[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 175 (Wednesday, December 11, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8799-S8802]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 NOMINATION OF ANNE W. PATTERSON TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Anne W. 
Patterson, of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, 
Class of Career Ambassador, to be an Assistant Secretary of State.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to the provisions of S. Res. 15 of 
the 113th Congress, there will now be up to 8 hours of postcloture 
consideration of the nomination equally divided in the usual form.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                              Gun Violence

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it seems hard to believe that tomorrow will 
be the anniversary of the deaths of 20 little boys and girls in 
Newtown, CT. Not only those little boys and girls, but six educators, 
whose lives were taken by an unspeakable tragedy at Sandy Hook 
Elementary School.
  Their names are Allison, Avielle, Charlotte, Daniel, Olivia, 
Josephine, Ana, Dylan, Madeleine, Catherine, Chase, Jesse, James, 
Grace, Noah, Jack, Emilie, Caroline, Jessica, and Benjamin.
  These little boys and girls were 6 and 7 years old. They were 
murdered. Although their years were few, their lives have touched and 
will continue to touch us all.
  As it did a year ago, my heart goes out to the families of these 
little angels, and to all those affected by this tragedy. I honor the 
ultimate sacrifice of Victoria Soto, Dawn Hochsprung, Mary Sherlach, 
Lauren Rousseau, Rachel Davino, and Anne Marie Murphy--teachers and 
educators who died trying to safeguard the children in their care.
  These six educators devoted their lives to teaching Newtown's 
children how to read and write, how to add and subtract, how to be good 
boys and girls, and how to grow into good men and women. They gave 
their lives to keep those children safe. They are a source of hope in a 
world that sometimes seems hopeless.
  It is hard to comprehend the type of tragedy that occurred at Sandy 
Hook, let alone to recover from it. But I am inspired by the families 
in this community who have found purpose in the face of despair.
  There is a Tibetan saying that says, ``Tragedy should be utilized as 
a source of strength.''
  The Dalai Lama says that whatever trouble you have experienced, and 
however deep your heartbreak, ``If we lose our hope, that's our real 
disaster.''
  The families of Newtown have channeled their pain into activism, 
raising awareness about gun violence and mental health issues in this 
country.
  I have met with them on a number of occasions, and their bravery in 
the face of such pain is truly an inspiration not only to me but to all 
of us.
  I am proud of how hard my caucus fought this year to pass safeguards 
that would keep guns out of the hands of felons and people with severe 
mental illness. That is why 85 percent of the American people agree 
with us. Why should someone who has a severe mental illness or someone 
who is a criminal be able to purchase a gun? They shouldn't. Those who 
are trying to stop that legislation from going forward should be 
embarrassed and ashamed of themselves.
  I personally am happy with my vote to keep military-style weapons off 
the streets and to improve our mental safety. But at a time when more 
than 30,000 Americans are killed by guns each year, it is shameful that 
the Senate can't pass gun safety legislation that would protect our 
most vulnerable citizens--our kids, our children, our babies.
  So I told the families of the 26 innocents killed a year ago in 
Newton, and the 173 children killed by guns since December 14, 2012, 
that Senate Democrats will not give up on them, and that is still the 
fact. We will not give up on the victims of 26 school shootings that 
occurred since the Newtown massacre, including one in Sparks, NV, where 
a young man came with a gun. Who stepped forward to save the children? 
A teacher. He was killed. Two

[[Page S8800]]

others were injured in that assault. I will not give up on the families 
and friends of those gunned down at a movie theater in Colorado, a Sikh 
temple in Wisconsin, a shopping mall in Oregon, and every day on the 
streets of America's cities.
  Last December I promised the families a meaningful conversation about 
how to change America's culture of violence. I want everyone within the 
sound of my voice to know that the conversation is not over.
  The American people will prevail on this issue. When 85 percent of 
the American people believe in an issue--when 85 percent of the 
American people believe in not only an issue but in a quest, in 
fairness, it is going to happen. It is only a question of when it 
happens.
  I urge the families and friends of those killed in Newtown to never 
lose hope. Never lose hope.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, John Adams, America's first Vice 
President--and second President--and whose bust sits right above us 
looking over the Senate every day, once said:

       Facts are stubborn things. And whatever may be our wishes, 
     our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they 
     cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

