Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am please to introduce legislation that would reauthorize the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area located in Yuma, AZ. A companion bill is being introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Raul Grijalva and Congressman Ed Pastor from Arizona.

The Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area is a unique success story in the National Heritage Areas, NHA, system. It was first authorized in 2000 under legislation sponsored by myself and former Senator Jon Kyl, P.L. 106-319. Yuma Crossing NHA has proven to be a central component in a collaborative effort by local, tribal and federal partners to transform the City of Yuma downtown riverfront area and restore riparian habitat along the banks of the Colorado River. Like many other NHAs, it was established as a means of encouraging historic preservation at a local level without assigning large federal resources for the management of land as a National Park. The Yuma Crossing NHA model continues to involve a broad coalition of local businesses, farmers, and the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation among others.

Yuma Crossing NHA was the first NHA to be established west of the Mississippi River. Its purpose is to preserve and share the history of the Yuma Crossing, which is a narrow granite outcropping on the Colorado River that for centuries served as the only transportation gateway for those traveling west to California, including Spanish missionaries, American pioneers, and gold rush prospectors. Prior to the completion of the transcontinental railroad in the 1860's, if you wanted to trade or travel to California, you had to go through Yuma Crossing.

The NHA designation has enabled the City of Yuma to develop plans to leverage about $80 million in private investments, not Federal funding, for the revitalization of downtown Yuma and the historic landmark. The Yuma Crossing NHA also played a critical role in saving a former Arizona State Park unit, the historic Yuma Quartermaster Depot, which had closed and fallen into disrepair due to state budget cuts. Moreover, the Yuma Crossing NHA has led the way in a remarkable environmental project along the Colorado River known as the Yuma East Wetlands project, which aims to remove 1,400 acres of non-native, water-guzzling salt cedar thickets and re-vegetate the area with native willows, cottonwood, and mesquite trees. The 400 acres completed thus far has aided in the initial recovery of a number of endangered and migratory bird species, including the Yuma clapper rail, the yellow- billed cuckoo, and the southwestern willow flycatcher.

As a testament to its successes, the National Park Service has downgraded the Yuma Crossing historic landmark from Threatened to Watch status. However, more work remains to be done. For example, the Yuma East Wetlands project has secured a funding commitment from non-federal parties for the next fifty years. Because NHA's have an authorization period of 15 years, it's critical that Congress reauthorize the Yuma Crossing NHA before the end of Fiscal Year 2015 so that this effort continues uninterrupted. I understand there may be a need to offset the federal spending that's authorized by this legislation, and I hope to address this concern as the bill advances through the legislative process. I encourage my colleagues to support the passage of this bill.

Mr. President, I am please to introduce legislation that would reauthorize the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area located in Yuma, AZ. A companion bill is being introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Raul Grijalva and Congressman Ed Pastor from Arizona.

The Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area is a unique success story in the National Heritage Areas, NHA, system. It was first authorized in 2000 under legislation sponsored by myself and former Senator Jon Kyl, P.L. 106-319. Yuma Crossing NHA has proven to be a central component in a collaborative effort by local, tribal and federal partners to transform the City of Yuma downtown riverfront area and restore riparian habitat along the banks of the Colorado River. Like many other NHAs, it was established as a means of encouraging historic preservation at a local level without assigning large federal resources for the management of land as a National Park. The Yuma Crossing NHA model continues to involve a broad coalition of local businesses, farmers, and the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation among others.

Yuma Crossing NHA was the first NHA to be established west of the Mississippi River. Its purpose is to preserve and share the history of the Yuma Crossing, which is a narrow granite outcropping on the Colorado River that for centuries served as the only transportation gateway for those traveling west to California, including Spanish missionaries, American pioneers, and gold rush prospectors. Prior to the completion of the transcontinental railroad in the 1860's, if you wanted to trade or travel to California, you had to go through Yuma Crossing.

The NHA designation has enabled the City of Yuma to develop plans to leverage about $80 million in private investments, not Federal funding, for the revitalization of downtown Yuma and the historic landmark. The Yuma Crossing NHA also played a critical role in saving a former Arizona State Park unit, the historic Yuma Quartermaster Depot, which had closed and fallen into disrepair due to state budget cuts. Moreover, the Yuma Crossing NHA has led the way in a remarkable environmental project along the Colorado River known as the Yuma East Wetlands project, which aims to remove 1,400 acres of non-native, water-guzzling salt cedar thickets and re-vegetate the area with native willows, cottonwood, and mesquite trees. The 400 acres completed thus far has aided in the initial recovery of a number of endangered and migratory bird species, including the Yuma clapper rail, the yellow- billed cuckoo, and the southwestern willow flycatcher.

As a testament to its successes, the National Park Service has downgraded the Yuma Crossing historic landmark from Threatened to Watch status. However, more work remains to be done. For example, the Yuma East Wetlands project has secured a funding commitment from non-federal parties for the next fifty years. Because NHA's have an authorization period of 15 years, it's critical that Congress reauthorize the Yuma Crossing NHA before the end of Fiscal Year 2015 so that this effort continues uninterrupted. I understand there may be a need to offset the federal spending that's authorized by this legislation, and I hope to address this concern as the bill advances through the legislative process. I encourage my colleagues to support the passage of this bill.

Madam President, had I been here yesterday, I would have voted for S. 1917, the Victims Protection Act of 2014. This important bill would increase protections for victims of sexual assault in the Armed Forces, while retaining commanders' authority to convene courts martial.

Every allegation, every anecdote, and every instance of sexual assault in our military is unacceptable. An important debate has been taking place in Congress and among our Armed Forces, and I am grateful that we aren't sitting idly by while this problem claims more victims and threatens the integrity and effectiveness of our Nation's military.

We have heard from the victims, and we have recognized that change was needed to protect victims and hold perpetrators accountable. With that knowledge, Congress included over 30 reforms in last year's national defense authorization Act, NDAA, including removing the ability of commanders to overturn jury convictions; requiring review of decisions not to refer charges; criminalizing retaliation against victims; and providing special victims' counsel to victims of sexual assault to support and assist them through all proceedings.

The Armed Forces have also instituted major reforms and worked hard to improve the reporting climate for victims. As a result, the Marine Corps, for example, has seen a large increase in sexual assault reporting since initiating a sexual assault prevention and response campaign last year.

I supported the NDAA reforms as well as the measure the Senate passed yesterday. We should give these reforms the opportunity to work before enacting any change that would take the matter out of the chain of command. Some very strong voices agree.

First, according to a congressionally mandated independent panel that examined the role of the commander reported definitively that it would be a mistake to remove the chain of command's authority to convene courts martial. That panel, called the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel, also found that removing courts-martial authority would not reduce the incidence of sexual assault, increase reporting of sexual assaults, improve the quality of prosecutions, increase the conviction rate, increase confidence among victims about the fairness of the military justice system, or reduce concerns about potential retaliation.

The independent panel also examined our allies' military justice systems in Israel, the UK, Australia, and Canada for comparison and concluded that none of the improvements they witnessed in the reporting of sexual assault in their militaries were connected to the role of the commander. The panel also found that there was no evidence that removing the commander from the decisionmaking process increased reporting of incidences of sexual assault.

