[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 181 (Thursday, December 19, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9001-S9042]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014--Continued


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1834

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, last week I had the opportunity to see 
Charles Dickens' classic ``A Christmas Carol.'' As my colleagues know, 
this is a morality tale that highlights the plight of the poor, the 
less fortunate, and the unemployed. In fact, when Charles Dickens began 
to work on ``A Christmas Carol,'' he was so upset with the plight of 
youth and children working in the mines in England, he started out to 
write about that in a novel that evolved into a tale about Christmas, 
``A Christmas Carol.''
  As I watched ``A Christmas Carol'' with my wife in Ford's Theater 
about a week ago, I was struck by the following line from the spirit of 
Jacob Marley. Here is what he said:

       Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my 
     business; charity, mercy, forbearance, benevolence, was all 
     my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of 
     water in the comprehensive ocean of my business.

  With that line, Dickens was advocating for those less fortunate and 
voicing his support for economic equality. Those words are most 
appropriate today at this time of year.
  I come to the floor today with my friend, the Senator from Rhode 
Island Jack Reed to share our concerns about the weak labor market, 
those who have been unemployed for so long, and its impact on the 
Nation's 11 million unemployed. Senator Reed and I are especially 
concerned about those who have been without work for an extended period 
of time.

[[Page S9002]]

  It has been 4 years since the end of the great recession, and while 
the Nation's economy has been slow to recover, steadily adding jobs, a 
large section of society is still out of work. Of the Nation's 11 
million unemployed, a little over 4 million of our friends and 
neighbors are considered long-term unemployed. That means they have 
been without work for 6 months or more.
  Most people who find themselves out of work are eligible to receive 
assistance from their State for 26 weeks, as they look for a new job. 
But, for far too many, finding a new job in a sluggish economy has been 
extremely difficult. When State aid is exhausted, Federal emergency 
unemployment insurance kicks in and helps families to help make ends 
meet. However, that safety net is now about to expire. It is about to 
expire in just a couple of weeks.
  In fact, in less than 2 weeks, Federal emergency unemployment 
insurance will run out. On December 28, 1.3 million people will lose 
their unemployment benefits. These are people who are obviously 
hurting. If they don't have a job, they would love to find a job, and 
if they have a job, they are trying to make ends meet. They are 
understandably discouraged, unsuccessful at finding work.
  We cannot cast them aside. We need to provide out-of-work Americans 
the security they need while they continue to look for jobs. We need to 
help them look for work--clearly--and put food on the table for their 
families.
  Extending the jobless aid to the long-time out-of-work must be a 
priority for this Congress. With the House already in recess, we will 
not be able to extend emergency unemployment benefits before the end of 
the year. But it is my hope that when Congress returns, we can 
retroactively extend benefits.
  At the same time, when we return next month, we need to explore long-
term unemployment solutions. We need to jump-start policies that will 
grow our economy more rapidly and create new jobs. It has to be a dual 
track: Benefits for those unemployed but also assistance to find ways 
for more people to get jobs.
  We all care deeply about this. I know no one who cares more deeply 
than my good friend from Rhode Island Jack Reed. He has been working 
diligently, looking at every possible solution to try to find a way to 
make sure unemployment benefits are extended.
  That is why we are working together. This issue is under the 
jurisdiction of the Finance Committee, but Jack has worked very hard to 
ensure these Americans are not cast aside. Senator Reed and I will do 
all we can to try to find a solution.
  I tip my hat especially to the Senator from Rhode Island for all he 
has done. He is a tireless advocate for a solution for those 
unemployed. Together, we will try, as Dickens said, to make the common 
welfare our business.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, first let me thank Chairman Baucus for his 
very kind words, but also salute the President of the United States for 
his wisdom in announcing that he intends to appoint the Senator from 
Montana to be our next ambassador to the People's Republic of China. I 
can't think of anyone whose integrity, intelligence, commitment to the 
Nation, and patriotism would so well serve and be so beneficial to this 
country as continuing in his public efforts after his days in the 
Senate in the embassy in Beijing.
  I also thank the chairman because he has been an articulate and 
effective advocate for unemployment compensation benefits for hard-
working Americans who are without work through no fault of their own. 
This economy has suffered a drastic contraction, beginning in 2007, 
2008, and 2009. We are seeing some improvements. During this period, 
the chairman has been the key actor, the key force driving for extended 
benefits.
  Chairman Baucus has been the driving force as well in the context of 
trying to reform the program. He has implemented efforts such as work 
sharing, a proposal I brought to him, that is a smart way to do 
business. It basically allows a company to retain their workers for 
part of the week and let them collect benefits for the rest of the 
week, so they keep the workforce together. In Rhode Island, it has been 
extremely beneficial. It is now a nationwide program because of 
Chairman Baucus.
  He is working very hard--as he indicated, we are working together--to 
ensure that we do not see this cliff where 1.3 million Americans lose 
their benefits on December 28.
  Yesterday, I came to the floor to discuss some of the economics 
behind the logic of extending these benefits. I believe the extensive 
amount of economic research supports the very commonsense notion that I 
think the vast majority of our colleagues share: That Americans want to 
work. They are in an environment, however, where jobs are scarce. There 
are two workers for every job, and in some parts of the country that 
ratio is even much worse.
  However, I hear other colleagues say: That might be true, but we have 
to fix this program because we have abuse and we have fraud. The 
chairman, in his efforts, has always demonstrated that we are committed 
to rooting out any type of fraud or abuse. In 2012, for example, we 
strengthened the requirement that one has to search for work to qualify 
for unemployment compensation. We also improved program integrity by 
having beneficiaries show up more frequently for in-person assessments 
to help them find a job quicker and ensure they receive the right 
benefit amount based on their past work history.
  So we want the program to be efficient. We do not want the program to 
be subject to abuse. That means that more people can benefit correctly 
and not abuse the system. So I am sure the chairman and I are quite 
willing--I know I am, and I know he is too--to work hard if we need 
reforms. But we can't do that in 10 days. We can't do that. We need 
some time.
  So I have joined together with Senator Heller to suggest a 3-month 
extension. That will allow us--and this is a bipartisan effort, and I 
thank the Senator from Nevada--to keep people from falling off the 
edge, literally.
  The average benefit in Rhode Island is about $350 a week. There are 
very few people who are going to give up a job to collect about $350 a 
week. By the way, that money is going right from the check to the local 
grocery store, to pay for heat or to pay for rent. That is why CBO has 
estimated that if we don't extend unemployment benefits, we will see a 
situation in which we lose approximately 200,000 jobs next year which 
we could have otherwise had, and that we will see our economic GDP 
growth shrink by about 0.2 percent, because the demand generated by 
unemployment checks going out in the mail will be lost. It is one of 
those programs that provides about $1.70, $1.60, for every dollar we 
invest. So this is about good economics, not just, as Senator Baucus 
said so eloquently, about our commitment to something beyond ourselves, 
to the welfare and the good faith of our neighbors in the spirit of 
Christmas, the true spirit of this holiday.
  The other thing, too, is if we look at this argument: Well, we are 
not going to extend the program because of abuse--we can look at a lot 
of programs; we can look at the crop insurance program, for example. I 
don't hear many people saying: Oh, let's cut out that crop insurance 
program because of abuse. Just recently, this year, the Department of 
Justice prosecuted a very large, significant case of widespread tobacco 
crop fraud spanning 6 years. A Federal district judge brought to 
justice an insurance agent and a farmer. Prison time was ordered, more 
than $8 million of restitution had to be paid, but no one is standing 
up and saying: Let's cut crop insurance because of this case.
  Let's get realistic. We need to extend these benefits, and we need to 
do it promptly because the 28th is just upon us.
  Shortly, I will make a unanimous consent request, but before that, I 
wish to recognize my colleague, Senator Stabenow. Then, I ask that at 
2:30, if she could yield the floor back to me so that I may make my 
request.
  With that, I yield to the Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, Federal emergency unemployment 
benefits are going to expire on December 28 unless we do something to 
stop it.
  Right now, there are 11 million Americans out of work through no 
fault of their own.

[[Page S9003]]

  They are trying to find work, and they rely on unemployment insurance 
to help them keep food on the table and keep a roof over their heads 
and their families' heads, while they search for a new job.
  And now, over 1 million people who are trying to find work stand to 
lose their unemployment insurance on December 28 because Congress has 
not acted.
  Let me repeat that: Just 3 days after Christmas, 1 million people 
will lose a critical source of income while they look for work because 
of us.
  Letting Federal unemployment insurance expire would be devastating 
for families all across the country.
  I have heard from many of my constituents in Michigan on just how bad 
this will be, and how it will affect their families.
  There are stories throughout Michigan and across our country.
  It is astounding that Congress would even consider letting this 
expire, given that unemployment rates in many States are higher today 
than they were in 2008 when we passed this law.
  In June of 2008, when the President signed this law, the national 
unemployment rate was under 6 percent. Today, it is 7 percent.
  Even though we are seeing a number of great things happening in 
Michigan, we are still struggling to create enough jobs for everyone 
who needs one.
  And because of that, Michigan just moved back into a position where, 
as a State with a high percentage of people out of work, Federal 
emergency unemployment benefits have been extended to 36 weeks.
  This means that people in Michigan who are trying to find a job get a 
few more weeks to find something before they lose this critical 
lifeline.
  But not if we let it expire.
  The story is the same in many States across the country.
  Today, 46 out of the 50 states, including Michigan, have higher 
unemployment rates than they did when this law went into effect.
  While we are seeing some positive signs in the economic numbers, 
there are still almost 11 million Americans out of work.
  That is far too many. There are three people who are looking for work 
for every 1 job available.
  And if we don't act, if we don't extend this critical lifeline, then 
over 43,000 people in Michigan--and over 1 million longterm unemployed 
people across the country--will face an uncertain future.
  We are six days from Christmas; six days from our children waking up 
and running to the Christmas tree to see what Santa brought them.
  And the question facing thousands of families in Michigan--facing 
Regina in Holland and Stephen in Dearborn--and over a million men and 
women across the country, is: Will there be anything under the tree on 
Christmas morning?
  Will there be a house to sleep in on Christmas Eve?
  Will there be food on the table tonight, or tomorrow night, or on 
Christmas night?
  These are people who are out of work through no fault of their own.
  People who have lost their jobs are already on the ropes.
  They have already seen cuts to unemployment insurance that have made 
it harder to make ends meet.
  And now Congress is threatening to pull the rug out from under them.
  These are people who want to work, who are trying to work, and just 
need help getting by while they find a new job. Giving them the 
benefits they earned isn't a ``disservice''--it is a lifeline.
  This is what little money families have to get by--and they spend it 
at the grocery store and to pay their bills.
  Without this help, they could lose their homes to foreclosure.
  At such a critical time in our economic recovery, we cannot afford 
another wave of foreclosures.
  It is also important to note that this is unemployment insurance--
people earned it by working, and in order to qualify for this 
assistance, you must be actively looking for a job every week.
  Letting the Federal emergency unemployment benefits expire would hurt 
these families and would send a ripple effect through the economy.
  Congress should be helping to create jobs, not pulling the rug out 
from under people looking for jobs.
  There is no reason for this to happen. We can pass a bill to extend 
this critical help.
  In the past, both parties have always worked together to continue 
emergency unemployment insurance when the economy is struggling.
  This is not the time to pull the rug out from people looking for 
work.
  I urge my colleagues to come together in a bipartisan way to extend 
unemployment insurance so our families--and the economy--do not suffer.
  Again, I thank Senator Reed who has been such a champion on this 
issue. I have been proud to partner with him on behalf of over a 
million people who are trying to find work and will lose their 
unemployment benefits three days after Christmas, on December 28. I 
can't think of anything more devastating to families trying to put food 
on the table and a roof over their heads.
  I also thank Senator Baucus for his leadership on this issue and 
congratulate him on his new opportunity for the future.
  Specifically, let me read letters that I think tell it all from 
people in Michigan.
  Regina from Holland writes:

       I am begging you to extend unemployment insurance. I have 
     been unemployed since June. I am almost done with my first 
     tier of unemployment. I have been trying to find work. I am 
     59 years old, and that does not help in finding a job.

  Madam President, let me say we have way too many women--we have way 
too many people who are in their 50s and in their 60s trying to find 
work and having a very difficult time for a number of reasons.
  She goes on to say:

       If you don't pass extensions, my family will only have my 
     husband's Social Security check coming in, and we'll lose our 
     home. I am really scared we will not have this money coming 
     in after December 28th, and I don't know what we will do.

  I also heard from Stephen in Dearborn who wrote me and said:

       This December 28 deadline directly affects me and my 
     family. I have been unemployed for 6 months. I have been 
     struggling to keep things afloat for my wife and my two young 
     children.
       If these benefits cease at the end of the month, it will 
     put us even closer to losing everything my wife and I have 
     worked very hard for.

  The reality is, even though the economy is getting better, we still 
have three people looking for every one job that is available. At one 
time it was five people, so we have made some progress. But the truth 
is we still have a situation where way too many people in Michigan and 
across the country--in fact, almost 11 million people are out of work, 
and we have three people fighting for every one job that is available.
  We also still have challenges as it relates to matching up the jobs 
with the skills that people have. Not that people don't have skills, 
but they are different than the jobs that are available. People going 
back to school, they want to work. We all want the dignity of financial 
independence and work. But too many people are struggling in an economy 
they did not create, a global economy they did not create.

  If we do not act--if we do not support Senator Reed's motion--over 
43,000 people in Michigan, over 1 million long-term unemployed people 
across the country will find themselves in a devastating situation 
right after Christmas. It makes no sense. I urge my colleagues to join 
together and do what we have done with Republican Presidents, 
Democratic Presidents, what we have done on a bipartisan basis over the 
years; and that is to make sure we have a lifeline for people who are 
needing temporary help while they look for work.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 265, S. 1845, the 
Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act; the bill be read a 
third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made 
and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, it is unfortunate that the Senate 
schedule is chock-full of pending cloture motions that are 
controversial or completely nonurgent nominations. So I

[[Page S9004]]

would ask the Senator to amend his consent request to say that the 
pending cloture motions on executive nominations be withdrawn and that 
following the disposition of the Defense bill, the Senate proceed to 
consideration of S. 1845, the unemployment insurance extension, and 
that the majority leader and the minority leader be recognized to offer 
amendments in an alternating fashion so these important issues can be 
considered this week. I ask for that amended consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
  Mr. REED. I do not modify my request. I would insist on my request 
since it is the only practical means of getting the measure passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. CORNYN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I believe I have a few minutes left--2 
minutes. So before Senator McCain takes the floor, let me make a few 
more points that I think are critical.
  Last month, the economy did add jobs--203,000 jobs. But what we are 
seeing is the average length of unemployment is increasing. People are 
still out of work now an average of 36 weeks. That is more than 20 
weeks longer than prerecession levels, and it is longer than the 26 
weeks of State unemployment insurance.
  That is why we are here asking for benefits. People now are averaging 
a much longer time without finding work. This is not a situation where 
they fall within the State program. They have to have these Federal 
benefits, because it is harder and harder to find work.
  I would also suggest, too, that if you look at it another way, in 
2008, when President Bush started this emergency unemployment 
compensation program, it took the average jobless American 5.6 months 
to find employment. Now, with the increased long-term unemployment, it 
takes about 9 months.
  So again, this is a reason why these long-term extended benefits are 
absolutely necessary. I would hope our colleagues would join myself and 
Senator Heller and Chairman Baucus and Senator Stabenow and others and 
continue to move aggressively forward and see if we can, in fact, 
extend the benefits so that many Americans can continue to have some 
assistance and some sustenance as they continue to look for work.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I just watched again what is going on 
here on the floor of the Senate. Again there is a unanimous consent 
request to pass a major piece of legislation without an amendment, 
without debate, without the ability of those on this side of the aisle 
to even have an amendment considered and voted on, again completely 
shutting out this side of the aisle from the ability in any way to 
effect legislation.
  So now I am sure those on the other side of the aisle are going to go 
out and say: Oh, the Republicans, look at them, they will not even 
agree to an extension of unemployment insurance.
  Won't you let us have an amendment? Won't you let us at least have 
debate and vote on an amendment? There are some of us who think this 
program can be improved to help those who are unemployed. But, no, the 
way the Senate runs today it is either take it or leave it.
  I will tell the Chair and I will tell my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle, we are getting sick and tired of it. We are getting sick 
and tired of the dictatorial way the U.S. Senate is being run.
  The Senator from South Carolina and I are on the floor to talk about, 
among other things, the National Defense Authorization Act, the bill 
that has to do with this Nation's defense. Are we going to be able to 
have a single amendment? No. The bill has been out of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee since May.
  So we are not going to address the issue of sexual assaults, 
protecting individual rights in light of revelations in NSA data 
collection. I would say to my colleagues, the President had a 
commission that just made some recommendations. Would it not be 
appropriate to take those commission recommendations, debate them here 
on the floor of the Senate, and amend the bill so that some of these 
recommendations by this commission could be enacted into law?
  Do we believe that the issue of surveillance, of NSA data collection, 
is not an issue that should be debated on the floor of the U.S. Senate? 
We would be doing that--we would be debating, we would be amending, we 
would be making it better, we would be protecting the privacy of 
Americans' lives--if on this floor we were amending and debating the 
Defense authorization bill. But we are not. We are not.
  Are we going to talk about this incredible issue which has permeated 
so much debate, both in and outside of the Congress of the United 
States, of sexual assaults in the military? No. Nope. We are not going 
to allow an amendment on the other side of the aisle by the Senator 
from New York, who has made it her major legislative effort. We are not 
going to hear from this side of the aisle, where the Senator from 
Missouri has made it her major issue. No, we are not going to debate 
it. We are not going to amend it.
  What about the issue of detainees? The Senator from South Carolina 
and I are not in complete agreement. I had looked forward to a debate 
with him about how we dispose of the situation of detainees, each one 
of whom is costing a million and a half dollars per year for their 
incarceration.
  But, no, we are not going to do any of that today or tomorrow or next 
week or next month or maybe even next year if the majority leader of 
the Senate continues to run the Senate in such a way that we cannot 
even have debate and discussion.
  I will tell my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this is bad 
for the U.S. Senate, but it is worse for the American people. We have 
an obligation to the American people to debate issues, to vote on them, 
to pass legislation that we think is the best outcome. There would be 
votes I would lose, there would be votes I would win, but we are not 
going to have any votes.
  The galling thing about it is that the Defense bill passed through 
the Senate Armed Services Committee in May. So we went to June, July, 
August, September, October, November, and here we are finally maybe 
going out for the year and we are going to have an up-or-down vote--an 
up-or-down vote--on the Defense authorization bill. That is shameful. 
That is a perversion of everything that the U.S. Senate was designed 
for by our Founding Fathers, and there is no doubt about it.
  I came to the floor with my friend from South Carolina to talk about 
Iran sanctions. But have no doubt--have no doubt--I tell my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle, you are doing a great disservice to the 
American people, to the men and women who are serving this Nation, by 
not even fully debating and amending and voting on those amendments on 
this bill. You are doing a disservice to the men and women who are 
serving this Nation.
  So you should not be proud of this process we are going through. Some 
time today or tomorrow, depending on how many hours go by, we will have 
a vote, and I will vote to pass the bill. I will vote that way because 
I cannot do this to the American people, to the men and women who are 
serving. There are too many provisions in it that address bonuses, 
special duty, incentive pay, military construction, security--all kinds 
of issues that are obtained in this bill. So we cannot turn it down, 
but we cannot make it a bill that the American people should be proud 
of. In fact, we should be embarrassed at the process we are engaged in.
  Frankly, I know the American people are not too interested or aware 
of the arcane promises of the U.S. Senate, but steps were taken early 
and not that long ago that have changed the entire U.S. Senate, and it 
has changed it for the worse.
  I can assure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that it 
will be very difficult--very, very difficult--for us to work with our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle on most any issue when we are 
being deprived of the fundamental rights of a U.S. Senator, and that is 
the right to propose an amendment, debate, and have a vote, if that 
U.S. Senator wishes it.
  No longer are 45 Members on this side of the aisle allowed what 
should be our right--not a privilege, our right--to amend this 
legislation in order to

[[Page S9005]]

make it better and make it a better and more effective way to defend 
this Nation.
  I have been around this body for a long time. This may be one of the 
lowest points I have seen, particularly in light of the fact that the 
Defense authorization bill for 51 years has been brought to the floor 
of the Senate, it has been debated, it has been amended, sometimes for 
as long as 3 weeks, and now what are we going to do? Sometime tonight 
or tomorrow, at some hour, we are going to have the privilege of voting 
yea or nay on a bill that is vital to our Nation's security. 
Disgraceful.
  I see my colleague from South Carolina on the floor, and I ask 
unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from South 
Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Iran Sanctions

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I am sure my colleague and friend saw 
the article in the Wall Street Journal this morning that says ``France 
Doubts Iran Ready for Nuclear Pact. Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius 
Questions Whether Tehran Is Willing to Abandon the Ability to Build an 
Atomic Bomb.''
  Really, in the first paragraph of this story--I would ask my 
colleague--is the fundamental problem. There are many issues concerning 
the Iranians lie, cheat for years and years about their continued 
progress toward the acquisition of a nuclear weapon. But I would ask my 
friend from South Carolina, isn't it really about the most important--
let me put it this way: The most important aspect of this whole issue 
of these negotiations is the right to enrich? In other words, will the 
Iranians--haven't we already given over to them the right to continue 
to have the centrifugal spin and the enrichment process continue so 
that at some point, sooner or later, they may be only the turn of a 
wrench away from a nuclear weapon?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Senator McCain is absolutely right. The interim deal does 
not dismantle the centrifuges. They are spinning as we talk. They 
disconnect, not dismantle, some advanced centrifuges that have been 
installed.
  What people need to realize is that the Iranians, over the last 
decade--particularly the last 3 years--have developed a very mature 
enrichment program: 18,000 centrifuges. They do not need 20-percent 
enriched uranium anymore for these new centrifuges to get to 90 
percent, which would produce a uranium-based bomb; they can do it with 
a 3\1/2\-percent stockpile.
  So I guess this is the basic question for us as a nation and the 
world at large: Do you believe the Iranians when they say that they are 
not trying to develop a nuclear weapon, that they are only trying to 
develop peaceful nuclear power? Do you believe them when they make that 
claim given the reality of their enrichment program, their lying, and 
their cheating? If their goal is to enrich not for peaceful nuclear 
power purposes but to make a bomb, how do you get them to change their 
goal?
  I think what Senator McCain is pointing out is very important. The 
interim deal, like it or not, has legitimized enrichment in Iran. How 
do you go from not dismantling the plutonium reactor--complete 
dismantling, shutting down and dismantling the centrifuges--and turning 
the stockpile over to the international community after the interim 
deal--how do you go from there to the end game? We are so far away from 
an acceptable outcome.
  I hope people understand what the French are saying. The French are 
telling us they do not believe that the Iranian negotiators and the 
Iranian regime are serious about abandoning an enrichment program that 
could break out and produce a nuclear weapon.
  I appreciate Senator McCain's leadership on these issues. Syria, 
Iran--you name it, he has been there.
  I would like to ask this question to Senator McCain: Does the Senator 
believe the Iranians when they say they are not trying to acquire a 
nuclear weapon? From the U.S.-Israel point of view, what would happen 
to our nations if they had that capability?
  Mr. McCAIN. May I say to my friend that one of the things that would 
happen right away--I think it is well known; it is not a secret--is 
that many nations in the region would then quickly acquire nuclear 
weapons. The wealthiest ones might just buy one from Pakistan. That is 
not a secret.
  But could I ask my colleague this: So therefore we now have a period 
of 6 months which originally was stated as the end goal, that an 
agreement would be made and finalized and would be ready to be put into 
effect. But then we hear: Well, maybe it is going take more than 6 
months.
  One, haven't we seen that movie before--extended and protected 
negotiations, and then the centrifuges, as the Senator from South 
Carolina mentioned, continue to spin.
  Also, wouldn't it be appropriate for the Congress to say to the 
administration--and, more importantly, to the Iranians--that after 6 
months, my friends, the screws are going to tighten because if they 
cannot get an agreement in 6 months, then it would be appropriate for 
there to be additional pressures that would then hopefully be 
incentives for them to reach a final agreement rather than the status 
quo, which most of us believe is not satisfactory under this 6-month 
period.
  Should there not be some sanctions that would kick in after a 6-month 
period, and then the Iranians would know that if they do not reach an 
agreement, then the sanctions will be more severe?
  Perhaps my colleague can explain to me why the Secretary of State and 
the administration seem to be so opposed to us putting more pressure on 
the whole process to be finalized. Six months seems to be a reasonable 
length of time to get that done.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Well, the Senator is right. This interim agreement has 
not been implemented yet. They have 6 months to reach a final agreement 
but also an additional 6 months beyond that--a year, basically--to drag 
out these negotiations.
  The Senator asked the ultimate question. Does the Senator not believe 
sanctions are the only reason the Iranians are at the table?
  I compliment the administration for putting together an international 
regime to take the sanctions that Congress has passed--over their 
objections, I might add--to really inflict pain on the Iranian regime--
unfortunately, the people too. But that is the only reason they are at 
the table.
  But here is the analysis, as I understand it. People in the 
administration believe there is a moderate element and a hard-line 
element. Iran is telling the United States and the P5+1: If you 
threaten us with any more sanctions, we will walk away. We are not 
going to negotiate with a gun to our heads.
  Now, these are the people who have been using a lot of guns and have 
put a lot of guns to people's heads and actually pulled the trigger, 
killed hundreds of soldiers in Iraq, and have created chaos and mayhem 
in Syria. They are one of the biggest supporters of state terrorism. 
But that is an odd thing for them to say, when I believe the only 
reason they are at the table to begin with is because of sanctions.
  So my belief is that new sanctions tied to the end game--and this is 
what we have been working on in a bipartisan fashion. It is not just 
keeping the sanctions alive for the next year; it is tying their relief 
to an outcome that we all want.
  I want a peaceful resolution of the Iranian nuclear program. If they 
want a peaceful nuclear power program, they can have it; just control 
the fuel cycle. That has been my position.
  If they want an enrichment capability that has to be monitored by the 
U.N. and it is robust and the only reason they will not break out to 
get a nuclear weapon is because of U.N. inspectors, that is North 
Korea.
  The movie the Senator talked about is the movie called North Korea, 
where you would impose sanctions, you would relieve them, you would 
give them money, you would give them food, you would reinstate 
sanctions, and you would have U.N. inspectors to control the progress. 
The program was never dismantled.
  Don't repeat the mistakes in Iran that were repeated in North Korea. 
Dismantle this program before it is too late.
  To the administration, we are trying to help, not hurt. I do not 
believe there is a moderate element when it comes to the Iranian 
nuclear power program. I think that is a facade. The new President is a 
charming fellow on television, but he was a nuclear negotiator in 2004 
and 2005 for the Iranian regime and openly bragged about how much 
advancement they made during his time

[[Page S9006]]

negotiating toward an enrichment program that could produce a bomb.
  So this idea that there are hard-liners and moderates when it comes 
to the Iranian nuclear program is a miscalculation. So we are working 
on bipartisan sanctions, to continue them, and they can only be 
relieved when we dismantle the enrichment program, when we dismantle 
the plutonium reactor, the heavy water reactor that has nothing to do 
with producing nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and remove the 
stockpile as the U.N. has recommended. The U.N. resolutions are in 
force today, are on the books today. This agreement is to the left of 
the U.N.
  So the reason we are pushing sanctions in a bipartisan fashion is we 
want to avoid a conflict. The Iranian nuclear program has to be stopped 
one way or the other--through diplomacy and sanctions or through force, 
unless--that is the option. I cannot imagine a world with Ayatollahs 
with nukes. It would create a nuclear arms race. The Senator just got 
back from Saudi Arabia. Sunni Arab nations would want their own nuclear 
weapon, and we would be on the road to Armageddon. Israel--my God, how 
could they sit on the sideline and watch a nuclear weapon be produced 
by people who threaten every day to wipe them off the map?

  We are hoping we can produce sanctions that would enable and enhance 
the administration's opportunity to get a peaceful resolution. 
Sanctions and diplomacy end the program in a peaceful way. This is our 
last chance. If we get this wrong, history will judge us poorly. They 
are trying to get a nuclear weapon. They are hellbent. The only thing 
that will stop them is pressure.
  I want to ask the Senator a question. Why are Japanese banks and 
other business entities rushing to do business with Iran when the 
interim deal--relief and sanctions--do you believe that the 
international community is of the mindset that the sanctions are 
breaking down, that they are trying to jump ahead of each other to do 
business with Iran, and that if Congress passed a new round of 
sanctions, it would stop that breakout? Do you think that makes sense?
  Mr. McCAIN. Well, I think it might. I think this whole perception of 
the United States around the world, of our weakness, whether it be 
manifested in the Middle East with recent--I am sure my friend from 
South Carolina saw the comments of the former high-ranking member of 
the Saudi Government. The Japanese are now starting to go their own way 
because they believe the American pivot is not reality. There are 
manifestations of this perception of American weakness all over the 
world. So I am not sure they believe we are serious here or most 
anyplace else.
  The Senator from South Carolina raises an excellent point. I seem to 
remember that during the days of the Cold War we used to look at the 
reviewing stand on the May Day Parade, and we would point out one guy 
and say: Well, he is a moderate. He is a soft-liner. Well, he is a 
hard-liner. You know, we hope that--fill in the blank--is going to 
really have a beneficial effect and that the Russians are going to 
change and blah, blah, blah. There was always this belief about hard-
liners and soft-liners. We know now from history that was never the 
case.
  So now we look at Iran. Oh, there are the hard-liners and the soft-
liners. Doesn't that ignore the fundamental fact that there is one man 
who governs Iran and makes all the decisions? That guy is the 
Ayatollah. Now that Ahmadinejad, the hard-liner--and Rouhani, by the 
way, as the Senator from South Carolina mentioned, bragged and bragged 
about how he deceived the Americans and the other countries when he was 
the negotiator for Iran. Now he is the moderate. Now he is the good 
guy. So all this is fraud.
  But I guess the other point that I think really needs to be made that 
we forget is this: In Syria and in Iran--this administration, this 
President, and this Secretary of State look at these countries as an 
arms control issue. They look at Syria as an arms control issue while 
from helicopters they are dropping bombs that are killing and 
massacring women and children, while they are committing the most 
atrocious acts--on the one hand, the Secretary of State and his friend 
Sergei Lavrov are removing chemical weapons from Syria while planeloads 
of weapons from Russia fly into Damascus, and they kill people. I am 
not sure whether a mother in Syria can discriminate whether that child 
was killed by a chemical weapon or by a conventional weapon.
  So here we have the Iranians committing acts of terror all over the 
world, sending the Iranian Revolutionary Guard into Syria, training 
Bashar Assad's troops in Iran and sending them back, sending in supply 
after supply of weapons to kill Syrians, plots to kill even the Saudi 
Arabia Ambassador here in Washington, DC. Yemen has tried to smuggle in 
a whole boatload of weapons from Iran. The list goes on and on of their 
Persian ambitions throughout the Arab world and the world, but, by 
golly, we trust them to sit down and negotiate with us seriously on the 
issue of nuclear weapons. This is the most narrow view of Iran that has 
ever happened in history.
  So I do not see how we can judge Iranian seriousness about really 
wanting to rein in and eliminate their progress toward nuclear weapons 
without considering their behavior throughout the world, particularly 
in the Middle East, which is one of aggression, terror, and outright 
murder of people and destabilizing the entire region to the Iranian 
advantage.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Well, I think the point Senator McCain is making is dead-
on. Is it not true that our government has designated the Iranian 
regime--their government--as one of the largest state sponsors of 
terrorism in the world? Is that correct?
  Mr. McCAIN. True.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Now, here is the question. It is a good question. If they 
had a nuclear weapon, would they be likely to end such activity or 
would they be more effective in expanding it?
  Mr. McCAIN. May I interrupt? I forgot one aspect of Iranian behavior 
that is the most egregious: their sponsorship of Hezbollah. There are 
5,000 Hezbollah from Lebanon, sponsored by Iran, who are killing 
Syrians as we speak at the bidding of the Ayatollah and maybe Rouhani, 
who is supposed to be a moderate.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I think what the Senator has just described--the litany 
of chaos and mayhem spread by the Iranian regime that he knows probably 
better than anyone because he spent so much time there--it is Hezbollah 
but also Hamas. They are all in. The people who create the biggest 
upheaval for Israel are all in for their buddy Assad, the butcher of 
Damascus. Without Iran's support, one of the most evil people on the 
planet would not have a chance.
  Doesn't the Senator believe we are in a proxy war between us and the 
Iranians in Syria? That if we don't--and our actions towards whether we 
are going to use force or we are not going to use force, with Assad 
winning--that our policies toward Syria are affecting the regime's 
belief about what we may do about their nuclear program?
  One thing that might reset our resolve as a nation is for the 
Congress to impose additional sanctions so the Ayatollahs will not be 
confused about our lack of will in Syria when it comes to their nuclear 
program. The bottom line is, after our debacle in Syria, doesn't the 
Senator think we have a problem with the Iranian regime of taking us 
seriously?
  The international community is now breaking the sanctions. If new 
sanctions were imposed in a bipartisan way, that is the best way to 
reset the debate.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would also point out, one, if we are looking for one 
bright spot, that we see countries in the gulf and the Middle East 
aligning with Israel in a way that we have never seen before. Shouldn't 
we listen to the Prime Minister of Israel, which is the first target of 
Iran? It is the country about which the Iranians said, and have not 
renounced, that it is their commitment to ``wiping Israel off the 
map.'' Does the Senator think that maybe relations between ourselves 
and Israel are at the lowest ebb?
  Does the Senator think it is an accident when now the Saudis and 
leaders of other countries are outspoken in their derision of the 
United States for a lack of leadership in the Middle East?
  Finally, isn't it interesting that the Russians, for the first time 
since 1973, when Anwar Sadat threw them out of Egypt, are now major 
players in the Middle East?