  It has been more than 3 years since President Obama signed the 
Affordable Care Act into law. In that time, its opponents have made 
every effort to misinform the American public about this law and the 
vital benefits it provides the American people.
  But as Adams said, facts are stubborn things, and I want to make sure 
the facts about the Affordable Care Act do not get lost amongst the 
criticism and false claims.
  So here are the facts.
  Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, 100 million people have received 
free preventive care, more than 7 million seniors have saved nearly $9 
billion on prescription drugs, and 25 million people who lacked health 
insurance will finally be able to get the coverage they need.
  The Affordable Care Act has also helped slow the growth in health 
care costs. National health care spending grew by 3.9 percent each year 
from 2009 to 2011--the slowest rate on record.
  I can remember not too many years earlier the annual rate increase in 
health care costs was in the neighborhood of 6, 7, 8, 9 percent a year. 
It is a dramatic reduction.
  That means we will save huge sums of money down the line. For 
example, the CMS projection of national health care expenditures in 
2019 has dropped by $574 billion in 3 years. That is $574 billion in 
reduced projection of national health care costs in the year 2019.
  While there is more than just the Affordable Care Act at work in 
those savings, it certainly has played a part.
  The health insurance marketplaces are open for business, and every 
day we hear how the Web site healthcare.gov is working better. It is 
picking up steam. It is handling more and more consumers.
  The New York Times reported on Tuesday that--and I am quoting--``the 
number of applicants who dropped a plan into their virtual grocery 
carts was climbing at a rapid clip.''
  Those are the facts. The Affordable Care Act is helping millions of 
people. It is improving millions of lives.
  But frankly, I think the American people are a bit tired of hearing 
politicians argue over the law. I am sure every one of my colleagues 
has spoken at length about it here on the Senate floor or back home. I 
know I have.
  I think it is time to change the conversation. I think it is time to 
hear from the American people--hear from them--about how they think the 
law is helping them. I think it is time to hear what the New York Times 
called the ``voices of quiet optimism and relief amid the uproar over 
the health law.''
  Take these two stories.
  Claire He is a college student whose parents have never been able to 
afford insurance. She and her brother lived most of their lives without 
coverage. She told the New York Times that if they got the flu ``we 
just stayed home and waited it out.''
  But when Claire and her family sat down to look at their options 
under the Affordable Care Act, here is what they found: They found a 
high-quality plan that will cost them only $30 a month.
  Claire said of the ACA's critics: ``I see so much negativity behind 
this. . . . But in reality there's a lot of families who are like 
mine.''
  Then there is the story of Bruce Kleinschmidt, a lawyer who lives in 
Louisville, KY. Bruce had insurance through his employer until he 
stopped working full time.
  Bruce is 61--not yet eligible for Medicare. In another era, his 
health problems would have made it impossible for him to find 
insurance. But using Kentucky's new health marketplace, Bruce found a 
generous plan that saves him $300 a month in premiums. Bruce called it 
a ``godsend.''
  There are hundreds of similar stories in newspapers all across the 
Nation--the San Jose Mercury News, the Las Vegas Sun, the Hartford 
Courant, the Palm Beach Post, the LA Times, and many more.
  Not only do we read these kinds of personal stories in newspapers, we 
receive letters with them every day. Here are a few examples from 
letters I have received from Montanans.
  John wrote to my office with his family's story. What did he say? 
John's daughter recently beat cancer. She is under age 26, so thanks to 
the Affordable Care Act she is still covered under her parents' 
insurance.
  And there is more. When she does turn 26, she will have a guaranteed 
right to coverage. No insurance company can turn her away because she 
had cancer. John said they are counting on the Affordable Care Act to 
help them find an affordable plan.
  Marge wrote to say that the Affordable Care Act has been an enormous 
relief for her. She has battled emphysema for years--despite the fact 
that she is not a smoker. A doctor once told her she could never leave 
her job because no one else would ever insure her.
  So for Marge, the Affordable Care Act means she can breathe again--
that she does not have to live in fear of losing her insurance or 
falling into bankruptcy because of her medical costs.
  We all know--because many, many told us before the act--how many 
people went into bankruptcy because one of the leading causes of 
bankruptcy was health care costs.
  Jillian wrote to say how excited she was to be able to shop for 
coverage in the marketplace.
  Jillian is married, and she and her husband are expecting a child. 
But her husband's employer-sponsored plan does not pay for her 
coverage.
  Here is what she wrote: ``I am looking to make a more affordable 
choice for me and my baby-to-be. . . . ''
  Letters like these come in every day. They tell the stories of how 
the Affordable Care Act is working for them, it is helping them, and in 
the end that is what matters--not the punditry, not the polls, not the 
political points. What matters is that the law is improving the lives 
of millions of Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Senate Rules

