[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18927-18940]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  NOMINATION OF VIVEK HALLEGERE MURTHY TO BE MEDICAL DIRECTOR IN THE 
 REGULAR CORPS OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, SUBJECT TO QUALIFICATIONS 
THEREFOR AS PROVIDED BY LAW AND REGULATIONS, AND TO BE SURGEON GENERAL 
                OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE--Continued

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF DANIEL J. SANTOS TO BE A MEMBER OF THE DEFENSE NUCLEAR 
                   FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD--Continued

                                 ______
                                 

   NOMINATION OF FRANK A. ROSE TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE 
                (VERIFICATION AND COMPLIANCE)--Continued

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF SARAH R. SALDANA TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF HOMELAND 
                          SECURITY--Continued

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF ANTONY BLINKEN TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I see we have been joined by the senior 
Senator from the State of Hawaii. Aloha.
  Ms. HIRONO. Aloha.
  Mr. CARPER. I am happy to yield the floor to Senator Hirono.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I had an indication that if I were here 
on the floor I would be recognized. I don't know if there is any 
agreement on that or just an informal understanding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no order to that effect.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I believe I have the floor and I would like to share 
some remarks at this time.
  I understand Senator Hirono was expecting to speak after Senator 
Carper and was informally promised time, and Senator Carper went a 
little long. So I would be pleased to yield to her.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.

[[Page 18928]]


  Ms. HIRONO. I thank the Senator for yielding.


                           Murthy Nomination

  I rise today to speak in strong support of the nomination of Dr. 
Vivek Murthy for Surgeon General of the United States.
  In these brief remarks I will explain why I think he is a highly 
qualified nominee, why his age should not be a limiting factor at all, 
and finally why we need a Surgeon General now.
  Dr. Murthy has been waiting for a vote on this nomination for months. 
I am glad that today the time has come to give him that vote.
  I met with Dr. Murthy a little while ago and found him to be one of 
the most interesting and likeable people I have met--and that is saying 
a lot.
  He has accomplished much already and has a deep commitment to giving 
back through his work. I found him to be a breath of fresh air.
  I was particularly impressed by his work at a company he founded 
where he identified inefficiencies in clinical drug trials and came up 
with a solution. His innovative ideas will help medical treatments move 
to market faster. In other words, he wanted to get drugs faster to the 
people who needed them.
  We often speak with admiration of Americans who are technologically 
proficient, and it is rare to find someone who is not only tech savvy, 
but is able to take that skill and combine it with the kind of medical 
training, creative mind, and ability to identify and solve real-world 
problems. In Dr. Murthy, we have that someone.
  While there are some who feel Dr. Murthy is too young and 
inexperienced to be Surgeon General, anyone who has met and talked with 
him as I have would, I believe, come away impressed.
  Dr. Murthy is not yet 40, but certainly his age has not prevented him 
from accomplishing many things. He is someone who has done much to 
solve public health challenges in his years as a physician, and well 
before that.
  He has leadership experience through his work starting and running a 
public health advocacy organization and this includes founding a 
technology company.
  He has a strong medical background and experience that demonstrates 
his ability to take complex health information and translate it for 
others--exactly what we need in a Surgeon General.
  If anything, we should be doing all we can to get young, bright, 
committed people such as Dr. Murthy into public service.
  Recently, this Nation found itself worried about Ebola. 
Misinformation and fear were palpable in our communities. We did not 
have a permanent Surgeon General to coordinate the information tsunami 
that descended on the American people from government and scientists. 
And without a Surgeon General, it has been a struggle to ensure that 
accurate, timely information about Ebola was disseminated to the 
public.
  Today it is Ebola. We don't know what public health crisis will come 
next. We need a Surgeon General who will roll up his sleeves, survey 
the evidence, and take action.
  Dr. Vivek Murthy has demonstrated he will be that kind of Surgeon 
General because he does not shy away from asking tough questions, 
listening, and then developing solutions that are driven by evidence.
  His listening skills and his ability to engage and communicate with a 
broad spectrum of people, combined with his medical and business 
background--he also has a master's degree in business--will make him an 
extremely effective Surgeon General.
  Think about this: We have a nominee who is not only a well-trained 
physician but also has business management skills and the ability to 
engage stakeholders--be they medical professionals, faith-based 
organizations, or the public at large.
  He can start conversations and effect real change to improve the 
health of our communities, particularly in his priority areas of 
obesity and mental health.
  Again, I found in Dr. Murthy a combination of an ability to be very 
creative, with the very important ability to listen; because although 
he has both a medical and business background, he doesn't think he 
knows more than everybody else. So this listening ability is very 
important, with the ability to solve real-world problems.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Dr. Murthy for U.S. Surgeon 
General.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.