Second, Vice Admiral DeRenzi, Judge Advocate General in the U.S. Navy, has spoken eloquently about the issue and underscored the essential role of the commander in solving the problem in testimony before SASC and before the Response Systems Panel. I encourage everyone to read her full testimony before these panels. In addition to urging Congress to retain commanders' authority, it details major reforms implemented in the Navy in the past 3 years and demonstrates the Navy's commitment to eradicating sexual assault from their ranks. I would like to highlight some of her statements for the record.

In her testimony, Admiral DeRenzi said:

``Beyond the immeasurable toll on individual victims, sexual assault is an existential threat to our core values and directly impacts operational readiness and unit cohesion. This is rightfully recognized as a leadership issue, not merely a legal issue. Exemplifying this commitment, the Navy implemented a multi-faceted, commander driven approach to address awareness and training, prevention, victim response, and accountability.''

``Permanent, effective change must be implemented through our commanders.''

``Additionally, any legislation must retain the commander's authority over

his or her Sailors. Commanders are responsible and accountable for the safety, health and welfare of their people; commanders must have authority commensurate with this responsibility, and that includes the authority to maintain good order and discipline.''

My commitment to taking decisive action when necessary to ensure the security and success of our men and women in uniform had me support the reforms in the most recent NDAA and support Senator McCaskill's bill. Taken together, these reforms meaningfully will change how our Armed Forces address the scourge of military sexual assaults, but they do so in a way that recognizes the unique purpose of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and ensures that our commanders have the tools they need to facilitate that much needed, long-overdue change.

I thank the Senator from Missouri. I want to profusely thank her and Senator Ayotte and Senator Fischer for their leadership on this very difficult and emotional issue which obviously is very unpleasant and very controversial and understandably so. We are talking about the livelihood, the right to function as members of the military, of women in the military.

It is a vital issue because there should be no organization that is at the level of the United States military for providing an equal opportunity and equal protection under the law than the United States military. When these young men and women join the military, they do something very unique; that is, they are willing to put their lives on the line for the defense of this country.

Therefore, because of this unique aspect of their lives, that they are willing to serve for the benefit of the rest of us, there is also the responsibility of those who command them. That is unique as well. Those who command in the military may have to make the toughest decision of all and to send these young people into harm's way. No other--no other--person in American society, outside of the President of the United States, has that responsibility.

So what we are really talking about today here is, will we hold those commanders responsible for anything that

happens within their command or will we take that responsibility and shift it over to a lawyer? That is what this is really all about. Right now we have units operating in Afghanistan.

Frankly, according to the Gillibrand proposal, if there was a charge, we may have to try to find some way to fly a lawyer in. I do not think that is either likely or agreeable. But the major point here is that we hold commanders responsible for what happens under their command. If they do not carry out those duties, then we relieve them of that command. If they are responsible for egregious conduct, we prosecute them.

I have had the great honor of command. I have had the great honor of commanding, at that time, the largest squadron in the U.S. Navy, some 1,000 people. There were a large number of women in that organization, even then, because it was a shore-based squadron. Now we have women throughout--I am happy to say--throughout the military, including combat roles.

I can tell you that in those days we had severe racial problems in the United States military. We had race riots on aircraft carriers. We held commanders responsible. We punished those who practiced discrimination. We had people in our chain of command that alerted and were responsible for the indoctrination and the good conduct of people who in any way showed a taint of discrimination. I am happy to say that I believe that the greatest equal opportunity organization in America today is the United States military.

We can do that with this severe and difficult and emotional issue of sexual assaults in the military. The exact wrong way to do that is to make the commanding officer less responsible because if you take the responsibility from that commanding officer, then you are eroding his ability to lead and, I would argue, their ability to fight.

We have the finest commanders in our military. We have the finest men and women who are serving in the military. We are the best military in the world. There is a reason for it. As we bring people up the ladder of promotion to positions of command, they are tested time after time. I trust these commanders. I trust them.

With the provisions in the McCaskill bill as we have today, we will preserve that command authority, but we will also have significant increases in oversight and accountability. But to take away that responsibility from the men and women who command these people, these outstanding men and women, and give to it a lawyer is not the way to go.

I hope my colleagues understand it. I also would ask one other thing before this vote. If any of my colleagues knows a member of the military whom they respect, call them. Call them and ask them whether they would think this proposal of the Senator from New York is in any way helpful to the good functioning of the military and the elimination of sexual assaults. We share the same goal. There are vastly different ways to achieve that goal.

I yield the floor.

I yield back.

I thank my colleague from Connecticut for his thoughtful remarks on events taking place and the tragedies taking place in Ukraine as we speak. I appreciate his commitment to trying to find a way through this very difficult situation.

The Senator is dead wrong when he says this is similar to Georgia. In fact, this Senator wanted to do a lot more than we did. In fact, we did a lot more. The fundamental problem, I say to my friend from Connecticut, is that this President does not understand Vladimir Putin. He does not understand his ambitions. He does not understand that Vladimir Putin is an old KGB colonel bent on restoration of the Russian empire. It was Vladimir Putin who said: The greatest catastrophe of the 20th century was the downfall of the Soviet Union.

The Senator from Connecticut should understand that. This President has never understood this. This President is the one who ridiculed Mitt Romney when Mitt Romney said our great enemy was Russia and its geopolitical threats. This President said the Cold War has been over for 20 years. This President believes the Cold War is over, but Vladimir Putin doesn't believe the Cold War is over.

When the President of the United States is overheard to say to Mr. Putin's puppet, Mr. Medvedev: Tell Vladimir that after I am reelected I will be more flexible.

Did you get that? The President said: Tell Vladimir after I am reelected I will be more flexible. This is the same

President who believed that somehow Vladimir Putin had anything but the ambitions which he is now realizing in Ukraine. In fact, I think it might be interesting for my colleagues to note that Vladimir Putin spoke to the press today and Vladimir Putin, among other things, during his answering questions from the press, said:

First of all, my assessment of what happened in Kiev and in

Ukraine in general. There can only be one assessment: this

was an anti-constitutional takeover, an armed seizure of

power.

That was Vladimir Putin's view of what happened in Kiev as Yanukovych slaughtered, I believe, 82 innocent civilians as well as wounding hundreds.

Then he goes on to say:

I would like to stress that under that agreement Mr.

Yanukovych actually handed over power.

Obviously, Yanukovych did not hand over power. He was driven from power by the good people who were tired of his corruption and were sick of his nepotism and his crony capitalism. Anybody who believes anything good about Mr. Yanukovych should see the pictures of the home he had and the dacha he was building that cost hundreds of millions of dollars--truly a man of the people.

President Putin went on to say:

The current acting president [of Ukraine] is definitely not

legitimate. There is only one legitimate president, from a

legal standpoint. . . . Yanukovych is the only undoubtedly

legitimate President.

Then comes more interesting things. Vladimir Putin now says:

Now about financial aid to Crimea. As you know, we have

decided to organize work in the Russian regions to aid

Crimea, which has turned to us for humanitarian support. We

will provide it, of course. I cannot say how much, when or

how. The government is working on this by bringing together

the regions bordering on Crimea by providing additional

support to our regions so they can help the people in Crimea.