[[Page S9007]]

  Mr. GRAHAM. I think the whole Middle East is going in the wrong 
direction at warp speed. Congress has some obligation to speak up, to 
do something about it, and to try to help the administration when we 
can.
  No. 1, a new round of sanctions, if we could muster bipartisan 
support, would send a great message to the Iranians: We don't see you 
the same as we do Syria.
  There was a lot of confusion and differences in the body about what 
to do in Syria.
  The Senator has been right for 3 years on this whole topic, but we 
are where we are. So a new round of sanctions, bipartisanly passed, 
would tell the Iranians that the American Congress and people look at 
them differently than the problem in Syria.
  It would also be a statement in the international community: We are 
resolved to get this program dismantled by using sanctions. We are not 
backing off, so stop this breakout.
  Finally to our friends, to the Israelis, to the Sunni Arab States, 
wouldn't it be welcome news to be tougher on Iran and to have the 
Congress reinforce the message to the Iranians that we are going to 
keep in place sanctions until they dismantle their program? Wouldn't 
that be some welcome news in a region that is absolutely desperate for 
some good news from America?
  Mr. McCAIN. I think so.
  I thank my colleagues for their forbearance. I agree with the Senator 
from South Carolina.
  I think it is imperative for the Congress and our role in the U.S. 
Government that these sanctions be enacted. The administration has 
plenty of time to negotiate, but we want to be prepared for failure. 
There is no reason not to make those preparations.
  I began our conversation with the comments of the foreign minister of 
France. That concern is shared by many of our friends and allies both 
in and out of the region.
  I note the presence of the Senator from Mississippi on the floor. I 
am sure he has some very important words that will be translated into 
English.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. It would be inconceivable for the senior Senator from 
Arizona to say anything which I would find offensive or insulting, and 
I take no offense from his remarks.
  I wish to be recognized. We are in morning debate; are we in debate 
on the pending question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are postcloture and the Senator is 
recognized.
  Mr. WICKER. I understand that soon Senator Levin will come to the 
floor, and perhaps there will be an exchange between Senator Cornyn and 
Senator Levin about a matter that may be coming to a vote sometime in 
the next half hour, and that would be the motion to table the filling 
of the tree.
  I wish to speak for a moment or two about that. I think sometimes we 
talk about these things in shorthand within the Senate, and perhaps our 
constituents don't know what we are referring to when we say the 
majority leader has come in and filled the tree.
  I know most Members understand this, but what that means is the 
majority leader comes in and he offers all of the amendments that could 
possibly be ordered at one particular time and, therefore, doesn't give 
anyone else the opportunity to offer amendments. That has really been a 
problem for us on the minority side.
  We have that situation now, and perhaps the motion that will soon be 
made by Senator Cornyn will take care of that.
  But on this important Defense bill, which has been brought to the 
floor in a shorthand manner, the majority leader has filled the tree, 
and there are five amendments offered.
  One of the amendments, amendment No. 2555 by Senator Reid of Nevada, 
simply does this: Strike the words ``3 days'' and put ``4 days.''
  That is all the amendment does.
  Another amendment: Strike the words ``4 days'' and insert ``5 days.''
  That is all the amendment does.
  There is another amendment that says: The act shall be effective 3 
days after enactment.
  There is another amendment that helps fill the tree: Change the word 
``request'' to ``requested.''
  In other words, not substantive amendments, but amendments designed 
to simply fill up the parliamentary tree and prohibit Members on our 
side or other Members from offering a substantive motion that might 
affect the defense policy of the United States of America.
  I would simply point this out and reiterate what Senator Cornyn said 
earlier today. Since becoming majority leader, our current majority 
leader, Senator Reid of Nevada, has filled the tree 79 times--in other 
words, offered all the amendments, prohibiting us from even getting a 
vote, getting a debate, on an idea that we might have.
  By contrast, his 6 predecessors combined filled the tree only 49 
times; in other words 79 times by this majority leader and 40 times by 
the other Democratic and Republican majority leaders.
  Senate majority leader Bill Frist filled the tree 15 times during his 
4 years. Democratic leader Tom Daschle filled the tree only once during 
his 1\1/2\ years.
  Trent Lott was majority leader, and he did it 11 times in 5 years. 
George Mitchell from Maine, a very distinguished majority leader, 
filled the tree 3 times in 6 years; and Bob Dole, when he was majority 
leader, filled the tree 7 times in 3\1/2\ years.
  The point I am making--and then I will sit down--is that this 
majority leader, in an unprecedented manner, has filled the tree over 
and over. Why? To prevent other Senators from having an opportunity, as 
representatives of the 50 States, to offer ideas to improve bills and 
to get them on record on important issues.
  I would hope that we could have a parliamentary motion in just a few 
moments to allow this tree to be taken down and to allow the elected 
representatives of the 50 States to come before the President of the 
Senate and before the American people and offer different ideas.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. In a moment I will offer an amendment, and I know the 
distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee is here, but I 
wish to lay 5 minutes of groundwork.
  The majority leader was down here earlier today talking about all the 
``necessary votes'' that we have to have before everyone leaves town 
before the holidays. Of course, he was talking about a series of votes 
on nominees that he himself has set up since he is, in essence, the 
traffic cop for the Senate, and he gets to set the agenda unilaterally.
  We know that while the majority leader has set up this series of 
votes on nominations--none of which are urgent and couldn't be done in 
January, and all of which are controversial--the majority leader is 
refusing to allow any vote on restoring pension benefits to the men and 
women of the U.S. Armed Services.
  As we have talked about repeatedly over the last couple of days, the 
recent budget deal cuts their pension benefits by some $6 billion over 
10 years, and we have learned that this agreement slashes the pension 
benefits of some of our wounded warriors, people who are medically 
retired.
  Senator Murray from Washington, the distinguished chairman of the 
Senate Budget Committee, has called this a technical error--a technical 
error. She said it needs to be fixed, but we will do this next year.
  Merry Christmas to our wounded warriors whose pensions, by virtue of 
the legislation that passed yesterday, have now been cut.
  What makes matters worse is they have been discriminated against. No 
other Federal employee's pension benefits were cut, only those 
uniformed military members' pensions.
  She calls it a technical error. I called it a mistake that needs to 
be fixed--not next month, not next year, but right now, today.
  Why is it that the majority leader won't let us fix this right now. 
Why is it that he is blocking a vote on the relevant amendment? Why 
does he want to keep our veterans and our active duty military, 
including our wounded warriors, in limbo during the Christmas holidays?
  Does he have a good reason for it? Is it really more important to 
confirm some mid-level appointees than to

[[Page S9008]]

make sure that our wounded combat veterans get the pensions that they 
have earned?
  Is it really more important for the Democrats to jam us with 
nonessential, nonurgent nominees than to take care of the people who 
sacrificed so much for their country?
  One last question. Is it really more important to approve all of 
these nominees than to honor the men and women who lost their lives in 
a homegrown terrorist attack at Fort Hood, Texas, some 4 years ago at 
the hands of MAJ Nidal Hasan, a radicalized major in the U.S. Army who 
shouted the words ``Allahu Akbar'' before he proceeded to mow down 13 
people, costing them their lives, and to injure 30 more soldiers and 
uniformed military who were injured that day.
  The majority seems to think of this group of nonurgent, and 
controversial mid-level nominees that we have to get this done. That is 
why he is jamming this through and not allowing us to amend this 
legislation with a fix to the military pension or to allow us to honor 
the victims at Fort Hood with the recognition and the benefits that 
they so richly deserve.
  Unfortunately, like so much around here lately, it is politics all 
the time, even if that means sleighting our wounded warriors and 
refusing to honor 13 brave Americans who were killed by a terrorist 
attack at a U.S. Army base.
  I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending motion so that I may 
offer a motion to concur with amendment No. 2602, which is filed at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I wonder if the good Senator from Texas 
would consent to my being allowed to speak for 5 minutes prior to the 
motion to table, which I understand is going to be forthcoming?
  Mr. CORNYN. Responding to the distinguished Senator through the 
Chair, I would be happy for him to take whatever time he wishes to make 
comments now. Since he has made the objection, this would be a good 
time to do so, if he wishes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I very much appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from 
Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Let me try in 5 minutes to encapsulate what is in the bill 
and why we are where we are.
  The bill includes numerous provisions, as the Presiding Officer 
knows, to sustain the compensation and quality of life of our service 
men and women and their families--the quality of life they deserve as 
they face the hardships that are imposed by continuing military 
operations around the world.
  In just a few of these provisions are 30 types of bonuses and special 
pay, $25 million for supplemental impact aid to local education 
agencies with military dependent children, money to assist the 
Department of Defense in assisting veterans in their transition to 
civilian life, provisions for the Special Operations Command at $9 
billion, $1 billion for counter-IED efforts, a provision to require the 
Department of Defense to streamline the Department of Defense 
management headquarters at all levels by changing or reducing the size 
of staffs and eliminating tiers of management, cutting functions that 
provide little or no added value, and a new land withdrawal provision 
that the Marine Corps has been working so hard on at 29 Palms, CA. This 
is the No. 1 legislative priority of the Marine Corps. The Commandant 
explained to us that the Marine Corps has spent 6 years analyzing and 
preparing for this expansion so the Corps can meet its minimum training 
criteria.
  As General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told 
us a few weeks ago, the authorities in this Defense bill ``are critical 
to the Nation's defense and are urgently needed to ensure we keep faith 
with the men and women, military and civilians, selflessly serving in 
our armed forces.''
  Relative to the question of amendments which has been raised, we 
tried when this bill came to the floor to get consent to have 
amendments relate to the Defense authorization bill and we were unable 
to get that consent. We tried to get consent to adopt almost 40 cleared 
amendments as a managers' package. We could not get consent to do that. 
We asked to lock in 13 additional amendments for votes on both sides of 
the aisle, but equally divided, without prejudice as to further 
amendments that could be brought up but, again, there was objection.
  Now, at this point, here is where we are. With the House of 
Representatives having left for the year, the only way we are going to 
get a defense bill enacted is by passing the bill before us as it 
stands. If it is amended, the bill would have to go back to the House 
of Representatives and the result would be we would get nothing 
enacted, killing both amendments as well as the bill itself. It would 
put the Defense authorization bill in limbo.
  We have never done that. We have faced situations similar to this 2 
years of the prior 5. We have always managed to pass a National Defense 
Authorization Act for 51 straight years. We followed the process in 2 
of those last 5 years, which is not dissimilar to this process which we 
are following this year.
  Does that make this the best way to proceed? No. It is not the best 
way to proceed. But that is not the choice we face. Our troops and 
their families and our Nation's security deserve a defense bill. The 
bill before us is right for our troops, for their families, for our 
Nation's security, and it was produced in a bipartisan manner. Senator 
Inhofe, my ranking member, is here, and I think he will attest to the 
fact that we adopted dozens of amendments in our committee work on a 
bipartisan basis.
  This bill deserves a strong bipartisan vote of the Senate today, but 
to do that the motion to table, which I understand is about to be made, 
needs to be defeated.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LEVIN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. McCAIN. First, I want to thank Senator Levin and the Senator from 
Oklahoma for their leadership and hard work on this legislation, and I 
congratulate them on the great work they have done.
  But could I ask the Senator from Michigan, is this the first time in 
51 years that a defense authorization bill will be voted on without 
debate or any amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. There was debate and amendment on this bill the week 
before Thanksgiving. So it would not be----
  Mr. McCAIN. Excuse me, without extended debate and addressing the 
issues of sexual assault, NSA, detainees. Have any of those issues been 
addressed by debate and amendment on the floor of the Senate?
  Mr. LEVIN. Well, the sexual assault amendments which were pending, as 
my good friend from Arizona knows, were debated. There are about 20-
plus sexual assault amendments that are in the bill so it makes major 
advances in that area.
  In terms of the two amendments that I think the Senator is referring 
to--the amendments of Senator McCaskill and Senator Gillibrand--there 
was about a day-long debate on those, and there was an effort to vote 
on them. I think everybody wanted to vote on those two amendments, but 
there was objection to it.
  In terms of what I believe the Senator is driving at, there was a 
time--I think it was in 2011 or 2012--when a Defense authorization bill 
was, in fact, adopted by unanimous consent. I think there was no debate 
on the bill that was finally adopted.
  Having said that, I happen to agree this is not the ideal way to 
adopt a defense bill. I have said that over and over. And I have 
pointed out the way in which we tried to at least get some amendments 
adopted, including about 30 that had been agreed to and had been 
cleared, but we couldn't even get those added.
  Now, with Senator Inhofe's help, we were able to get much of the 
material in those amendments that were worked out between us and the 
House leaders so that they are in this bill; not all of the amendments 
that had been cleared but many of them. But I happen to agree with my 
friends, this is not the ideal way to proceed. But we are now where we 
are, and if we simply reopen this bill and do not adopt it the way it

[[Page S9009]]

is, it then has to go back to the House of Representatives, and then 
there would not be a defense bill, with all of the then-problems that 
would be created for our troops and their families. So this is the best 
we can do, but it is not ideal.
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I finally say to the Senator, I have never seen a 
process like this before. Maybe there have been some parallels, No. 1. 
No. 2, here we are on December 19 of 2013 and we passed a bill through 
the committee in May. So here we are, many months later, taking up a 
bill because the majority's priorities were obviously not to bring up 
the Defense authorization bill until it was so late we are forced into 
this cramped procedure.
  There is no doubt--and I thank the Senator and my distinguished 
chairman--that we haven't debated this bill. We haven't debated NSA. We 
haven't debated this issue of sexual assaults, with two different 
opinions here, the sanctions, the detainee issue--all of those issues.
  I remember in the markup we said we will wait. It is so important, we 
will wait and amend this on the floor. So I don't think we have done 
the men and women who are serving in the military anything but a gross 
disservice by, in December, having a bill rammed through the Senate, 
and that is because of a lack of priorities on the part of leadership. 
We could have taken this bill to the floor of the Senate in June and we 
didn't. What a shame.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I know the distinguished ranking member 
of the Armed Services Committee is here. I would be glad to yield to 
him, if I can retain the right to the floor. I think he has a few 
comments he wanted to make in response to the chairman. If I can do 
that, I would ask unanimous consent to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me make a couple of comments here. 
Oddly enough, I agree with everything the Senator from Arizona said, 
and the Senator from Texas. It is true. The process was terrible.
  I have been here--well, I guess between the House committee and this 
committee--for 22 years, and I don't think I have ever seen anything 
like it. But the effort was there to have a bill early on. I know, in 
working very closely with the chairman--and I have never had an 
opportunity to work that closely with someone in developing a bill, but 
we did--that it was his desire to have a bill, and it is still his 
desire to have a bill. The problem is we went through the option that 
everyone finds so offensive, and I find so offensive, and it has 
changed the Senate. The evidence of that is what happened in this bill.
  We had people who wanted to have amendments. So what I did, I went on 
a Thursday--I recall that--to a Republican lunch, and I went there with 
25 amendments and I said: Would you all agree to cut your amendment 
requests, which were over 100, down to 25? If I can take that and show 
it to the other side, I will see if that is acceptable. They agreed to 
that.
  I want to repeat that. The Republicans agreed to actually 25 
amendments. So I went to the other side and I could not get an 
agreement on the other side. So that effort was there.
  As far as the amendments are concerned, the chairman has said several 
times that we considered these amendments. We did. To be specific, 79 
amendments were put in this bill, of which over half were Republican 
amendments. So we tried our best to put everything in there, and it got 
down to the point of do we want a bill or do we not want a bill. So I 
want to emphasize this is not on the merits of the bill.
  The bill is a good bill. My colleagues have heard us more than they 
want to hear us talk about what all is in this bill. It is a good bill. 
I think it might be better than the bill we passed out, and maybe even 
the House bill. But nonetheless, it is down to that or nothing. And it 
is for that reason I think we have to have the bill.
  But I agree we have to keep talking about how bad the process was to 
make sure that it never happens again. We, as the minority, are 
entitled to have our amendments, the same as the other side, when they 
become a minority, are going to be entitled to have their amendments.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, to clarify, I believe the Defense 
authorization bill will pass this evening. That is not in any doubt. 
The problem is this isn't just about the process, this isn't just about 
minority rights in the Senate, but this is about people getting hurt. 
And the people I am talking about are our Active-Duty military whose 
pensions have been cut by the vote we cast yesterday passing the budget 
deal. All we want to do is fix that.
  There is bipartisan consensus this was a big mistake, and we could 
pass that, if the majority leader would allow us, today; it would pass 
through the House, as I said yesterday, like a hot knife through 
butter. Everyone agrees this was a mistake, and that is what the 
process is supposed to do, to fix this kind of error before it happens; 
and now that it has happened, to remedy it through an amendment. But 
this is exactly what the majority leader is denying us the opportunity 
to do and why this is so important.
  I mention again, so it not be forgotten, the 12 Americans who were 
killed at Fort Hood some 4 years ago by a domestic terrorist attack, 
along with 30 others whose lives were changed forever when they were 
shot by MAJ Nidal Hasan, who had become radicalized by the same cleric 
whom President Obama targeted on his kill list with a drone attack in 
Yemen, and appropriately so. He was an agent of al-Qaida. To now call 
this workplace violence and not to give us a chance to recognize the 
loss of lives in an act of war and to make sure these patriots get the 
benefits they are entitled to is just wrong.
  So this is not just about the process, it is not just about minority 
rights, it is about real people getting hurt and our ability to fix 
that today. That is being denied as a result of this process.
  I would conclude by saying the distinguished Senator from Arizona is 
exactly right. The average number of amendments since 1996 on the 
national defense authorization bill is 138 amendments--138 amendments. 
The average number of recorded votes, 11\1/2\. The average number of 
days we are on the bill is 8.8. So this is a big, important, profoundly 
significant piece of legislation, yet it is being jammed through here 
in about 24 hours without any opportunity to offer amendments.
  Madam President, parliamentary inquiry. Is it correct that no Senator 
is permitted to offer an amendment to the House-passed Defense bill 
while the majority leader's motion to concur with a further amendment 
is pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. CORNYN. Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam President. If a 
motion to table the Reid amendment to concur with a further amendment 
is successful, would there be an opportunity to offer my amendment, No. 
2602, the Fort Hood Purple Heart bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                  Motion to Table the Motion to Concur

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, in order to offer that amendment and 
others that I believe would be in order and should be allowed to be 
offered, I move to table the pending Reid motion to concur with a 
further amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 283 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

[[Page S9010]]



                                NAYS--55

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
  The motion was rejected.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRANKEN. 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. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Economic Recovery

  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about some of the 
important work we can be doing to help strengthen our economic recovery 
and to get more Minnesotans and more Americans across the country into 
jobs.
  During the government shutdown in October, I came to the floor to 
talk about how the shutdown was preventing us from doing the work that 
people sent us here to do. Every day we spent on the shutdown was a day 
we weren't working together to create jobs and to rebuild the middle 
class. The budget deal we passed this week is far from perfect, but it 
is my hope it will enable us to stop lurching from crisis to crisis and 
focus on the work we were sent to do.
  This agreement means businesses will have the stability and certainty 
they need to create jobs and strengthen our economy, and it allows us 
to focus on educating our kids, creating a 21st century workforce, and 
putting people back to work.
  As I said, this budget deal is far from perfect; it is a compromise 
and, as with any compromise, it has elements I like, elements I don't 
like, and elements others like and don't like that may be different. In 
addition to providing some budgetary certainty for the next 2 years, 
the budget deal undoes some of the extreme across-the-board cuts of the 
sequester that will enable us to make more of the critical investments 
we need to make in education, research and development, and 
infrastructure. We will make those investments while replacing the 
irrational cuts of the sequester with more responsible debt and deficit 
reduction. In fact, the bill ultimately reduces the debt by about $20 
billion more than under the previous budget that included the full 
sequester.
  At the same time, I am very troubled by the fact that the bill pays 
for undoing some of the extreme, across-the-board cuts of the sequester 
in part by reducing some military pensions. That was something pushed 
for by the lead Republican negotiator, and I am not happy about it. I 
believe there are cuts we can make to defense spending, but cutting 
military pensions is not one of them. That is why I am cosponsoring a 
bill authored by Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire that would 
replace those cuts to military pensions by closing an indefensible and 
wasteful corporate tax loophole, and I hope we can get that done before 
the cut to military pensions goes into effect.
  I am also very troubled that the budget deal does not include an 
extension of critical emergency unemployment insurance. Extending this 
unemployment insurance is one of the things we need to be doing for the 
economy. Too many Americans remain unemployed, and those who have been 
unemployed the longest are facing the expiration of their unemployment 
insurance when they need it the most. There are 65,000 workers in 
Minnesota and millions throughout our country who may need this 
extended unemployment insurance in 2014. These folks are struggling. 
They are struggling to find jobs and to support their families.
  Not extending unemployment insurance will also put the brakes on our 
economic recovery. In 2011, the CBO wrote that aid to the unemployed is 
among the policies with ``the largest effects on output and employment 
per dollar of budgetary cost.'' Without an extension the Council of 
Economic Advisers estimates the economy will generate 240,000 fewer 
jobs by the end of 2014. That is why I have been working to continue 
the extension of unemployment insurance and I will keep pushing for the 
Senate to take up and pass an extension when we return in the new year.
  Another thing we should do to strengthen the economy and help working 
Americans is to raise the minimum wage. We established a minimum wage 
because we believed that no one should work full-time, contributing to 
society, and live in poverty. Americans value work. We work more hours 
on average than citizens in other developed countries. The minimum wage 
is supposed to help guarantee that if a person works hard and plays by 
the rules, they at least will have a roof over their head and be able 
to put food on the table.
  This year marks 75 years with a Federal minimum wage. However, today, 
because the minimum wage is too low, it is not doing what it is 
supposed to do. Today, a minimum wage worker making $7.25 an hour or 
about $15,000 per year falls below the poverty line, even though they 
work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year. Inflation has eroded the value 
of the minimum wage. If the minimum wage had simply kept pace with 
inflation since 1968--not raised in real terms but just kept pace with 
inflation--it would be at $10.75 an hour today. That is a wage that 
would at least keep a family of three above the poverty line.
  What has happened to the minimum wage is part of a larger trend for 
American workers. Over the past 50 years, American workers have 
increased their productivity by 135 percent--a 135-percent increase. 
But the value of their wages has not changed, and the real value of the 
minimum wage has dropped by 33 percent over that same time. Over just 
the past few years, costs have climbed. Americans are paying more for 
electricity, rent, auto repair, food, childcare, and many others 
things. Yet most wages for workers have stagnated and the minimum wage 
has fallen.
  That is why I think one of the most important ways we can boost our 
economy and help workers and families is to increase the minimum wage. 
Americans agree. Americans strongly favor boosting the Federal minimum 
wage to $10.10 an hour. In a recent survey, 63 percent supported 
raising the minimum wage to $10.10 from the current $7.25 rate. 
Moreover, the support for increasing the minimum wage is broad-based: 
The rich, the poor, Republicans and Democrats all believe we should 
raise the minimum wage.
  Increasing the minimum wage will be good for Minnesota, and there is 
a parallel effort at the State level to increase the State minimum 
wage. If we increase the Federal minimum wage to $10.10, it will affect 
462,000 Minnesota workers over 3 years. That is 18 percent of 
Minnesota's workforce. It will increase our State's GDP by $400 
million. That is something we must fight for.
  Extending unemployment benefits and increasing the minimum wage are 
crucial things we can be doing to support the American value that if 
you work hard, you should be able to support yourself and your family.
  There is more we can be doing. I am part of the Manufacturing Jobs 
for America initiative that several of my colleagues in the Senate, and 
headed by the Presiding Officer, have undertaken. As part of that 
initiative, I wish to speak about an issue I have spoken about on the 
floor before--an issue I hear about from manufacturers all over 
Minnesota--the skills gap. What is the skills gap? Recent studies have 
shown that between one-third and one-half of manufacturers in my State 
of Minnesota have at least one job they can't fill because they can't 
find a worker with the right skills to fill that job. That is the 
skills gap in Minnesota, but it is not just Minnesota. This is a 
nationwide phenomenon. As I roam this

[[Page S9011]]

floor to talk to my colleagues, every one of them knows of this 
phenomenon in their State. A 2011 survey by Deloitte found that there 
were 600,000 manufacturing jobs nationwide that were unfilled because 
of a skills shortage.

  It is not just manufacturers either. There is a skills gap in 
information technology, in health care, and in other sectors that have 
jobs sitting there waiting for skilled workers to fill them. There are 
more than 3 million jobs in this country that could be filled today if 
there were workers who had the right skills. With too many Americans 
unemployed, we have to find a way to fill those jobs.
  The thing is we know how to solve this problem. We are taking steps 
to solve it in communities in Minnesota and around the country through 
partnerships between businesses and community and technical colleges 
that are training up workers and getting them into high-demand jobs 
right away.
  Let me talk briefly about an innovative program to bridge the skills 
gap in Minnesota. I recently visited the Right Skills Now Program at 
the Dunwoody College of Technology in Minneapolis and the South Central 
Community and Technical College in Mankato. Those two institutions are 
working on this together.
  At South Central I sat with about 8 to 10 manufacturers who had 
helped fund and design their program that gives workers the skills they 
need to operate a computer numerical control, or CNC, machine. They 
told me that between 8 or 10 of them they had more than 50 job openings 
they could fill that instant. At Dunwoody, their current placement rate 
from the Right Skills Now Program is 91 percent. You will have a hard 
time finding a more effective program.
  Dunwoody likes to emphasize that its students often come into the 
program after having just been laid off or that they are the long-term 
unemployed we hear about. After going through the program, they are 
placing 91 percent of them into good jobs in a growing industry here in 
this country.
  They told me about a student who had a successful career as a massage 
therapist. He was doing just fine until he began to experience pain 
from pre-arthritic symptoms. That spells trouble for a massage 
therapist. So he researched technical programs and joined Right Skills 
Now, and after going through the program he relaunched his career as a 
machinist.
  Careers are different from what they were a generation ago. Very few 
people stay working in one job for one company for their entire life 
anymore. Whether it is because of changing life circumstances such as 
the massage therapist turned machinist, or because of new technologies, 
most workers have many different jobs over the course of their working 
life now, and those jobs require many different skills. We need a 
workforce development system that is agile enough to keep up with those 
changing demands.
  That is essential not just so workers will be able to get the 
different skills they need over the course of their working lives; it 
is also going to be one of the keys to the United States remaining 
globally competitive. If our workers cannot adapt to the new industries 
that are constantly forming, we will lose those jobs to our global 
competitors. There is no better way to anticipate and to react to these 
changes than to connect businesses directly with our schools to get 
workers exactly what they need.
  This is also about college affordability. I have talked before about 
Erick Ajax, the CEO of EJ Ajax and Sons, a metal stamping and sheet 
metal fabrication company in Fridley, MN, that was founded by Erick's 
grandfather in 1945. Erick and other manufacturers partnered with 
Hennepin Technical College in Hennepin County to set up M-Powered, a 
fast-track training program to get workers what they need for entry-
level advanced manufacturing jobs.
  Erick gave me an example of one of his workers that I found exciting. 
This is what excites me, and not because it is extraordinary; it is 
because it is something we can duplicate over and over in this country. 
When he hires employees from these business-technical college 
partnerships, the way he looks at it is that they are on a career 
ladder that would otherwise not be available. He told me about one such 
hire, who was really good at his job. So Erick sent him back to school 
to get his associate's degree. The guy came back to work, continued to 
be a star, and a few years later Erick paid for him to go to the 
University of Minnesota, where he got his bachelor's degree. The guy is 
now head of quality control for EJ Ajax, an incredibly high-skilled job 
at an advanced manufacturing company.
  Now, understand, this guy graduated from college with no debt--zero 
debt--with a great job. When I think about college affordability, I 
think about that story.
  As I have said, we have a skills gap problem in manufacturing and 
other industries, and we have these partnerships that are successfully 
working to close that gap. So where do we come here in Congress? Well, 
I have gone around to Minnesota's community and technical colleges and 
talked to businesses, I have had roundtables, and I have talked to 
national experts in our State and from around the country, and the fact 
is we are not doing this fast enough. Sometimes these partnerships 
could do a lot more, train up a lot more people, with some extra 
funding--maybe to buy a really sophisticated machine or to hire an 
instructor with very specialized skills.
  So what I am proposing is a competitive grant program in a bill 
called the Community College to Career Fund Act. Under this program, 
businesses and community colleges would apply for grants based on how 
many jobs their partnership would create, what the value of those jobs 
would be to those hired, to their company, to the community, and how 
much skin do the businesses have in the game or maybe how much the 
community colleges and the businesses and the State have in the game.
  We have millions of open jobs that cannot be filled because of a 
skills shortage, and we know these partnerships are the most direct way 
to fill those jobs. We know that existing partnerships are not doing 
enough and cannot do enough, and they need more resources in order to 
truly meet the need that exists. So that is exactly what my bill would 
address.
  As we move forward with this budget deal, let's build on the progress 
it represents and set our sights a little higher. Let's support working 
families and help people who are struggling to find a job in today's 
slowly recovering economy. Let's help students and young people who 
have been held back by slow job growth get a foothold in the economy. 
Let's support partnerships between businesses and community and 
technical colleges to fill the jobs that are out there. Let's make this 
coming year the year that Congress works for Americans and puts 
Americans back to work.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, first let me commend my colleague from 
Minnesota and tell him that I proudly cosponsor his legislation. I have 
had visits throughout my State with community colleges and have watched 
this work, where they literally bring employers and future employees 
together at a community college--an affordable community college--they 
get the very best training, really focused on the job opening, and when 
it is finished, they go right to work and they make a good salary.
  I tell you, I think this is the future. This is an excellent idea. I 
was happy to support it. I have shamelessly stolen it and said it was 
my idea in a few places, but I will confess to the Senator on the 
floor----
  Mr. FRANKEN. It is an honor for me to acknowledge that the Senator 
has stolen my idea.
  Mr. DURBIN. I want to tell him that I am going to admit this on the 
floor and give him credit but be happy to join him in this effort.
  Mr. FRANKEN. I thank the Senator. And in Illinois the Senator is free 
to say it is his idea.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator very much.