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have been engaged in the back-and-forth 
for many years concerning the rights of the minority to oppose 
legislation or nominations for Senate advice and consent, which, 
obviously, as we all know, is part of the Constitution of the United 
States.
  After investing all of those hundreds of hours in compromises, both 
when Republican leadership wanted to act to curtail the rights of the 
minority and when Democrats were doing it--I fought hard. A short time 
ago Senator Levin and Senator Schumer and others changed the rules to 
try to expedite the consideration of legislation for a whole lot of 
reasons, including the fact

[[Page S8801]]

that a majority of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
never been here in the minority.
  We have now acted in a draconian fashion and, in my view, have 
fundamentally, historically damaged this institution. Among other 
things, for the first time since the Senate has been a body, we have 
now changed the rules to 51 votes rather than 67. First time in 
history. Unfortunately, the repercussions will be that we are moving a 
step--a very significant step--toward a majority-rule body.
  As my friend from Michigan Senator Carl Levin quoted Senator 
Vandenberg, a former Senator from Michigan and a highly regarded 
individual in this institution, we have now broken the rules to change 
the rules. On the night we changed the rules, I read a letter from 
Senator Robert Byrd--who was one of the most outstanding leaders and 
clearly the expert on the Constitution and this institution--cautioning 
against it.
  The reason I come to the floor today is not so much to revisit that 
because it is done. I wish to point out that I see the first 
manifestation now of the majority-rule vote. I have been a member of 
the Homeland Security Committee, and I have been involved in these 
issues for many years. I was also involved in the so-called Gang of 8, 
where we came up with a comprehensive immigration reform bill which was 
passed through this body. We still hope that the other body will 
address, at least in some way, the issue of comprehensive immigration 
reform.
  I come from a border State, as my colleagues know. Our border is not 
secure. In fact, the majority of drugs that still come across our 
southern border come across the Arizona-Sonora border in Mexico. My 
constituents, many who live in the southern part of the State of 
Arizona, have home invasions, people crossing their property. In one 
case a rancher was shot and killed, and a Border Patrol agent was 
killed. In fact, the reality is that they don't have the same security 
in the southern part of my State as the rest of our citizens do in 
other parts of the country.
  Border security was a fundamental and vitally important issue in the 
hundreds of hours of debate and discussions that I and my seven 
colleagues engaged in as we shaped the comprehensive immigration reform 
legislation, which was largely passed intact in the Senate.
  I went back to my constituents and I said there is a very vital and 
important provision in this bill; that is, when this legislation is 
passed, we will embark on the goal of achieving 90 percent 
effectiveness at our border. We can never get complete control of our 
border--we all recognize that--but 90 percent effective control through 
surveillance, through hiring new people, through capabilities that we 
have--we can achieve 90 percent effective control.
  Then comes the nomination hearing of Mr. Jeh Johnson for Secretary of 
Department of Homeland Security. I asked Mr. Johnson a simple, 
straightforward question. The question was: Mr. Johnson, when you are 
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, will you provide this 
committee and me, Senator McCain, with a description of the measures 
that need to be taken in order for us to achieve what we have turned 
into legislation--at least in the Senate--90 percent effective control 
of our southern border?
  His answer was no.
  His answer, believe it or not, was no, that he could not provide that 
information. In fact, I was so astonished that I wrote him a letter and 
received a response, which I will read:

       November 19, 2013.
       Dear Senator McCain,
       I regret that in my current posture as a nominee and 
     private citizen, I am not now in a position to commit to 
     provide the information you seek from the Department of 
     Homeland Security.
       At this point, I must respectfully refer you to the 
     Department's current leadership. I know this was a matter of 
     discussion between you and Secretary Napolitano, and I 
     understand your frustration. As I believe I have demonstrated 
     to you and others on the Senate and House Armed Services 
     Committee--

  Why he said Senate Armed Services Committee, I am not sure.

