status quo is de facto amnesty. The status quo is 11 million people living in the shadows, and they are not going home. Anybody who thinks we are going to round up 11 million people and send them back to the country they came from--most of them from south of our border--obviously is unaware of the logistics that would be required. So if the status quo is unacceptable, don't we all share the same goal of a secure border, of addressing the issue of these 11 million people who are in this country living in the shadows and, by the way, being exploited in incredible fashion because they do not have the rights of citizens. They did break our laws by coming here, and we are making them pay a heavy price for doing so, including a fine, including learning English, including paying back taxes, including waiting 10 years before they would be eligible for a green card. Most important to many Americans, they get in line behind everybody who waited--who waited legally either inside this country or outside it. They have to get in line behind them and they have to be working for those 10 years and they have to pay fees of $500, another $500 after 5 years, another $1,000 as they apply for a green card. They have to undergo a background check. Anyone who has committed crimes in this country is going to be deported. Most important, this legislation dries up the magnet that pulls people into this country where they believe they can find work. Over 40 percent of the people who are in this country illegally never crossed a single border. They came to this country on a visa and it is expired. So that is why E-Verify, which we do not hear a lot about in this debate, is so important. Because under the E-Verify system--which means a document that is verifiable which identifies the individual--that employer who hires someone who does not have that documentation can be subject to prosecution and heavy fines and even more if they are repeat offenders. Once the word gets out all over the world--and especially south of our border, where living conditions are far worse than in the United States of America--then they are going to say: I am not going to come because I can't get a job once I am here. Today, in the streets of Sonora, Mexico, you can buy a birth certificate for about $40. So that person comes and shows it to the employer and they are hired. The E-Verify system will make that impossible. That is one of the key elements of this legislation. I have been on the border in Arizona for the last 30 years. I have seen the Border Patrol grow from 4,000 to 21,000. I have seen the National Guard deployed to the border. I have seen drones flying along the border. I have seen fences built. We have to do more. We have to do a lot more, and those are provisions in this bill. But to somehow say there has not been significant advancements in border security defies the facts on the ground. The border is still not secure, despite what we might hear the Secretary of Homeland Security say. It is not secure. But the provisions in this bill, I am confident--I can tell my colleagues from 30 years of experience--I am confident it will make this border secure, as much as is humanly possible, remembering that there is an aspect of this issue we do not talk about; that is, the flow of drugs. Because, my friends, as long as there is a demand in this country for drugs, drugs are going to find a way into this country. It is just a fundamental of economics. We have not had nearly the discussion nationally, much less in this body, about the issue of the drugs that flow across our border. Believe me, if there is a demand, they will find a way, whether it is an ultralight, whether it is a tunnel or whether it is a submarine. But the fact is that we can get this border secured. The answer, my friends, as is proposed in the Cornyn amendment--that we hire 10,000 more Border Patrol--is not a recognition of what we truly need. What we need is technology. We need to use the VADER radar that was developed in Iraq, where we can track people back to where they came from. We need to have more drones. We need to have more sensors on the ground, and I have gotten from the Border Patrol--not from the Department of Homeland Security but from the Border Patrol--a detailed list of every single piece of equipment that they believe is necessary in all nine sectors of our border in order to make our border secure, and it is detailed. It talks about, for example, at the Yuma and Tucson sectors: 50 fixed towers, 73 fixed camera systems, 28 mobile surveillance systems, 685 unattended ground sensors, 22 hand-held equipment devices. The list goes on and on. It is detailed. I will be proposing this as an amendment on this bill to let my colleagues know that this is the recommendation of the men and women who are on our border, who are taking this issue on every single day they are at work--in fact, under very difficult conditions. I note that the temperature in southern Arizona is over 110 degrees today. It is very tough on individuals as they are patrolling our border. But we need helicopters. We need VADER radar. We need a whole lot of things. That will be paid for with approximately $6 billion that we provide in this bill--over $6 billion. We can purchase a lot of equipment that way. We are going to use the Army. We are going to use the Army to tell us how we can best surveil and enforce this border because of the experience they have had overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. I say to my colleagues, I am not apologizing for this legislation we have proposed and as sent through the Judiciary Committee, I am proud of it. I am confident we will secure this border by taking the measures that will be required in this legislation. I also have to say in all candor, my friends, there are amendments that will be proposed that will assist and make this bill better and improve it. There are also amendments that will be designed to kill it. I intend to do everything I can to reflect the will of the American people. I will be entering into the Record poll after poll after poll that shows that over 70 percent of the American people, if they are confident that we are going to secure our