                             The DREAM Act

  Mr. President, maybe we will be in session 24 hours, 48 hours, 72 
hours, and then we are finished, the year 2013 comes to a close. The 
unfortunate thing from where I am standing is we have missed an 
opportunity. About 6

[[Page S9012]]

months ago, we passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill. It had 
been 25 years in the making.
  We know our immigration system is broken. We know it is unfair. We 
know people are suffering because of it. And we know we can do better. 
So we came together and 68 of us voted on the floor of the Senate, 
about 6 months ago, to pass comprehensive immigration reform.
  I worked on that bill with seven colleagues--four Democrats, four 
Republicans. We came up with a good bill, not a bill I agree with in 
all of its specifics, but one that I think is a good, fair compromise.
  We sent it to the House of Representatives. They have done nothing--
nothing. They made some statements--some encouraging, some 
discouraging. The fact is, they never called this bill.
  Mr. President, 2014 is another opportunity for the House of 
Representatives to rise to this challenge, and I hope they will.
  There are many parts of that bill that are so essential--
strengthening our border, a very important issue to all Americans, 
particularly on the other side of the aisle; a pathway to citizenship, 
just a matter of simple, elemental justice, which is a passion on our 
side of the aisle. We brought those two concepts together to make the 
bill work.
  But included in those concepts is an idea which I introduced into 
legislation about 13 years ago. It was called the DREAM Act. It 
basically said if you came to the United States as a child, were 
brought here in undocumented status or overstayed a visa and were here 
undocumented, finished high school, had no serious criminal background, 
we would give you a chance, a chance to earn your way to citizenship--
legality and citizenship.
  Last week, I visited a group on the Mall who were fighting for 
immigration reform. Since the middle of November, these immigration, 
faith, and labor leaders have been fasting, urging the House of 
Representatives to take up this responsibility and pass the immigration 
bill.
  Their commitment to fighting for immigration reform has inspired 
people all across this Nation to join the movement and to tell stories 
about families torn apart by the broken immigration law in America.
  We cannot ignore the injustice of this system and the suffering that 
millions of people in our own country are living with.
  I want to urge Speaker Boehner to move forward on immigration reform 
in 2014. I understand there is a small, very vocal, very negative 
minority of his caucus that refuses to support any change in 
immigration law. But that is nothing new. In our Nation of immigrants, 
there has always been that force at work. In the time of Abraham 
Lincoln's Presidency, they even had a political party. It was the Know-
Nothing Party. They opposed immigrants. They opposed Catholics. They 
were virtually against everything. Lincoln campaigned against them, and 
eventually they disappeared from the American political scene. But 
their sentiments can always be found at every point in our history.
  The one part of this immigration bill, as I mentioned earlier, that 
is near and dear to me is the DREAM Act. I fought to pass it for 12 
years. There were times when we called the DREAM Act on the floor of 
the U.S. Senate, and I would look up in the gallery and it would be 
filled with young people, men and women wearing graduation gowns and 
mortar boards, to remind people that they were undocumented, officially 
unwelcome in America, and yet their heart was here and their lives have 
been spent here and they were just asking for a chance to be part of 
our future. Some heartbreaking moments when the amendment was defeated 
on the floor of the Senate and I met with them; some encouraging 
moments when the comprehensive bill passed and included the strongest 
DREAM Act language that we have ever written.
  For most of their lives, these young people have been trapped in the 
shadows, fearing they could be deported at any moment and facing 
obstacles to developing their talents in this country. Isn't it ironic 
that we have invested so much already in their lives--educating them, 
giving them an opportunity to thrive in this Nation--and then, right at 
that moment when they are ready to go to college or go into a job--we 
tell them: Leave. We do not want you. That is not right. It is not 
fair. It does not make any sense.
  Last year, President Obama did something that was significant. He 
announced his administration would grant temporary legal status to 
these immigrant students who grew up in the United States. This 
historic program is known as DACA. DACA stands for Deferred Action for 
Childhood Arrivals. It gave the DREAMers a chance to come out of the 
shadows and be part of America. In the last year, more than 567,000 
people have applied for this DACA status; 460,000 have received it.
  Later today or tomorrow, the Senate will vote on the nomination of 
Alejandro Mayorkas to be Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland 
Security, which I will support.
  As Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Mr. 
Mayorkas has been charged with implementing DACA, the President's 
Executive order.
  It was a complicated job, but Mr. Mayorkas did it in an outstanding 
way.
  Earlier this week my colleague and friend Senator Grassley of Iowa 
spoke on the floor about Mr. Mayorkas and the DACA program. I wish to 
take a moment to respond to some of the things he said in the 
Congressional Record.
  Senator Grassley initially questioned the legality of this DACA 
program. I want to be clear. DACA is entirely appropriate and legal. 
Throughout our history, our government has decided which persons should 
be prosecuted and which ones would not be prosecuted based on law 
enforcement priority and available resources. Past administrations of 
both political parties have stopped deportations of low-priority cases. 
Courts have long recognized their authority to do that.
  In a decision last year striking down Arizona's immigration laws, the 
Court reaffirmed that the Federal Government has broad authority over 
who is going to be deported. Republican-appointed Justice Anthony 
Kennedy, who wrote the opinion, said: ``A principle feature of the 
removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration 
officials.''
  The President's action is not just legal, it is smart. It is 
realistic. Today there are millions of undocumented immigrants in the 
United States. The government has to set priorities. Those with 
criminal records, serious criminal records, should leave. They should 
be deported--no excuses. Under the Obama administration's policy, that 
is a high priority. That is the way it should be.
  Senator Grassley also claimed on the floor that the immigration 
service has not released adequate information about the DACA program. I 
disagree with my colleague and friend. USCIS has been transparent about 
this process, publishing data on its Web site showing the number of 
applicants who applied and those who have been accepted and rejected.
  For the past few years I have come to the floor of the Senate 
regularly to tell real-life stories of those DREAMers. I have done it 
over 50 times. We actually had a reunion of the DREAMers I have spoken 
of on the floor of the Senate. I want to take some time today to update 
the story of one of those DREAMers.
  This is a photograph of two brothers, Carlos and Rafael. They are 
siblings who were brought to the United States by their parents when 
they were kids. Carlos grew up in suburban Chicago, graduated from 
Palatine High School, where he was an honors student. In high school 
Carlos was captain of the tennis team, a member of the varsity swim 
team. He volunteered with Palatine's Physically Challenged Program, 
where every day he helped feed lunch to special needs students.
  Listen to what one of Carlos's high school teachers said about him:

       Carlos is the kind of person we want among us because he 
     makes the community better. This is the kind of kid you want 
     as a student, the kind of kid you want as a neighbor, the 
     kind of kid you want as a friend to your child and, most 
     germane to his present circumstance, the kind of person you 
     want as an American.

  It is good news. Last week Carlos graduated from Loyola University in 
Chicago, majoring in education. His lifelong dream was to be a teacher. 
It almost did not come true. You see, last

[[Page S9013]]

year Carlos and his brother Rafael were placed in deportation 
proceedings. They were going to be expelled from the United States. I 
asked the Obama administration to reconsider. They decided to suspend 
the deportation. That was the right thing to do. After graduating from 
Loyola University, Carlos was offered a teaching position starting in 
just a few weeks. Carlos will be teaching at Schurz High School, a 
Chicago public school on the northwest side. In addition to his 
teaching duties, Carlos will also be helping with the school's DREAMers 
organization and the tennis team, a sport he knew well from high 
school.
  There is no question that we need the best and brightest to teach in 
our schools. We need people like Carlos who are committed to the next 
generation of tomorrow's leaders.
  Teach for America knows that great teachers can come from all walks 
of life, from graduating seniors in our Nation's most elite colleges, 
to former investment bankers and veterans. Last week Teach for America 
announced that it plans to actively recruit DREAMers who have received 
DACA deferment, so more DREAMers like Carlos will be able to give back 
to the country they know. They will be in classrooms not only teaching 
the important subjects, but with their very lives they will be teaching 
the next generation of Americans what immigration has always meant to 
this country.
  I ask my colleagues who stand on the floor critical of the 
administration's deportation policies, would America be better off if 
Carlos had been deported last year? Would Chicago be better if this 
bright, idealistic young teacher was not headed to the classrooms in a 
few weeks to try to help educate the next generation of leaders in this 
country? Of course not.
  To hear Carlos's story is to realize the benefits immigration reform 
will bring to America. Imagine what is going to happen when 11 million 
undocumented immigrants have the opportunity to step out of the 
shadows, like these DREAMers, and contribute fully to America. Imagine 
what it will mean to them to no longer live in fear of a knock on the 
door, to be able to declare who they are, where they live, who is in 
their family, to be able to work without any fear, to be able to 
travel, to go back to important family events in other countries and 
return to the United States.
  Legalization will unleash the earning potential of millions of 
people. They will be able to pursue jobs that match their skills 
instead of working in the underground economy.
  It is the right thing to do. It will make America stronger. I am 
confident that wiser voices will prevail in the House of 
Representatives.
  Just the other day I had a conference call with Catholic bishops. 
They have made this a special effort on their part to support 
comprehensive immigration reform. They were from all over the United 
States. In addition to their prayers, I asked them to reach out to 
their congregations, tell stories like Carlos's story and Rafael's 
story, and tell people this is really very fundamental and basic when 
it comes to issues of justice.


                  For-Profit Colleges and Universities

  Mr. President, I have come to the floor I cannot tell you how many 
times to talk about an industry in America--the for-profit college and 
university industry. I have talked about the basics. Most people could 
not tell you what for-profit colleges are or which ones are for-profit. 
Well, the major colleges--I will start at the top with the Apollo 
Group, the University of Phoenix, and DeVry out of Illinois is second. 
Kaplan, which was owned by the Washington Post, is third. There are a 
lot of other ones.
  What is interesting about these colleges and universities is they 
could not exist without generous subsidies from the Federal Government. 
Here is what happens. They lure students into enrolling in their 
schools. The students, often because they are low income, qualify for 
Pell grants and student loans. The Pell grants and student loans flow 
from the government through the student into the for-profit schools.
  It turns out there is a 90-10 rule. Imagine this. These for-profit 
schools cannot take more than 90 percent of their revenue from the 
Federal Government--90 percent. They are 10 percent away from being a 
total Federal agency. But they make amazing amounts of money, huge 
amounts of money. They pay their CEOs millions of dollar because this 
is a very lucrative undertaking.
  But there are three things you should remember about for-profit 
schools--three numbers. You will know what the challenge is if you 
remember these three numbers:
  Twelve. Twelve percent of all the graduates of high school go to for-
profit schools.
  Twenty-five. Twenty-five percent of all the Federal aid for education 
goes to these schools.
  Forty-seven. Forty-seven percent of all the student loan defaults are 
with students who have enrolled in these for-profit schools.
  So 12 percent of the students, 25 percent of the Federal aid for 
education, and 47 percent of the student loan defaults.
  Why are these students defaulting? There are several reasons. One 
reason is that the diplomas from these schools are not worth much. I 
will tell a few stories in a moment. The other reason is that once the 
school enrolls these students and brings in their student loans, they 
really do not care that much as to whether they finish. It is not that 
important to them. The money has already flowed to the school. A third 
reason, of course, is that many of these students finish school, and 
with their questionable or worthless diplomas, they cannot find jobs. 
What happens then? They cannot make their student loan payments.
  I will tell some specific stories when I talk about one of these for-
profit school operations. It is called Corinthian Colleges, which is a 
publicly traded corporation that owns for-profit schools in the United 
States and Canada. It is now in the spotlight for engaging in 
manipulative marketing and deceptive job-placement practices.
  Earlier this week, a Huffington Post article called attention to 
these abuses. It was entitled ``How a For-Profit College Created Fake 
Jobs to Get Taxpayer Money.'' The headline says the whole story. The 
article reports that Corinthian has been encouraging the manipulation 
of job-placement rates to entice students to sign up for programs and 
to avoid the scrutiny of the government and the accreditors.
  Corinthian College subsidiaries--Everest College is one of them--have 
been criticized in the past for having high dropout rates and some of 
the highest 3-year loan default rates in America even while its tuition 
rates are higher than community colleges or even flagship State schools 
for an equivalent degree. In spite of the bad press, Corinthian 
Colleges--such as Everest--have managed to come out on top, increasing 
enrollment, increasing profit margins, and increasing payments for 
their executives. It would appear these gains were at least in part due 
to the manipulative marketing practices and a corporate culture of 
deceit toward its students.
  According to this article, Eric Parms enrolled in Everest College's 
heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning repair program in the summer 
of 2011. Eric had been laid off from his job. He was attracted to 
Everest because of the promise from its advertisements and recruiters 
that their HVAC program would lead to a good job and a decent living. 
So Eric picked up his family--his wife and two sons--and he moved from 
Ohio to Georgia to enroll in this Corinthian school, the Everest 
College program. He was a good student. Eric received all A's, only 
missing one class on the day his 7-year-old son was diagnosed with 
leukemia. After completing the 9-month program, Eric Parms was left 
with a $17,000 student loan debt and could not find a job.
  What Eric did not know was Everest College was paying more than a 
dozen local employers what they called an on-boarding allowance of 
$2,000 a head to secure 30 days of employment for their graduates. 
These were not real jobs; these were jobs which Corinthian Colleges--
Everest College--were frankly bankrolling so it looked as if their 
graduates were going to work. The money was purportedly a fee to help 
pay for things such as training and uniforms. In reality, by paying 
companies to take graduates for temporary jobs, the Everest College was 
able to boost

[[Page S9014]]

its official job-placement rate unrealistically. This helped Everest 
College continue to fly under the radar of its accreditors.
  However, Corinthian paid companies for jobs without considering the 
long-term effects on students. The fact that they would sign them up 
for 30 days and then turn them loose really did not mean that much to 
Corinthian; they just had to show that they went to work at some point.
  Well, after he graduated Eric had to beg the school's career service 
counselor to even set up interviews. Even then, he would arrive at 
interviews supposedly set up for him, and the potential employers would 
tell him they had never heard of Everest College. Remember, Eric Parms 
was on the hook for $17,000 in student loans for this course he took.
  Finally, Eric was set up by career services to work in a contract 
position with ADG Enterprises laying electrical wires. After less than 
2 months on the job, he was laid off and cut off from career services 
from Everest. Everest had used him to get $17,000 in student loans and 
turned him loose without a job, without a future.
  In fact, managers discouraged career counselors at Everest from re-
placing people who had already been placed in a job. They were instead 
encouraged to send graduates to companies with high turnover rates, to 
provide temporary positions just so they could show that their 
graduates went to work even if it was just for a few days. The school 
had effectively placed Eric in a short-term internship program. Once it 
was over, there was no incentive for them to keep him. They turned him 
loose to vacate a space for another graduate and another $2,000 check. 
Then Everest would shuffle another graduate into the same position to 
artificially maintain that they were placing students in jobs. This was 
fraud--not just a fraud on the public, not just a fraud on the 
students, but a fraud on American taxpayers by Corinthian Colleges.
  Eric lost out on the deal--a $17,000 debt for a training degree he 
could not use. To get a Georgia HVAC contractor license, he needed to 
have significant work experience and references, and no one would hire 
him because they did not take his degree from Everest--part of the 
Corinthian College system--seriously.
  The practice of paying employers to hire graduates from this Everest 
campus ended in 2011, but it was not the only Corinthian school 
engaging in these practices. The California attorney general recently 
filed suit against Corinthian for using fraudulent marketing, paying 
companies to temporarily hire graduates, and using other tactics to 
meet accreditation standards and job-placement rates. These other 
tactics included paying temporary agencies to hire graduates for 
temporary positions while basically counting a 1-day volunteer event 
for dental assistant graduates as a job placement and, worse yet, 
``placing'' graduates at nonexistent businesses they created as part of 
a class project to design business cards.
  It was a big game for Corinthian, and they got paid off handsomely by 
Federal taxpayers and these unsuspecting students.
  Corinthian has also outright misrepresented job placement rates to 
students by advertising numbers substantially higher than their actual 
rates. These deceptive practices give the illusion that this is a 
successful undertaking. Go to Everest and get a job. It turns out that 
it is a charade.
  In addition to manipulation of job placement rates, recruiters for 
Corinthian colleges and schools withhold pertinent information from 
students to get them to enroll.
  Lindsay Ryan, another student at Everest College who contacted my 
office, studied criminal justice online and was 12 weeks away from 
graduation when she learned that Everest was not regionally accredited 
and that she wouldn't be able to find a job in her field in the State 
of Illinois.
  One would think that a college offering courses to people in Illinois 
would have some obligation to tell them whether or not a degree or 
certificate from that school could lead to a job in that State?
  In Lindsay's case it didn't.
  Do you know what Everest College suggested to Lindsay after she had 
been duped into this so-called education? They suggested she move to 
Florida where she might be able to use an Everest College degree. That 
wasn't an option for Lindsay and her family.
  Now she sits, unemployed, supporting three children, her husband, and 
a $24,000 student loan debt to this Corinthian college, Everest 
College, for a worthless degree.
  Over the past decade Corinthian colleges have received from the 
Federal Government nearly $10 billion in student aid--$10 billion. That 
makes up more than 80 percent of the total revenue of this college. 
These schools, these for-profit schools, are sucking on the Federal 
Treasury to come up with billions of dollars to get rich at the expense 
of taxpayers and these poor exploited students.
  Corinthian grew during our recession, reaching a peak enrollment of 
93,000 students, doubling revenue up to $1.7 billion in 2011. This is 
in part due to a persuasive but deceptive marketing plan promising a 
better career to people such as Eric and Lindsay who were looking for a 
way out during difficult times.
  Toya Smith, a former Everest career counselor who was interviewed by 
Huffington Post, recognized that for-profit schools burden students 
with large debts, a questionable degree, and poor job prospects--while 
the company was profiting on Federal dollars.
  She said: ``You're selling a dream to a student that you know, in 
reality, they are not ever going to realize.''
  Did I mention Toya was a former counselor at Everest? She told the 
truth.
  How many more times will Corinthian end up in the news for deplorable 
stories such as these? I have asked the CEO of Corinthian to explain 
these practices. His name is Massimino. He was paid more than $3 
million in total compensation the last year that was reported by this 
corporation. I have asked him not to engage in this conduct again.
  I have also written to Everest College's national accreditors, the 
Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools and the 
Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges, asking what 
steps they are going to take to sanction Everest for these egregious 
abuses of the public trust.
  Finally, I have asked the Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, to 
look into these allegations and to use whatever authorities the 
Department may have to hold Everest and its parent company, Corinthian, 
accountable.
  If no authorities exist, I have asked him to work with me in Congress 
to give the Department the ability to respond more aggressively to 
abuses such as the ones I have outlined for Corinthian.
  It is time to put an end to the corporate culture of deception and 
data manipulation that pervades the for-profit school industry. They 
are wasting taxpayers' dollars. They are abusing students and their 
families. We in Congress are not doing what we should.
  We have to protect these students and their families. We have to 
protect America's taxpayers from for-profit schools that are taking 
advantage of the law.
  I yield the floor and 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. ISAKSON. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Tribute to Paul Yates

  Mr. ISAKSON. Merry Christmas to the Presiding Officer and to all 
those who might be watching C-SPAN.
  We are getting close to the big holiday, and it is a time when I come 
to the well to pay tribute to a great newsman in Georgia who is 
retiring after 40 years in television on the Georgia beat: Paul Yates, 
with WAGA-TV, Fox 5, in Atlanta. He has served for 35 consecutive years 
at the same station.
  In fact, when I ran for Governor in Georgia in 1990 he covered that 
race. He has covered all of my Senate races, and he covered all of my 
legislative races. When we were in the legislature

[[Page S9015]]

and in session, he covered every day of the Georgia legislature and has 
for over three decades.
  He has made a tremendous contribution to our State and the level, 
quality, and respect for the very best that journalism can expect. As 
Paul Yates retires from his service after years of service to the 
people of Georgia at WAGA-TV, and as one who he has covered--both good 
and bad--I wish to pay tribute to a great journalist, a great friend, 
and a man who has done a great service to the people of my State of 
Georgia.
  I yield the floor, and 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. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me first comment about the National 
Defense Authorization Act. It is an important bill for us to pass, and 
I wish to thank Senator Levin and Senator Inhofe for the manner in 
which they worked on this legislation, bringing it together in the 
committee. It was a bipartisan bill. As it came to the floor it 
maintained that focus on helping our troops and helping preserve our 
national security. As we were starting to consider amendments, I think 
some cooperation was there. Unfortunately, we lost track of being able 
to consider amendments in a somewhat normal course.
  But the bill before us represents a bipartisan effort to make sure we 
provide the men and women who are defending our Nation the tools they 
need in order to carry out their mission, and we give them the support 
they deserve for serving their country. So this bill is a critically 
important bill, and I am glad that with the earlier vote, we are on 
track to send this to the President for his signature before the end of 
the year. It is very important. The bill provides many important 
provisions for the health care of our troops, many important provisions 
for their compensation, and it is important we get that done before 
January 1.
  The bill also provides the tools they need and the direction they 
need in terms of foreign policy in our military.
  I wish to thank the committee. Several of the suggestions I made 
during the committee process were incorporated in the bill that came to 
the floor. I have the honor of chairing the East Asian and Pacific 
Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and 
serving with the distinguished Presiding Officer who also serves on 
that subcommittee. In that capacity we worked with the committee to 
deal with some of the issues in that region, provisions dealing with 
the health care of our military personnel and many of the other issues. 
I am glad to see the committee did incorporate some of the concerns 
that had been expressed.
  Two specific amendments I had noted during the amendment process have 
been incorporated in the bill that is before us. One deals with health 
care and the other deals with parity between our civilian workforce for 
the Department of Defense and our contract workforce. I appreciate that 
those two amendments have been incorporated into the bill we have 
before us.
  Similar to many of my colleagues who have come to the floor, I am 
disappointed. On any bill that comes forward that is a bipartisan bill 
there are compromises and there will always be disappointments about 
not being exactly everything you want it to be.
  That is understandable. What is very disappointing is that we didn't 
have a chance to offer many amendments that are not controversial. The 
only way an amendment could get on after it came through the committee 
was through a clearing process, and I think there are many other 
amendments that could have gotten into this bill that would have been 
important, but I will look for other opportunities.
  I had three amendments that I will mention now that I will look for 
other opportunities to advance. One comes directly out of the 
subcommittee I chair, and that deals with maritime security issues in 
the China seas. That is a powder keg, where China most recently took 
steps in regard to airspace that only made that situation even more 
tense. The maintaining of maritime security is critically important to 
the United States. It is the major shipping lane for commerce not only 
in that region but globally, and it is an area that could bring about 
unfortunate conflicts between many countries in that region which could 
mushroom into active situations. So maritime security is a very 
important issue, and the United States has taken a very active position 
on that to say: Look. These matters have to be talked about directly by 
the countries involved in a peaceful manner, not in an intimidating 
manner. The amendment I offered would have furthered the Senate in 
supporting that position.
  I was also disappointed not to be able to offer an amendment which 
dealt with the accountability particularly of Assad in Syria but also 
of those who have committed war crimes in Syria. The Presiding Officer 
knows of the testimony we have had in regard to the gross violation of 
human rights by government officials in Syria and the numbers of people 
who have been killed and have suffered as a result.
  The War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague should have the ability to deal 
with these types of issues, and the amendment I offered asked that the 
United States work for full accountability for those who have violated 
international standards in regard to war crimes.
  A third amendment I had offered that did not get in because of 
reasons I just mentioned was an effort that many are working on to form 
a partnership between the United States and Vietnam in regard to 
education programs--higher education. We have a way to do that. Senator 
McCain was very helpful to me in trying to advance this, and we will 
look for another opportunity to get that done because I think it is 
critically important.
  Many of us understand we have to improve the relationship between the 
United States and Vietnam, but Vietnam needs to deal with its human 
rights violations. It needs to deal with its good governance. One way 
we can help this is by dealing with institutions that promote 
democracy, and that is, of course, higher education.
  So while I am looking forward, with regard to all those areas, to 
finding other vehicles where we can deal with the issues we were not 
able to deal with through the amendment process, I would ask our 
colleagues to get this bill to the President so he can sign it before 
the end of this year.


                        Thanking Elise Mellinger

  Mr. President, I would also like to make a few comments about Elise 
Mellinger. As I mentioned earlier, Elise is a Pearson Foreign Service 
officer fellow. Let me explain what that means. She is an experienced 
member of the Department of State's Foreign Service. She served in 
India, Indonesia, and Singapore. She is a person who has served our 
country for many years, and she is a career diplomat at the State 
Department.
  For the past year, she has been assigned to my Senate office and has 
acted as a valuable member of my staff. That helps our career diplomats 
understand the congressional process better, but it also gives us the 
opportunity to have an experienced individual who truly understands the 
workings of diplomacy to be in our offices and help us carry out our 
responsibilities.
  In Elise's case, that was particularly helpful to me because at the 
beginning of this year I took on the new responsibility as the chair of 
the East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee. Throughout my career 
in Congress, I have spent a lot of time in Europe. I have chaired the 
U.S. Helsinki Commission, and I have traveled extensively to Europe, 
but it was a new venture for me to chair the East Asian and Pacific 
Affairs Subcommittee. Elise Mellinger brought me the expertise so we 
could--the Senate and the Committee on Senate Foreign Relations--carry 
out our responsibility in regard to congressional oversight and 
initiatives in regard to that region of the world.
  As a result of her hard work, we were able to have numerous hearings 
in 2013 on the rebalance to the Asia initiative President Obama brought 
forward, and to talk about many of the issues in that region of the 
world, from the maritime security issues I have already

[[Page S9016]]

talked about to environmental issues, to dealing with North Korea, a 
huge problem with not only their nuclearizing the Korean Peninsula, 
which is unacceptable, but the human rights violations in that country 
and how the people are being treated as far as economic growth, and the 
list goes on and on.
  Vietnam is a major country of interest. We have been able to be 
involved in that. We had a hearing on the typhoon in the Philippines 
that Elise Mellinger was critically important in helping us put 
together in a matter of days so we could become knowledgeable as to 
what was happening with one of our allies in that region--the 
Philippines--and what we could do and what the international community 
and the private sector could do in order to help the people of the 
Philippines. I traveled to that region, and Elise Mellinger was 
extremely important in preparing me for that trip.
  So I just wanted to share with my colleagues this program we have, 
where we have executive employees, career diplomats who come and work 
in our offices so we can work together and advance foreign policy in 
the United States. There should not be a difference between the 
executive and legislative branches in regard to our objective with 
foreign policy. Of course, we have oversight; of course, we have 
separation of powers; and for the entire year Elise Mellinger was in my 
office she was a 100-percent loyal person among our staff to carry out 
that responsibility. As I said to her earlier, I hope it does not 
affect her career when she goes back to the State Department, and I 
know it will not.
  I was very fortunate, indeed the Senate and I believe the American 
people were very fortunate, that Elise spent the year in service to her 
country through the Senate. She will be leaving very shortly, at the 
end of this month. So I wish to thank her, her family, her husband, 
Elliott Wu and her daughter, Eitana Wu for sharing Elise Mellinger with 
us. We wish her well. We are going to miss her. She is going on to 
return to the Canadian desk within the State Department before she 
accepts her next mission that will most likely be outside the United 
States.
  On behalf of all my colleagues in the Senate, I want to express my 
thanks and appreciation to Elise Mellinger.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this week the Senate is considering a 
couple of fairly big items. We had a vote earlier this week on a budget 
proposal to fund the government for the next couple of years, and we 
also are going to be voting on a defense authorization bill that is 
very important to America's national security interests.
  As we brought this legislation to the floor, there has been something 
conspicuously and noticeably absent; that is, open debate--something 
that used to be taken for granted in the Senate, a right that was 
accorded to Senators.
  The nice thing about getting to the Senate, when you come from the 
House of Representatives, is that when you get to the Senate, one 
person can actually have the opportunity to get amendments voted on and 
have those amendments debated. In the House of Representatives, those 
of us who have served there, know there is a rules committee, and the 
rules committee decides what comes to the floor, what amendments are 
made in order, and how much time is allowed for debate on each 
amendment. It is a very structured process.
  What the Founders conceived for the Senate was something different. 
They wanted us to have an opportunity to openly debate the big issues 
of the day. And there are no bigger issues, I would argue, than the 
budget proposal which will fund the government for the next 2 years and 
spend literally billions and trillions of dollars of the American 
people's tax money; and the Defense authorization bill, which will 
authorize in this case over half a trillion dollars of spending of the 
American taxpayers' money.
  So these are big, consequential pieces of legislation brought to the 
floor of the Senate but not open to the debate, not open to the 
amendment process.
  We just heard the Senator from Maryland talk about amendments which, 
if he had the chance to offer, he would have offered. That applies to a 
lot of us.
  The Defense bill, when it comes to the floor here, will have probably 
gone through a fairly good vetting process. I served on the Armed 
Services Committee for 6 years. I think they did then and do now a good 
job of prioritizing when they come to the floor. But we have to 
remember, there are only probably 25 or so members of the Armed 
Services Committee, which means there are 75 Senators who haven't had 
an opportunity to have their voices heard on such a big piece of 
legislation.
  The same thing with the budget. The budget conference really 
consisted of a couple people. In fact, I am told by conferees who were 
members of the Budget Committee and were supposed to be members of that 
conference, they really didn't vote on it. There was no vote on it when 
it left the conference. It was negotiated by a couple of people and 
brought to the floor to be voted on--something that is pretty darned 
important to the future of this country but not open to amendment, no 
opportunity for Senators here to have the opportunity to improve upon. 
Perhaps we could improve upon it; maybe we couldn't. But we at least 
should have had the opportunity to bring issues to the forefront that 
rightly should be debated when we are talking about something like a 2-
year budget and a defense bill which spends enormous amounts of the 
American people's tax dollars.
  So no debate. Shut down here in the Senate by the majority leader. 
Why? I guess because it is really critically important we get to some 
of these nominations that need to be voted on--voted on before the 
Christmas holiday. Why? Well, because, Lord knows, we couldn't vote on 
them next year. I guess we can vote on them next year. Now that the 
majority has broken the rules here in the Senate, changed the rules, 
they can approve those with 51 votes.
  So I don't know what the big sense of urgency is on these nominations 
that would prevent us from having a full and open debate on something 
as consequential as the Defense authorization bill or the budget just 
being voted on here in the Senate. I don't know why these nominations 
would take precedence over that.
  It seems to me that if there was any sense of urgency attached to 
this, most Members on both sides I think would acknowledge that we need 
to do that. But clearly these are all nominees who could be voted on 
next year, and now approved with 51 votes, thanks to the majority 
breaking the rules in the Senate and making it possible to approve 
nominees with 51 votes.
  So the very notion, as the majority leader came out here and said 
repeatedly now, that we would be here next week on one of the most 
important Christian holidays of the year voting on nominees that can be 
voted on a week later after the first of the year when Congress comes 
back into session--it seems to me to be really sort of stunning in 
terms of its audacity.
  I think the American people would conclude the same thing; that we 
would take a defense authorization bill, that we would take a huge 
budget bill and actually sort of just try and sweep them under the 
carpet, fill the tree so we don't have an opportunity to debate 
amendments or vote on amendments, but then have to rush to get these 
nominations through, nominations which can be considered early next 
year and approved now with a 51-vote majority.
  So think about that. We have had these threats here on the floor. The 
majority leader has come to the floor and said: We are going to be here 
Christmas Eve because we have got to do these nominations. Yet we don't 
have any time to do the important work, such as having a chance to 
debate and vote on amendments to bills such as the Defense 
authorization bill.
  So that is where we are. Again, I think it is pretty stunning that 
this is what the Senate has deteriorated into. And it is regrettable. 
But hopefully--hopefully--at some point people will come to their 
senses that: Yes, this is an important week next week for a lot of 
people around this country; that perhaps being able to do the 
nominations a week later, after the first of the year, when they can be 
approved with 51 votes, that might make sense and might be a reasonable 
approach to take with all this.

[[Page S9017]]

  I hope most Members here, like most Americans, next week at least 
have an opportunity to celebrate the Christmas holiday with their 
families. And as they do, a lot of Americans will use that opportunity 
to reflect upon the past year. In many cases that will mean life 
changes which occurred in the last year. For many Americans it might be 
a marriage in the family, it might be a graduation, events that we 
celebrate. It might be something we look on with reflection and mourn 
the loss of a loved one. But this is a time when normally people around 
this country reflect on significant changes in their lives in the last 
year and start thinking in anticipation about what the next year might 
bring.
  Some things people can't control in their lives. Some changes people 
don't like and they can do nothing to control. And as they start 
thinking about last year and start thinking about next year, for a lot 
of people it is going to be the impact that ObamaCare is going to have 
on their lives. People are thinking about the fact that they have these 
skyrocketing premiums that are now coupled with these outrageous 
deductibles. The sticker shock is forcing millions of Americans to pay 
more for health care.
  President Obama promised the American people:

       ObamaCare will cut costs and make coverage more affordable 
     for families and small businesses.

  Well, the reality is that family premiums have already skyrocketed 
since ObamaCare became law. American approval of this law is now in the 
tank.
  According to a recent CBS/New York Times poll:

       Most uninsured (57 percent) think the cost of their health 
     care will increase, and just 23 percent expect the quality to 
     get better.

  Think about that. Fifty-seven percent of the people who have no 
insurance--people who are uninsured--think the cost of their health 
care is going to increase. And a majority in that same poll are opposed 
to the health care plan. Those are people who don't have health care 
insurance today, and a majority of them are opposed to this plan.
  For many Americans, the holiday season is going to be filled with 
angst and uncertainty as they look at facing a coverage gap on January 
1. More than 10,000 Iowans were told by healthcare.gov that they should 
qualify for Federal health coverage, but Federal officials have not yet 
sent complete information on those people to State administrators, who 
are supposed to then review the applications and enroll people in the 
program.
  My colleague from Iowa Senator Grassley is on the floor. Constituents 
he represents are going to be filled with a lot of uncertainty as they 
face the future. According to the Des Moines Register, Percy Smith of 
Des Moines is concerned about a coverage gap:

       I'm losing my optimism, because we're getting close to 
     January, and I don't know if I'm going to be covered or not.

  But this problem will affect more than Iowans. According to the 
Washington Post:

       Those facing a potential coverage gap include an estimated 
     15 million people.
       The law's insurance cancellations mixed with the Web site's 
     problems might leave some people who have coverage now 
     uninsured in the new year. These are Obamacare's biggest 
     losers.

  Today, George Will has an article in the Washington Post that 
explores this administration's abuse of executive discretion. The 
article effectively summarizes the exact abuses of executive power that 
my colleagues and I have been vocally opposed to.
  Under this administration, if they don't like what the law says, even 
if they wrote that law, they simply ignore it. Example after example 
exists of how this President believes he is above the law. Look no 
further than their delay of the employer mandate or their rewrite of 
the laws governing the work requirements as a condition of receiving 
welfare. As Mr. Will says in his article:

       In 1998, the Supreme Court held that ``there is no 
     provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president 
     to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes.''

  Yet, as Mr. Will further points out, this President often claims:

       . . . he can't wait for our system of separated powers to 
     ratify his policy preferences.