     --I have a strong respect for Congress' oversight role. If I 
     am confirmed, and if your request is still outstanding at 
     that point, I promise that addressing your letter will be a 
     top and immediate priority for me.

  This is the November 19, 2013, letter from Mr. Jeh Charles Johnson.
  In other words, the nominee for the Department of Homeland Security, 
who has direct responsibility for securing our borders, direct 
responsibility as outlined in legislation passed by this body, the 
comprehensive immigration reform bill, refuses to give me and this body 
the information. I hope there are other Senators who might be 
interested in what is necessary to achieve 90 percent effective control 
of our borders. He refuses to give me that information.
  Thanks to the good offices of my beloved friend Carl Levin and my 
dear friend Senator Carper, I just came from a meeting in my office 
with Mr. Jeh Johnson. Mr. Jeh Johnson again repeated to me that he 
could not give me the information of what is necessary, what tools are 
necessary to ensure 90 percent effective control of our border.
  Allegedly, he is being prevented from doing that by the White House. 
It is stunning. Why would the White House prevent the nominee for 
Secretary of Homeland Security from providing this to Members of the 
Senate and members of the committee that has oversight of homeland 
security, which is fundamental information if we are going to achieve 
effective control of our border?
  I go home to Arizona and I say: Yes, it is in the law, my friends. It 
is in the law that we are going to have to get 90 percent effective 
control of our border, but I don't know how we do it because the agency 
that will be required to do it will not give me the necessary 
information to do it.
  My friends, we will voting on Monday to confirm Mr. Johnson. He will 
be confirmed. There is no doubt about it now that we have majority 
vote. We have now deprived Republicans of their advice and consent 
responsibilities and authority. We have not only changed the rules of 
the Senate, we have abridged the Constitution of the United States 
because the only way that I could have received this information from 
Mr. Johnson was if I had said: I can't approve of your nomination until 
you provide the information which, by any objective observer, I am 
entitled to--not only entitled to; it is my responsibility to know 
that. It is my responsibility. That is why we have a committee. That is 
why we have a committee, the homeland security committee, that has 
oversight of the functions of the executive branch. That is how equal 
branches of government are supposed to function.
  Mr. Johnson will be confirmed, and the message will go out, believe 
me: You don't have to answer a question by a Republican Senator. You 
don't have to respond to a straightforward question.
  There was nothing devious about the question I asked Mr. Johnson. 
There was nothing complicated. They certainly should have the 
information of what steps and measures are necessary to ensure 90 
percent effective control of our border--which is a requirement in the 
law, if it is ever passed. Certainly the requirement was passed by the 
Senate.
  It is kind of a sad day. It was a sad day for me when we changed the 
rules. It was a sad day for me to see people who have been here a very 
short period of time basically shatter the comity which exists and 
which is vital to doing business in the Senate.
  I also would point out to my colleagues--particularly those who are 
new and who drove this change in the Senate rules--what goes around 
comes around and what goes around will come around. To their deep 
regret, some day--I say to the President and I say to my colleagues who 
voted for it on a party-line vote, for the first time in history 
changing the rules of the Senate from 67 votes to 51 votes--they will 
regret it.
  The people who will suffer greatly from this are the American people 
because this place is largely dysfunctional anyway. If we think it was 
dysfunctional before, wait and see. I say that with deep regret because 
I value and treasure my relationships with my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle. Some of the best friends I have are on the other 
side of the aisle. But to expect to do business as usual when I can't 
even get a straight answer for a question that--now by not having the 
answer inhibits and in many ways prohibits my ability to respond and 
carry

[[Page S8802]]

out my responsibilities to the citizens of my State--cannot go without 
being responded to.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. I now yield back all time on the Patterson nomination.


                            VOTE EXPLANATION

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I was unable to attend the rollcall vote 
on the nomination of Heather Anne Higginbottom to be Deputy Secretary 
of State for Management and Resources and the rollcall vote on the 
motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Anne W. Patterson to be 
an Assistant Secretary of State. Had I been present for these two 
votes, I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________