borders and if they are confident that these people will be brought out of the shadows, they will have to pay a fine, back taxes, learn English, and get in line behind everybody else, they support this path to citizenship after a 10-year period of having legal status in this country. Why is it important for them to have a legal status if they have not committed crimes and they qualify? My friends, today on street corners all over America, particularly in the Southwest, there are men and women who are standing on a street corner waiting to be picked up by someone and taken to repair their roof or to cut their grass or to do menial labor. Do you know what they are getting out of that? They are getting below minimum wage because they have no recourse. They have no recourse as to any mistreatment they might suffer. So we want to bring these people out of the shadows. Yes, they broke our laws. That is why they have to pay such a big penalty. I doubt if there is a Member of this body who at one time or another has not broken a law, but we paid a penalty for it, hopefully, and we moved on with our lives. These people have broken our laws, and they have to pay a heavy penalty. There has been pushback, frankly, from our friends in the Hispanic community that this is too tough, this is too hard, this is too demanding. I understand that. I pushed back against them. But to somehow base this opposition on the fact that we cannot get our borders secure--it frankly is in defiance in a belief in what the United States of America can do. There have been significant failures on the border. There was a $787 million failure called SBI Net--I believe that was the name of it. That was supposed to secure our border. But I am confident that we have the technology and we have the ability and we can get this legislation through with confidence. I see the Senator from Louisiana is waiting. I am not going to take too much longer. The other key to this is workers. Frankly, I was not happy--nor were my friends--that we did not raise the cap higher than we did for guest workers to come into this country. But I would remind my colleagues that anybody who graduates from a U.S. college with a science, technology, engineering, or math degree and has an offer of employment will be eligible to have a green card to stay in this country. Today, in postgraduate schools in STEM--science, technology, engineering and math--the majority of the students are from foreign countries. If they want to stay here and work in this country and they have that degree, which we all know there is a shortage of, we will let them. High-tech companies will be able to bring in and keep more highly skilled workers through H-1B. The bill would raise the cap to 110,000 a year. All I am saying is that one of the keys to this is if we secure our borders and we dry up the magnet, then we have to have a way of attracting the workers we need to keep our economy going. Let's be honest. It is pretty tough picking lettuce down in Yuma. There are not a lot of American workers who want to do that. That has been the history of this country. Immigrants have come to this country, they have grabbed the bottom rung, and they have moved up. The bottom rung is pretty tough. We are going to have those people as guest workers. If they want to become citizens, then they apply for a green card, et cetera. Finally, I just want to say that the Grassley amendment would ``prevent anyone currently illegally in the country from earning RPI status until effective control.'' Sounds good. Let me give my colleagues the testimony from Michael Fisher, who is the Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol, who testified in February about this very issue. First of all, 90 percent really would not make sense everywhere. We put 90 percent as a goal, because there are sections along the border where we have not only achieved, we have been able to sustain 90 percent effectiveness. By the way, that is the case in the Yuma sector on our Arizona border. So it is a realistic goal, but I wouldn't necessarily and just arbitrarily say 90 percent is across the board, because there are other locations where there is a lot less activity and there won't be a lot of activity simply because of terrain features, for instance. So where it makes sense, we want to go ahead and start parsing that out within these corridors and within these specific sectors. That is exactly one of the things my amendment does. It has specific provisions of hardware and capabilities that need to be installed in each section. I thank my friend from Louisiana for her patience. I would like to again say to my colleagues that I have seen this movie before. I have been through it before. We failed in the past. We failed for a variety of reasons. This is our opportunity. If we enact this comprehensive bill now, we will remove a very huge stain on the conscience of the United States of America. We need to bring these people out of the shadows, but we must also assure all our citizens, especially in the southern part of my State, that they will live in a secure environment. We can do that. We can send a message to employers that they cannot hire someone who is in this country illegally without paying a very heavy price for doing so. That is what this legislation is all about. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for the way he took this bill through his committee and brought it to the floor of the Senate. I am in favor of vigorous debate and discussion. We will have plenty of time for amendments and votes on those amendments. This is not a perfect bill that I am proud of. There are many ways we can improve it. But fundamentally we have the basics of a package that I believe is vitally needed for the good of this Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I would ask my friend from Texas, if you are adding additional either Border Patrol or Customs agents in addition to what is already in the underlying bill, where does your money come from? We are talking about personnel costs that are incredibly expensive. So I would ask him where the money comes from if there is not additional cost. He would have to take it from someplace else.

