[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 175 (Wednesday, December 11, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8632-S8634]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Homeland Security Nominee

  The last issue I am going to speak about, then I will yield the 
floor, deals with the some correspondence I am trying to have with the 
nominee to be Secretary of Homeland Security.
  On July 12, Secretary Napolitano announced she would be leaving the 
Department of Homeland Security after 4 years heading up one of the 
largest departments of the Federal Government. On October 17, the Obama 
administration announced it had finally found a replacement. The 
Committee on Homeland Security moved quickly on Jeh Johnson's 
nomination, approving him by voice vote on November 20.
  On November 15, before the committee approved him, I sent a letter to 
Mr. Johnson, along with several colleagues on the Judiciary Committee. 
We on the Judiciary Committee asked for his views on a number of 
important matters, including our Nation's immigration policies and the 
fair treatment of whistleblowers.
  We asked if he would cooperate with us on oversight matters and work 
with us to improve immigration policies going forward. Because the 
Judiciary Committee has primary responsibility on immigration matters, 
it is necessary for us to know any nominee's position on almost any 
issue. It has been nearly 1 month, and there has been no response to 
our letter and no indication that he might respond.
  In fact, I would be surprised that any nominee would respond to 
Congress any more given the majority only needs a simple majority to 
vote for confirmation. Thanks to a rule change done unilaterally by the 
majority, there will no longer be a proper vetting of executive branch 
nominees. The rule change essentially takes away the Senate's 
constitutional role of advice and consent, thereby allowing nominees to 
ignore Congress on issues of extreme importance such as immigration.
  But I am still going to pursue these questions, even though we do not 
have the leverage we used to have when a 60-vote majority was 
necessary, because Congress has a responsibility to know how laws are 
going to be enforced by the President's a appointees. President Obama 
promised this would be the most transparent administration in history. 
Yet getting answers from this President or his administration on 
legitimate Congressional oversight has been like pulling teeth.
  They have stonewalled Congress at every turn. Over the last 5 years, 
the administration has gone around Congress and pushed the envelope 
with their authority. He has ignored his constitutional duties to 
faithfully execute the laws by picking and choosing which laws he wants 
to enforce. Congressional oversight, an important responsibility that 
holds the government accountable for its people has been nearly 
impossible.
  In other words, the checks and balances of government do not work the 
way the Constitution writers intended. Now it is going to get worse. 
There will be more blatant disrespect for checks and balances than we 
have ever seen. So I would like to take time to read some of the 
questions--just some of the questions--that we asked Mr. Johnson. I 
think these would be reasonable questions that any Secretary ought to 
tell us what he is going to do if he gets sworn into that office. I 
think they underscore how important it is that we have answers before 
we move forward on the nomination.
  First and foremost, we asked Mr. Johnson about his commitment to 
uphold the laws on the books. We asked if he would continue the lawless 
policies created by the former Secretary and her deputy. We asked about 
what he would do to improve the morale of immigration officials and 
agents who are concerned about their nonenforcement protocols. We want 
to know how he would strengthen cooperation between Federal and local 
law enforcement entities.
  Secondly, we asked Mr. Johnson what he would do to improve border 
security. We want to know what specific measures he will implement to 
ensure that the Department will comply with the Secure Fence Act of 