                           Saldana Nomination

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to 
the nomination of Sarah Saldana. She has been nominated to head the 
Nation's top immigration law enforcement agency which has been at the 
epicenter of this administration's refusal to enforce our Nation's 
immigration laws. I am sure she is a person of integrity and character 
and has some experience at least as a U.S. attorney in Texas, but I 
will share with everyone some of the reasons I think this is not the 
right nomination at this critical time.
  When asked in the Judiciary Committee whether she rejects the 
President's unlawful action to unilaterally grant legal residence and 
work permits to 5 million individuals illegally in the country, Ms. 
Saldana said she supported the President's action. Her answer reflects 
a remarkable disregard for the rule of law that demonstrates the 
difficulty she will have being the leader of this important agency. 
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, are immigration 
enforcement officials. They are hired to work as enforcement officials. 
As U.S. attorney I worked with Immigration and Customs officers and 
prosecuted their cases in Mobile, AL, and the gulf coast with shipping 
issues and immigration issues. That is what they do. But the President 
has decided to tell them not to follow their duties. Now he has gone so 
far as to unilaterally direct that those officers not enforce the law. 
He has established a new office in Crystal City, across the river in 
Virginia. That office will begin to process millions of claims for 
executive amnesty. They are hiring 1,000 new employees to do that work. 
What we are involved in is a situation in which a law enforcement 
agency is being instructed not to enforce the law--not only that, but 
the administration has gone beyond that and is actually providing legal 
status, work permits, and Social Security numbers and photo IDs, 
Medicare, and Social Security benefits to all of these people who 
entered the country illegally--which Congress refused to do.
  The President asked for it. Congress said no. The President said: You 
didn't act, I am going to do it on my own, after saying more than 20 
different times he didn't have the legal authority to do so. So I am 
not going to vote for and I don't think our colleagues should vote for 
a person to head this agency who believes this action by the President 
is lawful, because it is not lawful.
  One would say: Somebody said it is lawful, Jeff, and that is your 
opinion. I served 15 years in the Department of Justice. I have been on 
the Judiciary Committee for 18 years. In my opinion it is not lawful, 
it is not constitutional, it is not a legitimate use of prosecutorial 
discretion. It goes beyond anything I have ever seen--perhaps this 
Nation has ever seen--in terms of violating the laws passed by 
Congress. That is the problem we have, and I think we should take a 
moment to listen to some excellent legal scholars on the question in 
play.
  I would just add parenthetically that the Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement officers have the lowest morale of any of the subcomponent 
agencies in the government. It got so bad and they were so frustrated 
at not being able to do their jobs, the ICE association--representing 
some 7,000 agents and officers--sued their own director, John Morton, 
who held this position previously. This is the job Ms. Saldana has been 
nominated for. They said: Our supervisor is violating the law. He is 
directing us not to do our duties that the law says plainly we must do 
and shall do, and they filed a lawsuit in Federal court. I have never 
heard of any group of law officers filing a lawsuit saying they are 
being denied the right to fulfill their oath to see that the laws are