We will do it, of course.

Regarding the deployment of troops, the use of armed

forces, so far there is no need for it, but the possibility

remains.

Let me repeat that. This is from today. Vladimir Putin said:

Regarding the deployment of troops, the use of armed

forces, so far there is no need for it, but the possibility

remains.

This is a return to the old Russian Soviet doublespeak which was absolute nonsense, but they said it anyway.

He goes on to say:

What is our biggest concern? We see the rampage of

reactionary forces, nationalist and anti-Semitic forces going

on in certain parts of Ukraine, including Kiev. . . . When we

see this, we understand what worries the citizens of Ukraine,

both Russian and Ukrainian, and the Russian-speaking

population in the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine. It

is this uncontrolled crime that worries them. Therefore, if

we see such uncontrolled crime spreading to the eastern

regions of the country--

We should pay careful attention to these words of Mr. Putin--

if we see such uncontrolled crime spreading to the eastern

regions of the country, and if the people ask us for help,

while we already have the official request from the

legitimate President, we retain the right to use all

available means to protect those people. We believe this

would be absolutely legitimate.

Then he goes on to say, in answer to a question:

Thus the tension in Crimea that was linked to the

possibility of using our Armed Forces simply died down and

there was no need to use them.

I repeat:

Thus the tension in Crimea that was linked to the

possibility of using our Armed Forces simply died down and

there was no need to use them. The only something we had to

do, and we did it, was to enhance the defense of our military

facilities because they were constantly receiving threats and

we were aware of the armed nationalists moving in.

Russia has well trained, well equipped now an additional 16,000 or more, and Vladimir Putin was worried about enhancing the defense of his military facilities because they were constantly receiving threats.

He goes on to say:

There is something I would like to stress, however.

Obviously, what I am going to say now is not within my

authority and we do not intend to interfere. However, we

firmly believe all citizens of Ukraine, I repeat, wherever

they live, should be given the same equal right to

participate in the life of their country and determining its

future.

My friends, we are seeing justification for intervention and serious intervention in eastern Ukraine. So the article goes on with further questions, and he goes on to take a shot at the United States saying:

Our partners, especially in the United States, always

clearly formulate their own geopolitical and state interests

and follow them with persistence. Then, using the principle

``You're either with us or against us'' they draw the whole

world in. And those who do not join in get ``beaten'' until

they do.

Then he goes on to say:

Our approach is different. We proceed from the conviction

that we always act legitimately. I have personally--

I say to my colleagues, I am not making this up. This is what Vladimir Putin said--

I have always been an advocate of acting in compliance with

international law. I would like to stress yet again that if

we do make the decision, if I do decide to use the Armed

Forces, this will be a legitimate decision in full compliance

with both general norms of international law, since we have

the appeal of the legitimate President, and with our

commitments, which in this case coincide with our interest to

protect the people with whom we have close historical

cultural and economic ties. Protecting these people is in our

national interests. This is a humanitarian mission. We do not

intend to subjugate anyone or to dictate to anyone. However,

we cannot remain indifferent if we see they are being

persecuted, destroyed and humiliated.

Here is probably the most interesting part:

Question: Mr. President, a clarification, if I may. The

people who were blocking the Ukrainian Army units in Crimea

were wearing uniforms that strongly resembled the Russian

Army uniform. Were those Russian soldiers, Russian military?

Vladimir Putin: Why don't you take a look at the post-

Soviet states. There are many military uniforms there that

are similar. You can go to a store and buy any kind of

uniform.

Question: But were they Russian soldiers or not?

Vladimir Putin: Those were local self-defence units.

Question: How well trained are they? If we compare them to

the self-defence units in Kiev . . .

Vladimir Putin: My dear colleague, look how well trained

the people who operated in Kiev were. As we all know they

were trained at special bases in neighboring states: in

Lithuania, Poland and in Ukraine itself too. They were

trained by instructors for extended periods. They were

divided into dozens and hundreds, their actions were

coordinated, they had good communication systems. It was all

like clockwork. Did you see them in action? They looked very

professional, like special forces. Why do you think those in

Crimea should be any worse?

Question: In that case, can I specify: did we take part in

training Crimea self-defence forces?

Vladimir Putin: No, we did not.

This is the same guy the President of the United States pushed the reset button for time and again. This is the same guy whom the President says we can work with--Vladimir Putin.

Then my colleague and former Member of this body on Friday--on Friday, as Putin's forces moved into Crimea, and it was very clear to anyone the Russians were moving in--Secretary of State John F. Kerry spoke Friday with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. This is a quote from Secretary Kerry.

We raised the issue of the airports, raised the issue of

armored vehicles, raised the issue of personnel in various

places. While we were told they are not engaging in any

violation of the sovereignty, and do not intend to, I

nevertheless made it clear that could be misinterpreted at

this moment and that there are enough tensions that it is

important for everybody to be extremely careful not to

inflame the situation and not to send the wrong messages.

I am not making that up. So after 5 years of believing that somehow Vladimir Putin was anything but what he is, we are now paying the piper. The chickens are coming home to roost.

Do we have a military option? No. But we do have a number of other options.

I wish to read one other article that was in USA Today by Jonah Goldberg entitled ``Obama In Denial on Russia.''

I will not go through a lot of it, about student Obama, but here is some of the quote from the article:

In 1983, then-Columbia University student Obama penned a

lengthy article for the school magazine placing the blame for

U.S.-Soviet tensions largely on America's ``war mentality''

and the ``twisted logic'' of the Cold War. President Reagan's

defense buildup, according to Obama, contributed to the

``silent spread of militarism'' and reflected our ``distorted

national priorities'' rather than what should be our goal: a

``nuclear free world.''

That is what student Obama said. But the remarkable thing is 2 weeks ago in response to tensions in Ukraine, the President explained that:

Our approach . . . is not to see (events in Ukraine) as

some Cold War chessboard in which we're in competition with

Russia.

This is a horrible way to talk about the Cold War because it starts from the premise that it all was just a game conducted between two morally equivalent competitors.

Similar comments about Cold War rivalries and the like are commonplace of late, especially during the Sochi Olympics, when NBC commentators were desperate to portray the entire Soviet chapter as nothing more than a pivotal experience.

America surely made mistakes during the near half-century twilight struggle. The fact is there was a right side and a wrong side to that conflict and we were on the right side of it. The Soviet Union, of which Vladimir Putin was a part, murdered millions of its own people, stifled freedom in nearly every forum, enslaved whole nations, and actively tried to undermine democracy all around the world, including in the United States.

I ask unanimous consent for 5 more minutes.

President Putin, a former KGB agent, has said the collapse of the ``evil empire'' was ``the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.'' This alone should have been a clue to this White House that misspelled reset buttons weren't going to cut it. But they were too stuck in the past to see it.

I could go on and on, including the ridicule some of us were subjected to when we pointed this out from time to time, including in 2008 when I said in a debate with then-candidate Obama: Watch Ukraine. Watch Ukraine. Putin will not give up Ukraine.