  Unfortunately, that is not how our country was founded and not what 
our forefathers established in our system of governance.
  As the Federalist Paper No. 47, authored by James Madison, says:

       The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and 
     judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, 
     and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may 
     justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

  The American people are wising up to this abuse of power, and I 
believe this President must respect the rule of law, despite his clear 
self-interest to act otherwise.
  I believe it is only a matter of time before the President continues 
to abuse executive discretion to correct problems with his law. Instead 
of being forthcoming with the American people and Congress and 
explaining why parts of this law won't work, he relies on his 
administrative agencies to issue 11-hour blog posts or leaks to the 
media to announce delays in portions of his signature law.
  Another way this administration is trying to fix problems is to put 
the burden of fixing problems on others. Last month the President tried 
to fix the problem of cancelled plans by kicking the can to State 
insurance regulators to determine whether, in 48 days from the date of 
his announcement in November, they can change their State insurance 
regulation policies quickly enough to permit plans to continue to offer 
those plans available in 2013 and 2014. He expected State insurance 
commissioners to bail him out to allow Americans to keep the plans they 
were promised they could keep. He is also expecting insurance companies 
to bail the administration out of problems as well.
  The insurance industry will now extend the deadline until January 10 
for Americans to pay for coverage that starts on New Year's Day. This 
doesn't fix the problem of coverage gaps, but it is a convenient 
talking point for the administration.
  While 2013 was filled with one unbroken ObamaCare promise after 
another, the President's inability to follow through on making coverage 
more affordable for families and small businesses was one of the 
biggest. In a rare moment of candor, Secretary Sebelius was forced to 
admit:

       [t]here are some individuals who may be looking at 
     increases [in health care costs].

  A recent Associated Press/GfK poll confirms that more than ``some'' 
individuals will be facing sticker shock thanks to ObamaCare: Sixty-
nine percent say their premiums will be going up, while 59 percent say 
annual deductibles or copayments are increasing.
  A separate poll by the Washington Post and ABC found that just 5 
percent of Americans believe that ObamaCare will actually reduce their 
health care costs.
  The reality for many Americans is that dramatically higher premiums, 
deductibles, and copayments mean they are going to have less money in 
their wallets to spend on rent, pay for college, or to invest in a 
small business.
  As a result, 67 percent of respondents in a recent Fox News poll say 
ObamaCare should be delayed and 53 percent of respondents would vote to 
repeal the law.
  This holiday season Democrats should give the American people what 
they were promised all along: lower costs, while keeping the doctor and 
plan they have and like.
  As we begin 2014, this President and administration should commit to 
abandoning their power grabs and complete disregard for the rule of 
law. This law was passed, hurriedly rushed through here on a partisan 
vote. Not a single Republican Senator here voted for it. We are now 
seeing the effects of that: one-party rule, one party running roughshod 
over the other to try to get something enacted into law--which now, as 
the American people are finding out, they are the ones impacted.
  We are seeing all the adverse, harmful impacts which come with it: 
higher premiums, cancelled coverage, lower take-home pay, higher 
deductibles, and a less promising future for the American people. We 
can and we should do better.
  I hope that as Americans this Christmas season reflect on the past 
and think to the future, we will resolve to do what is necessary to 
give them a brighter future by putting in place policies which will 
grow the economy,

[[Page S9018]]

create jobs, increase the take-home pay of middle-class Americans, 
rather than give them another gut punch which makes it that much harder 
for them to provide for themselves and their families.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise for two purposes. No. 1, to 
discuss the National Defense Authorization Act and the fact that we 
cannot offer amendments to it and the process that has deteriorated in 
the Senate for deliberation. Second, I will speak very shortly about 
the nomination of Mayorkas, one of the first nominees we will be voting 
on this week.
  The Senate is poised to vote on a final National Defense 
Authorization Act after considering only two amendments. The Senate has 
not been functioning like it should for some time, and the way that the 
National Defense Authorization Act has been handled is one example. I 
have served in the majority and the minority, with Democratic 
Presidents and Republican Presidents. So I have seen it operate from 
every perspective. What is unique about the Senate is that the rules as 
well as the traditions force Senators to work together. That leads 
Senators to understand where the other side is coming from, resulting 
in mutual respect and scrutiny.
  I hear from a lot of Iowans who are upset at the tone they hear in 
Washington and the lack of bipartisanship. I have often said that the 
Senate functions best when no party has more than about 55 seats. If 
you have much more than that, there is less of a tendency to want to 
work in a bipartisan fashion. That was true for most of my time in the 
Senate but not now. Despite a current margin of just 5 seats in the 
Senate, there has been very little bipartisan cooperation. I suppose 
some Democratic Senators really believe it when they say that this is 
all Republicans' fault. I think anyone who remembers how the Senate 
used to operate and has paid attention to how the current majority 
leadership has been running things in fact knows better.
  In fairness, quite a few Members of the Senate do not remember how 
the Senate is supposed to operate because it has been dysfunctional 
ever since they were elected. Some Senators previously served in the 
House of Representatives, where the majority party controls everything 
that happens. In the House of Representatives, the Rules Committee sets 
out the terms of debate for each bill. If you want to offer an 
amendment in the House you have to go, hat in hand, to the Rules 
Committee and say: Mother, may I. If the House leadership does not like 
your amendment, frankly, you are out of luck.
  If that sounds familiar, that is because it is how the current Senate 
leadership has been running things lately here in the Senate. We have 
seen an absolutely unprecedented use--or I should say abuse--of cloture 
motions paired with a tactic called filling the tree to block 
amendments from being considered.
  That not only affects the minority party, but Democratic Senators are 
affected as well. I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle: How many times have you had an amendment you wanted to offer, 
that was important to your State, but you could not do it because 
amendments were blocked? The Senate majority leader has effectively 
become a one-man version of the House Rules Committee, dictating what 
amendments will be debated and which ones will never see the light of 
day. This strips the ability of individual Senators to effectively 
represent their States, regardless of party.
  It also virtually guarantees that any legislation the Senate votes on 
will be more partisan in nature. I would ask my colleagues across the 
aisle: Isn't your first responsibility to the people of your State, not 
to party leadership? Are you really content to cede to your party 
leader the trust and responsibility placed in you by the voters of your 
State? How much longer can you go along with this proposition?
  The people of Iowa sent me to the Senate to represent them, not 
simply vote up or down on a purely partisan agenda dictated by the 
majority leader. Everyone complains about the lack of bipartisanship 
these days, but there is no opportunity for individual Senators to work 
across the aisle when legislation is drafted on a partisan basis and 
amendments are blocked. Bipartisanship requires giving individual 
Senators a voice regardless of party. When Senators are only allowed to 
vote on items that are preapproved by the majority leader, those 
Senators lose the ability to effectively represent their State and, in 
the end, become mere tools of party leadership. It is no wonder 
Americans are so cynical about government right now.
  In the last decade, when I was chairman of the Finance Committee and 
Republicans controlled the Senate, we wanted to actually get things 
done. In order for that to happen, we knew that we had to accommodate 
the minority. We had to have patience, humility, and respect for the 
minority--attributes that do not exist on the other side anymore. We 
had some major bipartisan accomplishments, from the largest tax cut in 
history to a Medicare prescription drug program to numerous trade 
agreements. Those kinds of major bills do not happen anymore.
  The Senate rules provide that any Senator may offer an amendment 
regardless of party affiliation. Each Senator represents hundreds of 
thousands or millions of Americans, and each has an individual right to 
offer amendments for consideration. The principle here is not about 
political parties having their say but duly elected Senators 
participating in the legislative process, as imagined by the 
Constitution. Again, as part of our duty to represent the citizens of 
our respective States, each Senator has an individual right to offer 
amendments. This right cannot be outsourced to party leadership.
  The longstanding tradition of the Senate is that Members of the 
minority party, as well as rank-and-file Members of the majority party 
have an opportunity to offer amendments for a vote in the Senate. That 
has historically been the case with the annual National Defense 
Authorization Act, the very bill that we are debating now. But not this 
year. It typically takes a couple of weeks to consider the National 
Defense Authorization Act. This year the majority party leadership 
chose to wait until a week before the scheduled Thanksgiving recess to 
bring it up, leaving little time for the customary open debate and 
amendment process.
  Once the Defense bill was brought up, rather than promptly starting 
to process amendments, the majority leader immediately blocked 
amendments so that he could control what came up for a vote. Obviously, 
the Senate ground to a halt, wasting time that we did not have when we 
could have been considering amendments from both sides of the aisle.
  This process, as everyone here in the Senate knows, is called filling 
the tree, where the majority leader offers blocker amendments that 
block any other Senator from offering their own amendment unless the 
majority leader agreed to set aside his blocker amendment so other 
amendments can be offered.
  Filling the tree does not appear anywhere in the Senate rules. It is 
based upon combining two precedents, the precedent that the majority 
leader has the first right of recognition by the Presiding Officer and 
the precedent that only one first-degree and one second-degree 
amendment can be pending at any one time. Basically, the majority 
leader abuses his prerogative to cut in line and offer an amendment 
that does nothing more than simply change the enacting date by 1 day, 
for instance. That then blocks any other Senator from exercising his 
right to offer an amendment.
  This so-called filling-the-tree tactic used to be relatively rare, 
but it has become routine under current leadership. This way the 
Democratic leadership can prevent other Senators from offering 
amendments that they do not want to have to vote on. Then, with 
amendments blocked, the majority leader makes a motion to bring debate 
to a close. Around here that is called cloture. When cloture is 
invoked, it sets up a limited time before a final vote must take place. 
By keeping amendments blocked while running out the clock, the majority 
leader can force a final vote on a bill without having to consider any 
amendments other than amendments that the majority leader might 
approve.

  It should not be a surprise to anyone that Members of the minority 
party

[[Page S9019]]

who wish to offer amendments will vote against a motion to end debate 
until their amendments have been considered. When Republicans vote 
against the Democratic leader's motion to end debate, we are accused of 
launching a filibuster. In other words, unless we give up our right to 
participate fully in the legislative process, the other side says that 
we are filibustering.
  Does that really count as a filibuster? No. The nonpartisan 
Congressional Research Service answers this question, and has a very 
helpful report on cloture motions and filibusters that make this point 
very clear. The CRS report is entitled, ``Cloture Attempts on 
Nominations: Data and Historical Development,'' by Richard S. Beth. It 
contained an entire section called ``Cloture Motions Do Not Correspond 
With Filibusters.'' It starts out:

       Although cloture affords the Senate a means for overcoming 
     a filibuster, it is erroneous to assume that cases in which 
     cloture was sought are always the same as those in which a 
     filibuster occurs. Filibusters may occur without cloture 
     being sought, and cloture may be sought when no filibuster is 
     taking place. The reason is, cloture is sought by supporters 
     of matters, whereas filibusters are conducted by its 
     opponents.

  It then goes on to explain various scenarios to illustrate this 
point. Several Members of the majority have made a point of trying to 
confuse cloture motions with filibusters. We hear constantly that there 
have been an unprecedented number of Republican filibusters. They often 
point to a chart that purports to tally the number of filibusters and 
say that this is evidence of abuse of the Senate rules by the minority. 
The number they quote is the number of cloture motions, not the number 
of filibusters. It is true that there have been a record number of 
cloture motions, and I also agree that the number amounts to an 
egregious abuse of Senate rules, but, again, there is a very 
significant difference: Cloture motions do not correspond with 
filibusters. Cloture motions are filed by the majority party 
leadership, not by the minority party. This abuse of cloture is a major 
cause of the Senate's current dysfunction.
  Again, this abuse of cloture, often combined with the blocking of 
amendment also prevents all Senators from doing what they were sent 
here to do, not just Members of the minority party.
  It has gotten even worse. Even where the majority leader has decided 
he is going to be open to amendments, he has created out of whole cloth 
new restrictions to limit Senators' rights. First, he normally only 
opens the amendment process if there is an agreement to limit 
amendments. This is usually only a handful or so. Then he has magically 
determined that only germane or relevant amendments can be considered.
  Of course, nowhere do the Senate rules require this, other than 
postcloture. Senators elected in the last few years appear to be 
ignorant of that fact. You will hear some Senators here argue against 
an amendment saying it is nongermane or nonrelevant. They have totally 
fallen for the creative rulemaking of the majority leader, thus giving 
up one of their rights as a Senator with which to represent their 
State. I cannot count on how many nongermane or nonrelevant amendments 
I had to allow votes on when I processed bills when Republicans were in 
the majority. They were usually tough political votes, but we took them 
because we wanted to get things done. We wanted the Senate to function.
  You do not see that nowadays. The current majority leader avoids 
tough votes at all costs and that is why we don't get much done around 
here. The American people sent us here to represent them. That means 
voting, not avoiding tough votes.
  We sometimes hear this is a question of majority rule versus minority 
obstruction. Again, that ignores that each Senator is elected to 
represent their State, not simply to be an agent of the other party. 
While the majority of Senators may be from one party, they represent 
very different States, and the agenda of the majority leader will not 
always be consistent with the interest of their States.
  When one individual, the Senate majority leader, controls what comes 
up for a vote, that is not majority rule. In fact, there are policies 
that have majority support in the Senate that have been denied a vote.
  What happened during Senate debate on the budget resolution this year 
seems to prove that point. The special rules of the budget resolution 
limit debate so it can't be filibustered but allow for an unlimited 
number of amendments.
  A Republican amendment to support repealing the tax on lifesaving 
medical devices in President Obama's health care law passed by an 
overwhelming 79-to-20 vote, with more than half of the Democrats voting 
with the Republicans rather than with their party leader.
  A Republican amendment supported the approval of the Keystone XL 
Pipeline to bring oil from Canada and passed 62 to 37.
  Those are two examples, because votes such as these that split the 
Democrats and hand a win to the Republicans are exactly what the 
majority leader has been trying to avoid by blocking amendments.
  That is why the Senate didn't take up a budget resolution for more 
than 3 years. Still, the budget resolution isn't a law, so unless 
legislation on those issues is allowed to come up for a vote, nothing 
will happen despite the support of the vast majority of the Senate as 
demonstrated by those two rollcall votes I just mentioned.
  As a case in point, now we are on the National Defense Authorization 
Act, and one of the amendments the majority leader blocked would have 
imposed sanctions on the Iranian regime. Everyone knew this amendment 
enjoyed broad bipartisan support and would have passed easily had a 
vote been allowed to take place. It had majority support. But the 
Senate was not allowed to work its will.
  Why? The Iran sanctions amendment was blocked because the President 
opposed it and it would have been a tough vote that divided the 
majority party. Is that a valid reason for shutting down the 
traditional open amendment process for the Defense bill? I don't think 
so.
  Until we put an end to the abuse of cloture and the blocking of 
amendments, the Senate cannot function properly and the American people 
will continue to lack representation that they are entitled to.


                          Mayorkas Nomination

  As I said, I have a few short remarks on the Mayorkas nomination. I 
spoke at great length on this yesterday and I won't speak at great 
length today, but I have concern with Mr. Mayorkas' nomination, so I 
have additional information today for my colleagues.
  Today the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Homeland 
Security released an embargoed version of its audit of the EB-5 
immigrant investor visa program. The report states that the U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Service has difficulty ensuring the 
integrity of the program and does not always ensure that regional 
centers meet all eligibility requirements.
  Specifically, the report said:

       U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service did not always 
     enforce its own regulations and procedures to assist with 
     managing the regional center program.

  Another quote:

       Until improvements are made, U.S. Citizenship and 
     Immigration Service is unable to prevent fraud and national 
     security threats . . .

  Another quote:

       [I]t cannot report the results of the program accurately or 
     ensure the EB-5 program is benefiting the U.S. economy and 
     creating jobs for U.S. citizens as created by Congress.

  We understand Mr. Mayorkas is in charge of these programs. The IG 
said the agency needed to improve coordination and rely on the 
expertise of other agencies.
  The IG had several recommendations for the U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Service that, frankly, should have been in place before 
now, if the Director was doing his job. In his comments on the draft 
report, Mr. Mayorkas claimed that he was already addressing the issues 
the inspector general raised. He said his agency had ``dramatically 
enhanced collaboration with key government partners,'' meaning he was 
cooperating with the FBI.
  He also wrote that when his agency has concerns with EB-5 cases, it 
doesn't decide the cases until it has ``fully coordinated its approach 
with enforcement and intelligence partners.''
  I have seen examples of this so-called coordination that Mr. Mayorkas 
talks

[[Page S9020]]

about. But, again, his words don't comport with the actual practice.
  When Homeland Security's law enforcement database, TECS, has a hit on 
someone applying for a regional center, the Citizenship and Immigration 
Service sends an email to the law enforcement agency that put the 
record in. But the problem is that the Citizenship and Immigration 
Service isn't waiting for law enforcement to make an investigation. In 
fact, information has come to my attention that CIS employees are told 
to move forward if law enforcement doesn't respond within 5 days. That 
is just 5 days to find out what sensitive security or fraud information 
caused that person to be flagged. If law enforcement doesn't get back 
to the Citizenship and Immigration Service soon enough, then that 
agency goes ahead and the person's application is approved.
  That is not coordination. That coordination is a sham. That should be 
simply unacceptable to any of us who are concerned about the national 
security of our country. It is not the sort of way to run a program 
with national security vulnerabilities. Everybody should wait until law 
enforcement responds. We need to know who is coming into this country 
and not, and particularly when they are involved in a program where you 
buy your way into the country by buying a visa because you are supposed 
to be investing in this country and creating jobs in this country. But 
for some people who may want to get into this country for ulterior 
motives, they may violate our national security; they don't care about 
creating jobs. But if it gets them inside the country, they get here. 
So we have to know whether they are a threat to our national security.
  The only reason the Citizenship and Immigration Service even does 
check on regional centers at all is because of a push within that 
agency that Mr. Mayorkas and his management resisted. Now they are 
trying to take credit for it.
  More important is what his agency has not done. They refused to kick 
out regional centers that invite national security problems. Mr. 
Mayorkas claims he doesn't have statutory authority, but the inspector 
general audit recommended that Mr. Mayorkas should make clear on his 
own that fraud and national security concerns are a reason for regional 
centers to be kicked out of the program.
  The bottom line is Mr. Mayorkas has not taken the steps that were 
within his power to guard against security vulnerabilities in the EB-5 
program. The inspector general's audit report concludes:

       Currently, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service cannot 
     administer and manage the EB-5 regional centers program 
     effectively.

  Mr. Mayorkas has had ample notice of these problems for years. He has 
failed to take adequate action.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Unemployment Benefits

  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, at the end of this year, 1.3 million 
Americans will be cut off from their Federal unemployment benefits. At 
the hardest time of the year, 1.3 million people will lose the lifeline 
they have relied on to support their families while they struggle to 
find jobs in this challenging economic climate.
  Unfortunately, for 170,000 North Carolinians, this has already been a 
reality. Earlier this year, the North Carolina General Assembly slashed 
unemployment benefits, making North Carolina the only State in the 
Nation to actually stop receiving Federal emergency unemployment 
insurance--the only State in the Nation. This irresponsible and cold-
hearted action by the general assembly has been devastating to the 
thousands of individuals and families across my State who are already 
struggling to make ends meet.
  Sydney Houston is one of 170,000 jobless North Carolinians who would 
have received Federal unemployment benefits were it not for this new 
State law. A month after the law was enacted and Sydney no longer had 
her benefits, she told a North Carolina TV station that she was ironing 
her clothes in preparation for a job interview when her electricity was 
cut off because she couldn't pay her bills. ``It's been excruciating,'' 
she said, adding that she feared her landlord knocking on her door to 
evict her at any moment.
  People have to understand that these extended Federal unemployment 
insurance benefits help these families pay for their rent, pay for 
their food, and pay for their electricity, just as in Sydney's case.
  I also received a letter from Sherrie Harmon, another North Carolina 
woman. Let me tell my colleagues what she said. Her letter stated:

       I have lived in North Carolina my entire life and I've felt 
     proud of my State. This has changed drastically.

  Sherrie was laid off from her job at a law firm and her husband Rick 
lost his job a month later. Sherrie was drawing unemployment while 
searching for work and attending classes at Central Piedmont Community 
College in Charlotte. She was in her third semester of school when she 
found out that her unemployment would end.
  She said:

       We are at risk of losing everything we've worked for in the 
     24 years we've been married. I am completely lost.

  We have heard so many stories such as these from Sydneys and Sherries 
across North Carolina.
  What is more, North Carolina tax dollars are going to unemployed 
workers in every other State across the Nation except for North 
Carolina. Our citizens are paying their Federal taxpayer dollars for 
Federal unemployment benefits to 49 other States, even though our 
citizens cannot rely on the same safety net. This is not only unfair, 
it is hurting my State, which continues to have one of the highest 
unemployment rates in the country at 8 percent, with some of the rural 
counties in North Carolina as high as 14.5 percent.
  As the Senate considers an extension of the emergency insurance 
program, I believe it is crucial to right the wrong that has been done 
to North Carolinians through no fault of their own. For this reason, I 
come to the floor today to express my thanks to my colleagues, 
especially Majority Leader Reid, Senator Max Baucus, and Senator Jack 
Reed, for working with me to ensure that North Carolina's needs will be 
addressed as we work to extend unemployment insurance benefits into 
2014.
  I also urge my colleagues not to leave their constituents to the same 
fate as the citizens of my State, and to swiftly pass the Emergency 
Unemployment Compensation Extension Act. This bipartisan legislation, 
introduced by Senators Jack Reed and Dean Heller, would extend Federal 
unemployment insurance benefits, and it would restore North Carolina's 
eligibility to participate in the program.
  We must continue to work on bipartisan policies that will boost job 
creation and get Americans back into our workforce. We need educational 
institutions, local employers, and job training centers to join forces 
to ensure that unemployed workers are being trained for the job 
opportunities that are available right now.
  I have a bill called the America Works Act that would do just that. 
It would close the skills gap that has been plaguing our country and it 
would take the guessing game out of hiring. The America Works Act would 
ensure that community colleges and job training programs develop 
curricula that will lead to portable, industry-recognized credentials 
that will help train our unemployed workers so they would be 
outstanding applicants for jobs that are available in their local 
communities right now.
  In the meantime, as the unemployed struggle to get by while they look 
for jobs, we should not cut them off from the safety net that has 
served as their last lifeline for taking care of their families and 
putting food on the table. We should make certain that the unemployed 
in North Carolina have that same opportunity once again in spite of the 
action taken by the North Carolina General Assembly.
  I am glad to be joining my colleagues in pushing to extend the 
unemployment insurance for both North Carolinians and people across our 
country. There is no reason to wait any longer to pass this critical 
legislation.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S9021]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I take this opportunity to thank 
Senators Levin and Inhofe and the Committee on Armed Services for their 
very hard work on the Department of Defense authorization bill. 
Unfortunately, I must vote against it, and I want to take this 
opportunity to explain why I am voting no and to express my very 
serious concerns about our Nation's bloated military budget, 
particularly in light of the many unmet needs we face as a nation.
  At a time when the United States has a $17.2 trillion national debt 
and when we spend almost as much on defense as the rest of the world 
combined, the time is long overdue for us to take a hard look at the 
waste, at the cost overruns, and at the financial mismanagement that 
have plagued the Department of Defense for decades.
  As a point of comparison, the International Institute for Strategic 
Studies estimates total global military spending in 2012 at $1.583 
trillion. The U.S. portion of that spending is over 40 percent--$645 
billion. In other words, the United States is spending almost as much 
as the rest of the world combined on defense. We are spending about 
$645 billion. China spends $102 billion. The United Kingdom spends $64 
billion. Russia spends $59 billion. Other countries spend less.
  According to the Washington Post:

       Since 2001, the base defense budget has soared from $287 
     billion to $530 billion--and that's before accounting for the 
     primary costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

  In addition to the trillions spent on the war in Iraq and what seems 
to be a never-ending war in Afghanistan, the Department of Defense 
consistently engages in wasteful, inefficient, and often fraudulent 
spending.
  At my request several years ago the Department of Defense issued a 
report detailing the breadth of fraud that exists within the Pentagon--
the simple issue of massive fraud. The report showed that the Pentagon 
paid over $573 billion during the past 10 years to more than 300 
contractors involved in civil fraud cases that resulted in judgments of 
more than $1 million--$398 billion of which was awarded after 
settlement or judgment for fraud. When awards to parent companies are 
counted, the Pentagon paid more than $1.1 trillion during the past 10 
years just to the 37 top companies engaged in fraud. The bottom line is 
that almost every major defense contractor in this country has in one 
way or another been involved in fraudulent dealings with the taxpayers 
of this country and the Department of Defense.
  Further, above and beyond fraud, the waste at the Pentagon is 
rampant, and we can go on for many hours just documenting the waste, 
but let me give just a few--a few--of the kinds of waste that the 
Pentagon regularly engages in. These are just a very few examples.
  In July 2013 the Pentagon decided to build a 64,000-square-foot 
command headquarters for the U.S. military in Afghanistan that will not 
be utilized or even occupied. Even though the $34 million project was 
deemed unwanted by military commanders 3 years ago, the military still 
moved ahead with construction. That is one example.
  Another example. According to a report released by the Department of 
Defense inspector general this year, the Pentagon has been paying 
contractor Boeing more than $3,357 for a piece of hardware they could 
have purchased from their own hardware store, the Defense Logistics 
Agency, for $15.42. It seems to me it would be a pretty good deal to 
get a product for $15 that you are paying over $3,000 for, but that is 
the way the Pentagon runs.
  Furthermore, another issue, the July 2013 Special Inspector General 
for Afghanistan Reconstruction report includes the purchase of over 
$771 million worth of aircraft that the Afghans will be unable to 
operate and maintain. The Afghan Special Mission Wing has only one-
quarter of the personnel needed to maintain and operate the fleet, and 
there are no existing DOD plans to reach full strength. The Pentagon is 
moving forward with purchases. Most of that money--$553 million--has 
been awarded to a Russian company that also sells weapons to Syria.
  These are just a few examples. Needless to say, there are many more.
  A recent article in Mother Jones has some interesting numbers about 
our military spending. According to the article, 70 percent of the 
value of the Federal Government's $1.8 trillion in property, land, and 
equipment belongs to the Pentagon. The American people will no doubt be 
interested in understanding that the Pentagon operates more than 170 
golf courses worldwide.
  At a time when we now spend almost as much as the rest of the world 
combined on defense, we can make judicious cuts in our Armed Forces 
without compromising our military capability. I think everybody in the 
Congress believes and understands that we need a strong defense--no 
debate about that--but we do not need a defense budget that is bloated, 
that is wasteful, and that has in it many areas of fraud.
  In this respect, I hope my Republican colleagues and, in fact, all of 
my colleagues remember what former President Dwight Eisenhower, a good 
Republican, said on April 16, 1953, just as he was leaving office. What 
he said then was profound, and it is as true today as when he said it 
60 years ago. This is what he said:
       Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every 
     rocket signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who 
     hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not 
     clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It 
     is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its 
     scientists, the hopes of its children. . . . This is not a 
     way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of 
     threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

  I would ask all of my colleagues to remember what Eisenhower said and 
understand that today, when we have this bloated and huge military 
budget, there are people who are talking about massive cuts in food 
stamps, massive cuts in education, massive cuts in affordable housing, 
cuts in Social Security, cuts in Medicare, cuts in Medicaid. I would 
argue very strongly that before we cut from the elderly and the 
children and the sick and the poor, maybe we take a hard look at this 
bloated military budget.
  That is my view, but let me mention what the Cato Institute has to 
say--not Bernie Sanders but the Cato Institute, one of the most 
conservative organizations in this country. Here is what the Cato 
Institute said on May 3, 2013. By the way, as I think most people know, 
my views are as far apart as possible from the Cato Institute on most 
issues. This is what the Cato Institute said. Some of my conservative 
Republican friends might want to pay attention to this quote:

       U.S. military spending is far too excessive for legitimate 
     defense needs. . . . After sequestration we will still spend 
     more [on defense], against much less severe threats, than at 
     the peak of the Cold War. . . . The U.S. now accounts for 44 
     percent of all global military spending. Put another way, the 
     U.S. spends nearly as much on the military as the rest of the 
     world combined. . . . Twenty percent of the U.S. federal 
     budget is devoted to military spending, while the average--
  And this is an important point made by Cato--

     for our NATO allies is a mere 3.6 percent. Five percent of 
     U.S. annual GDP is allocated to the military, but for the 
     NATO countries, Japan and China, it is well below 2 percent. 
     . . . Today the amount Washington spends on the military each 
     year is $2,300 a person in the U.S. The comparable obligation 
     for the average NATO country is $503 a person. For China it 
     is less than $200 a person.

  That is not Bernie Sanders; that is the Cato Institute.
  The situation is so absurd that the Pentagon is unable to even 
account for how it spends its money. Earlier this year the Government 
Accountability Office cited its inability--that is, the GAO's ability--
to audit the Pentagon. They wrote that they were unable to do a 
comprehensive financial analysis due to ``serious financial management 
problems at the Department of Defense that made its financial 
statements unauditable.'' That is from the Government Accountability 
Office. So we are voting for a budget that the GAO says they cannot 
even audit--for the most expensive agency in government.
  Let me now quote from an article that appeared in the Washington Post 
on August 29, 2013. The defense budget--a purposefully opaque 
document--includes what is known as the black budget. The information I 
am providing here comes from the Washington post--$52.6 billion that 
funds the CIA, NSA, and other secret intelligence agencies. The CIA, 
NSA, and National Reconnaissance Office receive more than 68 percent of 
the black budget, with the NSA receiving $10.8 billion annually. At a 
time when the NSA has

[[Page S9022]]

been engaging in what I consider to be unconstitutional activities--the 
widespread collection of American citizens' data--I think we can find 
the ability to make some cuts in what they are doing.
  I support a strong defense for our country and a robust National 
Guard and Reserve that can meet our domestic and foreign challenges. 
The National Guard provides a well-trained, disciplined, and 
operationally ready force for a fraction of the cost that Active-Duty 
soldiers require. The Reserve Forces do not require nearly the same 
level of overhead in terms of full-time employment and infrastructure 
costs. So as we move forward trying to develop how we have a cost-
effective defense, I think we should put a great deal of emphasis on 
our National Guard and on the Reserve.
  Let me conclude by saying in America today our middle class is 
struggling. We have more people living in poverty than at any time in 
the history of our country. Real unemployment is over 13 percent; youth 
unemployment, 20 percent; African-American youth unemployment, close to 
40 percent
  We have an infrastructure which is crumbling. We have large numbers 
of young people graduating from college deeply in debt. We have others 
who cannot even afford to go to college because of the high cost of 
college. In other words, this country faces monumental problems. On top 
of that, we have a $17.2 trillion national debt.
  It would seem to me that it is important we get our priorities 
straight. One of the priorities we should be getting straight is that 
we cannot give the Department of Defense all they want. It is time to 
take a very hard look at that budget in a way we have not done up to 
this point.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Massachusetts be recognized for 5 minutes and that I follow with 
my comments until I complete them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.
  This final couple of days that we are going to be in session are very 
important because they are the days preceding the expiration of the 
wind energy tax break. It expires on December 31. There are energy 
efficiency tax breaks that expire on December 31.
  This is unfortunate, because these are industries that are rapidly 
growing. But let's take note here. If you are the oil industry or other 
older fossil fuel industries, your tax breaks are not expiring on 
December 31. For the wind industry, for the renewable energy industry, 
we have to come back out here every year and try to get those tax 
breaks renewed. Each year as we reach this December 31 date, we talk 
about a Congress adjourning without completing it, sending total 
corporate unpredictability out into the marketplace, knowing that we 
need to have a robust, competitive marketplace.
  Honestly, Adam Smith is spinning in his grave as he watches a Senate 
adjourn without continuing the tax breaks for wind, as the tax breaks 
for all of its competitive industries continue on year after year. They 
are permanent tax breaks. Actually, Adam Smith is spinning in his grave 
so rapidly that he would qualify for a permanent tax break, because he 
would be generating so much energy, wondering how can you have such 
inconsistency? How can you have one source of energy have to come in 
almost like a mendicant each year begging, and then having the year 
expire, after having added 13,000 megawatts of new electricity to the 
grid last year, knowing that the entire nuclear industry only added 
100,000 in 60 years?
  Here we are again. Those tax breaks are going to expire. We are going 
to leave here. We could not get unanimous consent in order to take them 
up here today to extend those tax breaks. Once again, the energy 
sources of the future, the innovative new energy sources, pay the 
price. They are not allowed to be given permanent status or, as we 
leave here, any status at all as of the end of this year.
  Young people in our country, the green energy generation, looked and 
they asked: Well, why can't we have our era's energy technologies given 
permanent tax breaks or at least year to year before you go home? Why 
can't you have that kind of a debate out there? Why is there a debate 
at all, to be honest with you, given the fact that there is $7 billion 
a year that is going to be given to the oil industry, a permanent tax 
break?
  We are not looking for that for wind. We are looking at much smaller 
amounts of tax benefits. So from my perspective, I look at the warming 
planet, I look at the Chinese and others who are targeting wind 
sources. I was in China in 2009. We rode by a wind factory with wind 
turbines, hundreds of them. They were all, in a lot of ways, pointing 
right at the American economy, in the same way that those Cuban 
missiles were pointing at our country in 1962--pointing right at us, a 
threat to us. But in the 21st century, it is a threat to our economy 
because we are not investing in these new technologies in the way we 
continue to invest in the old.
  The least it could be and should be is a level playing field. Let's 
see who wins. Let's let capitalism work. Let's have this true Darwinian 
paranoia-inducing capitalism that allows for winners to be selected 
based upon the same kind of tax breaks for everyone. If that is the 
case, I think everyone would be happy. But that is not the way it is 
going to be this year. That is not the way it is most years.
  Permanent tax breaks for the older technologies, and the kind of 
halting, questioning, capitalism-killing, corporate-questioning tax 
breaks for the nascent but growing and vibrant new technologies that 
the Chinese and the Germans and the Danes and others see as their job-
creating sectors in their economy.
  I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for this opportunity.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                          Mayorkas Nomination

  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, to comment on my colleague from 
Massachusetts, he is correct that the tax credits for wind energy are 
expiring, but he is incorrect in his ascertainment that all tax credits 
are the same. The tax credits in the oil and gas industry are deferred 
tax payments, and the $7 billion they collect this year, in terms of 
deferred payments, in terms of intangible drilling costs, will, in 
fact, be made up for with $7 billion of payments from 10 years ago. So 
the net-net is zero, whereas the wind industry has a tax credit which 
the American consumer subsidizes to the tune of a significant amount, 
the value of the electricity that we get there. So it is viable--if we 
were to put the wind energy tax credit the same as we have in the oil 
and gas industry, I would happily support it, where it was a delayed 
capture of later revenues flowing back to the Treasury. But that is not 
what we want. We want to give a refundable tax credit directly to wind 
energy. It is not the same. The apples are not the same.
  I came to the floor this evening regrettably having to come and make 
this statement I am making. In the last month we have seen a lot of 
things happen in the Senate, which have led to other things happening 
in the Senate. I do not think anybody is happy about it. But today, the 
leader is taking the unprecedented step--I say that underlining the 
word unprecedented--of having the Senate vote on a nominee who is 
currently under active investigation.
  I have no premonitions or knowledge about the specific facts of that 
investigation. But what I do know, in checking with the Senate 
historian, the Senate library, and from the history of the Senate, is 
that it has never been done before. It has never been done. So my 
reason in coming to the floor is, No. 1, to defend my position and what 
should be the position of the Senate, and to make the case to my 
colleagues that we are doing a disservice both to this nominee and to 
the position he will fill.
  By all letters of recommendation, Alejandro Mayorkas is an honorable 
man. President Obama is nominating him to be Deputy Secretary at the 
Department of Homeland Security. Under the new Senate rules, the 
minority has essentially no right to stop the majority from forcing 
through a nominee who possibly, just possibly, may be unfit for office 
on the basis of this investigation. Nobody is saying he is.