[[Page 18929]]

being enforced, and that is what happened.
  The judge was very sympathetic. He said this President is not above 
the law, but he found technically that the court did not have 
jurisdiction to hear the suit, and that is now on appeal. It has been 
on appeal for some time. It goes to show how demoralized this agency 
is, and the fundamental reason is that every officer out there knows 
what is happening. They are being directed not to do their duty, and it 
is up to Congress to pass laws and Congress has passed laws and the 
President cannot do away with that.
  Let's examine some of the comments we have seen from professors. 
Professor Jan Ting of Temple University, a law professor, he was also 
one of the top officials--Assistant Commissioner of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service. He has experience in that. He testified before 
the Judiciary Committee just last week. He said:

       . . . the most comprehensive analysis of the 
     administration's deferred action policies that has been 
     produced to date is a 77-page law journal article published 
     last year by Berkeley law professor John Yoo and St. Thomas 
     law professor Robert Delahunty. In that article the 
     professors catalogued and reviewed ``the most commonly 
     offered and generally accepted excuses or justifications for 
     the breach of [the president's] duty to execute the laws'' 
     and concluded that the DACA program ``does not fall within 
     any of them.''

  So basically he agrees with the professor who has written this 
comprehensive article saying this isn't a prosecutorial discretion 
question. Professor Ting continues:
  The conclusions of Professors Yoo and Delahunty have been repeatedly 
endorsed during the past three years by a well-regarded former 
professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law 
School, Barack H. Obama II. President Obama--then-Professor Obama--
himself.
  Indeed, President Obama said over 20 times that he does not have the 
authority to do what he has done. For example, on March 28, 2011, he 
said:

       With respect to the notion that I can just suspend 
     deportations through executive order, that's just not the 
     case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has 
     passed . . . we've got three branches of government. Congress 
     passes the law. The executive branch's job is to enforce and 
     implement those laws. . . .
       There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are 
     very clear in terms of how we have to enforce immigration 
     system that for me to simply through executive order ignore 
     those congressional mandates would not conform with my 
     appropriate role as President.

  That is the President himself, in detail. He considered it at this 
time, from the detail in that answer. These are people saying, just 
give the people amnesty yourself, Mr. President, and he said no.
  Later, on September 17, 2013, he said with regard to his unlawful 
deferred action for childhood arrivals program--the same principle, 
same program:

       If we start broadening that . . . I would be ignoring the 
     law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend 
     legally. So that's not an option . . . What I've said is 
     there is a path to get this done, and that's through 
     Congress.

  On March 6 of this year, he stated that the DACA Program ``already 
stretched my administrative capacity very far . . . But at a certain 
point the reason that these deportations are taking place is, Congress 
said `you have to enforce these laws.' They fund the hiring of 
officials at the department that's charged with enforcing. And I cannot 
ignore those laws any more than I could ignore, you know, any of the 
other laws that are on the books.''
  In August of this year, just a few months before announcing his 
Executive amnesty--just a few months ago, he said:

       I think that I never have a green light [to push the limits 
     of executive power]. I'm bound by the Constitution; I'm bound 
     by separation of powers. There are some things we can't do. 
     Congress has the power of the purse, for example. . . . 
     Congress has to pass a budget and authorize spending. So I 
     don't have a green light.

  That is true. Congress does have the power of the purse and Congress 
has not authorized the President to set up an office in Crystal City 
and hire 1,000 people to provide legal status and work authorization, 
Social Security numbers, and other such documents allowing them to take 
any jobs in America, and has not authorized that and hasn't provided 
money for that.
  Congress should explicitly and directly--and I am disappointed that 
it hasn't this year--blocked that, which it can easily do.
  Article I, section 8 of the Constitution is clear that Congress is 
vested with the plenary power over naturalization law. In 1954 the 
Supreme Court stated ``that the formulation of these policies is 
entrusted exclusively to Congress has become about as firmly embedded 
in the legislative and judicial tissue of our body politic as any 
aspect of our government.''
  In exercising its plenary authority, Congress has declined to pass an 
immigration bill bestowing legal status and work authorization upon 
illegal immigrants. Congress has recognized the need to control the 
number of individuals who can come to this country to live and to work. 
It has passed laws to establish rules to protect the interests of 
American citizens. It is a fair system in which people apply to come to 
the United States, they are properly evaluated, and a certain number 
each year are admitted. We admit 1 million a year lawfully on a 
permanent resident status. Those are the most generous numbers in the 
entire world. In addition to that, we have 700,000 guest workers here 
and in addition to that it appears we have another 11 million illegal 
immigrants who have gotten into the country.
  Now what about what is happening today, that Ms. Saldana said she 
supports, but I believe it is absolutely wrong. President Obama's 
recent unlawful Executive amnesty and work authorization actions have 
essentially started another system of immigration apart from the one 
that is in law. He has created another system of law to process people 
who want to come to America. In so doing he has violated the 
constitutional structure that gives Congress the power to set the laws 
for immigration.
  In a recent paper, Professor Jan Ting, whom I noted before, said 
this:

       In effect, the president's deferred-action program 
     constitutes an alternate immigration system authorized by a 
     cabinet secretary's memoranda. While the statutory system 
     limits the number of employment-based visas to several 
     hundred thousand per year, the presidential immigration 
     system in a single year allots comparable privileges to 
     several million illegal aliens. In light of the Supreme Court 
     rulings on the ``plenary,'' ``complete,'' and ``exclusive'' 
     authority of Congress to fashion immigration policy, an 
     alternative presidential immigration system that nullifies 
     the limits of the statutory immigration system is plainly 
     unconstitutional.

  That is what Professor Ting, who spent years working in the 
immigration system, described. Professor Ting further argues that the 
administration's assertions of authority to justify its ``alternative 
presidential immigration system''--that is a pretty good way to 
describe it--through prosecutorial discretion to ``defer action,'' 
``parole'' authority, and the issuance of work authorization--directly 
violate constitutionally enacted immigration laws in the following 
ways:

       Ordering ICE agents not to inspect and place into removal 
     proceedings illegal aliens they encounter violates 8 U.S.C. 
     Section 1225, which expressly curtails the President's 
     discretion concerning inspection and detention of aliens not 
     lawfully admitted to the United States.

  It goes on to say:

       Granting ``advance parole'' to ``deferred action'' 
     recipients so they may travel back and forth between the 
     United States and their native countries violates 8 U.S.C. 
     section 1182(d)(5), amended in 1996 specifically to prevent 
     the use of ``parole'' to ``admit aliens who do not qualify 
     for admission under established legal immigration 
     categories.''

  Another quote:

       Granting [work permits] to millions of illegal aliens 
     ignores a century of case law, including Supreme Court 
     decisions, holding that the Executive Branch may not 
     circumvent the statutory employment-based visa system by 
     opening the labor market to aliens not eligible for such 
     visas, thereby defeating ``Congress' purpose of protecting 
     American laborers from an influx of skilled and unskilled 
     labor.''

  Those are some of the things Professor Ting laid out that are 
directly violating law that the President has carried out in this 
scheme. He concludes: ``In other words, the president's

[[Page 18930]]

deferred-action program sits on a plainly unconstitutional stool, which 
itself rests upon three plainly illegal legs.''
  I think that is a fair analysis.
  Chapman University Law Professor John Eastman also testified before 
the Judiciary Committee that ``the President has not just declined to 
prosecute (or deport) those who have violated our Nation's immigration 
laws. He has given to millions of illegal aliens a `lawful' permission 
to remain in the United States as well, and with that the ability to 
seek work authorization, driver's licenses, and countless other 
benefits that are specifically barred to illegal immigrants by U.S. 
law. In other words, he has taken it upon himself to drastically 
rewrite our immigration policy, the terms of which by constitutional 
design are expressly set by Congress.''
  I think that is indisputable. Somebody could say that is just your 
opinion. Well, I am here to decide the question. All of us are here to 
decide the question. Did the President act responsibly, lawfully or 
unlawfully in this action? It is not a close question, colleagues. You 
can find excuses, you can find some professor who says this or that, 
but it is not accurate. At some point in our Nation's life we need to 
be able to ascertain and speak with clarity: Congress has the power to 
write immigration laws. Congress rejected the President's request to 
provide this power, and Congress should not allow this to continue 
because it is unlawful and in fact violates the Constitution.
  Additionally, George Washington University Law School Professor 
Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized constitutional scholar, who 
describes himself as a supporter of President Obama and his policies, 
testified before the House Judiciary Committee recently regarding the 
President's unilateral actions on immigration. He testified many times 
before Congress and frequently most usually, I believe, as a Democratic 
witness. He said this:

       It's not prosecutorial discretion to go into a law and say 
     an entire category of people will no longer be subject to the 
     law. That's a legislative decision. Prosecutorial discretion 
     is a case-by-case decision that is made by the Department of 
     Justice. When the Department of Justice starts to say, we're 
     going to extend that to whole sections of laws, then they are 
     engaging in a legislative act, not an act of prosecutorial 
     discretion. Wherever the line is drawn, it's got to be drawn 
     somewhere from here. It can't include categorical rejections 
     of the application of the law to millions of people.

  I think he is exactly right. He goes on to say:

       Many of these questions are not close, in my view. The 
     President is outside the line. . . . And that's where we have 
     the most serious constitutional crisis, I view, in my 
     lifetime, and that is, [Congress] is becoming less and less 
     relevant.

  Professor Turley further testified:

       I believe the president has exceeded his brief. The 
     president is required to faithfully execute the laws. He's 
     not required to enforce all laws equally or commit the same 
     resources to them. But I believe the president has crossed a 
     constitutional line in some of these areas. . . . The problem 
     of what the President is doing is that he is not simply 
     posing a danger to the constitutional system; he is becoming 
     the very danger that the Constitution was designed to avoid: 
     that is, the concentration of power in any single branch.

  That is exactly what Madison and the Founders of our country wanted 
to create, was a system where there is separation of power, and the 
power to make law is in Congress's hands.
  According to ICE officers and agents, they are already being ordered 
to implement the President's unlawful directives. One ICE supervisor 
told my office:

       If you sneak in through the border, get past Border Patrol, 
     stay under the radar for a few years, have kids, you will be 
     rewarded with protection from deportation. This is not merely 
     [prosecutorial discretion], this is a flagrant disregard for 
     the rule of law and our sovereignty as a nation. Even if you 
     come to the [port of entry] and claim credible fear, you will 
     eventually be released from custody because you are not a 
     priority.

  According to the Partnership for Public Service's ``Best Places to 
Work in the Federal Government'' rankings released on December 9 of 
this year--just a few days ago--the Department of Homeland Security is 
the lowest of all the Federal agencies. That is a tragedy--that great 
agency. Of all Federal agencies----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). Senator, your time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I didn't know we had a time limit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 1 hour 
of debate equally divided in the usual form. After that, a vote on the 
motion to invoke cloture on the Murthy nomination.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I ask unanimous 
consent for 30 seconds and I will wrap up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Of all federal agency subcomponents, ICE is ranked dead 
last by its employees.
  In June 2010, the National ICE Council, the union that represents 
more than 7,000 agents within ICE, cast a unanimous vote of ``No 
Confidence'' in former ICE Director John Morton. That vote stemmed from 
the fact that the agents were prevented by senior leadership from 
carrying out their lawful duty to enforce immigration laws. Several ICE 
agents later sued Secretary Napolitano, Director Morton, and former 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Mayorkas, arguing 
that the administration's amnesty policies caused the ICE agents to 
violate their oath of office and Federal law by commanding them to 
refrain from detaining certain illegal aliens. The court held that 
``DHS does not have discretion to refuse to initiate removal 
proceedings [where the law requires it to do so].'' The court also 
reaffirmed that Congress, and not the President, has the plenary power 
to set immigration law and that the administration's prosecutorial 
discretion and DACA policies violate Federal law.
  Congress cannot further capitulate to this President's overreach. I 
would ask my colleagues to heed Professor Jonathan Turley's warning:

       I believe that [Congress] is facing a critical crossroads 
     in terms of its continued relevance in this process. What 
     this body cannot become is a debating society where it can 
     issue rules and laws that are either complied with or not 
     complied with by the president. I think that's where we are. 
     . . [A] president cannot ignore an express statement on 
     policy grounds. . . [I]n terms of the institutional issue . . 
     . look around you. Is this truly the body that existed when 
     it was formed? Does it have the same gravitational pull and 
     authority that was given to it by its framers? You're the 
     keepers of this authority. You took an oath to uphold it. And 
     the framers assumed that you would have the institutional 
     wherewithal and, frankly, ambition to defend the turf that is 
     the legislative branch.