We need to have an economic aid package immediately, and I am glad our Secretary of State is over there with initial U.S. loan guarantees, joining the EU, and a longer substitute package through the International Monetary Fund. We have to stabilize the economy of Ukraine which is near collapse. Financial sanctions, freezing assets, visa bans, trade embargoes--all of those can be accomplished, particularly expansion of the Magnitsky act, so people who are responsible will not have bank accounts, they will not travel, they will not ever get a visa. They need to pay a penalty for orchestrating what is happening in Ukraine right now.

Obviously we should not go to the G-8 summit. He should be thrown out of the G-8. It should now be the G-7. They obviously have to suspend military-to-military engagements. We need to have a path--and a quick one--for both Moldova and Georgia to move into NATO. Both countries are occupied by Russian troops, Moldova in Transnistria and in Georgia at Kajian South Abkhazia, and quite often Russians keep moving the fence farther and farther into the sovereign territory of these countries. In an attempt to appease Mr. Putin, we abandoned missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic. We need to reinstate those and move forward as quickly as possible.

There are a number of things the most powerful Nation in the world needs to do. I am not counting on our European friends. Already there have been statements by Angela Merkel and the leaking of a memorandum from the British Government. We may have to do a lot of these things by ourselves, because they are dependent on Russia for a lot of their energy supplies, and we have seen a significant recession in European leadership over the last 10 to 20 years. But we need to act, and we need to speak in favor of the people who are now being overtaken in Crimea by Vladimir Putin's army and military. I worry.

In conclusion, I say it is time we wake up about Vladimir Putin. It is time this administration gets real. It is also time for us to worry about what Vladimir Putin will do in eastern Ukraine on the pretext that somehow disorder and demonstrations might require Russian presence.

My friends, if we allow Mr. Putin to assert his authority over these areas because of Russian-speaking people, that message is not lost on Poland where there is a Russian population, on Romania, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Moldova. We are on the verge possibly of seeing a move to reassert the old Russian empire, which is Mr. Putin's lifelong ambition.

I have overstayed my time. I thank my colleague from Alabama.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from New Hampshire, who are on the floor.

My colleague from South Carolina laid out many of the salient facts according to how they transpired and didn't transpire.

I will go forward a bit to last Sunday where on ``Meet the Press,'' Ambassador Rice was asked by David Gregory:

When you were last here, Ambassador Rice, it was an

eventful morning on the story of Benghazi and the horrible

attack on our compound there. We haven't seen you in a while.

As you look back at your involvement in all of that, do you

have any regrets?

David, no. Because what I said to you that morning, and

what I did every day since, was to share the best information

that we had at the time.

The Senator from South Carolina has just outlined the fact that the information he had at the time was drastically different from that which was articulated that Sunday morning following the attack on our embassy and the death of four great Americans. So it was not the information that we had at the time.

Then she said:

And that information turned out, in some respects, not to

be 100% correct. But the notion that somehow I or anybody

else in the administration misled the American people is

patently false.

The American people were misled. They were misled because she said, right after the attack, on ``Face the Nation,'' that it was ``based on the best information we have to date''--I quote from her statement back then, a few days after the attack--but based on the best information of what their assessment is:

What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a

spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before

in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our

facility in Cairo, prompted by the video.

We know now for sure, and we knew then, before Ambassador Rice went on that Sunday show, that it was not because as the Senator from South Carolina just pointed out, the station chief sent a message immediately following saying that this was not--repeat, not--a spontaneous demonstration. I will submit that for the record.

Somehow we have Ambassador Rice saying this was a hateful video that sparked this demonstration. It says: Whether there were Al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists, is one of the things we have to determine. But, again, she said: Sparked by this hateful video. There was no involvement of the hateful video.

I hate to quote myself, but I was on that same program, and immediately after she spoke I said:

Most people don't bring rocket-propelled grenades and heavy

weapons to a demonstration. That was an act of terror and for

anyone to disagree with that fundamental fact I think is

really ignorant on the facts.

We know now that we now have facts that she was absolutely wrong. Of course, the question also remains what in the world was Susan Rice doing speaking that morning? What was she doing there? She had nothing to do with it. She was the Ambassador to the United Nations. And Secretary Clinton was ``exhausted,'' I believe was the rationale given why she wasn't on every Sunday morning show.

So the fact is we knew at the time Susan Rice said--and this is what it really was all about. It was all about a Presidential campaign and the narrative of bin Laden is dead, al-Qaeda is on the run, because then Susan Rice, in response to Bob Schieffer, said: President Obama said, when he was running for President, that he would refocus our efforts and attentions on Al-Qaeda. Then she said--get this--we have decimated Al-Qaeda; Osama bin Laden is gone. He also said we would end the war in Iraq responsibly. We have done that.

Is there anybody here who thinks the war in Iraq has been ended responsibly?

He has protected civilians in Libya, and Qadhafi is gone.

Obviously, we have not decimated Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaida is not on the run. In fact, Al-Qaeda is increasing everywhere across the Middle East and North Africa. Anybody who believes when the black flags of Al-Qaeda are flying over the city of Fallujah, where 96 brave Americans, marines and soldiers died, and 600 were wounded, that things were ``ended in Iraq responsibly,'' obviously that is not the case.

I think we have to understand the timing of all this. It was all part of a Presidential campaign. The President of the United States, in debate with Mitt Romney, said: Oh, I called it an act of terror. He didn't call it an act of terror. He didn't. In fact, 10 days later, at the U.N., he was still talking about hateful videos that sparked spontaneous demonstrations. The American people were badly misled.

I yield for my colleague from New Hampshire.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate in morning business, and pending the arrival of the Republican leader, I will pause and then ask unanimous consent to return to my statement at that time.

Mr. President, I rise to appeal to the conscience of my colleagues and my fellow citizens about the mass atrocities that the Assad regime is perpetrating in Syria. When the images and horrors of this conflict occasionally show up on our television screens, the impulse of many Americans is to change the channel. But we must not look away. We must not divert our eyes from the suffering of the Syrian people, for if we do, we ignore, we sacrifice that which is most precious in ourselves--our ability to empathize with the suffering of others, to share it, to acknowledge through our own sense of revulsion that what is happening in Syria is a stain on the collective conscience of moral peoples everywhere.

I appeal to my colleagues not to look away from the images I will show. I want to warn all who are watching these are graphic and disturbing pictures, but they are the real face of war and human suffering in Syria today--a war our Nation has the power to help end but which we are failing to do.

These images are drawn from a cache of more than 55,000 photographs that were taken between March 2011 and August 2013 by a Syrian military policeman, whose job it was to document the horrors the Assad regime committed against political prisoners in its jails. This individual eventually defected to the opposition along with his photographs, which were meticulously reviewed and verified by three renowned international war crimes prosecutors and a team of independent forensic experts. They compiled their findings in a report late last month that provides direct evidence that the Assad regime was responsible for the systematic abuse, torture, starvation, and killing of approximately 11,000 detainees in what amounts to war crimes and crimes against humanity. These are just a few of those pictures and far from the most disturbing.

I urge every Member of Congress and the American people to read the full report, which can be found on both cnn.com and theguardian.com. Although only a handful of these gruesome images have been released publicly, the authors have provided their own startling commentary on what they reveal.