2006. In 2010, Secretary Napolitano suspended our Nation's only 
comprehensive border security measurements, known as the operational 
control metric.
  More than 3 years have passed and the Department of Homeland Security 
has failed to replace that metric. Will Mr. Johnson then hold the 
Department accountable by regularly releasing a comprehensive border 
security metric? Will he commit to achieving operational control of the 
borders as required by our law? We do not know that. We would expect 
him to answer that he is going to enforce the laws. But will he? Will 
he answer?
  Individuals who overstay their visas account for about 40 percent of 
the undocumented population of this country. This presents a national 
security risk. Without a biometric exit system, this country will have 
no clue who remains on our soil undocumented. Will Mr. Johnson make it 
a priority to finally implement the entry-exit system Congress mandated 
in 1996, still not being enforced?
  Third, we asked about the culture of the U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Service. In January 2012, a Department of Homeland Security 
inspector general released a report criticizing the USCIS for 
pressuring its employees to rubberstamp applications for immigration 
benefits.
  In that report, nearly 25 percent of the USCIS officers surveyed said 
supervisors had pressured them to improve applications that should have 
been denied. We want to know if he will take measures to better screen 
applicants and do away with the get-to-yes philosophy. That get-to-yes 
philosophy is a gigantic risk to our national security.
  Just look at the EB-5 Program which allows foreign nationals to 
obtain green cards if they invest in the United States. We asked 
whether he would make it a priority to improve that program. We asked 
Mr. Johnson about his position on immigration reform, especially since 
the bill passed the Senate, and the House could act, sending a bill to 
the President.
  We asked if people who are in the country illegally, in removal 
proceedings or subject to an order of removal, should be eligible for 
immigration benefits, including legal status. We asked whether illegal 
immigrants convicted of a felony or convicted of multiple misdemeanors 
should be eligible for benefits, including legal status.
  We want to know if gang members, drunk drivers, domestic abusers, and 
other criminals should be allowed to stay in the country. It is 
important for us to know from Mr. Johnson because the Senate bill 
provides a way for those law breakers to gain citizenship. Mr. Johnson 
may be responsible for implementing that.
  Finally, we asked Mr. Johnson to comment on issues generally 
impacting the Department. We asked if he would pledge to cooperate with 
congressional oversight efforts and be responsive to all congressional 
requests for information and do it in a timely manner. We asked that 
because we have received very little cooperation in the last 5 years 
from that Department. We asked if he believed whistleblowers who know 
of problems with matters of national security should be prevented from 
bringing that information to Congress. We asked if he would commit to 
ensuring that every whistleblower is treated fairly and that those who 
retaliate against whistleblowers would be held accountable.
  No matter what department one manages, the answers to these questions 
are very important and should be simple to answer. We need a Secretary 
who is well versed on these issues. We need a Secretary who will 
implement policies that truly protect the homeland. We need cooperation 
and transparency. We need answers. In other words, what is wrong to 
expect answers to these questions I just related before we give advice 
and consent to this nomination?
  Majority Leader Reid has indicated through his cloture motion on Mr. 
Johnson that answers to these critically important issues are not 
warranted.
  Senators cannot consent to just anyone to head this department. We 
should not fail in our constitutional responsibility of advise and 
consent.
  This body should not move forward with this nomination, and I 
encourage my colleagues to consider these issues when the cloture vote 
ripens.