  The first priority of Congress must be to restore the rule of law, 
secure the border, and bring the administration into compliance with 
the laws of the United States. Congress cannot and must not confirm 
anyone to lead an agency in DHS or other law enforcement agency who 
supports Executive amnesty. Congress cannot vote to accelerate its own 
demise. It would be unthinkable to yield to the confirmation of such 
nominees in the face of so grave a threat to our constitutional order.
  This individual is going to take this law enforcement office, U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and she is going to execute at her 
direction to all those officers a policy that violates law and violates 
the Constitution of the United States as a bipartisan group of 
professors have so declared, and therefore I think none of us should 
support such an action, and therefore I would urge my colleagues to 
vote no on this nomination.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I don't understand this. I am glad the 
Senator from Alabama is still on the floor, but I just don't understand 
this.
  How many speeches have we heard on the floor of the Senate that the 
No. 1 priority on the Republican side is border enforcement? How many 
times have we heard over and over again that before we can have any 
conversation about those in the United States, we have to seal our 
borders from the illegal immigrants coming into our country? I have 
heard it from the beginning. In fact, I heard it every time a

[[Page 18931]]

Republican Member initiated a conversation about immigration. Isn't 
this interesting.
  Two days ago we passed the budget bill for the remainder of this 
fiscal year that was initiated by the House of Representatives and sent 
over here. It was not called an omnibus spending bill, which would have 
meant all of the agencies of the government are in the budget. It had 
this peculiar name--CRomnibus. I don't know who came up with it, but 
what they were trying to say was that there was one agency of 
government that was not included in the overall budget. What was that 
agency? Well, it turned out it was the Department of Homeland Security.
  The Republican leadership in the House of Representatives refused to 
send any spending bill here that would give ordinary appropriations to 
the Department of Homeland Security. Well, what does the Department of 
Homeland Security do? They guard our borders and stop illegal 
immigration. They have a massive responsibility at the borders, which 
the Republicans have said repeatedly is their highest priority.
  So the first thing they do is send us a spending bill that has what 
is known as a continuing resolution to tie the hands of the Department 
of Homeland Security when it comes to spending money to enforce our 
borders and stop illegal immigration. But that was not enough. Now we 
hear the opposition of the Republican side to filling the position that 
is responsible for enforcement of our borders, the position responsible 
for stopping illegal immigration. It is called ICE--Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement--which is part of the Department of Homeland 
Security. It was created in 2003. It is the largest investigative 
agency in the Department of Homeland Security. It is the second largest 
criminal investigative agency in the entire Federal Government. It has 
an annual budget of approximately $6 billion. It has more than 20,000 
employees and more than 400 offices in the United States and 48 foreign 
countries. What is the responsibility of Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement? To enforce the border and to stop illegal immigration.
  So the first--
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will not yield until I finish making my statement, and 
then I will be happy to yield.
  First the Republicans send us an appropriations bill, and they will 
not pay for the agency to enforce the border and stop illegal 
immigration, and now they come to the floor and argue against filling 
the position that is responsible for enforcement at the border and 
stopping illegal immigration.
  How long has it been since the Senate has confirmed a person to head 
this critical agency? July 2012 was the last time--more than 2 years--
because of repeated objections by the Republicans to filling the 
vacancy of the person responsible for stopping illegal immigration.
  The President has sent us a nominee. I will read what has been said 
about that nominee. Her name is Sarah Saldana. I quote:

       Ms. Saldana [is] the first Latina United States Attorney in 
     Texas history, and only the second woman to hold that 
     position in the 135-year history of Texas' Northern District 
     . . . In her role as U.S. Attorney and prosecutor over the 
     past decade, Ms. Saldana has served our state with honor--
     fighting corrupt public officials, organized crimes, sex 
     traffickers, and other dangerous criminals. Throughout her 
     career, Ms. Saldana has developed a reputation for her 
     decisive and fair temperament and her commitment to 
     excellence.