David Crane, the first chief prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the man responsible for indicting former Liberian President Charles Taylor for crimes against humanity, stated that many of the photographs show groupings of bodies in ways that ``looked like a slaughterhouse.'' Crane characterized the Syrian Government as a ``callous, industrial machine grinding its citizens'' that is guilty of ``industrial-age mass killing.''

Professor Sir Geoffrey Nice, lead prosecutor in the case against former Yugoslav President Milosevic at The Hague, reported that the systematic way the bodies were cataloged and the effort given to obscure the true causes of death leads one to ``reasonably infer that this is a pattern of behavior'' for Assad's forces.

But perhaps most chilling of all, Sir Desmond de Silva, who also served as a chief prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, stated that the emaciated bodies revealed in these pictures are ``reminiscent of the pictures of those who were found still alive in the Nazi death camps after World War II.''

Yesterday, in a hearing of the Committee on Armed Services, I asked the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, whether these photographs, which clearly depict ghastly

crimes against humanity, are authentic. The Director said he has ``no reason to doubt'' their authenticity. The United Nations is now doing its own assessment of these images, and all of us should fully support that. It is important to have the broadest possible validation of these images, and I am confident the U.N. team will validate them. After all, does anyone seriously believe the Assad regime does not have the means, motive, and opportunity to murder 11,000 people in its prisons?

Indeed, this kind of inhumane cruelty is a pattern of behavior within the Syrian Government. According to a detailed U.N. report issued at the end of January, Assad's forces have systematically, as part of their doctrine, used children as human shields and threatened to kill the children of opposition members if they did not surrender. The U.N. also detailed the arrest, detention, torture, and sexual abuse of thousands of children by government forces. I will spare you the remaining details, as they are unspeakable, but again I urge you to read the entire report which can be found on the Web site of the United Nations.

I also recommend that my colleagues read of the war crimes that Human Rights Watch has been documenting. They have reported, for example, on how Syrian authorities have deliberately used explosives and bulldozers to demolish thousands of residential buildings, and in some cases entire neighborhoods, for no military reason whatsoever, just as a form of collective punishment of Syrian civilians.

Human Rights Watch researchers have also documented the toll of the Syrian Government's airstrike campaign against Aleppo and Damascus and, in particular, the regime's use over the past few months of what has become known as ``barrel bombs.'' For my colleagues who are not aware of them, barrel bombs are oil drums or other large containers packed with explosives, fuel, shrapnel, glass, and all manner of crude lethal material. Their sole purpose is to maim, kill, and terrorize as many people as possible when they are indiscriminately dropped from Syrian Government aircraft on schools and bakeries and mosques and other civilian areas. In one stark video of a barrel bomb's aftermath, a man stands in front of a child's body and cries out: Oh God, we have had enough. Please help us.

These are just some of the many reasons our Director of National Intelligence referred to the Syrian crisis yesterday as ``an apocalyptic disaster.'' With more than 130,000 people dead, after more than one-third of the Syrian population has been driven from their homes, no truer words were ever spoken.

But this apocalyptic disaster in Syria is no longer just a humanitarian tragedy for one country, it is a regional conflict and an emerging national security threat to us. The regime's war crimes are being aided and abetted by thousands of Hezbollah fighters and Iranian agents on the ground, as well as Russian weaponry that continues to flow into the Assad government, even as Russia works with us to remove the Assad regime's chemical weapons, a truly Orwellian situation.

The conflict in Syria is devastating its neighbors. Lebanon is suffering from increasing bombings and cross-border attacks by both the Syrian government and opposition fighters in response to Hezbollah's role in the fighting. Unofficial estimates suggest that half of Lebanon's population will soon be Syrian refugees. Similar estimates suggest that Syrian refugees now represent 15 percent of the population in Jordan, which is straining to manage the social instability this entails. Turkey has been destabilized. Perhaps most worrisome of all, the conflict in Syria is largely to blame for the resurgence of Al Qaeda in Iraq, which has grown into the larger and more lethal Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, which now possesses a safe haven that spans large portions of both countries. Nowhere is this more threatening or more heartbreaking than in Fallujah, the Iraqi city where hundreds of U.S. troops were killed and wounded fighting to rid it of the terrorists and extremists, but where the black flags of Al Qaeda now hang above the city.

The sanctuary that Al Qaeda now enjoys, thanks to the crisis in Syria, increasingly poses a direct threat to U.S. national security and that of our closest allies and partners. The Secretary of Homeland Security, Mr. Jeh Johnson said, ``Syria is now a matter of homeland security.'' The Director of National Intelligence has referred to the Al Qaeda sanctuary in Syria and Iraq as ``a new FATA''--the tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan where Al Qaeda planned the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Indeed, Director Clapper has warned that Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists in Syria now aspire to attack the homeland. If the September 11 attacks should have taught us anything, it is that global terrorists who occupy ungoverned spaces and seek to plot and plan attacks against us can pose a direct threat to our national security.

This was Afghanistan, September 10, 2001. That is what top officials in this administration are now warning us that Syria is becoming today. The conflict in Syria is a threat to our national interest, but it is more than that. It is and should be an affront to our conscience.

Images such as these should not be just a source of heartbreak and sympathy, they should be a call to action. It was not too long ago, just a few months after the revolution in Syria began, that President Obama issued his Presidential Study Directive on Mass Atrocities. In it he stated, ``Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States.''

He went on to say:

Our security is affected when masses of civilians are

slaughtered, refugees flow across borders, and murderers

wreak havoc on regional stability and livelihoods.

Last year, speaking at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, the President said:

Too often, the world has failed to prevent the killing of

innocents on a massive scale. And we are haunted by the

atrocities that we did not stop and the lives we did not

save.

Just last September in his address to the U.N. General Assembly, President Obama said this:

[T]he principle of sovereignty is at the center of our

international order. But sovereignty cannot be a shield for

tyrants to commit wanton murder, or an excuse for the

international community to turn a blind eye. While we need to

be modest in our belief that we can remedy every evil, while

we need to be mindful that the world is full of unintended

consequences, should we really accept the notion that the

world is powerless in the face of a Rwanda, or Srebrenica? If

that's the world that people want to live in, they should say

so, and reckon with the cold logic of mass graves.

That was our President. That was the President of the United States. I agree with every word of what he said. But how are we to reconcile these stirring words with the reality of these images from Syria? How do we explain how the leader of the free world, who says that it is the moral obligation of the United States to do what we can to prevent the worst atrocities in our world, is not doing more to stop the atrocities that are occurring every single day in Syria?

Where is that President Obama today? Where is the President Obama who spoke so movingly of the moral responsibilities that great power confers? Where is the President Obama who has said he refuses to accept that brutal tyrants can slaughter their people with impunity, while the most powerful nation in the history of the world looks on and stands by? Where is the recognition that the ``cold logic of mass graves'' is right there, right in front of us, Syria, today?

Yet our government is doing what we have sadly done too often in the past. We are diverting our eyes. We try to comfort our guilty consciences by telling ourselves that we are not doing nothing, but it is a claim made in bad faith, for everyone concedes that nothing we are doing is equal to the horrors we face.