Mr. McCAIN. You are adding personnel into your version of the bill. The money has to come from somewhere. Where is it coming from? You are saying it is ``reallocated.'' From where is it reallocated?

Mr. McCAIN. There is a finite amount of money that is authorized. If the Senator takes money from one and adds money one place, it has to come from someplace else. That is simply first grade mathematics. I think it is incredible that the Senator should stand there and say: Yeah, we are adding these thousands of personnel, but there is no additional cost. That is not possible.

Mr. McCAIN. With a finite amount of money in it.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield? Is it not true that whether or not it has been scored by CBO, the legislation calls for the expenditure of certain amounts of money--in other words, about $6.2 billion, I believe? So if it calls for the expenditure of a certain amount of money and it designates what that money is for, and if you are going to add thousands of Border Patrol agents onto it, then it seems logical that is going to cost more money.

Mr. McCAIN. May I finish my question? Is it not true that we have said: Look, we welcome any suggestion to improve the bill. I would say respectfully to my friend from Texas it is not true that this is written in golden tablets. In fact, the Senator from Ohio, who is coming here, is going to have some suggestions for improvements on the exit-entry visa, which I think will make the bill much better. Isn't it true that somehow to allege that we said there could be no changes is patently false? Third, isn't it true this amendment would break the agreement that was a hard-fought agreement? We are willing to compromise and make agreements in certain areas but not to a bill that billions and billions of dollars are added to, especially in the area of personnel, when we have gone from 4,000 members of the Border Patrol several years ago to 21,000. We are adding National Guard to the border. Personnel is not the challenge, whether it be the Texas border or the Arizona border, what the challenge is, is to use the technology that is existing so we can surveil and intercept. That is what this bill is all about; is that true?

Mr. McCAIN. May I be recognized.

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Ohio is working on E-Verify. I think he has come up with some very good ideas on how we can improve a vital part of the bill; that is, verification of someone who applies for a job. That is the magnet that draws people across the border. Again, we look forward to those kinds of improvements and many other suggestions that have been made. How you can manufacture 3,500 new personnel and say it doesn't add to the cost and it will be reallocated, I want to know where it has been reallocated from.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for one more question?

Mr. McCAIN. I hope the Senator from New York understands what the Chief of the Border Patrol said on this issue of 90 percent effectiveness. We are going to hear this over and over. In a hearing on February 26, 2013, at a House Homeland Security Committee hearing, the Chief of the Border Patrol--not the Secretary of Homeland Security--said: First of all, 90 percent wouldn't really make sense everywhere. . . . We put 90 percent as a goal because there are sections along the border where we have not only achieved, we've been able to sustain 90 percent effectiveness. So it's a realistic goal but I wouldn't necessarily and just arbitrarily say 90 percent is across the board because there are other locations where there is a lot less activity and there won't be a lot of activity because of terrain features, for instance. So where it makes sense we want to go ahead and start parsing that out within those corridors and within those specific sectors. That is why we think that what we came up with in this legislation is effective control, 100 percent surveillance, and the use of technology, which I am confident will give us a border that all Americans can be happy with. No border is ever going to be sealed. Anybody who stands in this body and says if you want to hire 10,000, 20,000 or 50,000 more Border Patrol agents, you still aren't going to secure the border completely. We can have effective control of that border, we can have 100 percent surveillance, and we can get the border to the point where American people can have confidence in it while we move forward with the rest of the legislation. I thank my colleague.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I would like to make a few remarks about the farm bill that's before the Senate this week. As my colleagues know, this is our second attempt in 2 years to pass a new 5-year farm bill. The Senate passed its version last Congress, which is essentially the same bill we are debating today. Last year, the House refused to consider the Senate bill with good reason. This bill is loaded with costly farm subsidies and hidden pet-projects. I believe most Americans would be angered to know how we are wasting their hard-earned tax dollars. Congress already plunged our Nation into $16 trillion worth of debt partially through farm bills like this. On average, Congress spends about $1 trillion more annually than the Federal budget allows. According to the Congressional Budget office, the budget deficit for fiscal year 2014 will be about $624 billion. This bill alone--all one- thousand pages--will cost nearly $1 trillion. That's almost $1 billion per page. We must reduce the size of the Federal Government and the farm bill is certainly ripe for cuts. I will concede that my