[[Page S9023]]

They are not saying no. They are saying wait. This is, in fact, the 
very act the Republicans were afraid of when Leader Reid facilitated 
the change in the Senate rules by breaking the Senate rules.
  The Senate is going to cast this vote without knowledge, full 
knowledge, of advice and consent on his fitness for his position. We 
can do nothing to stop that. We realize that.
  The precedent we are talking about is historic. Holding this vote in 
light of an active investigation into serious relevant allegations of 
misconduct by any nominee appears to be virtually without any precedent 
in this body. We searched extensively for any precedent, for the 
decision to hold a vote on this nomination.
  The Congressional Research Service studied this. It has never 
happened before. Never. In fact, they discovered the opposite. The 
Senate has established a history and followed a practice that should 
lead us to postpone consideration of any nominee under investigation. 
Here are some examples they found.
  In January of 2005, President George Bush nominated Ken Tomlinson to 
be Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. An active inspector 
general's investigation into allegations of unethical behavior by Mr. 
Tomlinson led the Senate panel to delay action on the nomination for 
over 18 months. He was never confirmed.
  Later that same year, President Bush nominated Roland Arnall to the 
post of U.S. Ambassador to The Netherlands. At the time Mr. Arnall's 
firm was being investigated by regulators in 30 States for predatory 
lending. Then-Foreign Relations Committee chairman Republican Senator 
Richard Lugar consented to a request by Democrats that October to delay 
voting on the nominee because of the investigations. Senator Joseph 
Biden spoke out in favor of the delay, as did Senator Paul Sarbanes, 
who cited longstanding precedent for delaying a vote until the nominee 
was ``clear.'' Mr. Arnall was eventually voted out of committee, after 
Republicans concluded the investigation did not target the nominee 
personally, but he was not confirmed by the full Senate until the 
following February, 7 months after he was nominated, when his company 
agreed to end the investigations by settling the cases against him.
  My friend President Obama, who nominated Mr. Mayorkas, was a member 
of the Foreign Relations Committee at that time. Then he seemed to 
agree that nominees facing investigations should not receive a vote. A 
2006 LA Times story on Mr. Arnall's confirmation quoted then-Senator 
Obama's spokesman as saying: Because a settlement has been reached, 
Senator Obama will not seek to block his nomination.
  A vote on another Bush nominee, Lester Crawford, was delayed for 2 
months in 2005 while the inspector general of the Food and Drug 
Administration probed claims, allegations, that Mr. Crawford had an 
affair with a coworker and gave her preferential treatment. Once again, 
the OIG's review was complete. The OIG concluded that the allegations 
could not be substantiated, and the HELP Committee voted to confirm 
him.
  In 2004, the Senate Banking Committee did not schedule a vote on 
Alphonso Jackson to serve as Chairman of the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development until the HUD inspector general determined Mr. 
Jackson had not violated the Department's workplace violence policies 
as subordinates had alleged.
  All of this advises us strongly to delay a vote on Mr. Mayorkas until 
the OIG investigation into his alleged actions is concluded. I would 
suggest that we should learn from history and not move forward with 
this nomination. If it was true for the Senate then, and if it was true 
for Senator Biden, if it was true for Senator Obama, if it was true for 
their colleagues and many Senators who maintain this precedent until 
today, it should be true for us now.
  Last week, when Mr. Mayorkas was considered by the Homeland Security 
and Governmental Affairs Committee, my chairman justified moving 
forward with the nomination by asserting that the DHS OIG had not 
identified any criminal wrongdoing by Mr. Mayorkas. At present, the DHS 
OIG is only considering allegations of conflicts of interest, misuse of 
position, mismanagement, and appearance of impropriety. In none of 
those situations I identified were the nominees under criminal 
investigation. Yet the Senate delayed its vote until each investigation 
was finished. Since the DHS OIG has not completed its investigation, we 
do not know if there will ultimately be any criminal findings. I doubt 
that there will.
  We do know, based on the precedent that I cited, an investigation 
into any potential wrongdoing, whether criminal or not, is enough for 
the Senate to delay a vote on an important nominee, or at least it used 
to be.
  Of course, the Senate recently changed. The majority leader exercised 
the so-called nuclear option, changing the rules by breaking the rules, 
granting my colleagues the new power to push administration nominees 
through the confirmation process with a simple majority.
  The leader is attempting to use this new power to push through scores 
of nominees in the last few days this session. But scrutiny and 
judgment should not be diminished in a partisan rush to get one's way. 
Forget the rest of the nominees; this is one where an open 
investigation is currently underway. With this nominee before us, Mr. 
Mayorkas might do well to wait for all the facts.
  As we all know, the DHS OIG is also currently under investigation. 
This office is reviewing the leader who recently resigned. They are 
reviewing allegations of conflict of interest, misuse of position, 
mismanagement of EB-5 investor visa program, and an appearance of 
impropriety. They are all serious concerns. I hope they aren't true, 
but right now we don't have all of the facts.
  While I understand OIG is not currently aware of any criminal 
activity, since the investigation is still open and several interviews 
remain, that could possibly change.
  As I understand, however, the OIG plans to complete its investigation 
and release its findings in a few short months. Until then, we won't 
know what is only an allegation and what will be proven by evidence and 
facts.
  Most concerning to me is the fact that the White House failed to 
alert me or the committee chairman to the fact that Mr. Mayorkas was 
under investigation, which they had an obligation to do. In fact, the 
letter from White House counsel conveniently doesn't confirm or deny 
whether the President was aware Mr. Mayorkas was even under 
investigation. It is unclear to me why Chairman Carper wasn't troubled 
by the White House being less than honest with him about a nominee he 
was expected to fast track for nomination.
  I have spoken to a number of whistleblowers within DHS who have 
concerns about Mr. Mayorkas' fitness for position. These whistleblowers 
have made serious allegations about how Mr. Mayorkas has overseen and 
influenced the EB-5 program. They are only allegations, but they do 
raise questions. They raise questions about his allegiance to DHS's 
core mission to prevent terrorism and enhance security.
  A number of the allegations extend well beyond the EB-5 program and 
raise concerns about the fitness for the No. 2 position in DHS. They 
include the following: attempts by Mr. Mayorkas to obstruct the 
investigations by Congress; allegations of preventing program integrity 
measures requested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; intimidation 
of employees who questioned agency policies; susceptibility to 
political influence; failing to properly enforce program integrity 
mechanisms, resulting in potential threats to national security.
  Whistleblowers who spoke to the Wall Street Journal said that Mr. 
Mayorkas fast-tracked approvals of certain EB-5 applications over 
objections regarding the suspicious source of funds to rebuild the 
casino in Las Vegas which, in fact, was noted in a recent article by 
the Washington Times.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article by 
the Wall Street Journal.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

[[Page S9024]]

               [From the Washington Times, Dec. 10, 2013]

 Vegas Rules: Harry Reid Pushed Feds To Change Ruling for Casino's Big-
                            Money Foreigners

                 (By John Solomon and David Sherfinski)

       The Obama administration overruled career Homeland Security 
     officials and expedited visa applications for about two dozen 
     foreign investors for a politically connected Las Vegas 
     casino hotel after repeated pressure from Senate Majority 
     Leader Harry Reid and his staff, according to internal 
     government documents obtained by The Washington Times.
       The move to overturn what is normally a non-appealable visa 
     decision came despite concerns about ``suspicious financial 
     activity'' involving some of the visa applicants from Asia, 
     and it ultimately benefited several companies whose 
     executives have donated heavily in recent years to Democrats, 
     the documents show. It also ensnared Mr. Obama's current 
     nominee to be the No. 2 Homeland Security official, Alejandro 
     ``Ali'' Mayorkas, whose appointment is to be reviewed by the 
     Senate on Wednesday.
       The intervention from Mr. Reid's staff was so intense at 
     one point a year ago that a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
     Services (USCIS) official reported that it prompted a phone 
     shouting match, turning a normally bureaucratic review 
     process inside the Homeland Security Department into a 
     politically charged drama that worried career officials.
       ``This one is going to be a major headache for us all 
     because Sen. Reid's office/staff is pushing hard and I just 
     had a long yelling match on the phone,'' USCIS Legislative 
     Affairs official Miguel ``Mike'' Rodriguez warned in a Dec. 
     5, 2012, email to Homeland Security Department officials.
       The emails, obtained by The Times from government officials 
     concerned that the EB-5 investor visa program has become too 
     politicized, detail how the SLS Hotel, formerly known as the 
     Sahara Casino, tried to jump to the head of the line for its 
     request for about two dozen visas for Asian investors willing 
     to help it fund a major renovation of the storied property on 
     the Las Vegas Strip.
       Despite early pressure from Mr. Reid's staff, career 
     officials inside the Department of Homeland Security 
     initially turned down the SLS Hotel on the grounds that it 
     failed to meet the criteria for expedited review. The 
     decision dated Dec. 17, 2012, stated flatly that ``there is 
     no appeal or reconsideration of this decision.''
       But that simply prompted Mr. Reid to personally reach out 
     to the top official at USCIS, Alejandro ``Ali'' Mayorkas, 
     setting into motion a process that consumed top political 
     officials inside the Homeland Security and Commerce 
     departments and ultimately resulted in a ruling that granted 
     expedited status to the hotel over the objections of career 
     officials.
       ``Ali had a call with Sen. Reid on these I-526 cases on 
     Tuesday of this week,'' Mr.-Rodriguez wrote top officials on 
     Jan. 11. ``While no guarantees were made on the call, Ali did 
     promise the Senator that USCIS would take a `fresh look' at 
     the expedited request.''
       Government officials did a lot more than give a fresh 
     look--forwarding from Mr. Reid's office the names of people 
     involved with the hotel project that could help the federal 
     agency change its mind on the expedited status request. Mr. 
     Reid's staff repeatedly made the case that the hotel would 
     lose its potential funding for its renovation if Homeland 
     Security's USCIS didn't expedite the visas.
       ``As you can imagine this project is pretty important to 
     Southern Nevada. It will probably be the only `new' property 
     opening up on the Strip for some time, and if their $300 
     million senior lending facility from JP Morgan Chase expires 
     because these visas aren't processed expeditiously, it will 
     be a huge setback for the project and the 8,600 jobs 
     associated with it,'' Michael Vannozzi, then a top aide to 
     Mr. Reid, wrote Homeland Security officials at one point.
       The hotel needed the foreign investors' visas to be 
     approved so that their money could be brought into the 
     country and paired with the JP Morgan financing to underwrite 
     the renovation of the hotel, the documents stated.
       Within a few short weeks of Mr. Reid's personal 
     intervention, the decision not to expedite the visas was 
     reversed, allowing the hotel to secure major funding from JP 
     Morgan Chase.
       ``Applications approved for expedited processing move to 
     the front of the processing queue but otherwise go through 
     the same robust eligibility and security review utilized for 
     all EB-5 decisions,'' the spokesman said.
       A spokeswoman for Mr. Reid said the senator ``has supported 
     and will support the SLS Las Vegas in any way he can.''
       ``Sen. Reid believes it is his job to do all he can to 
     promote economic growth and development in the state, and he 
     makes no apologies for helping to bring jobs to Nevada,'' 
     spokeswoman Kristen Orthman said.
       Hotel officials did not respond to a request for comment.
       The emergence of the documents comes at a sensitive time 
     for the Obama administration and Mr. Mayorkas, whose 
     nomination to be deputy secretary of DHS is being considered 
     Wednesday by a Senate committee.
       Mr. Mayorkas and his agency are already under investigation 
     for visa application decisions made involving an electric car 
     company associated with Terry McAuliffe, a longtime 
     Democratic fundraiser and now the governor-elect of Virginia.
       Officials say the EB-5 program, created by Congress in 
     1990, is designed to attract investors willing to risk 
     capital in ventures that will create jobs in the United 
     States. Would-be entrepreneurs who invest at least $500,000 
     in a new U.S. business can apply.
       The citizenship services agency says the goal of the 
     program is to ``stimulate the U.S. economy through job 
     creation and capital investment by foreign investors.''
       Almost all foreign investments in the EB-5 program are 
     channeled through special companies called ``regional 
     centers.'' Once their business plan is approved by 
     immigration officials, the companies bundle investments into 
     qualifying new businesses. Investors then can apply for an 
     EB-5 visa, and, if approved, can claim a conditional green 
     card immediately upon entry to the United States. After two 
     years, the conditions are removed if the investment has 
     created the jobs or looks likely to.
       The emails referencing Mr. Reid's intervention could 
     increase concerns that the worker visa program has been 
     exploited by political pressures.
       ``It's not one party's monopoly, but it's kind of 
     inherently worrisome,'' said David North, a policy analyst at 
     the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates 
     for less immigration into the U.S. ``There certainly are 
     political pressures to cut short the review process.''
       Executives for the two main companies involved in the hotel 
     project have donated more than $127,000 to political causes 
     over the last three elections, mostly to Democrats, Federal 
     Election Commission records show.
       Sen. Dean Heller, Nevada Republican, wrote a letter on the 
     matter to USCIS California Service Center on December 19, 
     2012.
       ``I strongly encourage you to consider this request and the 
     impact the project will have on Nevada's economy,'' he wrote, 
     under the assumption that the petitions were still being 
     processed. ``Time is of the essence and advancing Nevada's 
     economy would be strongly supported by this project.''
       Mr. Heller's office said there were no subsequent 
     conversations with USCIS or DHS.
       According to the plan, the project is estimated to create 
     8,600 jobs.
       Peter Joseph, executive director of the Association to 
     Invest in the USA (IIUSA), a membership organization 
     representing 107 federally designated EB-5 Regional Centers 
     across the country, pointed out that USCIS is dealing with a 
     backlog of about 7,000 applications--proof that they're 
     employing careful scrutiny.
       ``Based on the backlog, they clearly take it seriously, and 
     rightfully so,'' he said. ``I think that the data tells the 
     story--that this is a program that is being administered 
     carefully with the appropriate in-house expertise.''
       DHS declined to say which specific cases had been 
     expedited. It is not clear whether the applications flagged 
     for security reasons were ultimately approved, but USCIS said 
     in a statement that the agency ``takes seriously our 
     responsibility to safeguard national security and public 
     safety while deciding requests for immigration benefits.''
       ``USCIS subjects all benefit requests to a background check 
     process which includes coordinating with law enforcement 
     agencies where applicable,'' the statement reads. ``USCIS 
     does not proceed to a final decision regarding any benefit 
     requests until concerns identified during the background 
     check process are sufficiently resolved.''
       The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported in February that SBE 
     Entertainment was indeed able to secure the last piece of the 
     $415 million in financing that they were seeking.
       SBE Chief Executive Officer Sam Nazarian said the money 
     raised through the EB-5 funding was ``far above'' what had 
     been expected and would allow SBE to pay down its senior note 
     on the property, the paper reported. The terms of the project 
     required $115 million in EB-5 capital.
       The project was apparently struggling to secure that last 
     bit of funding. Adam Horowitz of Lever Capital Partners wrote 
     to the managing director of Stockbridge Real Estate Funds, 
     which was working on the project, on January 24 saying they 
     had reached out to more than 70 national and international 
     investors/lenders, and all but one said their lack of 
     knowledge of the EB-5 program would prevent them from 
     providing capital for the project.
       ``Brevet Capital, a New York City based private equity 
     fund, was the one lender that showed interest since they had 
     been spending time working on such projects,'' Mr. Horowitz 
     wrote. ``Their one hurdle was that there needed to be at 
     least one (1) I-526 petition approval. Since that approval 
     has not been granted they have currently withdrawn from 
     discussions.''

  Mr. COBURN. I understand that some of my colleagues on the other side 
are frustrated that whistleblowers have not come forward to speak to 
them. To be clear, I have communicated this request to the 
whistleblowers and have invited those whistleblowers who have spoken to 
come to my office to speak to the majority, twice. But they have told 
me that they have the fear they will face retribution if their 
identities become known and that they will lose their jobs. Putting 
myself in their shoes, I can't blame them. I cannot provide them with 
protection.

[[Page S9025]]

  They have also heard Members of this Senate dismiss their serious 
allegations. For example, the Senator from Delaware referred to the 
whistleblower allegations as rumor and innuendo. If you were an 
official who had come forward with serious concerns about improper 
behavior, potentially putting your livelihood at risk, would you feel 
comfortable speaking with somebody who has already dismissed your 
allegations as rumor and innuendo?
  So we will leave it to the inspector general's office to consider 
whistleblower allegations and all of the evidence to determine whether 
any inappropriate or criminal activity took place. Again, we will know 
that judgment in a short 2 months.
  However, we do have other information that raises serious concerns 
about this nomination. The committee's business meeting last week to 
consider Mr. Mayorkas is a perfect example of why the Senate should 
wait for the OIG's investigation to be completed. At that meeting the 
chairman gave a lengthy opening statement that made a number of 
concerning and inaccurate statements which served to denigrate the 650 
employees at the Office of Inspector General at Homeland Security.
  The office deserves some criticism, that is for sure, as our 
Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight has determined. 
Rather than rely on their insights, he came up with some of his own. 
There are actual misstatements of fact, and they only serve to further 
obscure a complicated and difficult situation.
  For example, the chairman claimed that 3 days before the confirmation 
hearing on July 25, information about the OIG investigation was leaked 
to Congress and the media in a highly irregular manner.
  As he knows, and his own committee record should indicate, the 
existence of the investigation was not leaked to Congress in a highly 
irregular manner, it was emailed to his staff, as well as mine, as an 
official communication by the DHS OIG congressional liaison office. If 
there was anything irregular about the situation, it was that the White 
House had not already confirmed there was an investigation ongoing. We 
had a right to that information, and it had been improperly kept from 
us.
  In the face of the White House's inappropriate omission, the OIG 
chose to inform us. I am sure it was a hard choice, but I believe it 
was the right one. If they had not done so, we would not have known of 
the investigation of the sort which the Senate, in normal times, would 
have given great weight to and not moved forward on.
  As DHS often tells us: If you see something, say something.
  The chairman also repeatedly faulted the OIG for refraining from 
interviewing Mr. Mayorkas until the end of its investigation. This 
appears to be a criticism borne from a lack of experience and knowledge 
of the investigative process.
  Quoting:

       To my amazement, Director Mayorkas has never been contacted 
     about this EB-5 investigation.

  Later he said:

       I cannot understand why they [OIG] have not talked to Mr. 
     Mayorkas.

  It is common practice to investigate the central figure in an 
investigation closer to the end of an investigation after evidence has 
been reviewed and collected. There are many reasons for this practice. 
One is that you do not know what to ask the subject until you have 
gathered all the information you can about his or her alleged 
misconduct. Another is that it minimizes the impact of the 
investigation on the subject, which can be an understandable concern 
when investigating a busy top official such as our present nominee. 
Early meetings can result in having to hold several interviews with the 
same official, asking questions about topics or allegations which could 
eventually be dismissed without their testimony by not identifying 
exculpatory evidence beforehand.
  While the scheduling for this interview was upsetting to the 
chairman, it should not be to Mr. Mayorkas. He is a seasoned prosecutor 
and familiar with the process of the investigations, and he knows what 
to expect.
  The chairman also claimed at the committee vote that the OIG has 
repeatedly given him deadlines and had missed them. The chairman 
inferred that we could not trust their word on when this investigation 
could be completed.
  Specifically he said: ``I was . . . informed that the investigation 
was likely to conclude in October.''
  Later he claimed: ``We have no guarantee this investigation will 
simply not drag on and on . . . it has already slipped several times.''
  Later he added:

       Each time we get an estimated timeline for completion, the 
     date slips. First we were told October, then perhaps 
     December. And as of last week, the IG said there were at 
     least several months of work remaining.

  None of this is true. According to my office records of the 
conversations with the inspector general, we have no record or 
recollection that the inspector general ever promised a date certain of 
completion in October. Neither do we have any record indicating the IG 
suggested December. Unless the IG communicated to the chairman these 
deadlines in the private conversations which he arranged without my 
knowledge or involvement, these statements appear to be simply false.
  I would also say I cannot imagine the chairman or staff would engage 
in a private conversation with the inspector general regarding a 
sensitive investigation into a political official. Such conversation 
would be a breach not only of our practices but could raise ethical 
concerns of exerting undue influence upon an official proceeding.
  I urge him to correct the Record or show us in detail the 
conversations where the IG made these points and promises.
  The chairman also stated this fact, and news outlets erroneously 
reported this inaccurate claim, that the investigation was being 
handled by only one investigator and two assistants.
  His quote was: ``We learned that there is one investigator 
assigned,'' he claimed, ``one investigator and two research 
assistants.''
  This is not true. The OIG has told our staff the case has a lead 
investigator--and that is true, an absolute common practice for 
investigations and most investigative and sensitive endeavors--but they 
were further told that the OIG had a rotating team of investigators, 
experts, research assistants, and staff help on various aspects of the 
investigation. This is a common practice, assigning leads to individual 
investigations but sharing a larger pool of assistant investigative 
resources. It is followed, to a great extent, by our own Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations. I don't understand why the chairman's 
characterization would stray so far from the facts established in 
conversations involving both our staffs or from common sense.
  I am also disappointed that it characterized the investigation as 
having a ``lack of progress,'' which was ``unacceptable'' and ``unfair, 
not just to Mr. Mayorkas but to a Department full of people who need 
leadership, and to a nation that is counting on the Department to help 
protect them.''
  The truth is it is not uncommon for investigations of senior 
officials to last a year or longer and is not a matter which should be 
rushed by anyone, certainly not the chairman of the authorizing 
committee.
  This is the kind of rhetoric which causes concern in some quarters 
that the chairman and others are applying inappropriate pressure on an 
agency's internal processes and deliberation. Political pressure is 
simply not helpful to anyone. In fact, it can actually hinder the 
investigation and weaken public acceptance for the findings, 
particularly if they exonerate Mr. Mayorkas. People may allege, as they 
have already, that the Office of Inspector General waters down and 
weakens its finding in response to political pressures such as this.
  If the OIG investigation results in a clean bill of health for Mr. 
Mayorkas, how many Americans, how many DHS employees, will wonder if 
the chairman's repeated disparaging remarks were indicative of a 
political pressure applied which improperly swayed the results? No one 
is served by his comments. What is more, they are not a reflection of 
the shared concern he voiced with me in our joint correspondence to the 
inspector general. I simply do not understand why he would intervene in 
such a vocal, public way, which could cast doubt and suspicion on the 
results of the investigation.
  The other thing about this vote is it is unfair to Mr. Mayorkas. I 
have

[[Page S9026]]

talked a lot about process and the need to know the findings of the DHS 
OIG report before we vote on Mr. Mayorkas. But no one seems to 
understand just how unfair this vote is to the nominee. By pushing his 
nomination through both the committee and the full Senate, Senator 
Carper and Leader Reid have denied Mr. Mayorkas a chance to win 
bipartisan support.
  I have only voted against one nominee who has come through our 
committee, only 1 out of 20. I would like to be able to vote for Mr. 
Mayorkas if, in fact, OIG shows him a clean bill. The reason it is sad 
that he can't win bipartisan support is that under the new Senate rules 
it is possible for my colleagues to confirm him without a single 
Republican vote. When they do that, they will be delivering to the 
Department a nominee who arrives with only his party's support, and he 
will be trailed by a cloud of doubt and discontent.

  The allegations against Mr. Mayorkas relate mainly to his management 
of the EB-5 immigrant visa program in his role as Director of the U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services. As I understand it, the 
investigation into Mr. Mayorkas began in an unconventional way by one 
person speaking out after their heavily documented concerns were 
dismissed. To me, this only adds validity to the allegations.
  In the course of its investigation, the DHS OIG discovered other 
allegations of impropriety, including conflicts of interest, misuse of 
position, mismanagement, and the appearance of impropriety. Those 
allegations could speak to a candidate's fitness for public service, 
especially if he is not fully cleared to help lead the Department of 
Homeland Security. It is wholly unreasonable to ask Senators to endorse 
the nominee's fitness for service until those questions are answered.
  In an attempt to discredit the investigation, some people have cited 
the problems plaguing leadership in the DHS OIG office, the inspector 
general in particular. In fact, the Financial and Contracting Oversight 
Subcommittee of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs is currently conducting and will release soon their bipartisan 
investigation into a number of allegations.
  While I agree those allegations surrounding OIG leadership are 
troubling, the problems of one person do not invalidate the work done 
by an office of over 650 people. OIG work in every agency should be 
taken seriously.
  In January of this year, Senator Carper joined me and members of the 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in sending a 
letter to President Obama urging him to fill the vacant inspector 
general positions at a number of key agencies, including DHS. In that 
letter, we said, ``Inspectors general are an essential component of 
government oversight.'' We do a disservice to that statement when we 
preclude the opportunity to, at a minimum, review the work done by the 
DHS OIG, draw our own conclusions, and then vote accordingly without 
all the facts before us.
  Even more concerning, by denigrating the open DHS OIG investigation, 
the Senate is sending a message to other OIGs that their investigations 
don't matter. Obviously, that is incredibly significant given our 
dependence on these watchdogs to oversee the huge government agencies 
and bureaucracies created by this body. We must respect and support the 
work done by inspectors general. In my opinion, the damage being done 
to the DHS OIG and the respect of IGs throughout the government by 
holding this vote is far worse than any damage done by the office's 
current leadership.
  The results of this investigation are not the only unknown regarding 
Mr. Mayorkas's service as Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services. Despite a number of concerns regarding national security and 
criminal vulnerabilities in the EB-5 program, we know the program 
expanded drastically under the nominee's hand and we have not yet seen 
evidence that he pursued significant regulatory changes to address the 
weaknesses that were known.
  Two months ago I personally asked DHS and other agencies for an 
answer on how the administration is dealing with the concerns, and I 
have received no response as of yet. These include an October 18 letter 
in which I requested information from Acting Secretary Rand Beers on 
EB-5 national security concerns identified by the agency itself in a 
draft report. I received no response.
  The same day, I also asked Acting ICE Director John Sandweg for the 
same information. I received no response.
  I also requested information from National Security Adviser Susan 
Rice regarding known national security concerns created by the EB-5 
program. To date, I have received no response.
  Just last month, on November 1, Senator Grassley and I requested 
information from Acting Secretary Beers on how the agency is addressing 
the known national security concerns with EB-5. Again, silence. No 
response.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these letters 
requesting information.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 Washington, DC, October 18, 2013.
     Acting Secretary Rand Beers,
     U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Acting Secretary Beers: I write to request certain 
     information related to the EB-5 ``investor visa'' program 
     operated by the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
       It is my understanding the Secretary's office issued a 
     tasking to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 
     Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) titled ``Request for 
     Information Implications of ICE Case Against Procurement 
     Agent.'' I understand the tasking requested ICE identify any 
     gaps in procedure and information in the EB-5 program and 
     recommend mitigating steps. In response, ICE allegedly 
     counted several vulnerabilities, all relating to criminal 
     and/or national security threats.
       I would like to learn more about any program 
     vulnerabilities identified by the ICE assessment.
       Please provide my office with the following documents and 
     information:
       1. A copy of the tasking referenced above;
       2. A copy of the ICE/HSI response referenced above;
       3. An explanation of what issues and concerns led to the 
     issuance of the tasking;
       4. An explanation of how the ICE/HSI response was received, 
     including the date of receipt, whether a briefing occurred, 
     and if any follow up information was requested; and
       5. An explanation of subsequent actions, if any, taken by 
     or on behalf of the Secretary following the receipt of the 
     ICE/HSI response.
       Further, I also ask you provide your assessment of the 
     national security and fraud vulnerabilities in the EB-5 
     program, if any, and how you plan to address them.
       I appreciate your urgent attention to this matter. I 
     request your response by October 31, 2013. Should you have 
     any questions, please contact Keith Ashdown on my committee 
     staff.
       Thank you for your consideration and assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                              Tom A. Coburn, M.D.,
     U.S. Senator.
                                  ____

                                 Washington, DC, October 18, 2013.
     Acting Director John Sandweg,
     U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Director Sandweg: I write to request certain 
     information related to the EB-5 ``investor visa'' program 
     operated by the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
       It has recently come to my attention that the Secretary's 
     office may have concerns regarding the EB-5 program, which it 
     communicated to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
     (ICE) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) several 
     months ago by allegedly issuing a tasking titled ``Request 
     for Information Implications of ICE Case Against Procurement 
     Agent.''
       I understand the tasking requested ICE to identify gaps in 
     procedure and information in the EB-5 program and recommend 
     mitigating steps. In response, ICE allegedly counted several 
     vulnerabilities, all relating to criminal and/or national 
     security threats.
       Please provide my office with the following documents and 
     information:
       1. A copy of ICE/HSI's response to the tasking; and
       2. A copy of any other reviews or requests for information 
     that ICE or HSI conducted of the EB-5 program after this 
     tasking.
       In addition, I ask that you arrange for the appropriate 
     officials at ICE or HSI to provide a briefing to my staff 
     about the ICE/HSI review of the EB-5 program.
       I appreciate your urgent attention to this matter. I 
     request your response by October 31, 2013. Should you have 
     any questions, please contact Keith Ashdown on my committee 
     staff.
       Thank you in advance for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                              Tom A. Coburn, M.D.,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

[[Page S9027]]

     
                                  ____
                                 Washington, DC, October 18, 2013.
     Hon. Susan Rice,
     National Security Advisor, The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. Rice: I am writing to request your assistance in 
     understanding potential criminal and national security 
     weaknesses in the EB-5 ``investor visas'' program operated by 
     U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
       My office obtained a copy of a document entitled, 
     ``Forensic Assessment of Financial Flows Relating to EB-5 
     Regional Centers,'' which appears to have been prepared at 
     the request of National Security Staff (NSS). This document, 
     marked draft, focuses on financial issues associated with the 
     program. It references an additional review: 
     ``Vulnerabilities relating to possible infiltration by 
     terrorist groups or foreign operatives are also before the 
     NSS and are being addressed separately by the interagency.''
       I am writing to request information about these assessments 
     and any actions taken in response to their findings.
       Please provide my office with the following documents and 
     information:
       A briefing from the appropriate officials on the National 
     Security Council staff who can speak to the process of these 
     interagency assessments, their findings, and any actions that 
     were taken to address any vulnerabilities;
       Any direction provided to DHS or USCIS to address potential 
     vulnerabilities identified in either assessment;
       A copy of the final forensic assessment;
       A copy of any document or memorandum summarizing the 
     findings of the NSS or interagency ``relating to possible 
     infiltration or foreign operatives'';
       A summary of any steps the National Security Council took 
     to inform Congress of potential vulnerabilities identified 
     through these interagency reviews.
       I appreciate your urgent attention to this matter. I 
     request your response by October 31, 2013. Should you have 
     any questions, please contact Keith Ashdown on my committee 
     staff.
       Thank you for your consideration and assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                              Tom A. Coburn, M.D.,
     U.S. Senator.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, November 1, 2013.
     Hon. Rand Beers,
     Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Acting Secretary Beers: We write today regarding the 
     EB-5 immigrant investor program operated by U.S. Citizenship 
     and Immigration Services (USCIS). We have significant 
     concerns about the fraud and national security 
     vulnerabilities of this program. Further information is 
     critical to Congress's understanding of the program, 
     especially at a time when permanent reauthorization of the 
     program is under consideration by Congress.
       It is our understanding that the Department's Office of 
     Intelligence and Analysis has conducted a review of security 
     issues related to the program within the last year or two. 
     Therefore, we respectfully request the following:
       1) Please make a copy of the Office of Intelligence and 
     Analysis review available to us and our staff to review. A 
     classified setting is available through Senate Security, if 
     necessary.
       Additionally, please provide the following information:
       2) In an unclassified manner, please provide the number of 
     immigrant investor petitions USCIS has approved for 
     individuals who had a (b)(10) designation in the Treasury 
     Enforcement Communications System (TECS), or had immediate 
     family members with such a designation, at the time of the 
     approval. For each instance, please describe in detail the 
     reason for the (b)(10) designation.
       3) In an unclassified manner, please provide the number of 
     immigrant investor petitions USCIS has approved for 
     individuals who have ever had a (b)(10) designation in TECS, 
     or had immediate family members with such a designation, but 
     did not at the time of approval. For each instance, please 
     describe in detail the reason for the (b)(10) designation.
       4) In an unclassified manner, please provide the number of 
     immigrant investor petitions USCIS has approved for 
     individuals who had a NIC/T designation in TECS, or had 
     immediate family members with such a designation, at the time 
     of the approval. For each instance, please describe in detail 
     the reason for the NIC/T designation.
       5) In an unclassified manner, please provide the number of 
     immigrant investor petitions USCIS has approved for 
     individuals who have ever had a NIC/T designation in TECS, or 
     had immediate family members with such a designation, but did 
     not at the time of approval. For each instance, please 
     describe in detail the reason for the NIC/T designation.
       6) In an unclassified manner, please provide the number of 
     immigrant investor petitions USCIS has approved for 
     individuals who had a CIQ designation in TECS, or had 
     immediate family members with such a designation, at the time 
     of the approval. For each instance, please describe in detail 
     the reason for the CIQ designation.
       7) In an unclassified manner, please provide the number of 
     immigrant investor petitions USCIS has approved for 
     individuals who have ever had a CIQ designation in TECS, or 
     had immediate family members with such a designation, but did 
     not at the time of approval. For each instance, please 
     describe in detail the reason for the CIQ designation.
       8) In an unclassified manner, please provide the number of 
     immigrant investor petitions USCIS has approved despite the 
     applicant or any immediate family members having connections 
     to any entity engaged in a transaction subjected to review by 
     the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States 
     (CFIUS). For each instance, please describe in detail the 
     background, and if known, the outcome, of the CFIUS review.
       9) In an unclassified manner, please provide the number of 
     immigrant investor petitions USCIS has approved despite 
     derogatory Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) data 
     involving the applicant or any immediate family members. For 
     each instance, please describe in detail the derogatory 
     FinCEN data.
       10) In an unclassified manner, please provide the number of 
     immigrant investor petitions USCIS has approved despite any 
     derogatory information relating to fraud or national security 
     involving the applicant or any immediate family members. For 
     each instance, please describe in detail the derogatory 
     information.
       11) In an unclassified manner, please provide the number of 
     immigrant investor petitions USCIS has ultimately approved 
     after another agency expressed concern about the investor or 
     any immediate family members involving fraud or national 
     security issues, but the other agency was unwilling to 
     disclose or declassify information such that the petition 
     could be denied. For each instance, please describe in detail 
     the concerns as expressed to USCIS.
       12) What guidance does USCIS follow with regard to using 
     classified information in immigration proceedings or 
     adjudications? Please provide a copy of any training, memos, 
     or other written guidance on this issue.
       13) In an unclassified manner, please provide the number of 
     regional center applications USCIS has approved despite the 
     presence of derogatory information on the applicant or 
     associated parties from TECS, FinCEN, CFIUS, or any other 
     source. For each instance, please describe in detail the 
     concerns as expressed to USCIS.
       14) Without regard to pending legislation, what authority 
     does USCIS currently have to deny regional center 
     applications or terminate their status based on fraud or 
     national security concerns?
       15) What regulations has USCIS developed or proposed with 
     regard to denying regional center applications or terminating 
     their status based on fraud or national security concerns? 
     Please provide a copy of any such regulations.
       16) Without regard to pending legislation, what authority 
     does USCIS currently have to deny immigrant investor 
     petitions based on fraud or national security concerns?
       17) What regulations has USCIS developed or proposed with 
     regard to denying immigrant investor petitions for fraud or 
     national security concerns? Please provide a copy of any such 
     regulations.
       Given the seriousness of the potential security 
     implications of any vulnerability in the EB-5 visa program, 
     we would appreciate your urgent assistance and a response by 
     no later than November 19th. If you have any questions 
     regarding this letter, please contact Tristan Leavitt of 
     Ranking Member Grassley's staff or Keith Ashdown of Ranking 
     Member Coburn's staff.
           Sincerely,
     Charles E. Grassley,
       Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate.
     Tom A. Coburn, M.D.,
       Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate.