We are telling ourselves that we are too tired and weary to get more involved; that Syria is not our problem; that helping to resolve it is not our responsibility. We are telling ourselves that we have no good options, as if there are ever good options when it comes to foreign policy in the real world. We are telling ourselves that we might have been able to do something at one point, but that it is too late now, as if such words from a leader of the world's only global power will be any comfort to the Syrian mother who will lose her child tomorrow.

We are telling ourselves what Neville Chamberlain once told himself about a different problem from hell in an earlier time; that is, and I quote Neville Chamberlain, ``a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing.'' Where is our outrage? Where is our shame?

It is true that our options to help in the conflict in Syria were never good, and they certainly are worse and fewer now. But no one should believe that we are without options, even now, and no one should believe that doing something meaningful to help in Syria requires us to rerun the war in Iraq. That is an excuse for inaction. That is not a question of options or capabilities; it is a question of will.

These images of the human disaster in Syria haunt me. They should haunt all of my colleagues and all Americans. But what haunts me even more than the terror unfolding before our eyes in Syria is the thought that we will continue to do nothing meaningful about it, and how that deadens our national conscience, how it calls into question the moral sources of our great power and the foundations of our global leadership, and how many years from now an American President will stand before the world and the people of Syria, as previous Presidents have done after previous inaction in the face of mass atrocities in far away lands, and say what all of us know to be true right now: That we could have done more to stop the suffering of others. We could have used the power we possess, limited though it may be; we could have exercised the options at our disposal, imperfect though they may be, and we could have done something. It is to our everlasting embarrassment that we did not.

That future President will apologize for our current failure. Shame on us if we let history repeat itself that way.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield to the majority leader.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. President, I would say to my friend from South Carolina that we have received some disturbing news today; that is, the President of Afghanistan, President Karzai, has made a decision to release 65 of the 88 detainees at Parwan prison in Afghanistan.

The Senator from South Carolina and I have known the President of Afghanistan for many years. We have had many meetings with the President of Afghanistan, and I believe we had established a rather cordial relationship over these last 13 years.

Many of my colleagues may not know that the Senator from South Carolina, in his capacity as a Colonel in the U.S. Air Force Reserve, a lawyer, has spent a great deal of his active-duty time in Afghanistan on Active Duty primarily focusing on the whole issue of detainees, how they are tried, how they are incarcerated, and steps for release and detention. In other words, there is no one that I know who has more indepth knowledge of this issue than the Senator from South Carolina. I don't believe anybody has ever worked as hard as he has on this issue, and there have been significant accomplishments as a result of his and other wonderful Americans' work.

I think facts are stubborn things; and I would ask my friend from South Carolina, isn't it true the release of these detainees poses a direct threat to the lives of our service men and women who are serving in Afghanistan? Is it true that 25 of these individuals are linked to the production and/or emplacement of IEDs; that 33 tested positive for explosive residue when processed after capture; that 40 percent are associated with direct attacks, killing or wounding 57 Afghan citizens and allied forces; that 30 percent are associated with direct attacks, killing or wounding 60 U.S. or coalition force members; that 32 were captured after the ANSF assumed responsibility?

So isn't it clear, I ask my colleague, after all these years of work trying to get this whole system of detainees and trials and incarceration, that we are now seeing--sadly--this result of individuals who can be traced to attacks on or directly responsible for the deaths of brave Americans?

I thank the Senator from South Carolina, and I hope my colleagues will understand the in-depth knowledge which he has about this issue. No one understands it as well or has been more involved, to the point of being involved with each of the individual cases.

Before I respond to the question, I think it important for our colleagues to understand some of these specific cases. I am not going to submit for the record all 65 because it is long. But let me just mention a couple of examples of people who are about to be released into Afghanistan while our men and women are still there in harm's way.

Habibulla Abdul Hady is a Taliban member, emplaced IEDs used in attacks against ANSF and ISAF forces in Kandahar province which took American lives, and was biometrically matched to an IED incident in Daman, Kandahar, where pressure plate IEDs and components which took American lives were seized by coalition forces.

Nek Mohammad facilitated rocket attacks against our forces in Kandahar province, is an IED expert, and transferred money to Al Qaeda.

The list goes on.

Akhtar Mohammad is a suspected Taliban commander who conducts attacks, provides lethal aid and supports Taliban leaders in operations against ANSF and ISAF in Nangarhar and Kunar province. He acted as a trusted courier for the former Ghaziabad Taliban shadow governor. The list goes on and on. These are not random arrests. These are not misdemeanors. These are serious, hard-core professional terrorists who have already committed these acts, and that is what is so disappointing about it.

Again, I say to my friend from South Carolina, we have been there often, and being around these brave young Americans who are serving and sacrificed has probably been the best part of our lives. Some of them have had three, four, five, six tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq. It seems to me that we owe them at least the security of not releasing these trained killers--they are not amateurs--into the fight again. We already know that the ones we released voluntarily--I think it was 27 or 30 percent--reentered the fight.

I say to my friend in response: Isn't it almost totally predictable that these hard-core individuals will quickly reenter the fight? They are talented, professional, trained zealots, and it would obviously put American lives in danger.

Finally, in answer to my colleague's question, again, I am saddened because President Karzai, my friend from South Carolina, Senator Lieberman, and I have developed a relationship over many years of cooperation and assistance. There are reasons for some of his behavior. It has been terribly mishandled by this administration. We still don't know the number of troops they want to leave behind.

Having said all of that, and the sadness I feel, I think it has been replaced a bit by anger because this kind of action cannot be excused when we have an obligation to do everything we can to protect the lives of the young men and women who are serving. To let this go without a response is an abrogation of our responsibility to these young men and women.

I still have hopes for the agreement. I would point out to my colleagues that it was first raised a couple of years ago by Senator Graham when he and I were over there. The overwhelming majority of Afghans support this agreement. But when we have people such as this running around, it is not just Americans and our allies who are in danger but the lives of the Afghan people, whom President Karzai was elected to represent, are in danger.

I ask my colleague again how many times he has been through this drill with President Karzai where they were about to release these people and we managed to pull them back from the brink? Apparently they have finally stepped over the line.

I will emphasize one point that my friend from South Carolina has already made. We are not giving up on Afghanistan. We believe that we can't afford to see the movie that we saw in Iraq in which the total withdrawal of American forces caused the chaos and the situation in Iraq today.

In the second battle of Fallujah, 96 soldiers and marines were killed and 600 were wounded. Today the black flags of al-Qaida fly over the city of Fallujah. There is no greater metaphor for the failure of this administration in Iraq.

We are saying that we will make a new deal with Karzai's successor. We will provide the economic assistance and we will provide the follow- on force. But right now we cannot stand by without responding to this act which directly puts the lives of Americans and Afghans in danger. These are professional killers. They are terrorists. They are good at their work, and we cannot expose our allies, our friends, and our men and women to this kind of danger without a response.

I will finally say again that no one understands this issue better than Colonel Graham. Colonel Graham has been through every single one of these cases. He has fought this battle many times before, and if anybody has any question about the severity and the consequences of the act being taken today by President Karzai, I suggest they talk with him since he has all the information.

I thank my colleague for his many years of service in Afghanistan and Iraq on behalf of the men and women who are serving and have served with him.

I want to also recognize that the Senator has a son in the Navy as well.