colleagues on the Senate Agriculture Committee did make some effort to eliminate our more outdated farm subsidy programs like the Direct Payments Program, which spends about $5 billion a year to pay farmers of staple crops like corn whether or not they grow anything. Direct payments have held on for decades until now. Perhaps that gives the American public a sense of the shelf-life of the new farm subsidies we are debating today. Unfortunately, the savings generated by eliminating direct payments are plugged back into the farm bill to finance new, more expensive subsidies like those that are part of the Federal Crop Insurance Program. While I agree that our farmers need some form of safety net, farm bill crop insurance isn't ``insurance'' as most people know it. Crop insurance is just a roundabout way to influence the free market, subsidize overproduction and ultimately fleece consumers. Taxpayers spend $14 billion a year subsidizing about 60 percent of insurance premiums for everything from oysters to almonds. Even non-food products like tobacco get $33 million a year in crop insurance handouts. Worse yet, crop insurance isn't about protecting famers against crop losses due to weather or infestation; it protects farmers against revenue loss. I am hard pressed to think of any other industry in America that can take out an insurance policy at the taxpayer's expense to ensure their profits. This is clearly egregious when one realizes that commodity prices are at record-highs. This is all part of farm bill politics. In order to pass a farm bill, Congress must find a way to appease every special interest and every commodity association. Here are some other examples of hand-outs that special interests win in this year's farm bill: $150 million to establish a ``Citrus Research Trust Fund'' as well as a ``Wool Apparel Manufacture Trust Fund''; $25 million to study the health benefits of lima beans and peas; $1.4 million to study commercial mushroom growing; $1.3 million to study the DNA sequencing of Christmas trees; $25 million to teach school children how to grow food in backyard gardens; $10 million for eliminating ``feral swine''; $200 million for the Market Access Program, which subsidizes overseas advertising campaigns for large corporations, like handing out samples of Tennessee whiskey in India or subsidizing a sampling tour of mint candies in the U.K. This is how we pass behemoth farm bills the Capitol Hill-rule of ``dispersed costs and concentrated benefits.'' Take for example the protectionist provision concerning catfish inspections that was added in conference to the 2008 Farm Bill. It forces USDA to create a special catfish inspection office that will cost taxpayers $15 million a year. GAO has said it is duplicative and wasteful of FDA seafood inspection services. But it helps prop up domestic catfish farmers in southern States from having to compete with Asian catfish imports. I had an amendment to repeal this office but was denied the courtesy of a vote despite it having 15 cosponsors and overwhelming support in the Senate. My statement on this matter is in the Record of last week when I attempted to call up my amendment and make it pending. I also sought a vote on another amendment that I introduced with Senator Toomey concerning the repeal of something known as ``permanent farm law.'' Because of permanent farm law, it's not an option for my colleagues or I who want to put our feet down and say enough is enough to reckless farm bills. Permanent farm law is essentially old farm bills from 1938 and 1949 that are still on the books that automatically kick-in if we fail to renew the farm bill or pass a temporary extension. Reverting to permanent farm law requires USDA to implement economic Soviet-style ``command and control'' policies that require farmers to achieve ``parity prices'' rooted in 1914 which bear no resemblance to today's market. Nobody wants permanent farm law because it would severely disrupt planting decisions for farmers and, according to USDA, will cost taxpayers up to $50 billion in subsidies and increase food prices by $20 billion. Yet these Depression-era farm bills work as a ``deadman's switch'' to pressure Congress into passing modern farm bills. This almost happened last year when the Senate passed a farm bill and the House did not. Americans may remember we faced a ``dairy cliff'' in December when milk would double to $7 per gallon of milk. Within one week of the pressure from national media coverage over the ``dairy cliff,'' Congress rushed through a business-as-usual extension of the 2008 farm bill that was absent of any reform. There's no reason to keep a 1938 farm law on the books except to force Congress into passing farm bills by holding consumers hostage. My amendment would have repealed this permanent farm law to prevent this budgetary gamesmanship from repeating. But again, the Senate's farm bill managers refused to allow us a vote on this amendment as well. At the end of the day, this farm bill will be hailed by its supporters as reform-minded. But let me assure the American public, it is anything but. It was managed under a closed-amendment process and will prove to be just as wasteful and costly as any farm bill we have seen to date. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I understand that one of my colleagues who will object is coming to the floor, so perhaps I would reserve the right to object on his behalf even though I am in stark disagreement. But instead I will just make a comment, and I am sure my colleague on this side of the aisle will voice an objection when he arrives.

Mr. McCAIN. He is here.