  Mr. COBURN. Given that we are considering promoting Director Mayorkas 
to be second-in-command at DHS, it is appropriate that we consider how 
he managed this program and whether he addressed criminal and national 
security concerns, including exploitation of the EB-5 regional center 
program by terrorists, spies, and other threatening actors. These 
weaknesses were apparently the subject of repeated examinations by the 
administration.
  I have repeatedly pressed the administration for more information 
regarding the weaknesses in the EB-5 program under Director Mayorkas 
and what actions it has taken to remedy those weaknesses. The chairman 
has declined to join in this inquiry. Why is that? Why would the 
chairman decline to join in finding out the truth? I have not received 
documents or any of the information I have requested.
  At the same time there is no public record of steps Director Mayorkas 
has taken to address EB-5 concerns. For example, to date, USCIS has 
failed to promulgate any regulations shutting down regional centers 
being exploited by criminals or terrorists. This raises serious 
concerns with me.
  When Congress created the EB-5 program in 1990, the goal was to 
stimulate

[[Page S9028]]

the U.S. economy through job creation and capital investment by foreign 
investors. To that end, the original program--called the basic 
immigrant investor program--required immigrant investors to invest $1 
million in a commercial enterprise that would create or preserve at 
least 10 jobs. The investor was initially granted conditional permanent 
residency, but after 2 years and proving the creation of 10 jobs, they 
were eligible to become a permanent resident.
  In 1992 Congress authorized a second EB-5 pilot program allowing 
immigrants to pool investments through DHS-approved regional centers. 
In seeking approval from DHS, the regional center submits a proposal to 
DHS detailing how it plans to promote economic growth in that region. 
By investing in a regional center, immigrant investors can take 
advantage of relaxed job standards to measure both direct and indirect 
job creation. While direct jobs are actual identifiable jobs for 
qualified employees, indirect jobs are considered those created 
collaterally by the investment.
  While the regional center program was set to expire at the end of 
2012, last September it was reauthorized for 3 more years. Despite 
known national security concerns, no changes were made to the program 
by the Judiciary Committee.
  In total, over 25,000 people are currently in the United States 
through the EB-5 program. Since its inception, the EB-5 program has 
been plagued with wide-ranging problems. Mr. Mayorkas took over this 
program in 2009. There has been a notable expansion of the program 
since he took it over. It now sees $3.3 billion passed from foreign 
investors in exchange for visas to reside in our country. Yet the 
serious security weaknesses have persisted, as well as alarm among 
senior officials. These problems include the agency failing to 
determine if the program is meeting its basic goal of creating 10 jobs 
per investment and defrauding would-be immigrants with breaches of 
national security with suspected terrorists using the program to enter 
the United States.
  In 2012 the national security staff coordinated a review of the EB-5 
regional center program by five agencies focused on vulnerabilities 
relating to the financial flows and securities offerings that routinely 
accompany the investment component of the EB-5 program. That draft 
report raised major concerns with the investments being made by EB-5 
investors. For example, the investigation found one regional center 
filed false documentation in an attempt to support the creation of 
jobs. The same report also noted investments being made to a business 
that never existed and could never exist, headed by an individual using 
a pseudonym due to a criminal record of importing counterfeit products 
into this country.
  The draft review noted the high risk that EB-5 program participants 
may attempt to use the program as a tool or a channel for money 
laundering, tax evasion, or other illicit financial activity. This type 
of activity was aided by the fact that known criminals are not 
statutorily prohibited from owning, managing, or recruiting regional 
centers. We just reauthorized that.
  This national security staff draft review also references another 
interagency review looking at the national security threats associated 
with the EB-5 program, stating that the vulnerabilities relating to 
possible infiltration by terrorist groups or foreign operatives are 
also before the NSS and are being addressed by the interagency task 
force.
  Understanding we have only seen a draft of the national security 
staff's forensic audit and have not seen information about the 
interagency review of possible infiltration by terrorist groups or 
foreign operatives, I wrote to Susan Rice, the National Security 
Adviser, on October 18 requesting that information. She has not 
addressed any concerns. She has not answered our letter.
  The Department of Homeland Security also conducted its own internal 
assessment of the EB-5 regional center program, examining criminal and 
national security vulnerabilities. In response to an apparent tasking 
from DHS Secretary, ICE prepared a review of the program. Here are the 
vulnerabilities they noted and identified: export of sensitive 
technology, economic espionage; use by foreign government agents, 
espionage; use by terrorists; investment fraud by regional centers; 
investment fraud by investors in this country; fraud conspiracies by 
investors and regional centers; illicit finance and money laundering.
  The agency's own draft analysis makes clear that the EB-5 regional 
center program can be exploited by terrorists, criminals, and foreign 
operatives. Further, it identified regional centers as a means for 
facilitating espionage at the highest levels by foreign governments. To 
that end, the review by ICE proposed that the regional center program 
be sunset--be done away with--because there can be no safeguards that 
can be put in place that will ensure the integrity of the regional 
center model.
  As I stated before, I sought more information about DHS and ICE's 
internal review of the EB-5 program. I wrote to Acting Secretary Beers 
on October 18 requesting information about the findings of this review 
and what actions were taken in response. I have not yet received a 
response to my inquiry.
  Recently, we received a draft DHS OIG EB-5 regional center audit. It 
is my understanding that we are soon to get this final report. In the 
draft, it includes the following statement: USCIS--under Secretary 
Mayorkas--fails to ensure regional centers meet all program 
requirements. USCIS--under the nominee, Mr. Mayorkas--inconsistently 
applies program regulations and policies. USCIS doesn't always properly 
document decisions and responses, giving the appearance the program is 
vulnerable to inappropriate influence.
  This is all under the guise of a nominee whom we will vote on late 
tonight.
  Since the program is so poorly run by USCIS, the draft DHS OIG 
determined USCIS is limited in its ability to prevent fraud or national 
security threats that could harm the United States, nor could the 
agency see where the EB-5 program was improving the U.S. economy and 
creating jobs for U.S. citizens, as intended by Congress. This draft 
report also outlines a number of recommended actions for the Director.
  Last week Senator Carper asserted it was Congress's fault that the 
EB-5 program was susceptible to fraud and national security threats 
because it hadn't provided the proper statutory authority and that new 
statutory authority which was included in S. 744, the immigration bill, 
would have solved the problem. But the draft DHS OIG report makes clear 
that under its existing authority, the agency has the ability to issue 
regulations to deny and even terminate regional centers identified as 
fraudulent or national security risks but has failed to do so.
  They also recommended that the Director provide USCIS with the 
authority to deny and terminate EB-5 regional center participants at 
any phase of the process when known connections to national security or 
fraud risks are identified; that they should make explicit that fraud 
and national security concerns can constitute a cause for revocation; 
that he should give USCIS the authority to verify that foreign funds 
were invested in companies that create U.S. jobs and to ensure 
requirements for the EB-5 regional center program are applied 
consistently to all participants. None of these recommendations request 
any additional congressional authority; therefore, it is at least 
arguable that the action could have been taken by Director Mayorkas to 
prevent national security vulnerabilities in the EB-5 program. That 
hasn't happened.
  The draft report also recommends that other corrective action should 
be taken by Director Mayorkas as well.
  Since USCIS failed to properly apply its existing EB-5 policies and 
procedures, DHS OIG recommended developing a memorandum of 
understanding with the Departments of Commerce, Labor, and the SEC ``to 
provide expertise and involvement in the adjudication of applications 
and petitions for the EB-5 regional center program.''
  A third recommendation in the draft report related to the failure of 
the agency to maintain any metric as to whether the program was 
actually achieving its intended purpose. The DHS OIG asserted that 
Director Mayorkas should ``conduct comprehensive reviews to determine 
how EB-5 funds have actually stimulated growth in the U.S. economy in 
accordance

[[Page S9029]]

with the intent of the program.'' That hasn't been done.
  Finally, the draft report directs Mr. Mayorkas to ``ensure quality 
assurance steps to promote program integrity and ensure that Regional 
Centers comply with the Code of Federal Regulations.'' The implication 
there is that they don't.
  All of these recommendations raise serious concerns about the way 
Director Mayorkas was overseeing the EB-5 program and, in turn, should 
be considered as a qualifying factor to determining his fitness to be 
second in command in charge at the Department of Homeland Security.
  To summarize, we know the national security staff and the Department 
of Homeland Security conducted reviews of the investor visa programs 
Mr. Mayorkas has been overseeing since 2009. These reviews found that 
the program created a danger to national security--including the threat 
of exploitation by spies, criminals, and other national security 
threats. I and others have asked for more information about the 
potential national security vulnerabilities in the EB-5 regional center 
program, and we have received no answers.
  What we do know is that Director Mayorkas dramatically expanded a 
program that the administration and even DHS itself apparently believes 
to be a threat to national security. And according to a draft report by 
the inspector general, he did not take all of the actions which he 
should have taken and which were at his disposal to fix these 
vulnerabilities and to make sure this visa program wasn't bringing 
spies, terrorists, or other terror threats into the country.
  Finally, I would say this vote is not fair to the Department of 
Homeland Security. DHS is the agency we trust to secure our borders, 
make our skies safe, and to help our Nation protect us from terrorism. 
We know the Department has faced many challenges and has often 
struggled to execute its responsibilities over the past 10 years since 
its inception. And DHS has some of the lowest morale in the government.
  This week the Senate voted with strong bipartisan support to approve 
Jeh Johnson's nomination to be Secretary of the DHS. I was proud to 
support his nomination. He is the kind of leader DHS needs to help it 
address its many challenges and to fulfill its mission of making our 
Nation safe. He needs a strong second-in-command in whom he and all 
employees can have full confidence.
  It is this body's job to vet those leaders and ensure they are beyond 
reproach. With the cloud of this investigation and with many of our 
unanswered questions about Director Mayorkas's tenure as the Director 
of USCIS, we do not have full confidence that he should be in second 
command at DHS.
  By voting on him now, this body is sending the wrong message to all 
DHS employees. Right now, we cannot--let me repeat--we cannot determine 
whether Mr. Mayorkas is fit or unfit for this important position.
  Finally, I would say this vote is not fair to the American people in 
confirming a nominee for such an important position who has not been 
properly vetted. The American public depends on us to fulfill our 
constitutional mandate to properly advise the President on certain 
executive branch nominees. Here, we are not doing that. We are not 
doing that. In fact, we are voting to install a nominee who could be 
seen as unfit to serve in the No. 2 position at DHS. Now, he may be 
fit, but this agency is tasked with protecting our country from 
terrorists. It is our responsibility to guarantee to the American 
public that the leaders at DHS are beyond reproach.
  In this vote, Leader Reid is not only ignoring the rights of the 
minority but the longstanding precedent of the Senate. He is ignoring 
history, and he is inviting us all to do the same. But history has a 
difficult way of teaching its lessons. It was long the purpose of the 
Senate's procedures to remember these lessons so the country does not 
have to suffer such lessons again and again.
  My final comments are these: Those who are going to vote for Mr. 
Mayorkas do so at the risk of not knowing what the investigation shows. 
They also do so at the risk of obviating the oath they swore when they 
came to this body: to fairly and appropriately evaluate their decisions 
about advice and consent.
  My hope is that Mr. Mayorkas is cleared. But, unfortunately, he won't 
have my vote and that of several of my colleagues because we don't have 
the information with which to make that judgment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I will first acknowledge that at 11:15 
tonight we are going to be voting on the National Defense Authorization 
Act. It is a must-pass bill, one which has passed prior to December 31 
every year for the last 53 years. So it is very significant, and I 
think people are tired of hearing about it because they recognize the 
significance and the fact that it has to be done. So I am not going to 
say anything about that.
  I originally came down to talk about the problems we are having in my 
State of Oklahoma. I have a long list of people from all throughout the 
State who have talked about their insurance being cancelled, the 
increase in the deductibles and the cost of insurance, and about the 
crisis we are facing in the State of Oklahoma with ObamaCare.
  Madam President, I will mention one thing which has been overlooked 
in this debate and which I have mentioned once before but a lot of 
people have not recognized, and this has come from the leaders on the 
Democrat side, including the President of the United States; that is, 
the ultimate goal of ObamaCare would be a single-payer system. A 
single-payer system is socialized medicine.
  It is kind of interesting. I remember when we had Hillary health care 
back in the early 1990s, and we asked the question, if it doesn't work 
in Denmark, it doesn't work in Sweden, it doesn't work in Canada, it 
doesn't work in the U.K., why would it work here? They never said it, 
but they were thinking: If I were running it, it would work here. So 
that is the ultimate goal.
  I will share a personal experience, and then I will yield to the rest 
of the Members who wish to talk about their States.
  I had a personal experience 2 months ago. I went in for a 
colonoscopy, just a routine thing. After checking me and going through, 
they said: I have good news and bad news.
  I said: All right. What is it?
  The good news is your colon is fine. The bad news is you are about to 
die because you have 100 percent obstruction in two valves, 90 percent 
in two arteries and 75 percent in the other arteries.
  So I had as an emergency four bypasses at that moment.
  I say that because if I had been in the U.K., at my age there would 
be a mandatory 6-month waiting period and I wouldn't be standing here 
today. If I had been in Canada, it is like 2 years. And I have heard 
our good friends, the doctors who are Members of the Senate, such as 
Senator Barrasso, talking about what is happening in these other 
countries.
  A few minutes ago I was visiting with Jackie Davidson, who is 
scheduled for open heart surgery on Monday. I was talking about, quite 
frankly, how it was much easier than I thought it was going to be. And 
the same thing happened with my wife.
  But the point is that if you are in these countries, at a certain age 
it doesn't work. You are denied the opportunity to have surgery. So 
that needs to be in the back of our minds as we talk about the current 
problems we are having with ObamaCare and what the ultimate goal is.
  Lastly, I will say I have been contacted by two of my good friends 
who are members of Parliament in the U.K., and they asked me this 
question: Why is it you and your country are now trying to adopt 
something that we are trying to get away from over here in the U.K.?
  So let's keep in mind there is one big overriding problem that, if we 
cave in now, we will be reaching.
  With that, I yield to my colleagues who wish to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, a number of my colleagues have come down 
here, and we have done so on a number of occasions because most of us

[[Page S9030]]

are getting emails and phone calls and letters in our offices of real-
world, real-life experiences that people are having with ObamaCare. It 
is a reminder that the things we do here have real-world impacts across 
the country.
  As someone who represents the State of South Dakota, I came down here 
and shared a number of stories of constituents of mine who have been 
adversely impacted in the form of higher premiums, canceled coverages, 
higher deductibles--all doing great economic harm to the people in our 
respective States.
  I will quickly share a note I received from a constituent in Rapid 
City, SD.

       As my Congressional representative, you need to know how 
     ObamaCare is harming my life and health care. My insurance 
     company cancelled my policy. I am currently paying over $800 
     a month for a family of 4. To upgrade my policy I will be 
     over $900 a month. If I sign up for ObamaCare, I would be 
     paying over $2500 a month. I cannot think of any way this is 
     considered affordable health care!

  This is just another of many examples that I have from my State of 
South Dakota and that my colleagues have to point out how this is 
flawed and the economic harm it is doing to the American people and why 
it is so important that we here in the Senate take steps to change it 
and do it soon, before it is too late.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Madam President, like the Senator from 
South Dakota, our office continues to get emails and phone calls and 
contacts from our constituents.
  Tonight I would like to read an email received from David and Shannon 
McKichan. They write:

       I am trying to contact you with very little left to do. My 
     wife and I as of today received a notice that our health 
     policy is going up from 389.00 per month to 1177.00 per 
     month.

  That is a more than 200 percent increase.

       This is for the same level we have, which is an HSA policy, 
     5000.00 max out of pocket per year. This policy works for us 
     as we are both self-employed small business owners. We have 
     been hammered during the economic downturn and this is the 
     straw that breaks the camel's back. We feel that our 
     government is attacking us and we have nowhere to turn. We 
     are both in our mid 50's and if things stay the same will be 
     without health insurance. I have always provided for my own 
     needs but this is making things impossible.
       Please advise what we are to do. Please fight for us and 
     know we do not have a voice without you. I was a city council 
     representative for 15 years and always fought for the working 
     man but I now know that it is becoming a losing battle.

  This is just one example. Last week we were on the floor, and I read 
a number of emails saying the same things:

       You need to understand how cheated we feel.
       This is not right.
       I cannot afford this.
       Why are we being forced to change to a plan that has 
     benefits we don't need?
       Please help.
       Sir, I'm begging for your help.
       I'm feeling very upset & stressed.
       This is unfair and hurting working families.
       This law is hurting us, be our voice.
       We need your help.
       I guess we are the collateral damage?
       Why are they trying to destroy us in the process?
       We are scared.
  We are hearing the voice of the American people. We are hearing the 
voice of Wisconsinites. The Senate must hear the voice of the American 
people and act. The sooner the better.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, like my colleagues, and as I have done 
several times before, I come to the floor to share the voice of one of 
many Iowans who have contacted me over the sticker shock that they are 
experiencing under the Affordable Care Act. This time I quote a 
constituent from Sioux County, IA, northwest Iowa. That constituent 
writes:

       I am a pastor in rural Iowa and early this past summer, 
     trusting naively in the integrity of our President's repeated 
     promise that ``If you like your health insurance you can keep 
     it. Period[,]'' I made a change in my policy, moving to a 
     higher deductible to save the church money. Now I have been 
     informed that because of that change, my policy is no longer 
     grandfathered and therefore I will be forced out of it in a 
     year and compelled to purchase a much more expense 
     (un)Affordable Care Act-compliant policy.
       I am young, male, healthy, and will not qualify for any 
     subsidy. In effect, because of legislation Democrats 
     supported, my government is kicking me off from health 
     coverage that I carefully researched, chose and like a lot--
     and is forcing me to buy coverage that I do not need at a 
     price I scarcely can afford.
       And the Government has the audacity to resort to Orwellian 
     doublespeak and call such a draconian policy the ``Affordable 
     Care Act.''
       Please convey to your Democratic colleagues that I grew up 
     on a dairy farm and now pastor a church of farmers. I am the 
     epitome of middle class America that they claim to champion.
       This bill is unjust. It is based on lies to Americans like 
     myself. It hurts real people, including the church I serve.

  I have done my job. I have shared this constituent's message with my 
colleagues as he asked me to do. I hope they were listening.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I join my colleagues here on the floor 
to hear them tell stories that we are hearing from our constituents at 
home. I saw the newspaper from the State of the Presiding Officer, the 
New York Times, front-page story, ``Uninsured Skeptical of Health Care 
Law in Poll.''
  This whole law was passed to try to deal with issues of the 
uninsured. This article on the front page of today's New York Times 
says 53 percent of the uninsured disapprove of the law.
  Then they go through some of the numbers and it looks as though for 
the same number of people who think they will be helped, an equal 
number of people who are uninsured think they will actually be hurt by 
this law.
  Another headline, Wall Street Journal, ``Errors Continue to Plague 
Health Site.'' But the health care Web site is just the tip of the 
iceberg. Sure, there have been Web site failures, but the thing that is 
hurting Americans all around the country is the higher premiums the 
Senator from Iowa talked about, the canceled coverage the Senator from 
Iowa talked about, people who cannot keep their doctor in spite of the 
President's promise, fraud and identity theft, and higher copays and 
deductibles which we now know are actually going to be higher, after 
the law has been passed, specifically for the bronze policies, than 
they were all last year until the law came into effect.
  I would like to share a letter from a woman in Carbon County, WY, who 
writes about the harmful effect of the health care law for her life and 
for her health care.
  She says:

       I currently have health insurance through my husband's 
     employer, but the reality is that the current health 
     insurance that we have may not be available much longer. This 
     is scary to me, since I recently did some insurance shopping 
     for my mother.

  She said her mother is 63 years old and in good health. She said:

       I was only able to get two quotes. The cheapest quote was 
     for $756 a month with a $6,000 deductible.

  So we see higher premiums and we see higher copays and deductibles.

       The prescription deductible for that particular plan was 
     $500, and then the copay for prescriptions was still around 
     $35. The other quote seemed like a better plan and had better 
     co-pay on prescriptions, but that premium was $985 a month. 
     And that is also with a $6,000 deductible. What the heck. Who 
     can afford these kind of premiums? That is more than most 
     mortgage payments.

  Yet the President of the United States said if you like your 
coverage, you can keep your coverage; if you like your doctor, you can 
keep your doctor.
  I went on national TV, talked with Bill Clinton a few days before the 
Web site was opened, and he said it will be easier to use than Amazon, 
cheaper than your cell phone bill, and if you like your doctor, you can 
keep your doctor.
  It is fascinating, the President was so clueless about his own law 
and here we are today, people suffering all around the country, and the 
President doing nothing about it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Madam President, I came to the floor last week and for 45 
minutes I pulled this file out of my desk. It was my notes that I 
talked about in 2009 about the Affordable Care Act before it became 
law. I talked about the increases that were projected in premiums and 
deductibles. I talked about the networks that were changed, the doctors 
that would not be available.
  I was not a prophet. I was reporting what people such as the Chief 
Actuary

[[Page S9031]]

at CMS were saying at the time. Hospitals were going to close, doctors 
were not going to take patients under the new plan. More important, the 
premiums and deductibles were going to become unaffordable, not 
affordable. I am tonight going to read a letter from Donna Hulcher from 
Clemmons, NC, right in the middle of the State.

       We own a small automotive repair shop and have had 
     continuous health insurance coverage our entire life, either 
     through our company or for the past several years on the 
     individual market. We learned that our high deductible plan 
     with an HSA was not grandfathered into the Affordable Care 
     Act about 4 months ago. Of course at that time, no pricing 
     was available. We were paying 679.00 per month, and felt that 
     we were protected from catastrophic sickness/injury, and we 
     liked the flexibility the HSA provided in meeting our other 
     expenses like dental and optical. We checked with Blue Cross 
     once the cost for the new silver plans they are mapping us to 
     was available, and it is going to cost 1379 per month. What a 
     shock to the system and I am not at all sure it has as much 
     coverage as what we are losing. I am pretty much a deer in 
     the headlights, not knowing where we are going to turn, 
     afraid to get onto the ACA website and give my information 
     because I don't trust its security. It is totally foreign to 
     me to apply for government subsidies for something we have 
     always paid for and never depended on the government to help 
     us. This goes against everything we believe in as being hard 
     working, independent people. There are problems with health 
     care and with costs, no doubt but this is not making it more 
     affordable and from what I am hearing, doctors are retiring 
     early or not taking this new policy. I feel like I am 
     spinning the wheels of my brain trying to find out what is 
     the right way to go. This has pulled the rug from under our 
     family!

  We are now within 3 days of what was the cutoff. We have now extended 
the enrollment period to the end of March. But insurers are required, 
April 1 to April 27 of 2014, to submit their pricing for 2015. I have 
heard the folks talk about this is only about 8 percent of the American 
people that this applies to in 2014. In 2015 it is all of the American 
people. It is big business, it is small business.
  You know what is going to happen when they price this product with no 
experience of the risk pool this year. Prices are going to go up. 
Deductibles are going to go up. If you think it is unaffordable this 
year, wait until you see what hits the 90 percent of the American 
people in 2015.
  It is time for us to change this. It is time for us to fix it. It is 
time for us to get an affordable health care policy in place in this 
country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam President, as a result of ObamaCare, millions will 
be forced to use money that they would have used to pay rent, help 
their children attend college, or invest in a business. Instead, they 
are going to have to use that money to pay for higher premiums and 
skyrocketing deductibles. Here is one such example from Huntsville, AR, 
which is in a congressional district which I used to represent when I 
was in the House. This constituent writes about how he and his family 
must have to take drastic steps to be able to afford the cost of 
ObamaCare, not the least of which includes returning to work after 
retiring last year. The email reads:

       I have never before contacted a Senator until today. Sir, I 
     am outraged about the ObamaCare issue and the Affordable Care 
     Act. Because of recent developments over the affordable 
     health care act, and the obvious problematic issues related 
     to its operation, policy and implementation, we are selling 
     two of our vehicles to save money.
       This is due to the direct impact of this legislation and 
     due to the broken promises of President Barack Obama that 
     have been repeated over and over to us for 3 years.
       We are also canceling our cable TV, and will save about 
     $1,500 per year. We are cutting back on Internet, switching 
     to save another $1,000 per year. We are Christmas shopping in 
     January. Our purchase of a new vehicle is now delayed for 
     another 3 years. Our planned vacation trips for 2014 and 
     beyond are being pared back.

  This is the No. 1 issue I am hearing from Arkansans, the high cost, 
in some cases the unaffordable cost, of ObamaCare.
  It is interesting, as we hear other Members of the Senate come and 
read the same types of emails, the same types of letters that they are 
getting, they all have the same thing--they are put in positions that 
are simply untenable. They simply do not have the money to afford the 
so-called new insurance that they needed as their old insurance was 
dropped from them.
  We need health care reform, but ObamaCare certainly is not the 
answer. We need to transition the employer-based private insurance 
market toward one that allows for flexibility, choice, portability, and 
fairness. Let's allow small business owners to pool together to 
purchase group insurance, introduce portability into the market. These 
are things that we need to do, and continue--some of these things are 
actually in the Affordable Care Act. Yet the reality is we can do that 
without $1 trillion of increased taxes, and rapidly, because of the way 
that the business community is responding, making us a nation of part-
time employees.
  We need to allow individuals to purchase insurance across State 
lines. We need to expand health savings accounts and flexible savings 
accounts. These are free market reforms that would drive down costs.
  The problem that we had prior to introducing the Affordable Care Act 
was affordability. What has happened is, instead of driving down costs, 
we have driven up costs dramatically because of the way the bill was 
structured.
  We also need medical malpractice reform. I am an optometrist by 
training. I can tell you in the course of taking care of patients that 
there are people all over the country who have to do things that are 
above and beyond, sometimes, the things they believe they need to do in 
order to protect themselves. As a result, there are no ifs, ands, or 
buts, that definitely drives costs.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I had not anticipated coming to the 
floor tonight to talk about health care in this country, but I feel 
compelled to do so after listening to a number of our colleagues share 
with us letters and messages from folks whose lives have been adversely 
affected apparently because of changes made in the coverage of their 
health care through the Affordable Care Act.
  I regret any of the consequences that have been shared with us here 
this evening. My hope is that we will find ways over the next coming 
weeks and months to address the kinds of concerns that have been 
raised.
  I just wish I heard some of that concern in past years as we prepared 
to take up the Affordable Care Act. As a member of the Finance 
Committee, I wish I heard those kinds of concerns about the tens of 
millions of people in this country who really don't have any health 
care coverage tonight--some 40 million. For a lot of them, this health 
care is a chance for them to go to the emergency room of a hospital. 
When they get really sick, they can be admitted to the hospital and get 
the care they need. Without health care coverage, it is hugely 
expensive ultimately for the rest of us because we pay for it. Where is 
the outcry on behalf of those tens of millions of people?
  Where was the outcry 4 years ago when we had several million people 
who signed up for the Medicare prescription drug program and found that 
when their purchases of prescription medicines reached a certain 
level--$3,000 or $4,000 a year--instead of Medicare paying 75 percent 
of the cost for their medicines beyond that in a year, Medicare paid 
nothing, which is known as the doughnut hole? A lot of people fell into 
it--a lot of older people fell into it--and they could not afford the 
medicines they needed to stay well or stay out of the hospital. Where 
was the outcry on behalf of fixing that problem?
  Where was the outcry on behalf of the millions of young people who 
were dropped off of their parents' health insurance plans when they 
aged out at 22? Where was the outcry in those cases?
  We have had Republican and Democratic Presidents who have had a 
chance for years--for decades to do something about the fact that we 
spend twice as much money for health care as the rest of the world but 
don't necessarily get better results and don't cover everybody. 
Frankly, I didn't hear a lot of outcry from our friends on the other 
side of the aisle during all those years.
  As much as we feel for the people whose stories they shared with us 
here tonight, I wish that same sympathy and empathy had been extended 
to some of the people who now don't fall into that doughnut hole when 
their

[[Page S9032]]

prescription drugs exceed a certain amount during a year.
  Now we have people who are 22, 23, 24, 25 years old who don't age off 
of their parents' health care coverage. They are covered until their 
26th birthday.
  We will add to the number of people who have health care coverage. 
Somewhere between 5 and 10 million people will have health care 
coverage either because they are able to qualify under the Medicaid 
Program or because they will get coverage through one of our State 
exchanges across this Nation.
  Is the Affordable Care Act perfect? No. Are there problems with it? 
Sure. Anything that is this big and this difficult to do, there will be 
problems. I think the implementation of the startup in October and 
November was totally unacceptable. We are trying to work our way 
through it and provide the kind of access and explanation for this 
coverage that people deserve, and eventually we will get this right.
  The outcry we now hear attributed to the implementation of the 
Affordable Care Act reminds me a lot of the outcry we heard--I want to 
say 2006 and 2007--when we were beginning to implement the Medicare 
prescription drug program. To put it bluntly, it was a mess. People 
were confused by it. The information technology didn't work. The 
headlines in the newspaper looked a lot like the headlines in October 
and November and even now. But a year or two later, guess what. We 
fixed the program with everything but the doughnut hole. And now we 
fixed the doughnut hole--it started about 4 years ago--through the 
Affordable Care Act. People don't fall off that cliff anymore the way 
they used to.
  So rather than simply criticizing the provisions of the Affordable 
Care Act that are troublesome or problematic, why don't we fix them? 
That is what we did with the prescription drug program, Part D under 
Medicare, and that is what we should do here.
  I did not come here tonight to respond to our colleagues. I just felt 
somebody needed to say something, and I am pleased I had that 
opportunity.