[[Page S8633]]

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that at 9 a.m., Thursday, December 
12, all postcloture time on the Pillard nomination be considered 
expired and the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the Pillard 
nomination; that upon disposition of the Pillard nomination, the 
mandatory quorum required under rule XXII be waived with respect to the 
cloture motion on the Feldblum nomination and the Senate proceed to 
vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Feldblum nomination; that 
if cloture is invoked on the Feldblum nomination, all postcloture time 
be yielded back and the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the 
Feldblum nomination; finally, that the motions to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table and the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I object, and I wish to state the reason I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator be allowed to 
speak for whatever time he feels appropriate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. The reason I object for the minority to moving these 
votes is we should follow what regular order we have left on 
nominations, especially after the way the majority changed the rules on 
nominations 2 weeks ago.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. My friend, the senior distinguished Senator from Iowa, that 
is what we are talking about here, the face of obstruction--not him, 
but the Republican caucus, stalling for no reason other than to stall 
for time.
  No wonder the rules were changed. No wonder the American people look 
at the Senate as a dysfunctional body. A couple of weeks ago we voted 
to make it a functional body so that nominations can be confirmed for 
any President. The President deserves to have his team.
  We have been wasting days, weeks, and months on nominations. We have 
scores of people and positions that need to be filled. We are only 
dealing with a handful. People understand the rules. We have changed 
the rules the last couple of Congresses--very little--but we have 
changed them.
  If we have a Supreme Court Justice or a Cabinet officer or someone of 
that level, they get 30 hours of time following the cloture vote. What 
are they supposed to do during that 30 hours? Come and explain their 
position why they oppose a person.
  For virtually every one of these nominations there hasn't been a 
single, single complaint about any of them. This culminated by virtue 
of the Republicans in the Senate making a decision that people who 
serve in the prestigious DC Circuit Court of Appeals were not entitled 
to have a full court. There are eight there now, and they said that is 
enough. That is, some say, the most important court in America; some 
say more important than the Supreme Court.
  The Republicans arbitrarily have said we are not going to fill those 
spots, not only because of qualifications, not because of their 
education, their experience or their integrity, only because they don't 
want them filled. That is a new low.
  I am disappointed to have to inform the Presiding Officer and all 
Senators tonight that because Republicans are wasting time, all of this 
staff, police officers--and some of them are getting paid over time--
will have to work. Why? Because the Republicans are wanting to waste 
more of this body's time and this country's time. No wonder the 
American people feel about the Senate as they do. For 5 years the 
obstruction that has taken place is unprecedented.
  We are going to continue to work tonight and remain in session as 
long as we need to. Republicans are forcing us to waste this week on 
nominees they know will be confirmed. Every one of them will be 
confirmed.
  There are no objections to the qualifications of these nominees, with 
one exception, and there are only little squeaks here and there about 
what could be wrong. But the outcome of each vote we will take over the 
next 4 days is a foregone conclusion. Yet the Republicans insist on 
wasting time simply for the sake of wasting time. There is no reason 
these votes couldn't take place right now or in the morning, and we 
could move to some important items.
  I have Senators come to me all the time--the chairman of the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee was here a few minutes ago, the 
distinguished junior Senator from Vermont. He has some important work 
he wants to move on this floor. They have passed some things in the 
House--and that doesn't happen very often, but they passed it. They 
sent it over, and it deals with veterans.
  He wants to bring that to the floor, have a debate, and offer an 
amendment. We can't do that because we are wasting time in the Senate 
on this senselessness.
  The junior Senator from the State of Delaware has spent weeks and 
weeks on manufacturing, which has shown some promise in America the 
last few years. Jobs are being created. Working on a bipartisan basis 
with other Senators, they have legislation they want to bring to the 
floor to talk about ways of improving manufacturing, capabilities, and 
capacity in the United States.
  We can't do that. We are here postcloture looking at each other and 
doing basically nothing, as we have done for vast amounts of time 
because of Republican obstructionism.

  I had a meeting with the chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee and the junior Senator from the State of Rhode Island a few 
minutes ago. In the world today we have something called climate 
change. It is here. Climate is changing all over the world. We have 
global warming.
  Are we doing anything legislatively to address that? No, nothing. She 
has a portfolio of legislation that she would like to take care of.
  There is going to be zero done because we are sitting under these 
lights complaining about the Republicans wasting time. We could finish 
these votes now, but we are going to work into the weekend.
  We had a break for Thanksgiving. It was very pleasant for me to be 
home for 2 weeks. Unfortunately, I had a death in the family that put a 
real cloud over things, and that is an understatement.
  Christmas is coming. Everyone should know that we are going to work 
until we finish the items we have before us this week. I am going to 
file on a number of other nominees as soon as I get a chance, and we 
are going to finish those. If we have to work the weekend before 
Christmas, we are going to do that. If we have to work the Monday 
before Christmas, we are going to do that. If we have to work through 
Christmas, we are going to do that. I know the game they are playing. 
They have done it before. A lot of nominations they will ask to be sent 
back to the administration, and they will have to start all over again. 
We are not going to start all over again.
  We need a director of the Internal Revenue Service. I think that is a 
very good idea. We need to fill Chairman Bernanke's spot as chairman of 
the Federal Reserve. That would be very important for us to do with all 
the problems we have financially.
  We are going to do that before we leave. If it means we have to work 
through Christmas, we will work through Christmas.
  Even if we are spending a lot of time--as we have done over the last 
5 years because of their obstructionism--looking at the lights, and 
that is about all we have to look at because we are not looking at 
substantive legislation as we should be, the only impediment to holding 
votes without delay in reasonable hours is blatant, partisan Republican 
obstructionism.
  It is pointless spending an entire week wasting time and waiting for 
a