Mr. McCAIN. If it is OK with the Senator, because we know what is going to happen, I would like to make remarks, and then the Senator from Florida will make the same argument that was made the last few days, and fortunately I do not have to listen again. For 4 years Members on this side of the aisle argued strenuously that we were doing a great disservice to the country by not taking up and debating and amending a budget that would then go to conference with the other side of the Capitol, the House of Representatives, and then we would do what we expect and, unfortunately, every family in America has to do, and that is to pass a budget under which we would be guided in our authorization and appropriations process. Now my colleague from Florida will come to the floor and say that we have amassed a debt because of the budget. But we did not have a budget for 4 years. So how can you argue that the fact that we may go to conference on a budget--that somehow that would be responsible for the debt? Obviously, it is nonsense. Obviously, it is nonsense, just as, frankly, it was nonsense when the same group of Senators said we should not even debate gun measures in light of a tragedy that took place in Connecticut and another tragedy that took place in Tucson, AZ. They did not even want to take up and debate ideas that some of us had to try to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and the hands of the mentally ill. So now we have a Senate where we refuse to move forward on issues and have open debate and discussion and votes. I have always believed, in the years I have been here, with Republican and Democratic majorities, that the way we are supposed to function is to say: OK, let's give it our best shot, and let's do the best we can, and let's have votes. One of our objections against the majority leader was that he would not let us have votes on amendments. We had--I have forgotten how many--votes on the budget that lasted until I believe around 7 o'clock in the morning. So the opponents of moving forward on anything cannot argue we did not have votes on the budget, cannot argue they were blocked from whatever amendment they wanted to have voted on. So now we are faced with a situation where we will not go to conference. And I want to tell my colleagues who continue to do this that, with my strenuous objections, the majority will become frustrated and the majority can change the rules of the Senate. They can do that. And I must say that although I would strenuously object to a change in the rules, I can understand the frustration many of my friends on the other side of the aisle feel at a failure of a simple process of going to conference when the majority on the other side of the Capitol is of our party. That is really very difficult to understand, unless you take the word of one of my colleagues who came to the floor and said: I do not trust Democrats, and I do not trust Republicans. Let me repeat what he said: I do not trust Democrats, and I do not trust Republicans. It is not a matter of trusting Democrats or Republicans. What this is a matter of is whether we will go through the legislative process that people sent us here to do. And I have probably lost many more times than I have won, but I have been satisfied in the times that I have lost that I was able to make my argument, put it to the will of the body, and it was either accepted or rejected. That is how people, schoolchildren all over America, expect us to behave. That is the way our Constitution is written. That is what this body is supposed to be about. So when we have a--by the way, Madam President, this is the last time I am going to come to the floor on this exercise because it is obviously a fruitless kind of effort until something changes, and obviously that is not going to happen in the short term. My friends will be saying they are Reagan Republicans, they are Reagan Republicans. Well, I was here when Ronald Reagan was President of the United States. President Reagan, rightly or wrongly, passed amnesty for 3 million people who were in this country illegally. Ronald Reagan sat down with Tip O'Neill, and they saved Social Security from bankruptcy. Ronald Reagan sat down with the Democrats, and they agreed on ways of increasing revenues and cutting spending. Ronald Reagan's record is very clear, and by the way, it was one of an assertive role of the United States of America and leadership in the world and not come home to ``fortress America.'' So sometimes when I hear my colleagues here talk about how they are Ronald Reagan Republicans, I do not think Ronald Reagan would have disagreed that we should have a budget, we should have a budget to guide the legislative agenda of the Congress of the United States. So, as I said, I will not be coming back to the floor again while my colleagues object. And I see my colleague from Utah who was so unfamiliar with what we do here that he claimed it was behind closed doors in back rooms. The fact is that the budget conference is on C- SPAN and open to all. So I can just say to my colleagues that this is not a proud moment for me, as we block a process that was agreed to and enacted for many, many years; was not enacted for 4 years over the strenuous objections of myself and my colleagues that we did not enact a budget. We enacted a budget after an all-night marathon of vote after vote after vote on literally any issue, and there was not a single vote proposed by my colleagues here that said that we cannot agree to a lifting of the debt limit. Now, the floor was open for that amendment, and I do not know why my colleagues now view this as the criteria for us moving forward on the bill. So I wish them luck, and I will not be coming to the floor again to object to their objection, and we will let the American people make a judgment. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Vermont that I appreciate much of what he had to say, and I look forward to working with him to see how we can best address some of his very legitimate concerns. I would point out to my friend from Vermont that there is going to be a requirement for any of these foreign workers that first the job be advertised in a variety of ways to make sure there are no American workers who would take these jobs. I hope that to some degree resolves some of his concerns. But I paid close attention to his statement, and I look forward to addressing some of those very legitimate concerns. I thank the Senator from Vermont. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up McCain amendment No. 956.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Louisiana allowing me to discuss my amendment. I am deeply appreciative. This amendment would eliminate a proposed catfish inspection program within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA. The Government Accountability Office, GAO, warns that this catfish program will be ``duplicative'' and ``wasteful'' of federal resources. I am grateful for the support of my colleagues who have cosponsored this amendment: Senators Shaheen, Crapo, Coburn, Cantwell, Murray, Warner, Ayotte, Risch, Kirk, Lautenberg, and Inhofe. Mr. President, I will ask to add the following senators as cosponsors to this amendment: Senators Whitehouse, Reed, Heller, and Cowan. When Congress passed the 2008 Farm Bill, a small provision was quietly added in conference that requires USDA to establish an office to inspect catfish. Just catfish. According to USDA, setting up the catfish office will cost taxpayers about $30 million, and then cost another $15 million a year to operate. At least 95 new government inspectors would be hired, trained, and placed throughout the United States to inspect catfish. I support ensuring that our Nation's food supply is safe--except that USDA is not in the business of inspecting catfish or any other seafood. USDA is responsible for inspecting meat, poultry, and egg products. All other food, including seafood, is inspected and certified by the Food and Drug Administration, FDA. There is no such thing as ``USDA Grade A seafood.'' So why should we spend millions in taxpayer dollars every year to inspect catfish? GAO asked the same question and in 4 different reports concluded that the catfish office is duplicative of FDA functions and explicitly recommended that Congress repeal it. It's ``duplicative'' because we would be wasting tax dollars on having USDA inspectors doing the same work alongside FDA inspectors. This would be a burden to any business that stores, processes or distributes seafood. According to a GAO report titled ``Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication,'' GAO said: ``We suggest that Congress repeal the provisions that assigned USDA responsibilities for examining and inspecting catfish'' because ``USDA plans are essentially the same as FDA's hazard analysis requirements.'' In another report published in 2011, GAO said the USDA catfish program ``fragments our food safety system'' and ``splits up seafood oversight between FDA and USDA, expending scarce resources.'' In another GAO report, simply titled--``Responsibility for Inspecting Catfish Should Not Be Assigned to USDA,'' GAO said: ``[USDA] uses outdated and limited information as its scientific bases for catfish inspection'' and that ``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 is not the only critic of the catfish office. The Centers for Disease Control reports that of the 1.8 billion catfish meals enjoyed by Americans, only two people get sick a year. FDA requires foreign producers to abide by the same food safety standards as domestic facilities and turns away unsafe seafood. In fact, USDA itself says there is no benefit for having them inspect catfish. A report issued in 2010 by the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service said, ``There is substantial uncertainty regarding the actual effectiveness of the catfish inspection program'' and that there is ``no rational relationship'' between the Catfish Office and human health. That is probably why the President's Budget for FY2014 proposes to eliminate the program. If USDA can't justify a catfish inspection program--how can anyone in Congress? The USDA catfish does nothing to enhance food safety. GAO says it's a sham. USDA says it's a sham. FDA says it's a sham. OMB says it's a sham. So why did Congress propose it in 2008? It turns out there's a group of domestic catfish farmers in two or three southern States that are having a difficult time competing against catfish importers. In classic Farm Bill politics, they worked up some talking points about how Americans need a whole new government agency to inspect foreign catfish imports. Unfortunately, there are grave trade implications if we don't repeal the catfish program. Trade experts warn that Vietnam and other Asian exporters of catfish have a strong case that the USDA Catfish Office would constitute a WTO violation. I have a letter from former Congressman and WTO appellate judge Jim Baucus to Congress concerning the WTO risk posed by this catfish office. He says, ``There was, and still is no meaningful evidence that catfish, domestic or imported, posed a significant health hazard when Congress acted in 2008 to shift [catfish] jurisdiction from FDA to USDA, in essence singling out catfish from all other seafood products.'' He goes on to say, ``the United States would face a daunting challenge in defending the catfish rule . . . it will be giving other nations an opening to enact `copycat legislation' which will disadvantage our exports.'' This is ``particularly inopportune'' in the face of Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP, negations that are important to American exporters. The trade concern is that USDA catfish office is a de facto trade barrier on foreign imports. It is meant to enrich the domestic catfish industry. The USDA would ban catfish imports for 5-7 years while USDA duplicates FDA's rules for foreign catfish farms. During that time, American farmers, dairymen, cattle growers risk WTO retaliation against a $20 billion export market for American soybean, pork, beef, dairy, and poultry exports. Is it worth sacrificing the export markets of our American beef producers, wheat and soy farmers just because southern catfish farmers don't want to compete? Absolutely not. USDA catfish office serves no public health purpose and duplicates FDA work in inspecting catfish. It wastes millions of tax dollars just so that southern catfish farmers will have less competition. My amendment would eliminate the USDA catfish office just as GAO recommends. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I also wish to say to the distinguished managers of the bill that there are a number of amendments--my colleague from Oklahoma has them-- and it is going to be regrettable if we are not able to take up and address these amendments. It is not really what we had agreed to when we took up the bill. So I hope there will be another opportunity. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I honor a superb leader, liaison, and warrior. After more than 3 years of service as Director of the Navy Senate Liaison Office, CAPT James T. Loeblein is very deservedly moving on and moving up to assume the responsibilities of a rear admiral, lower half. On this occasion, I believe it is fitting to recognize Captain Loeblein's distinguished service and dedication to fostering the relationship between the U.S. Navy and this Chamber. The captain is a 1985 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. In addition to serving as the executive officer of the USS John S. McCain DDG 56, he has held both command-at-sea and major command. Captain Loeblein has also served as executive assistant to commander, U.S. Third Fleet, and as chief of staff and Maritime Operations Center (MOC) director, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command/U.S. Fifth Fleet in Manama, Bahrain. Captain Loeblein reported as director, Navy Senate Liaison, in May 2010. Over the course of the last 3 years, Captain Loeblein has led 37 congressional delegations to 47 different countries. He has escorted 44 Members of Congress, 48 personal and professional staff members, and I have had the pleasure of traveling with Captain Loeblein on many of these trips. He has distinguished himself by going above and beyond the call of duty to facilitate and successfully execute each and every trip, despite any number of weather, aircraft, and diplomatic complications. This Chamber will feel Captain Loeblein's absence. I join many past and present Members of Congress in my gratitude and appreciation to Captain Loeblein for his outstanding leadership and his unwavering support of the missions of the U.S. Navy, the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and others. I wish him and his wife CAPT Carol Loeblein ``fair winds and following seas.''

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will object to the modification.

Mr. McCAIN. First of all, I think what is being done here, if we agree that a small number of Senators could basically change the way the Senate does business, could have serious ramifications for the future. The Senator from Utah said he doesn't want to be deprived of his vote. We are ready to vote, I say to my colleague from Utah. We are ready to vote. We are ready to vote on a motion that would send this bill, which was the subject of an enormous amount of debate and discussion for hours and hours--until perhaps 7 in the morning--to a conference, with motions to instruct the conferees. I would be more than happy to vote on instructions to the conferees concerning his previous concern about a tax increase, which somehow has been removed, and/or that of increasing the debt limit--instructing those conferees. That is the way the Senate should do business. If the Senator from Utah will allow this body to vote on whether we should move to conference with instructions to conferees, that is the regular order. It is not the regular order for a number of Senators, a small number--a minority within a minority here--to say we will not agree to go to conference because of a particular problem with an issue, which I grant is important to the Senator from Utah, and it is important to many Senators as to whether we raise the debt limit. We are on the agriculture bill right now, I say to my colleague from Mississippi. Suppose we pass the agriculture bill and the House of Representatives passes the agriculture bill and we want to appoint conferees, but there is a burning issue that a number of my colleagues might have. Are we then going to block going to conference? Look, this isn't just about the budget conferees, this is about whether we will ever be able to appoint conferees on a bill that has been passed by the House and also by the Senate; that we will come together and do what we have been doing since the Congress of the United States started functioning, and that is to sit down and iron out our differences. If the Senator from Utah is worried about the result, I understand. I am worried about the result. I am worried about a bill right now that is just outrageous, porkbarrel spending on catfish and all kinds of stuff I have concerns about, subsidies for the tobacco companies and all that. But that does not mean I am going to object that we move for conferees, not when the will of the Senate and the Congress and the people is heard in open and honest debate and voting. We are here to vote. We are not here to block things. We are here to articulate our positions on the issues in the best possible and most eloquent way we can and do what we can for the good of the country and then let the process move forward. I say to my friend from Utah, he is not going to win every fight here. He is not going to win every battle here. But if he is right, I can tell him from the experience I have had in the Senate, he will win in the end if his cause is just. But he can only win if he articulates his argument before his colleagues in the Congress and the American people. We are about to, I hope--I hope--conclude the immigration reform