                          Mayorkas Nomination

  Madam President, I rise tonight to speak again in strong support of 
the nomination of Alejandro Mayorkas to serve as the Deputy Secretary 
of the Department of Homeland Security. I spoke yesterday about 
Director Mayorkas' impeccable credentials and experience that has 
prepared him for this important position. My colleague from Louisiana 
Senator Landrieu did the same yesterday.
  Today I would like to address some of the concerns about Director 
Mayorkas that have been raised by our friends on the other side of the 
aisle and seek to set the record straight.
  I understand that some of our Republican colleagues believe we cannot 
move forward with consideration of Director Mayorkas' nomination until 
the Office of Inspector General finishes its investigation that it 
began--get this--in September of 2012. There was an investigation as to 
his management of the complex EB-5 program some 15 months ago.
  Well, I must say I disagree with my Republican colleagues. I think we 
have waited long enough, and let me explain why.
  As I said before, the Department of Homeland Security has been 
without a Deputy Secretary since April of this year--8 full months--and 
6 months have passed since Director Mayorkas was nominated. For many of 
those months, we did not have a Senate-confirmed Secretary of the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  Three days before Mr. Mayorkas' confirmation hearing in July, 
information about the OIG investigation was leaked to Congress and the 
media in a highly irregular manner. The information that was leaked 
indicated that in September of 2012, the Office of Inspector General 
for the Department of Homeland Security had received allegations about 
conflicts of interest, misuse of position, and an appearance of 
impropriety by Director Mayorkas and other agency officials. We also 
now know that the OIG did not actually begin investigating these 
allegations for almost 1 year after receiving them.
  Importantly, the OIG confirmed that this was not in any way a 
criminal investigation. Let me say that again because some of our 
friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be confused about this. 
The OIG confirmed in July of this year and reconfirmed in December of 
this year, earlier this month, that this is not and never has been a 
criminal investigation.
  To my amazement, Director Mayorkas has never been contacted nor 
interviewed by the OIG about this investigation. There was no phone 
call, no letter, no email. There was nothing in 15 months. Director 
Mayorkas only learned of this investigation after its existence had 
been leaked to the Congress in July, just days before our committee 
hearing on his nomination. Even then, Director Mayorkas ably and 
vigorously disputed the allegations in his interviews with committee 
members who would meet with him and staff who would meet with him as 
well at his confirmation meeting in July.
  Unfortunately, rather than question the nominee about this matter and 
give him a chance to refute these anonymous allegations, Republican 
members of our committee boycotted his confirmation hearing and have 
refused to meet with Director Mayorkas to give him an opportunity to 
respond to these allegations from people whose names and faces we don't 
even know.
  Senator Grassley said this week that Director Mayorkas has been given 
a chance to defend himself and has ``utterly failed'' to respond to 
Senator Grassley's letters. On the contrary. Director Mayorkas did, in 
fact, respond to Senator Grassley's letters this past August 20. In 
fact, he would have gladly spoken with Senator Grassley or any other 
Senator, Democratic or Republican, about the allegations face to face. 
That is the way we do things in Delaware. I can't imagine it is not the 
way we do things in other States.
  I am perplexed that an even better option--speaking to Director 
Mayorkas himself--was not taken advantage of by Senator Grassley. In 
fact, I offered to fly to Iowa with Director Mayorkas in August to meet 
with Senator Grassley face to face so that Senator Grassley could have 
his questions answered face to face, but, sadly, Senator Grassley 
declined.
  So I think the record shows that Director Mayorkas has been eager to 
meet with Senators on both sides of the aisle to answer their 
questions--not to duck them but to answer them. But our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle have been unwilling to give him what seems 
to me should be a common courtesy.
  Again, we are not talking about a criminal investigation. We are 
talking about the mismanagement of a program and allegations brought by 
people whom, again, my staff has never been able to interview.
  Getting back to the OIG investigation, of course, in a perfect world, 
I would prefer that it be completed before moving forward. At one 
point, I thought it would be.
  First, let me make it clear to all that there is nothing improper 
about the chairman of a committee asking for an update on the status of 
a pending investigation. There is nothing improper about that. 
Accordingly, in July Dr. Coburn joined me in inquiring about the status 
of this investigation. I was told it would be completed in October. 
Again, this investigation started a year earlier--in September of 2012.
  In October of this year, I inquired again about the status and was 
told it would be completed in December.
  On December 2 a bipartisan group of committee staff participated in a 
telephone call with the head of investigations at the Office of 
Inspector General at the Department of Homeland Security to receive a 
status update. They were told it would likely take 2 or 3 more months 
to complete the investigation. In fact, every time we have spoken with 
the IG staff, we have been told they are just 2 or 3 months away from 
completing an investigation that began some 15 months ago.
  I respect that the OIG must do its job, but we have to do our job 
too, and the President has to do his job. We cannot wait another 2 
months--every other month--especially for a position as critical as 
this one.
  Lest we forget, the Department of Homeland Security is charged with 
helping to protect our Nation and its citizens from all kinds of 
attacks, foreign and domestic--terrorists from abroad, homegrown 
terrorists from within--securing our borders, our aircraft, you name 
it. They respond to all kinds of natural disasters whether they

[[Page S9033]]

happen to be hurricanes or tornadoes. There is a lot going on. It is a 
busy and tough neighborhood to run and manage, and we need confirmed 
leadership.
  I thank our Democrat and Republican colleagues for their vote earlier 
this week on behalf of Jeh Johnson to become Secretary of the 
Department. He needs a team, and he needs a team that includes 
Alejandro Mayorkas.
  During the call I mentioned a little bit ago with the bipartisan 
committee staff in December of this month and trying to find out the 
status of the investigation, the OIG confirmed that to date they found 
no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by anybody at DHS, including 
Director Mayorkas. That is right, no evidence, none, nada.
  Given that the investigation appears to be months away from 
conclusion and that its completion date has already slipped several 
times and given the confirmation by the OIG that there is no evidence 
of criminal wrongdoing, I believe it is time to move forward. In fact, 
it is past time to move forward.
  The allegations that have been made public cluster around Director 
Mayorkas' administration of the EB-5 visa program. It is an extremely 
complicated program that provides foreign investors an opportunity to 
immigrate to the United States in exchange for significant investments 
in job-creating enterprises right here in America. The Department of 
Homeland Security OIG just completed an audit of this program, as a 
matter of fact, but I will get to that in a little bit.
  The primary complaint about Director Mayorkas concerns an EB-5 
related application by Gulf Coast Funds Management, the regional center 
which has ties to Virginia Governor-elect Terry McAuliffe.
  Anonymous sources have reportedly alleged that Director Mayorkas 
improperly intervened to help change a draft legal decision so it would 
come out in favor of Chairman McAuliffe's former company, Greentech 
Automotive.
  First of all, I think it is important for everybody to understand 
upfront that Greentech Automotive did not get what they wanted. Let me 
say that again. The final decision in this case did not come out in 
Greentech Automotive's favor, from the agency run by Director Mayorkas.
  Second, it is important to note that the author of the Greentech 
decision, the former head of the Administrative Appeals Office at the 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Mr. Perry Rhew, told my 
staff last week that he strongly disputed the allegation that Director 
Mayorkas had inappropriately influenced his decision.
  Many of the other allegations that have been made public about the 
Director's management of the EB-5 program contend that applications 
appear to have been processed without regard to security concerns. 
However, in reviewing the leaked emails that were attached to these 
accusations, Director Mayorkas actually says the exact opposite.
  I found this disconnect between the allegations and the emails 
presented as evidence so striking that I am going to read exactly--I 
want my colleagues to hear exactly what Director Mayorkas said in this 
email to support his contention on January 30 of this year concerning 
his application for a regional center in Las Vegas. This is what he 
said:

       We will take the time needed to resolve the security issue 
     and we will not act until we have achieved resolution. I 
     agree that we need to run enhanced security and integrity 
     checks.

  This email directly refutes the claim that Director Mayorkas was 
pushing to expedite applications despite the security concerns raised 
by his subordinates.
  In another email attached to one of the letters making accusations 
against Director Mayorkas, he forwards a question about Mr. McAuliffe's 
company to subordinates and he notes--this is how he does it: He says--
Mr. Mayorkas' words:

       I want to make sure that we are providing customer service 
     consistent with our standards, but that we are not providing 
     any preferential treatment.

  I would ask: Are these the actions of someone who is trying to exert 
improper influence or subvert security checks? I think any fair-minded 
person would agree the answer is no. No. Even our committee's ranking 
member, my friend, Dr. Coburn, indicated that the allegations against 
Mr. Mayorkas, although serious, are most likely not grounded in 
reality. I don't want to mince his words, so I will quote him directly. 
In reference to the allegations against Mr. Mayorkas, Dr. Coburn said 
in a committee meeting--again, this is a quote: ``I doubt they are 
true, but we do not have the facts.''
  I agree with Dr. Coburn. We don't have any facts pointing to any sort 
of wrongdoing by Director Mayorkas at all, as best I can tell. None of 
the anonymous sources or so-called whistleblowers have presented 
information to the majority regarding their concerns, something I think 
is unprecedented in these types of circumstances for our committee. We 
have been unable to question those bringing these anonymous concerns on 
the majority side, and our Republican friends on the committee--and 
maybe largely in the Senate--have refused to talk to the accused, and 
he has not been accused of any criminal wrongdoing. That doesn't add up 
to me. Maybe it does to some people. That just doesn't add up. We don't 
get to talk to the people who raised these concerns and our Republican 
friends won't talk to the accused who has not been accused of any 
criminal wrongdoing.
  On the one hand, we have over 30 people from both sides of the aisle 
who are well-known and hugely respected citizens who have gone on the 
record with glowing support for Director Mayorkas. On the other hand, 
not one person--not one--has stepped forward publicly opposing Director 
Mayorkas.
  Some of the people who have written in strong support of Director 
Mayorkas include the last Deputy Secretary of the Department of 
Homeland Security, Jane Holl Lute; the last Senate-confirmed inspector 
general of the Department of Homeland Security, Richard Skinner, who is 
a Bush appointee; and the three most senior border security officials 
in the George W. Bush administration, Robert Bonner, Al Ralph Basham, 
and Jason Ayhern.
  The fact is that Director Mayorkas has been proactively addressing 
national security and fraud concerns in the EB-5 program for years. 
Soon after being confirmed, he took a number of administrative and 
operational steps to address national security concerns. Where he 
lacked the administrative authority to improve the EB-5 program, he 
repeatedly appealed to Congress for the legislative authority he 
needed.
  Unfortunately, Congress dealt Director Mayorkas and his entire agency 
a bad hand when we authorized the EB-5 program in 2012. We failed--we 
failed--to give the agency any of the legal authorities that Director 
Mayorkas and his team at CIS had specifically requested in order to 
enable them--and they just requested in 2012, made a request--in order 
to enable them to address the national security and fraud 
vulnerabilities they could not address on their own. It said: Congress, 
we would like to do this. We need the authority; please give it to us. 
They started asking for that in June of 2012.
  Earlier this year, during the Judiciary Committee's debate on S. 744, 
the immigration reform bill, Senator Leahy introduced an amendment that 
made virtually all the national security fixes that Director Mayorkas 
had requested. While the comprehensive immigration reform bill passed 
the Senate with strong bipartisan support, it is unfortunately stalled 
in the House.
  Fortunately, Senate Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy is working on a 
stand-alone bill to address these national security and fraud concerns, 
much of what Director Mayorkas and his team asked for in June a year 
ago. I urge all of my colleagues concerned about security issues in the 
program to join me as a cosponsor of that bill.
  It strikes me as grossly unfair to punish Director Mayorkas for the 
inability of Congress to address the vulnerabilities in the EB-5 
program that Director Mayorkas and his team brought to our attention 
and asked us to fix over a year and a half ago. In essence, those of us 
in Congress failed to do our job. Yet Director Mayorkas is taking the 
fall for our failure. How is that fair? I will tell my colleagues: It 
is not.

  I mentioned previously that the OIG completed an EB-5 audit, and 
although that report has not been publicly released yet, some of my 
colleagues have

[[Page S9034]]

been discussing the OIG's findings earlier today. In light of that, I 
think this is a good time to get some facts straight because this 
audit, remarkably, misses some key facts.
  First of all, the report says the EB-5 program is vulnerable to fraud 
and national security risks and that the legislation that created the 
program makes it difficult to fully address those risks. That is 
something that has been well-known by Congress and the administration 
long before this report and long before Director Mayorkas took over the 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in August of 2009. The emails 
I just discussed demonstrate that Director Mayorkas did not take 
national security and fraud matters lightly. In fact, a review of the 
legislative history of the last year and a half might suggest that we 
take them lightly.
  Despite the widespread knowledge about the national security and 
fraud vulnerabilities in the EB-5 program--and all visa programs, for 
that matter--CIS did not and does not have the authority that it asked 
Congress for in order to adequately police regional centers and the EB-
5 program. I find it incredible that the OIG audit report makes no 
mention of Director Mayorkas' efforts to get Congress to pass 
legislation to address this problem since June of 2012.
  In the absence of being granted those authorities by Congress, 
Director Mayorkas took it on himself to implement other reforms. Yet 
many of these reforms took place before or during this audit--and yet, 
incredibly, those reforms are not even mentioned in the audit report.
  One of his first actions as the Director was to elevate the Fraud 
Detection and National Security Office to a director reporting directly 
to Mr. Mayorkas. This ensured that national security professionals had 
a seat at the management table and a voice in all major decisions.
  He expanded reporting requirements and security checks for regional 
centers, which led CIS to increase the number of national security 
investigations in the EB-5 program by more than 50 percent in the last 
4 years.
  He increased EB-5 staffing from 9 people in 2009 to more than 80 
today, and hired senior economists and national security officers to 
work side by side with immigration specialists.
  He positively engaged other agencies such as the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, the FBI, and the Treasury Department to help 
police the program. In fact, Senator Grassley himself noted this week 
that Director Mayorkas convened a national security staff working group 
to examine the problem last year.
  The actions I have described are not the actions taken by someone who 
does not care about national security.
  The audit report says the EB-5 adjudication process is ambiguous. CIS 
has recognized there was a need for a consolidated adjudication manual 
and they published one in May of this year--one more fact that was not 
even mentioned in the audit report.
  The audit report says the program is fraught with the perception of 
outside influence. There is no denying the fact that this program gets 
a lot of attention, including from us--from Congress. In fact, the 
USCIS receives 1,500 queries about the EB-5 program each year from 
Congress, from Senators, from U.S. Representatives--1,500. As it turns 
out, almost half of our Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
have inquired about the EB-5 program since 2009. That is an enormous 
amount of interest from Congress in this one program. In many cases--
most cases--that interest was provided or demonstrated to CIS on behalf 
of our constituents, from States from one corner of America to the 
other.
  But let me be clear: The fact that this program garners a lot of 
attention from a lot of Members of Congress and a number of high-level 
officials from all parties about the frequency and status of pending 
applications does not mean that the Citizenship and Immigration 
Services adjudicators are swayed by the attention. Perception is not 
always reality. Contrary to what some have suggested or assumed, the 
OIG reported that all the files they reviewed in their audit--including 
the ones associated with Terry McAuliffe's company--appear to support 
the final decision.
  Let me say that again. The OIG audit concluded that the evidence it 
reviewed in these cases supported the final decision.
  Based on the evidence we have before us, I believe it is clear that 
Director Mayorkas has taken strong steps to improve the EB-5 program. 
These are the actions of a dedicated, thoughtful, and committed public 
servant. They are the actions of a leader who is willing to make tough 
but necessary decisions in order to shake things up and improve a 
program that needed improving. That is exactly the kind of leadership 
we need at the Department of Homeland Security. I think we need it 
across the Federal Government.
  I also believe we need leaders who are committed to doing what they 
believe in their heart is the right thing to do. At his confirmation 
hearing in July, I specifically asked Director Mayorkas about the 
allegations raised by some of these anonymous sources. Director 
Mayorkas testified before this committee under oath that he has never 
put his finger on the scale of justice, and I have seen no evidence 
since then that would lead me to question his veracity.
  I do not believe that we can allow rumors spread by anonymous sources 
to rule the day.
  Some of our colleagues have been very critical of DHS shortcomings 
and they are quick to point out its failures. However, one of the major 
reasons the Department fails to live up to expectations more than they 
and the rest of us might like is because their top leadership ranks 
have been riddled with vacancies for much of this year, and the same is 
true of many other agencies. Again, it is not fair to criticize the 
agency on the one hand and yet seem content on the other to leave them 
without Senate-confirmed leadership for months on end. We can't have it 
both ways. We have some responsibility here as well.
  It is time to stop playing political games. It is time to vote to 
confirm Ali Mayorkas for the Deputy Secretary position at DHS.
  There is something else that came to my attention today that I 
thought was interesting. It is not from an anonymous source. It is not 
rumor or innuendo. It is actually a report from the Partnership for 
Public Service. One of the things they do at the partnership is issue, 
I think maybe on an annual basis, the rankings of the best places to 
work in the Federal Government in 2013 and, as it turns out, also maybe 
the worst, because they do a ranking from top to bottom.
  I was dismayed to find out this week that the Department of Homeland 
Security ranked last--ranked last--on their list of Cabinet Departments 
in terms of employee morale--last. It is not the first year. It has 
happened for a number of years in a row. However, although the 
Department ranked last among all the Departments, the U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services, led by Director Mayorkas, was one of the 
highest ranked components within DHS, coming in at, I think out of 300 
Federal agencies, No. 76, which, if my math is good, that puts them in 
maybe the top 25 percent of all agencies.
  After Mr. Mayorkas took over in 2009, employee satisfaction with 
senior leadership there increased by over 20 percent. It has increased 
by over 20 percent since he took over in 2009.
  Every now and then, in driving on my way to the train station in 
Wilmington to catch a train to come down here to start our day, I 
listen to the news. Usually I arrive at 7 o'clock. About a year ago I 
heard a report on NPR of an international study that was done involving 
thousands of people across the country. In the international study, 
they asked the same question of thousands of people from all walks of 
life with different kinds of jobs in different locations. The question 
that was asked of each of those thousands of people was, what is it 
about your job that you like? What is it about your job that you like 
the most? Not surprisingly, those people who were asked the question 
had different responses. Some people said they liked getting paid. Some 
people said they liked getting a pension. Some people said they liked 
having a vacation or having health care. Some people said they liked 
the environment in which they worked. Some people said they liked the 
folks they work with. But do you know what most people said? Most 
people said the thing they like most about their job is they

[[Page S9035]]

felt the work they were doing was important and they felt they were 
making progress. Think about that. The reason most people cite for 
liking their job, the work they do, is because they know it is 
important and they feel they are making progress.
  It is ironic to me--if you rely on the anonymous sources the majority 
side has not been permitted to talk with, it is ironic to me that in a 
department where morale has been low and a problem and a concern for 
years, at this agency that Mr. Mayorkas has led now for 4 years, 
employee morale is, by comparison, fairly high. He does not get any 
credit for that. But if employees really do care that the work they are 
doing is important and they are making progress, maybe that belief is 
reflected in these numbers. Maybe that is reflected in these numbers on 
behalf of the leadership that Mr. Mayorkas has provided for Citizenship 
and Immigration Services.
  Let me close, if I could. My friend from Kansas has arrived.
  There are a couple things I want us to keep in mind. This is one that 
is hard for me to understand. People whom we do not know, whom we on 
the majority side have not talked to and have not had an opportunity to 
hear from to hear their story--it is maybe unprecedented for that 
opportunity to be denied the majority or for the majority to deny that 
to the minority in a case like this. We have been denied that 
opportunity.
  I think the person who is maybe best able to provide or to rebut or 
to respond to concerns that have been raised by these anonymous folks 
whom we have not been able to talk to is Mr. Mayorkas himself, but our 
Republican colleagues have refused to talk to him. Even though there is 
no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, they refuse to talk to him to give 
him a chance to rebut or to respond to the accusations from anonymous 
sources we have never heard from. That one just blows my mind.
  If the shoe were on the other foot, if Democrats were in the minority 
and Republicans were in the majority, if I were the ranking member on 
the minority side and we had a Republican President who nominated 
somebody for office and the chairman of our committee asked me as the 
ranking minority member to meet with someone whom the Republican 
President had nominated, I would meet with them in a heartbeat. I would 
want to hear that person's story. That is what I would want to hear.
  If the anonymous sources were talking just to us, I would encourage 
them to talk to the other side as well.
  By the way, the one person we did talk to--and we got this person, 
Mr. Rhew--I think we got his name out of a statement given by Senator 
Grassley on the floor. We talked to him. He set the record straight. He 
set the record straight. I have already cited that in my comments. But 
we have never had the chance to talk to any other, I think, half a 
dozen or so sources.
  The other thing I would say is that there is nothing inappropriate 
about the staff of a committee chairman inquiring of an OIG about the 
pace and the resources provided to conduct an investigation. This is 
just not any Department that has lacked Senate-confirmed leadership 
from us; this is the Department of Homeland Security. Americans have a 
lot riding on that Department doing their job well. They need senior 
leadership, and they have not had the kind they need.
  But despite the repeated efforts to get the OIG to expedite their 
efforts, begun in September 2012--a joint letter from Dr. Coburn and me 
to the OIG in July of this year; 2 months later, get a response that, 
oh, maybe we will have something in October. Two months later, it is 
December, and bipartisan staff--Democratic, Republican; majority, 
minority--have a chance to be briefed by the OIG, and rather than say, 
well, this investigation we started 15 months ago is done, is ready to 
wrap up, they say, a couple more months, maybe 2 or 3 more months.
  Are we supposed to continue to wait? We have the leadership we need 
at the Department of Homeland Security. At some point you just say: 
Enough already.
  What we have learned is that in terms of full-time people working on 
this--I think there are about 650 full-time equivalent people at the 
Office of Inspector General at DHS, about 650, and as I understand it, 
3 full-time people--1 investigator and 2 research assistants--have been 
devoted to this investigation. No wonder it is taking 15 months.
  I would ask us to keep in mind our failure--our failure--to act on 
the recommendations made to Congress for reforms in the EB-5 program to 
address national security concerns and to address concerns about fraud.
  Mr. Mayorkas did the right thing. He and his staff pulled together a 
long list of changes they need, legislative changes they need so they 
would be authorized to address his concern. We dropped the ball. We did 
not include those changes when we reauthorized the EB-5 program for 3 
more years--a straight reauthorization. We did not make any reforms. We 
did not make any changes despite the fact that he had suggested them 
months before we acted.
  Finally, those changes ended up in the immigration bill. We passed it 
here. Most Democrats voted for it, some Republicans. It is over in the 
House. It is languishing and not moving. If we are really concerned 
about giving this agency, CIS, the tools they need, the authority they 
need to address these security concerns, fraud concerns, why don't we 
join Senator Leahy in the legislation he is going to introduce that 
largely is taken from the immigration reform bill? When he introduces 
it, let's cosponsor that bill.
  Finally, if we are going to accept as gospel criticism about the way 
a person has run a particular agency--and not of a criminal nature but 
criticisms about the way it has been run--why not give that person a 
chance to defend himself? Why not give him a chance to say: Well, there 
is another side to this story or maybe there is not, but at least give 
him that opportunity.
  Lastly, the morale at the Department of Homeland Security--they do 
some great work, important work, the Department of Homeland Security. 
And they do a lot better work. I will mention a couple things, if I 
can.
  Remember the response of FEMA, which is part of the Department of 
Homeland Security? Remember their response to Katrina? It was 
deplorable. How about the response of FEMA to Hurricane Sandy? All 
around--for the most part, all around kudos were won.
  How about TSA? TSA has been a whipping boy for a lot of folks. All of 
us who have the opportunity to fly commercially, we have seen TSA make 
changes. They have taken criticism they have taken to heart. Among 
other things, they have created the Trusted Traveler Program so a lot 
of people do not have to take off their shoes or their belts or do all 
kinds of things to get through a security check. The TSA has done a 
number of things. Some of the technology they are using is not 
intrusive, as it was before. Security is actually strong.
  For 10 years, our friends at GAO, the Government Accountability 
Office, have, every 2 years, on their high-risk list at the beginning 
of every Congress, cited that the Department of Homeland Security needs 
to be able to earn a clean financial audit of its books. They said: 10 
years; that is enough time.
  Well, it turns out the Department of Defense, which has been around 
for, gosh, about 70 years--over 60 years--is still not auditable. The 
Department of Defense is not auditable, much less to have a clean 
audit.
  Last week the Department of Homeland Security, for the first time in 
their existence, received a clean financial audit. They did it in 10 
years. DOD, also a big operation--it is 60 years and counting, and they 
are not even audited yet.
  So for those who want to constantly criticize the Department of 
Homeland Security, I would just say that the people who work there work 
hard. They have tough jobs. They need our help. One of the things they 
need our help in doing is securing the kind of leadership they have not 
had, and that is Senate-confirmed leadership.
  We have had some very good people who have been acting as the 
Secretary, acting as the Deputy Secretary, but, friends, it is not the 
same. They need leadership that is going to be there with not just the 
blessing of the President but the blessing of this body and that is 
going to be there today, tomorrow, next month, next year, and provide 
the leadership that is needed.

[[Page S9036]]

  The most important element I have ever seen in my time in the Navy--
23 years Active and Reserve--my time as Governor, my time here in the 
Senate, the most important element I have ever seen in any organization 
to determine whether it is going to be successful is leadership. Show 
me a school with a great principal, I will show you a school that is on 
the way up. I do not care how ineffective the teachers might be, I will 
show you a school that is on its way up. Show me a business with a 
strong leader, and the same thing is true. Show me a body like this or 
a military unit, leadership is always the key. And it is the key at the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  If the improvement that I have noted, that I mentioned here just a 
minute ago, is to continue and actually be strengthened, they need 
Senate-confirmed leadership. We will have the opportunity in a couple 
of hours to give Jeh Johnson, the newly confirmed Secretary of Homeland 
Security, a key player in the leadership team that he is trying to 
build at that Department. He deserves our support, and so do the people 
at that Department. And if they get it, they will provide the support 
we need in this country to be safer in the days ahead.
  With that, Madam President, I thank you for allowing me to give this 
statement.
  I see my friend from Kansas on the floor. I thank him for his 
patience, and I am happy to yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.


                       Honoring Our Armed Forces

                       Fallen Fort Riley Soldiers

  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, CWO2 Joshua B. Silverman, age 35, 
Scottsdale, AZ; SGT Peter C. Bohler, age 29, Willow Spring, NC; SPC 
Terry K.D. Gordon, age 22, Shubuta, MS; SFC Omar W. Forde, age 28, 
Marietta, GA; CWO2 Randy L. Billings, age 34, Heavener, OK; SSG Jesse 
L. Williams, age 30, Elkhart, IN are names of soldiers who lost their 
lives this past week. They lost their lives in a helicopter incident in 
Afghanistan, and five of those soldiers were from my home State based 
at Fort Riley, KS--the Big Red One.

  Our Nation is forever indebted to these young men for their service 
and their sacrifice. This evening I ask the Senate to pay tribute to 
these six soldiers who, in serving their country, lost their lives. If 
we here in Washington, DC, need a reminder about our responsibilities, 
we need only look to our service men and women who, for no partisan 
reason--nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats--volunteer to serve 
their country, and recognize there are things much more important than 
even life itself.
  These soldiers were committed to preserving the freedoms and 
liberties guaranteed Americans by our Constitution, and they sacrificed 
their lives every day to make certain Americans have the opportunity to 
pursue the American dream.
  I once heard a hymn that has stayed with me ever since the first time 
I heard it. It was sung at the funeral service of President Reagan. It 
is called ``Mansions of the Lord.'' It was performed by the U.S. Armed 
Forces Chorus at the National Cathedral here in Washington. The words 
of that hymn are these:

       To fallen soldiers let us sing
       Where no rockets fly nor bullets wing
       Our broken brothers let us bring
       To the mansions of the Lord
       No more bleeding, no more fight
       No prayers pleading through the night
       Just divine embrace, eternal light
       In the mansions of the Lord
       Where no mothers cry and no children weep
       We will stand and guard though the angels sleep
       Through the ages safely keep
       The mansions of the Lord

  We honor these six soldiers who this week were welcomed into the 
mansions of the Lord.
  I am grateful for the blessings these brave men afforded us with 
their service to our country, and we thank God for giving us these 
heroes. We remain committed to preserving this Nation for the sake of 
the next generation by honoring that sacrifice.
  We Americans are indebted to every member of our military. We are 
indebted to do nothing less than to preserving America's freedom and to 
make certain it remains the bright shining star for the world.
  I would ask God to bless these service men and women, to bless our 
veterans, to bless our country.
  This coming week, in a few short days, families will gather around 
dining room tables across our Nation to celebrate the holidays. In the 
instance of these six families, there will be an empty chair at the 
Christmas table. For those of us who are Christians, we celebrate 
Christmas as the arrival of the Prince of Peace, and I would ask that 
we have peace in our land, peace in our world, and no more wars. And I 
would ask that these families find peace knowing that their son, their 
husband, their father, sacrificed for something more important than 
life itself--they sacrificed for others. May they find peace in knowing 
what worthy lives their loved ones lived.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, there has been considerable 
controversy in recent days over a provision in the recently passed 
spending package that became known as the Bipartisan Budget Act which 
cuts pensions for military members, including wounded warriors.
  There was bipartisan agreement. People on both sides of the aisle 
believe that it ought to be fixed, that it was an error and should not 
go forward, and that there were better ways to find the money--if you 
have to have money to spend somewhere else--than taking it from 
military retirees.
  But Majority Leader Reid and every single Member of his conference 
save one stood together to block an effort which I proposed to restore 
the pensions for the military and also find better offsets. They 
blocked us from making any alteration to this spending package that was 
before the Senate, including my amendment to close an egregious tax 
welfare loophole--a tax credit, a payment directly from the United 
States of America to illegal aliens--that could pay for these cuts 
itself. Indeed, the inspector general of President Obama's Treasury 
Department has said this loophole needs to be closed and would save a 
substantial sum of money. It is an open gate, allowing massive fraud 
and illegality.
  So we simply wanted to close that loophole. We asked to pay for this 
new spending by closing this loophole that the Treasury Department 
asked us to close instead of reducing the retirement benefits by as 
much as $70,000 for a sergeant who served to age 42 in the U.S. 
military.
  How can this blockade be defended? How did it happen? Why would we be 
in such a position? Is there any Member in the majority who would 
really defend the practice we are now undertaking where legislation 
that clearly needs an amendment to fix a problem in it is not allowed 
to have amendments, and the legislation is rammed through the Senate?
  This has been the pattern around here for far too long. The majority 
leader is eroding the Senate's historic role as the great Chamber where 
the issues are debated and changes and amendments are voted on, and he 
is being enabled and supported by his conference.
  Consistently, time and again, when objections are made to try to stop 
this practice and get amendments and votes on important bills, his 
conference has stood with him. In other words, his conference is 
saying: We choose to stand with Majority Leader Reid and his procedural 
actions which block other colleagues; we choose to stand against even 
our own Members having amendments and against the right of individual 
Americans to have their Senator be held accountable--to stand up and be 
able to offer amendments to legislation to improve it. And if you don't 
do that, you are accountable for voting for the final bill--which is 
imperfect and should be fixed.
  That is the way the voters hold us accountable. They need to be able 
to see us vote and look at our voting records and decide whether we are 
serving their interests, some Wall Street interest, some special 
interest, or some political group instead of the national interest. 
That is what this whole system is about.
  Now we have before us the Defense bill that is so important for 
America. I serve on the Armed Services Committee. I have been on that 
committee for nearly 17 years. We moved this bill out with a big 
majority. I voted for it

[[Page S9037]]

in committee, although I expressed great concern about its budgetary 
problems that needed to be fixed. Unfortunately these problems have not 
been fixed. But I wanted to see the bill move forward, and I tried to 
be cooperative.
  The bill moved to the floor. The budget problem hasn't been fixed, 
and there are other problems with the legislation that need to be 
refined. The bill before us, the Defense bill, spends approximately 
$500 billion--for the largest single agency in the U.S. Government. Are 
we to accept that it should pass in this body without a single person 
having a single idea that ought to be made a part of that bill? Can it 
not be made better?
  The majority admits it is not a perfect piece of legislation. We 
certainly know that. The American system is designed so that when an 
imperfect bill moves forward, a Senator can offer an amendment. Maybe 
it is not a good amendment. Maybe it will be voted down. Maybe it is a 
good amendment and will be accepted. But no more, not with what is 
happening here today.
  What is happening here today is when Republicans want to offer an 
amendment, Senator Reid basically says no. He doesn't want any 
amendments. He then uses a device called ``filling the tree''--because 
he gets to be recognized first--filling it with a series of amendments, 
leaving no place, then, for any other Member of the Senate to call up 
an amendment. And the majority leader won't remove the amendments from 
the tree unless he decides he wants to.
  On this Defense bill, we had two votes on amendments when the bill 
was up for an entire week. We could have easily had 30 or 40 votes that 
week had we chosen to do so. So only two votes were held, and none now, 
and we are moving to final passage. The tree is filled, and we have not 
been able to force even a single vote to fix matters.
  Senator Cornyn offered an amendment this afternoon. He filed a motion 
to table some of the amendments Senator Reid had placed on the tree, 
and it was voted down by the supporters of Senator Reid on the other 
side of the aisle. We have been talking about this for a long time. 
This is contrary to the history of the Senate.
  Senator Cornyn laid out how year after year for 51 years we moved a 
defense bill through the Senate, and there have been multiple 
amendments nearly every time but this one. It is unthinkable that the 
great Senate of the United States would not allow amendments to a bill 
as significant as a defense bill.
  So what does the majority leader do after he fills the tree? 
Republicans said: Wait a minute, Senator Reid. There were no amendments 
allowed on the bill. We have amendments.
  He said: Oh, you are being obstructionist. I am going to file for 
cloture. I am going to file a motion to shut off debate, and we are not 
going to have any amendments.
  And then if the Republicans resist and say, we are not going to vote 
to end debate because we haven't had any amendments, he says, you are 
obstructionist.
  This is the pattern that has been going on. He files cloture 
virtually immediately with the filing of the bill, and he claims that 
is a filibuster by the Republicans. So by filing cloture immediately, 
he contends that Republicans are filibustering a bill; he counts up 
these filibusters and says: There are too many filibusters in the 
Senate. You are obstructing the business of the Senate. In truth, 
Majority Leader Reid is the one who is obstructing the Senate. He is 
the one who is blocking debate and amendments.