Mr. President, today marks the last voyage of the Ex-USS Forrestal, the world's first supercarrier. On this occasion, I believe it is fitting to recognize the ship and all who sailed on her in service to a grateful nation. Launched almost 60 years ago in Newport News, VA, she was named after former Navy Secretary and first Secretary of Defense James Forrestal.

Forrestal represented American ingenuity and shipbuilding excellence, integrating operational needs, and engineering insight that created the first steam catapult, angled flight deck, and use of optical landing systems.

During her 38 years of active service, Forrestal and its attached air wings were involved in missions around the globe. At the beginning of her sea life, she was sent to the eastern Mediterranean during the Suez and Lebanon Crises and over the course of her service life was involved in dozens of NATO operations, overseas deployments, patrol missions, and strategic port visits around the Atlantic and Sixth Fleets. She was ``home'' to thousands of the Nation's finest sailors and aviators this country has ever known.

Forrestal's contributions to the war effort in Vietnam are well documented. Unfortunately, so is the terrible fire that engulfed the flight deck on July 29, 1967, killing 134 shipmates, injuring 161 more, and destroying more than 20 aircraft. I will never forget when that Zuni rocket hit my A-4 Skyhawk after it was accidentally fired from across the flight deck, rupturing the fuel tank and setting that horrific, costly fire.

I will always remember and honor my brave comrades who died in the Forrestal fire. Although the ship is being towed to Brownsville, TX, to be physically dismembered, her legacy, the bonds forged, and memories created among shipmates will live forever. I bid her a final ``fair winds and following seas.''

Mr. President, since June of 2013, there have been steady and persistent unauthorized disclosures of apparently classified information regarding the activities and practices of the National Security Agency, NSA. These disclosures have caused grave damage to the United States. They have harmed our relations with friends and allies and harmed our ability to combat threats to the United States. They have also undermined public support for U.S. intelligence programs by casting doubt on the candor of key officials, the permissibility of the NSA's activities, the efficacy of the government's oversight, and whether legitimate privacy interests are properly taken into account in connection with important surveillance activities.

Last month, the President proposed some changes to how our Nation conducts certain intelligence collection activities. But the President's proposals left many crucial questions unanswered. Now is the time for Congress to improve how it executes its constitutional oversight duties--to examine certain intelligence collection activities and practices and ensure that we are fulfilling our obligation to protect both the security of our Nation and the freedom of our citizens.

The vital issues at stake here are complex, broad, and cut across many areas of jurisdiction of established congressional committees, including national security, intelligence, technology, commerce, foreign affairs, and privacy. For these reasons, today I am introducing legislation calling for the establishment of a Senate Select Committee to investigate how these leaks occurred and to make findings and recommendations for legislation to address these issues which are vital to American national security.

Mr. President, I would like to make remarks about the farm bill conference agreement that is before us.

Of course, across the Nation Americans are demanding that Washington restore their faith in government. Last year we saw a Congress crippled by government shutdowns and debt-ceiling standoffs. We nearly failed to pass a Defense authorization bill.

While many of my colleagues have high hopes this year for returning to the practice of moving legislation through the regular order and perhaps working under a more open amendment process, I am profoundly disappointed that one of the first pieces of legislation we will send to the President this year is a $1.5 trillion farm bill. It is a mind- boggling sum of money that is spent on farm subsidies, duplicative nutrition and development assistance programs, and special-interest pet projects.

Taxpayer groups such as Citizens Against Government Waste blasted this farm bill as a ``Dung Deal.'' Last week, the Wall Street Journal called it ``A Bipartisan Taxpayer Raid,'' writing:

It's no accident that Congress dropped this porker under

the cover of the State of the Union hoopla. Handouts to

agribusiness and millionaires, continued trade protectionism

for the sugar industry--it's all still there.

How are we supposed to restore the confidence of the American people with this monstrosity? A few weeks ago we crammed down their throats a $1.1 trillion Omnibus appropriations bill loaded with wasteful spending. Tomorrow we will wash the omnibus down with another trillion dollars. The only policy that gets bipartisan traction in Congress is Washington's desire to hand out taxpayer money like it is candy.

We have heard about some of the ``savings'' generated by this farm bill. It is true there are noteworthy cuts to several outdated Depression-era farm subsidies such as the Direct Payments Program and the Countercyclical Program. We also close loopholes in our Food Stamp Programs and conservation programs, which generated about $16 billion in savings, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and I applaud the conferees for their efforts.

But, unfortunately, just about every subsidy eliminated under the farm bill is simply reinvented into a new and many times more expensive program. For example, we have a new thing called Agriculture Risk Coverage Program, which locks in today's record-high crop prices and guarantees farmers up to an 86-percent return on their crop. Depending on market conditions, ARC--agriculture risk coverage--could cost taxpayers between $3 billion to $14 billion each year--far more expensive than the $5 billion saved by the elimination of the Direct Payments Program. The bill also maintains the $95 billion federally backed crop insurance program which subsidizes crop insurance premiums. We then pile on a new $20 billion program called Supplemental Coverage Option that subsidizes crop insurance deductibles.

The bill also strips out an amendment offered by my colleagues Senator Durbin and Senator Coburn which would have prevented crop insurance subsidies from going to individuals with a gross income greater than $750,000 a year. That amendment was adopted by 59 votes in the Senate's farm bill earlier last year. And guess what. Surprise. It is absent from the conference agreement. Millionaire farmers can rejoice that their crop insurance subsidies are safe. That is millionaire farmers, farmers with a gross income greater than $750,000 a year. So the next time I hear the managers of this bill talk about the small farmer, I guess they are talking about millionaires as well.

But it is all part of farm bill politics. In order to pass a farm bill, Congress must find a way to appease every special interest of every commodity association from asparagus farmers to wheat growers. If you cut somebody's subsidy, you give them a grant. If you kill their grant, then you subsidize their crop insurance. Let's look at several handouts that special interests have reaped in this year's farm bill.

The bill provides $7 million in grants for the marketing of sheep. Now some who may be viewing this at home will maybe think I am making it up that we are spending $7 million of their tax dollars for the marketing of sheep.

It also adds a thing called--and I am not sure I pronounce it right-- ``japonica rice.'' Japonica rice is a sushi ingredient grown primarily in California, and it is added to the list of products that can receive farm subsidies.

The bill provides $100 million to promote the maple syrup industry. I repeat: $100 million to promote the maple syrup industry. It says American tax dollars will go to--and I quote from the bill--``promote research and education for maple syrup production . . . promoting sustainability in the maple

syrup industry . . . and market promotion for maple syrup.''

So, my fellow citizens, the next time you see an advertisement for maple syrup, you may want to watch it because it is your tax dollars that paid for it.

It places a 15-cent fee on harvesting Christmas trees. Not even Christmas is left out of this one--a 15-cent fee on harvesting Christmas trees. That money then is earmarked for promoting the orchard industry.

There is $12 million for a ``wool research and promotion'' program. There are a lot of needy areas of America today, but I had no idea that wool research and promotion was worthy of $12 million of our tax dollars.

I think this next one is probably my favorite--or unfavorite: $5 million for a study to--again, I am quoting from the bill--``evaluate the impact of allowing schools to offer dried fruits and vegetables to children.''