bill. There will be portions of that bill I do not like. There will be portions of that bill that many of my colleagues do not like. But we are not counting on 100 votes in the Senate. But we are counting on a majority of votes in passing it, and we are hoping the House will do the same. Then we will go to conference. Does that mean that if a group of Senators--4, 5, 10; I don't know how many colleagues the Senator has on this issue--object to us going to conference on the immigration bill that therefore it should stop? I am very worried, if this happens, about the precedent that will be set on how the Congress of the United States does business. Just a couple or few weeks ago, after the Newtown massacre, my colleague from Utah and my colleague--I believe from Florida, I am not sure who else-- said we do not want to take up the gun bill. We do not want to discuss the gun bill. I happen to have disagreed with many of the proposals, but was it right? Would it have been right for us not even to debate in light of the Newtown massacre? But the Senator from Utah thought it was the best thing for us not to move forward. Thank God there was a group of us who said let's move forward, let's debate the gun bill, let's do what we can to prevent these further massacres. That is our obligation and our duty to the American people. So here we are again. So here we are again. The budget that for 4 years I loved beating the daylights out of my friend from Missouri, who would not insist on a budget being brought to the Senate--now a budget has been passed. Everybody was talking about what a great moment it was. We stayed up all night--at my age that is not nearly as enjoyable as it once was--and now, after being so proud, we cannot observe at least a vote? If the Senator from Utah wants a vote on whether we should appoint conferees and what those instructions to the conferees should be, then that is what we should be doing. I understand how important it is for the Senator from Florida or the Senator from Utah--I don't know how many there are. But I can tell you there is a majority of us who want the Congress to work the people's will. All I would do is say I hope my colleagues will agree with motions to instruct the conferees. If it is the concern of the Senator from Utah that the conferees should not address the issue of the debt ceiling, then let's vote to instruct the conferees to do that. That is the regular process. That is regular order around here. But I can also tell my colleague from Utah something else. If we continue to block things such as this and block what is the regular order, then the majority will be tempted to change the rules of the Senate. That would be the most disastrous outcome I could ever imagine. I do not begrudge anybody--whether they have been here 6 months or they have been here 30 years--their rights as Senators. But I hope my colleagues will look at the way the Senate has functioned in the past. Are the American people unhappy with us? Of course they are unhappy with us. One reason is because they do not see us accomplishing anything. What I have done for these years, and the people whom I have respected in this body on both sides of the aisle--we fight the good fight. We make our case to our colleagues and the American people, and then we accept the outcome of a regular order while preserving our rights as an individual Senator. We have maintained that balance to a large degree. I hope my colleagues will understand how important that is. I urge my colleagues to do what we have been doing; that is, to have motions to instruct the conferees--if their issue is taxes, if their issue is the debt ceiling--and we vote to instruct those conferees and those conferees carry out the will of the majority of the Senate. [Several Senators addressed the Chair.]

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we have been through it before. In a nutshell, what the Senator from Utah has just said is that if we pass this legislation, and if the House passes this legislation, we will not go to conference unless certain conditions are imposed on those conferees that happen to be important to a small group of Senators. Obviously, that will paralyze the process. Obviously, we can predict the outcome. The Senator from Utah keeps talking about backroom, closed-door deals. It is the process of the Senate and the House to appoint conferees. Those conferees come to agreement and then subject their agreement to an overall vote in both bodies. If the Senator from Utah wants to get rid of the ``backroom''--and all of the other adjectives and adverbs he used--then what is the process? What is the process? How do we reconcile legislation that is passed by one body and the other body? That is what we have been doing for a couple of hundred years.

Mr. McCAIN. All I can say is, Does the Senator from Utah have another way of reconciling legislation between the House and Senate? Of course not. Of course he doesn't. Of course he doesn't. Of course he doesn't because that is the only way we can get legislation that will be passed by both bodies and signed by the President of the United States. That is the only way. I tell the Senator from Utah again, if this condition is imposed then there is no reason why any group of Senators should impose conditions on conferees from now on, which will then mean, of course, we would not go to conference. I would be glad to answer a question.

Mr. McCAIN. Perhaps the Senator from Utah doesn't know about that, and the fact that even if they did raise the debt limit, it could not become law because it doesn't go to the President of the United States. Again, maybe the Senator from Utah ought to learn a little bit more about how business has been done in the Congress of the United States. Budget resolutions are not signed by the President of the United States, so even if we did vote to increase the debt limit as a result of the conference--which, by the way, would be irrelevant to the work of the conference--it would not have any meaning whatsoever.