[[Page S8634]]

vote. This is a foregone conclusion that is going to happen to every 
one of these votes. This is exactly the kind of blatant obstructionism 
and delay that has ground the Senate to a halt and prevented Congress 
from doing the work of the people over the last 5 years.
  I remind Members that without cooperation there will be rollcall 
votes, perhaps after midnight tonight, and as early as 5:30 in the 
morning. With only a little cooperation, Senators can stop wasting time 
and resources.
  The only way the Senate can stop wasting time is if we get some 
reasonableness and clarity from the Republicans. If there were ever an 
example why the rules had to be changed and how we tried during two 
successive Congresses to be reasonable--remember the exercise? Judges 
would only be opposed under extraordinary circumstances. There isn't a 
single judge that the President of the United States has nominated who 
has problems that are extraordinary. I think what is going on is a 
shame.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. I came to speak to a bipartisan bill which I hope to take 
a few minutes to talk about, but first I wish to comment on what is 
happening or not happening on the floor and the comments of the 
majority leader.
  I have been a Senator for only 3 years, as the Presiding Officer well 
knows. We were sworn in as a group of those elected to the class of 
2010. I just came from an inspiring event where the Vice President, who 
previously held this seat on behalf of Delaware, gave an award to the 
former majority leader, a real patriot, a veteran, former Senator Bob 
Dole. They talked about how compromise, principled compromise, made it 
possible for Senator McGovern and Senator Dole, folks from opposite 
ends of the political spectrum, to work together in the interests of 
hungry children in the United States.
  Frankly, what I have seen in the 3 years that I have been in the 
Senate, the 3 years that we have served together on the Judiciary 
Committee, has been a slow walk.
  There are minority rights in this body, but there are also minority 
responsibilities. There are majority rights but also majority 
responsibilities.
  I wish to add to the comments of the majority leader that the 
nominees to serve on the DC Circuit, the nominees to many district 
court seats, whose confirmations I have either presided over or 
attended, were not objected to on substantive grounds. I have trouble 
with the idea that the three empty seats on the DC Circuit do not need 
to be filled.
  I have listened at great length to the arguments about caseload and 
about workload. As the chair of the courts subcommittee of the 
Judiciary Committee, I presided over the presentation of the Judicial 
Conference's report on where we need additional judgeships and where we 
don't.
  I will note briefly and in passing that Judge Tymkovich, who 
presented this report, did not suggest there was some need to reduce 
the DC Circuit by eliminating these currently vacant spots.
  We could go through this chapter and verse. This has been debated to 
death on this floor. In my view, we have three excellent, qualified 
candidates. I regret that we have spent so much time burning the clock 
and that we have had to make changes that ultimately will make it 
possible for qualified nominees to be confirmed. It is, to me, a 
subject of some deep concern that we cannot work better together, 
Republicans and Democrats, to move work forward.

  If I might, I would like to move for a moment to an example of 
exactly the sort of bipartisan bill that we should be able to move to 
here, that if there weren't this endless obstruction, if we weren't 
running out the clock on nothing, we might be able to get done 
together. This is an example of the sort of reaching across the aisle 
that used to dominate this body when giants such as Dole and McGovern 
served here but is no longer the case. They are no longer the daily 
diet of this body. We are no longer reaching across the aisle and 
finding ways to make our country more competitive, create more 
manufacturing jobs in partnership with the private sector, and 
responsibly reduce our deficit.
  I was encouraged as a member of the budget conference committee that 
we seemed to be moving toward enacting a significant--small in scale 
but significant in its precedence--deal for the Budget Committee that 
could allow us to go back to regular order for appropriations. But 
here, as we waste hour after hour running out the clock to confirm 
nominees, I wonder. I wonder whether we are going to be able to take 
up, consider, and pass substantive legislation.