  If you ask a schoolchild somewhere in America, if you ask a senior 
citizen, a World War II veteran who loves this country and has studied 
the great principles of America, you say there is a piece of 
legislation on the floor of the Senate and there is something in it 
that is wrong--they want to cut benefits for wounded warriors, veterans 
who served and have been wounded in combat and disabled--and you do not 
want that to happen, what would you do?
  Why, they would all answer, you would file an amendment to the bill 
to fix this problem.
  But not in the Senate today. That is the classical understanding of 
the way this body ought to operate. That is what James Madison, I am 
sure, conceived and the way it has worked for so many years. But not 
any longer. This bipartisan Budget Act is just like the Defense bill--
no amendments. No matter how important the bill is, no matter how many 
problems there are in it, no amendments.
  Oh, you want to go back to that old Senate where people could 
actually debate and have amendments and offer changes and improve it? 
No longer. That is obstructionist. That is delaying tactics. We won't 
have it anymore. You are slowing us down. It is unacceptable.
  When I vote not to end debate on this Defense bill that is before us, 
I am not voting to not have a defense bill. That is so obviously wrong 
it is hard to believe you have to explain it. But we are not voting to 
do that. We are voting to maintain the classical principle of the 
Senate where individual Senators from whatever State there is can come 
to the floor and make a contribution to the country. They were elected 
by their people. There are almost 5 million Alabamians who elected me. 
Do I not get to offer an amendment to the Defense bill of the United 
States? It diminishes my role. It diminishes the role of every single 
Senator. So I am asking my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
who have been lemming-like, I call it, defending this abuse of power, 
to begin to consider what this may mean to them and whether this is the 
right way the Senate should operate.
  There will be some tough votes. We will all have to take tough votes. 
Probably most people can explain their votes if they know what they are 
doing. Maybe some cannot and they will be voted out and sent home. So 
be it. If you cannot defend your vote and you are not casting good 
votes on bills and you cannot respond effectively as to why you voted 
for or against a certain amendment, then you ought to be sent home. We 
are not entitled to these jobs. We have to be elected to them.
  I am concerned about it. I believe it goes even beyond the 
significance of this important Defense bill. I think it goes beyond 
this grave error in which we are reducing the pay of military retirees 
when we are not reducing other retirees' pay.
  This is not a belt-tightening across the board. It seems to me to be 
a targeting of one group of Americans, perhaps those who served more 
than any other group.
  Majority Leader Reid continues to complain that the trains are not 
running on time, not running with enough ruthless efficiency to suit 
his ideas. So he then uses a filling-the-tree tactic. But that is not 
all. Although President Obama has had judge after judge after judge 
confirmed, and Cabinet people and sub-Cabinet people confirmed in large 
numbers, the Senate refused to approve one appointment recently and 
refused to fill three Federal judgeships at the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the District of Columbia Circuit because they were not needed. The 
average caseload for those judges was 149. Of the 8 judges who are 
there now, there are authorized 11 judges. So the 8 judges there now 
have 149 cases per judge, whereas my circuit, the 11th Circuit, sitting 
in Atlanta, has over 700 cases per judge. The national average is 
around 350 cases per judge.
  We do not need to fill three judgeships for which the caseload is not 
there. The caseload for the DC Circuit is almost half that of the next 
lowest circuit in the country. So we do not need these judges. The 
caseload continues to decline. So the Senate refused to give cloture, 
refused to confirm those judges. So in an act of pique or calculation 
or deliberateness, the majority leader altered the rule of the Senate 
about how we ought to conduct business here. He did so by breaking the 
rules of the Senate.
  This is what happened. U.S. Senate rule XXII says in order to bring 
debate to a close, three-fifths of the Senators duly sworn would need 
to vote to end the debate. There were not sufficient votes to end the 
debate on the DC judges because they were not needed. This irritated 
the majority leader. So he petitioned to the Presiding Officer and the 
Parliamentarian and he asserted that it only takes 51 Senators to vote 
to end debate. But rule XXII explicitly says it takes three-fifths, 60 
Senators, to end debate. It goes on to say, except when you change the 
rules of the Senate, and that takes two-thirds, 67. So it takes 67 
votes to change the rules of the Senate and 60 votes to end debate.

[[Page S9038]]

  What did Senator Reid do? He asked the Parliamentarian to say it only 
took 51. The Presiding Officer, the President pro tempore of the 
Senate, Senator Leahy, our longest serving Member, and the 
Parliamentarian said no, Senator Reid, the rule is it takes 60 votes to 
shut off debate.
  So what did Senator Reid do? He used the ability to appeal the ruling 
of the Chair and he asked his colleagues to overrule the ruling of the 
Chair, which by any plain reading of the rules of the Senate would be 
without dispute requiring 60 votes to shut off debate, but he wanted it 
to be 51 and his colleagues supported him. His colleagues supported 
him, they supported him and he overruled the Chair, his own 
Parliamentarian whom he selected and the Presiding Officer that he put 
in the Chair. They voted to change the rules of the Senate. It is in 
plain language--with 51 votes, not 67.
  This is dangerous, colleagues. This is the kind of thing you see in 
Third World republics or would-be republics. This is the kind of 
lawlessness that will endanger the American system of government at its 
most fundamental basis. It is endangering us. The President says 
whatever he wants to--you can keep your doctor, the President says your 
plan is going to save you $2,000 a year, the President says all these 
things and he gets his bill passed and none of it is true.
  I don't see any Members on the floor who voted for this bill, 
ObamaCare, down here apologizing to the American people, saying I am 
sorry, the bill I voted for did not do any of the things I promised you 
it would do and I am willing to have an amendment process on the floor 
to fix it. No, we are not going to get a vote on ObamaCare. They are 
going to block that too. If any attempt is ever made, he will fill the 
tree and block that vote. So we are not able to bring it to the Senate 
floor and require Senators to vote on serious issues involving health 
care for millions of Americans because Senator Reid doesn't believe in 
it and he is backed by his colleagues.

  I guess the President probably says, oh, don't let them vote on 
ObamaCare, they might change some of it. You know, they are finding out 
what is in it. We don't want them to actually think they have enough 
muscle to actually pass a law to fix it or change it or alter it. That 
would be terrible. Who do they think they are? Do they think this is a 
democracy or something?
  That is where we are. This is huge and significant. We have to 
confront what is happening. It is very important that we cool down and 
we get some sort of work going on, but I am not confident at all on 
that. This effort should result in a retreat from this breaking the 
rules to change the rules, this nuclear option.
  The reason a nuclear option was called that is because once you do 
that, it blows up the entire Senate. Senator Levin explained the 
problem very succinctly, one of two Democrats who voted against Senator 
Reid's attempt to execute the nuclear option and to change the rules of 
the Senate. He said if a majority can change the rules of the Senate, 
there are no rules. It is simply what the majority says. There are no 
standards, there are no rules, there are no procedures. If we can 
change them whenever we are frustrated by a majority vote in the 
Senate, there are no rules, there are no protections. That is so true.
  That is why what has happened here is so significant. I believe this 
late-night work and this process to consider nominations is healthy, 
because it requires us to go through a painful period of introspection 
as to what is happening to us and how we ought to conduct this great 
Senate.
  This afternoon we did not have the support for Senator Cornyn's 
resolution. Yesterday, when I made the motion to clear a place off of 
the tree so my amendment could be heard and voted on, my colleagues, a 
majority of them, voted no. Only one broke with Senator Reid, actually; 
one Democrat did. Every Republican voted to allow amendments to go 
forward, allow my amendment to be heard. The rights of all the Senators 
in this body to defend their State, to defend equal representation, was 
undermined.
  The two Independents in our Senate, delightful individuals for sure 
who caucus with the Democrats and vote with the Democrats, maybe 
sometime they will be willing to prove that the letter ``I'', 
independent, means something and maybe they will help us stand and 
defend the heritage of the Senate. We need to make this thing change. 
We cannot continue to aggregate more and more power into the majority 
leader where no longer--where the right to demand 60 votes to shut off 
debate could be further eroded, where we will continue to see bill 
after bill brought up with no amendments being allowed.
  They say oh, well, we are at the end of a year. We must do that. We 
do not have time. But the Defense bill has been on the floor since 
June. That is awful. There have been huge amounts of time for us to 
bring it to the floor. It has been out of committee since June and it 
should long ago have been brought up and, in fact, it could have been 
voted on last week with full amendments and we would already be through 
with that and be gone today.
  The Armed Services bill, the Defense bill is an important bill. I am 
very disappointed we are at a period of impasse, very disappointed that 
I cannot support going forward with it to final passage because there 
is no ability to amend it and fix some of the obvious flaws that are in 
it. It is outside the budget spending limits we agreed to.
  The Bipartisan Budget Act was also rammed through the Senate with no 
ability to offer amendments. This legislation will not allow us to 
prevent the cut of veterans retirement pay and disabled wounded 
warriors retirement and benefit pay.
  It is a disappointment for me to be in this position. I have tried to 
be supportive of the Defense bill every year. I worked in committee to 
do so. I believe last year we got a unanimous vote, Republicans and 
Democrats, quite a number of times in the committee. A lot of that is 
due to Senator Levin and Senator Inhofe's leadership. This time we have 
a problem, and it is not going well, and I am deeply disappointed. I 
believe we can do better, we must do better, and I will not be able to 
vote to support this bill tonight.

  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the efforts and concerns of 
my colleagues in the Senate and the House who are unwavering in their 
support for our military retirees. We need to correct this grave 
injustice that was made and continue our promise to the men and women 
who serve our Nation by restoring their retirement benefits. We need to 
cut spending and put our country on the path to fiscal responsibility, 
but it should not come at the expense of our nation's military 
retirees. I could never support a budget deal that contained this 
provision. That is why I opposed the deal that was approved by the 
Senate this week. I will work with my colleagues to make sure our 
servicemembers receive the benefits they earned. I am confident that we 
can find a solution to this error before any retirees are impacted by a 
reduction in their future retirement pay.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I rise today with strong concerns over 
how the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014, H.R. 3304, 
approaches the critical issue of intelligence, surveillance and 
reconnaissance, ISR, and specifically the approach to the Global Hawk 
system. I support H.R. 3304, but I will continue to work with 
administration officials, our Nation's military leaders, and my 
colleagues to make sure our Nation makes the right investments in ISR 
that protect our Nation and our servicemembers.
  Since I joined the Senate in January 2013, I have spoken with several 
key Department of Defense leaders who have emphasized the importance of 
sufficient ISR capabilities to keep our troops safe and protect U.S. 
interests. The Global Hawk family of platforms plays a key role in 
providing that ISR capability and answering the call of combatant 
commanders with unmatched range, endurance, and cost-per-ISR-hour.
  The Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act prohibited 
the retirement of the Global Hawk through the end of the Fiscal Year 
and directed the Air Force to maintain the operational capability of 
each system to support operational requirements of the combatant 
commands. The original House version of the Fiscal Year 2014 NDAA 
extended this retirement prohibition on Global Hawk through the end of 
2016. This smart provision would allow the still-fielding Global Hawk 
fleet to continue to support operations

[[Page S9039]]

around the globe and allow Congress and the Department to gather 
additional information about our Nation's future ISR needs. Such 
information would allow the best possible decision about the Global 
Hawk.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 3304 only extends the prohibition on Global Hawk 
retirement through the end of Fiscal Year 2014. This decision could 
allow DOD to follow through on previous efforts to prematurely cancel 
the Block 30 version of the Global Hawk, which represents the largest 
group of Global Hawk platforms. DOD's own findings show that the Block 
30 Global Hawk represents a more efficient platform for high-altitude 
ISR needs than platforms which perform the same missions, such as the 
U-2.
  It doesn't seem wise to allow the potential termination of the 
largest part of the Global Hawk program before Congress fully 
understand the capabilities and abilities of this system and how it can 
fit into larger DOD plans.
  I strongly support many of the provisions in H.R. 3304, such as its 
improvement in how the military approaches its sexual assault epidemic, 
and amendments I worked on to protect our ICBM forces and ensure our 
Nation moves forward in an effective way regarding unmanned aerial 
system integration in the national air space and the use of Reserve 
component units for cyber missions. However, I will continue to work 
with my colleagues to improve the DOD's approach to ISR and ensure our 
military retains the ISR it needs to keep our citizens and 
servicemembers safe.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am so pleased that the National Defense 
Authorization Act includes important reforms to article 32 of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice, UCMJ, which are based on an amendment 
I authored with Senator Graham.
  I thank Senator Graham for working with me on this issue. I also 
thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Inhofe for working so closely 
with us. Without their support, these critical reforms would not have 
been incorporated into this bill.
  These reforms will help end the abusive and invasive questioning of 
sexual assault victims during pretrial article 32 proceedings.
  Article 32 proceedings are the military's equivalent of preliminary 
hearings in the civilian criminal justice system. However, article 32 
proceedings have become their own trials where the defense counsel can 
harass and intimidate sexual assault victims and ask questions that 
would never be permitted in civilian courts. No victim should ever have 
to endure this type of abuse.
  Our military justice system should encourage sexual assault victims 
to report these crimes and pursue justice by prosecuting perpetrators. 
Tragically, the article 32 process does just the opposite.
  Roger Canaff--a former prosecutor who has worked with the military as 
a legal consultant on sexual assault cases--says that article 32 
proceedings are so difficult for victims that ``a lot of cases die 
there as a result.'' In fact, the military's own statistics show that 
nearly 30 percent of sexual assault victims who originally agree to 
help prosecute their alleged offenders change their minds before trial.
  The National Defense Authorization Act addresses this serious problem 
by bringing article 32 proceedings more in line with how preliminary 
hearings are conducted in the civilian criminal justice system.
  Specifically, the bill limits the scope of article 32 proceedings to 
the question of probable cause. This will help ensure that article 32 
proceedings do not turn into fishing expeditions that serve only to 
discredit and humiliate victims.
  It also requires article 32 proceedings to be presided over by an 
impartial military lawyer except in extraordinary circumstances.
  In addition, the bill requires all article 32 proceedings to be 
recorded--putting in place a uniform standard across all of the 
services. It also gives victims access to the recording.
  Furthermore, it prevents victims from being forced to testify in 
article 32 proceedings. Instead, alternative forms of testimony, 
including sworn statements, could be used. This will ensure that 
victims are not revictimized during article 32 proceedings.
  These commonsense reforms will help ensure that victims of sexual 
assault are not put on trial simply for making the courageous decision 
to pursue justice. And this change has broad support from survivors, 
military leaders and military law experts.
  Karalen Morthole--who was raped by a master sergeant at a bar on the 
grounds of the Marine barracks in Washington, DC--supports reforming 
the article 32 process: ``People always say, `This is why so many 
people don't come forward.' I agree. The process should be changed so 
survivors of rape feel confident rather than discouraged when trying to 
pursue justice.''
  MG Vaughn Ary--the staff judge advocate to the commandant of the 
Marine Corps--agrees that ``there is room for change in article 32.''
  In addition, Eugene Fidell--a professor of military justice at Yale 
Law School and a former Coast Guard judge advocate--has said that 
article 32 proceedings have ``become bloated'' and ``should be replaced 
by a simple probable cause hearing.''
  I am so pleased that there is a clear consensus on the need to reform 
the article 32 process to better protect victims of sexual assault. 
This is an important step forward in addressing the epidemic of sexual 
assault in our military.
  But let me be clear. There is only one fundamental change that will 
give sexual assault survivors the confidence to report these heinous 
crimes knowing that justice will be served--the bipartisan Military 
Justice Improvement Act.
  I am deeply disappointed that this important bill was not included in 
the National Defense Authorization Act because until vicious crimes 
like sexual assault are handled outside the chain of command, we will 
not have truly fixed our broken military justice system.
  That is why I look forward to proudly casting my vote in support of 
Senator Gillibrand's bill in January, and I urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the compromise Fiscal Year 2014 National 
Defense Authorization Act is an important authorization bill that I 
intend to support. This will be the second legislative matter 
considered by the Senate this week that reflects the kind of compromise 
too often missing from our deliberations in Congress. It does not meet 
the needs of every Senator, but it marks a step in the right direction 
and will allow the Department of Defense to move forward key programs 
in the coming year.
  I understand the frustration of some Senators who were keen to offer 
amendments to this authorization bill. In fact, two measures I 
introduced during the Senate's consideration were not included in the 
compromise. These provisions would have extended protections for human 
rights by aiding international efforts to prosecute war criminals and 
compensating innocent civilians who fall victim to combat operations. 
Both provisions have significant support, and I remain committed to 
continuing to work to see them enacted in the new year. But despite the 
best efforts of Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Inhofe, the amendment 
process in the Senate was derailed by irrelevant proposals, which 
prevented provisions like these from receiving consideration. 
Nonetheless, I will support this compromise..
  The bill before the Senate authorizes the activities of the 
Department of Defense, the single largest U.S. Government entity. As a 
result, manufacturers and service providers across the United States 
will keep Americans employed making and doing things for the 
Department. It means that the U.S. Armed Forces can take the steps 
needed to address threats to our security. Most importantly, it means 
the members of the Armed Forces and their families can count on having 
the equipment and support they need while selflessly serving to keep us 
safe.
  The Defense authorization bill before us also contains important 
changes that will help the administration transfer more individuals out 
of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. It includes a provision 
that relaxes the current onerous certification requirements that must 
be satisfied before transferring detainees to third countries. These 
requirements have proven to be unnecessary and counterproductive.

[[Page S9040]]

  Regrettably, the compromise bill retains two limitations that were 
included in the House-passed version of the authorization. The 
legislation extends the current prohibition on constructing facilities 
in the United States to house Guantanamo detainees and also extends the 
ban on transferring detainees to the United States for detention or 
trial. I strongly believe that the executive branch must have all 
options available in handling terrorism cases, particularly the ability 
to prosecute terrorists in Federal criminal courts. That is why I voted 
against an amendment by Senator Ayotte during the Senate floor debate 
in November that included these same restrictions.
  Although I would have preferred the more favorable detention-related 
provisions contained in the underlying Senate bill, this compromise 
represents an improvement over existing law.
  Reforms to the military justice system in this compromise also 
accomplish an improvement of the status quo. This bill includes roughly 
two dozen changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and 
Department of Defense policy that enhance victims' rights and 
protections and amend the investigative and prosecutorial process. 
Among the measures included in the bill is the removal of a commander's 
ability to overturn jury convictions, and a secondary review of any 
decision made not to prosecute, whether made by the convening authority 
or the staff judge advocate. Additionally, the 5-year statute of 
limitations on trial by court-martial for additional offenses involving 
sex-related crimes is eliminated, and those accused of certain sex-
related offenses are required to receive dishonorable discharges or 
dismissals if convicted.
  These important accountability measures will be supported by the 
removal of the ``good soldier'' defense for the accused, and victims 
will further be protected by changes that prevent them from being 
forced to testify at article 32 proceedings and at trial. Though more 
can be done, these and other provisions adopted represent a significant 
improvement and merit the Senate's support.
  There are many other provisions in this bill that are worthy of 
highlighting, but as cochair of the Senate National Guard Caucus, I am 
most pleased that this bill does not compromise on supporting the 
National Guard. As an essential part of U.S. security at home and 
abroad, the National Guard is an integral part of the Armed Forces 
today and will remain so in the future. Among the many provisions that 
demonstrate the strong commitment to the National Guard felt by Members 
of Congress in both Chambers, two are most important. First, the 
authorization effectively ends the process of ``off-ramping,'' wherein 
a National Guard unit scheduled to deploy is replaced at the last 
minute by an Active unit, preserving both certainty and operational 
readiness for our National Guard personnel and families.
  Second, it requires congressional budget justification documents to 
specifically enumerate funding levels for embedded mental health 
providers in National Guard and Reserve units. For too many years, men 
and women in the Guard and Reserves have come home from war to 
inadequate mental health resources. The Congress took the important 
step of embedding mental health providers in units, but resources 
disproportionally moved towards the large, Active military bases, while 
our hometown heroes at small drill centers around the country went 
without. With specific enumeration, we can take a better look at 
resource allocation and we in the Congress can make sure members of the 
Guard and Reserve get similar access to their Active counterparts.
  The authorization before the Senate is the result of compromise. The 
Senate will close this session of Congress on the heels of two 
bipartisan votes that passed a 2-year budget and this important 
authorization bill. I hope that this bodes well for further cooperation 
and compromise in the new year.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I support the compromise National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (NDAA). Though this bill 
has shortcomings, it will be good for our country and for Connecticut, 
and it will allow us to keep faith with the brave men and women who 
serve and sacrifice each day in our military.
  As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have the 
privilege and the important responsibility to honor our men and women 
in uniform by providing for them while they are training, when they are 
deployed, and if they are wounded. I voted for the NDAA in committee 
this year, and I will vote for it on the Senate floor because I know 
that it will support our servicemembers throughout their time in 
uniform and beyond. This bill funds the training and equipment our 
troops need to go into battle. It funds the critical weapons systems 
that they need to protect our Nation. And it provides for them after 
they return home--albeit less robustly than it should--through medical 
care and opportunities to build skill sets for civilian careers.
  This bill is good for Connecticut as it supports both our Connecticut 
National Guard and Reserve and our State's hard-working defense 
manufacturers. Specifically, it funds two submarines a year. The NDAA 
maintains robust funding for the Ohio Replacement Program, the Virginia 
Class Submarine, the Heavy Lift Replacement Helicopter Program, and the 
Joint Strike Fighter. It funds advanced procurement for the Army's UH-
60 Blackhawk M Model that will be used by the Connecticut National 
Guard, and it rightly does not authorize a costly and unnecessary round 
of base realignments and closures.
  The NDAA will strengthen our commitment to eliminating the scourge of 
sexual assault from our military. It includes provisions from my bill 
to provide victims of an offense under the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice with the same rights to counsel and other protection afforded 
victims in civilian courts. It rightly eliminates the ability of a 
commander to dismiss a court martial or reduce a sentence, and it 
establishes minimum sentencing guidelines in cases of sexual assault. 
The bill also strengthens rights for victims of sexual assault at 
pretrial article 32 proceedings and ensures that they will have counsel 
present when interviewed.
  I have been very concerned with properly providing for those wounded 
warriors who suffer the so-called signature wounds of these recent 
wars: post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury. Just this year, 
I was saddened by the loss of Connecticut veterans who fought long 
battles with these illnesses. Though I believe that more efforts are 
needed, the NDAA will help to provide improved outreach on suicide 
prevention to Reservists in Connecticut and across the country to 
hopefully reach additional wounded warriors in need of help.
  I have also been very concerned with the lack of interoperability 
between Department of Defense and VA medical records. Right now, when 
someone separates from the military, the VA has no complete, automatic 
access to veterans' service-related medical records, even though the 
Department of Defense has those records. Defects in interoperability 
have contributed to the unconscionable backlog of veterans' claims. I 
have worked with Senator Nelson on a bill to mandate interoperable 
medical records between the Department of Defense and the VA, and I am 
pleased that provisions on this subject are in the NDAA. These 
provisions require the SecDef and the Secretary of VA to ensure the 
Departments' electronic health record systems are interoperable with 
integrated display of data, or a single electronic health record, and 
that each is compliant with national standards.
  Additionally, I am pleased that the NDAA includes provision-enhancing 
mechanisms to correlate skills and training for military occupational 
specialties with skills and training required for civilian 
certifications and licenses or IT credentialing. By prioritizing 
training and certification, not only do we ensure that our military 
personnel have the appropriate skills to carry out their duties, but we 
also ensure that our veterans have a path to translate these skills to 
civilian life and find work that fits their skills once they leave the 
service.
  Finally, this bill strengthens our commitment to ensuring that we do 
not contract with the enemy. It includes provisions I championed giving 
combatant commanders greater authority to terminate or void a contract 
with anyone supporting our enemies,

[[Page S9041]]

and it prohibits funding to enter into contracts with Rosoboronexport--
a Russian company financing Assad's cruel war against the Syrian 
people.
  Overall, I am pleased to support this bill to keep our country safe 
and our military strong. I look forward to voting for this bill and to 
continuing to work with my colleagues in a bipartisan manner to support 
our national defense.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to call, as so many others have 
done, for justice. The scourge of sexual assault still pervades in our 
military. Our outrage is palpable, but change is possible.
  I recently read a heart wrenching story in the Baltimore Sun about 
Brian Lewis. Thirteen years ago, after 3 years of service in the Navy, 
Brian was assaulted by a higher ranking shipmate. His attacker went 
unpunished, while Brian bore shame, depression, and even accusations 
from his fellow shipmates.
  Brian is not alone. He joins thousands of men and women who have 
suffered silently at the hands of a fellow soldier, sailor, or marine. 
This is a compelling national problem. When you join the military and 
you face the enemy, you shouldn't have to fear the enemy within.
  Victims of sexual assault have long been redlined and sidelined at 
the hands of a justice system that fails to be objective or effective. 
It is time to put a stop to this now.
  Despite lasting trauma, prejudice, and overwhelming obstacles, these 
men and women have endured. Their courage in the face of suffering is 
admirable, but it should not be necessary.
  That is why I support the new Defense bill for fiscal year 2014. It 
includes over 30 provisions to address sexual assault. It strengthens 
the justice system. It provides counsel and support for victims. Most 
importantly, it provides a serious deterrent for those who dare take 
advantage of our most patriotic Americans.
  For 25 years, I have fought to resolve this issue. I thank those who 
have stood beside me, including, most recently a bipartisan alliance of 
women Senators. We have made some progress, but we still have far to 
go.
  There are 26,000 reasons why we rise today. Twenty six thousand 
sexual assaults have occurred in our U.S. military this year. Many of 
these acts of violence are unreported, unprosecuted, and unpunished. We 
cannot let this continue, not on our watch.
  It is our moral duty to speak for the voiceless, to vouch for the 
powerless, to fight for the helpless. The men and women of our military 
may know how to wage war, but they should have to battle through 
redtape when it comes to their pursuit of justice.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. I commend the work of 
my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, especially the chairman, 
Senator Levin, on reaching an agreement with the House to complete this 
important legislation. For 51 consecutive years, the Senate has passed 
a defense authorization bill, and I hope we will be able to soon send 
the bill before us to President Obama for his signature. We owe it to 
our servicemembers to pass a law that will support them and enable the 
DOD to execute this year's budget efficiently and effectively.
  We made tough decisions in putting together this bill--especially in 
these difficult economic times. But this bill will allow DOD to combat 
current threats, plan for future threats, and provide for the welfare 
of our brave servicemembers. While it is disappointing that we did not 
have sufficient time to debate amendments, this is a good compromise 
bill and it is critical that we pass it.
  I would like to point out a few of the highlights of this bill:
  It authorizes a 1-percent across-the-board pay raise and reauthorizes 
over 30 types of bonuses and special pays for our men and women in 
uniform; includes 36 key provisions to strengthen sexual assault 
prevention and response programs; extends authorities to continue 
several ``train and equip'' programs to assist foreign militaries in 
counterterrorism and counternarcotics missions; and authorizes $6.2 
billion for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund to further build the 
capacity of the Afghan army and police so those forces can take over 
security throughout Afghanistan by December 2014.
  This year I once again had the honor of serving as the chairman of 
the Seapower Subcommittee, alongside Senator McCain, the ranking 
member. Working together, our subcommittee focused on the needs of the 
Navy, Marine Corps, and strategic mobility forces. We put particular 
emphasis on supporting marine and naval forces engaged in combat 
operations, improving efficiencies, and applying the savings to higher 
priority programs. Specifically, the bill includes the required funding 
for two Virginia-class submarines and provides an additional $100 
million to support buying the 10th DDG-51 under the current multiyear 
procurement program. The bill also approves the funding for other major 
programs, including the DDG-1000 destroyer, the Aircraft Carrier 
Replacement Program, the Littoral Combat Ship, LCS, and the P-8 
maritime patrol aircraft. I am particularly pleased about the funding 
for the Virginia-class submarines and the DDG-1000, which so many Rhode 
Islanders help to build.
  Working together with Senator McCain, this bill increases 
accountability for taxpayers' dollars spent on several major Navy 
programs. For example, the bill includes language to increase the CVN-
78 cost cap, while excluding certain urgent and unforeseen testing 
costs from that cap. In addition, we require quarterly reports on the 
program manager's estimate for CVN-79, and we freeze the payment of 
fees whenever the program manager's estimate of total program costs 
exceeds the cost cap.
  In this bill, we also require the CNO to submit a report identifying 
the current littoral combat ship, LCS, concept of operations and the 
expected survivability of each sea frame; we require the GAO to review 
the LCS program; and we limit future procurements of the LCS until the 
Navy produces certain reports and the Joint Requirements Oversight 
Council makes certain certifications about the LCS program.
  The bill also amends the language of the annual 30-year shipbuilding 
report to require the disclosure of ship prices assumed in the plan and 
a risk assessment whenever the number of ships in the plan falls below 
the Navy's requirements.
  I offer my thanks to Senator McCain and the other members of the 
Seapower Subcommittee for their diligence in the subcommittee's work 
this year.
  We have a good bill before the Senate, and I urge all of my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if cloture is 
invoked on Executive Calendar No. 456, Alejandro Mayorkas, to be Deputy 
Secretary of Homeland Security, all but 1 hour of postcloture time be 
yielded back, and that when the Senate convenes on Friday, December 20, 
the Senate resume consideration of the Mayorkas nomination, with the 
remaining hour of debate equally divided between Senators Carper and 
Coburn, or their designees, and that following the use or yielding back 
of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the Mayorkas nomination; 
further, that the Senate then proceed to a cloture vote on Executive 
Calendar No. 459, John Koskinen, the Internal Revenue Service, as under 
the regular order; that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be 
yielded back and the Senate proceed to a vote on confirmation; further, 
that the Senate then proceed to a cloture vote on Executive Calendar 
No. 382, Brian Davis, to be a Federal district judge, as under the 
regular order, and that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be 
yielded back and the Senate proceed to a vote on confirmation; the 
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that 
the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; further, 
that the Senate then proceed to the cloture vote on Executive Calendar 
No. 452, Janet Yellen, Federal Reserve, as under the regular order, and 
if cloture is invoked on the Yellen nomination, all postcloture time be 
yielded back and the Senate proceed to a vote on confirmation on 
Monday, January 6, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, 
in consultation with the Republican leader; further, that cloture on 
Executive Calendar Nos. 455, 445, 371, 457, 356, and 189 be withdrawn; 
further, that following the cloture vote on the

[[Page S9042]]

Mayorkas nomination, the Senate proceed to a period of morning business 
for debate only, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes 
each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, there 
will be two rollcall votes tonight at 11:15 p.m. on the motion to 
concur in the House message to accompany H.R. 3304, the National 
Defense Authorization Act, and cloture on the Mayorkas nomination. If 
cloture is invoked there will be a series of six rollcall votes 
tomorrow beginning at about 10 a.m.

                          ____________________