I know that is a tough decision for schools to make, as to whether they should offer dried fruits and vegetables to children. Do we need $5 million to help them evaluate that?

There is $25 million for a new grant program to ``teach children about gardening, nutrition, cooking''--and get this--``and where food comes from.'' I am sure all over America children are asking: Where does food come from? This may sound like a well-intentioned initiative, but this grant program is a lot like 18 other food and nutrition programs that the Government Accountability Office declared duplicative in a report issued 2 years ago.

The Federal Government's duplication of nutrition programs has cost $62.5 million annually in previous years. So here is a new grant program under the label of ``nutrition education.''

The energy title of this bill doles out about $881 million in energy programs. Most Americans do not realize that the farm bill has become as much about energy subsidies as about farm subsidies. There is funding for ethanol research, biorefinery installations, and a sugar- to-ethanol program where the Federal Government purchases surplus sugar and sells it at a loss to ethanol producers.

American taxpayers will spend $5 million on the Biodiesel Fuel Education Program. Now, if there is anything that is needed in America, it is a good, vigorous biodiesel fuel education program. We are going to spend $5 million on it. It is to spread the gospel on the benefits of biodiesel. I have no objection to the use of biodiesel. In fact, I think I prefer it much more as an alternative compared to corn ethanol. But here we have $5 million to educate consumers on the benefits of biodiesel.

Hidden in this bill is a tax on heating oil. Just yesterday, the Washington Times talked about the farm bill's National Oilheat Research Alliance Program in an article entitled ``Congress seeks to jack up fees on home heating oil in midst of frigid winter.'' The article reads:

Congress' mammoth farm bill restores the imposition of an

extra fee on home heating oil, hitting consumers in the cold-

weather states just as utility costs are spiking. The fee--

two-tenths of a cent on every gallon sold--was tacked onto

the end of the 959-page bill, which is winding its way

through Capitol Hill. The fee would last for nearly 20 years

and would siphon the money to develop equipment that is

cheaper, more efficient and safer, and to encourage consumers

to update their equipment. The heating oil fee was backed by

Northeast lawmakers who said it would fund important research

to benefit consumers.

The bill prohibits oil companies from passing the fees on

to consumers, but taxpayer advocates said that's a sham and

that the money has to come from consumers. To say they can't

pass on the cost, said Diane Katz, research fellow in

regulatory policy at the Heritage Foundation, ``It's kind of

silly because of course the costs are going to get passed on.

Money is fungible.''

So here we have a special oil tax on consumers where the revenue is earmarked back to the heating oil industry, about $15 million a year according to the GAO. Why is the Federal Government in the business of collecting funds for heating oil research on behalf of the heating oil industry?

The bill reauthorizes USDA loan subsidies for peanut growers and allows them to use their peanuts as collateral. If a peanut grower forfeits on their USDA loan, the Federal Government takes ownership of the peanuts and taxpayers bear the cost of storing the peanuts.

The infamous sugar program is housed in this farm bill. This is probably the most ongoing scandal in the history of all of the farm bills and of all of the egregious aspects of it. Like the peanut program, USDA gives sugar growers, primarily in Florida, Louisiana, and Michigan, hundreds of millions of dollars in loans each year.

If a sugar grower misses their profit margins, they get to keep the loan and transfer their excess sugar to the Federal Government as collateral. Over the past year, sugar subsidies and forfeitures have cost the taxpayers $258 million, while over 640,000 tons of sugar was handed over to the USDA.

You know something. If you really look at it, there are a few families that control the sugar industry in Florida. Those families, God bless them, have given generous contributions to both Democratic and Republican parties. So the taxpayers have paid $258 million and over 640,000 tons of sugar was handed over to the USDA. Combined with import tariffs and marketing controls, the USDA Sugar Program costs consumers over $3 billion every year, one of the most obscene Federal farm subsidies ever conceived. This farm bill, advertised as full of reforms, does nothing.

Another bizarre handout in this farm bill that I have been involved in now for many years is the creation of a catfish office. Again, I assure my colleagues, I am not making this up--a catfish office inside the U.S. Department of Agriculture at a cost of $15 million a year.

The USDA will hire inspectors to visually inspect catfish in seafood facilities--only catfish and not shrimp, not a cod, not a tilapia, but only a catfish. We are going to have a special office called-- appropriately--the catfish office, to inspect visually catfish in seafood facilities--and only catfish.

Senator Shaheen and I and 11 other Senators have sponsored legislation to kill this catfish program. I have been opposing it for years. In 2012, our legislation was adopted in the Senate by voice vote. I assure the distinguished manager of the bill that is the last time that on this issue I will accept a voice vote. The distinguished chairperson assured me that with a voice vote this amendment of ours would remain in the legislation, and obviously that has not been the case.

So next time the distinguished manager, if it ever comes up again, assures me that an amendment of mine will be adopted in the final legislation, I will have to have better authentication than just taking her word.

Last year, the House Agriculture Committee passed a bipartisan amendment to repeal it in the farm bill. Despite all this opposition, the unpopular catfish office resiliently survived conference. We do not need a new USDA catfish inspection program. The Food and Drug Administration already tests catfish, along with all other seafood.

But certain farm bill conferees are insisting on creating a catfish office because catfish farmers in Southern States do not want to compete against foreign catfish importers, particularly those from Vietnam. Its true purpose is trade protectionism at the taxpayer's expense. Under this farm bill, there will be a virtual ban on catfish imports for several years while foreign inspectors switch from FDA's inspection procedures to USDA's catfish procedures.

The Government Accountability Office investigated the proposed catfish office. In four different reports--four different reports--they called it ``duplicative'' and ``wasteful'' and warned that it fragments our food safety system by splitting FDA's ability to inspect seafood.

In fact, one GAO report was simply titled, ``Responsibility for Inspecting Catfish Should Not Be Assigned to USDA.'' It called on Congress to eliminate the catfish office. Both the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the FDA have questioned the scientific value of the proposed catfish office. Several years ago, USDA studied the idea and concluded that there is substantial uncertainty regarding the actual effectiveness of a USDA catfish inspection program. Even the President's budget proposed to zero it out.

American consumers should also be concerned about the trade implications of this program. Some nations, including Vietnam, have threatened WTO retaliation against American agricultural exports, like beef and soybeans.

Trade experts warn that this catfish gimmick is the kind of protectionism that harms our efforts to win concessions under trade agreement negotiations like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which could reduce the tariffs on American products sold to Asian trading partners.

Again, Senator Shaheen and I tried to eliminate the catfish office in the Senate's farm bill, but the managers blocked the vote on our amendment. The House Agriculture Committee did the right thing and passed the farm bill amendment to eliminate it. Unfortunately, when this bill went to conference, several Senate conferees blocked the vote in conference to repeal it--actually blocked a vote in conference and actually rewrote the law to increase it.

It seems that catfish is one bottom feeder with friends in high places. At the end of the day, this farm bill will be hailed by its supporters as reform-minded. Let me assure the American public that this is hardly reform. It was managed under a closed amendment process and will prove to be more wasteful and costly than any farm bill we have ever seen.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Wall Street Journal Editorial appropriately entitled, ``A Bipartisan Taxpayer Raid.''

I yield the floor.