  Can you imagine a more ringing endorsement for someone to head up 
ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement? You would expect that came 
from the White House, wouldn't you? You would think such a glowing 
tribute to this nominee must have been personally written by President 
Obama. No. The quote I read to you comes from the senior Senator from 
Texas, Mr. John Cornyn. Senator Cornyn, of course, sits on the 
Republican side of the aisle. Senator Cornyn didn't vote for Ms. 
Saldana in committee. I take that back. Every Republican Senator in the 
Judiciary Committee, including Senator Cornyn, voted against her 
nomination, so that part is accurate, but all the Republicans voted 
against her. Get the picture?
  All the speeches about border enforcement, all the speeches about 
stopping illegal immigrants being the No. 1 priority of the Republican 
Party on immigration--first, they don't fund the agency; second, they 
won't fill the position responsible for administering the law.
  Then comes an imminently qualified woman to run the agency--to 
paraphrase the words of Senator Cornyn of Texas--and they object to 
her. They refuse to stand by her nomination.
  If you think this is hard to understand or follow, imagine what we 
have seen over the last 2 years. It has been about 540 days since the 
Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill with 68 votes. 
Fourteen Republicans and the Democrats passed a comprehensive 
immigration reform bill that had the strongest border protection in the 
history of the United States. It would have virtually created a 
seamless fence--literally and figuratively--on the border between the 
United States and Mexico from San Diego to Galveston. It would have put 
more technology and more people on the border. Under this bill, the 
people on the border who are working for us to stop illegal immigration 
would have been able to literally stand and see another person standing 
half a mile away along the 2,000-mile border, 24/7. That is how many 
people were in this bill. We passed it with 68 votes. It was lauded by 
conservatives and liberals, the chamber of commerce, the AFL-CIO, faith 
groups, justice groups. They all said this is a good bill.
  It passed the Senate and went to the House of Representatives, where 
it was never ever called in over 500 days. Speaker Boehner refused to 
call the bill on the floor. Why? Because it would have passed. He knows 
it would have passed, and that is why he would not call it. It was 
because of the failure of the Republican leadership in the House to 
even call this bill that the President issued his Executive order.
  We had a hearing--the Presiding Officer chaired it--last week in a 
subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and we discussed the 
President's Executive order on immigration. There were two witnesses 
who opposed the President's order, two professors. It was Professor 
Eastman and Professor Ting, if I remember correctly. I will correct the 
Record if I am mistaken. They opposed the President's Executive order.
  I asked a simple question: This is a world of choices, and we have 
three choices, and I would like to ask each of you which one you would 
choose.
  The first choice is to continue this broken immigration system in 
America and do nothing, which is the position taken by the House 
Republicans. They have done nothing for a year and a half. So that is 
the first choice. We could leave it as is--a broken system that we know 
has 11 million undocumented people in the United States with no 
registration, no guarantee they are paying taxes, and no criminal 
background checks. That is choice No. 1.
  Choice No. 2 is deport 11 million people in the United States of 
America who are here undocumented. Deport them. That was Mitt Romney's 
choice when he was running for President.
  Choice No. 3 is what the President has proposed--that anyone who has 
been here for at least 5 years must come forward, register with the 
government, submit themselves to a criminal background check, pay their 
fair share of taxes for a temporary work permit, which must be 
regularly renewed so we can check again. If they have done anything 
wrong or if there is a criminal record, they are gone. If there is no 
criminal record, they can stay and work on a temporary basis.
  I said to them: Those are the three choices--the broken system, mass 
deportation, or the President's approach. Take your pick.
  They didn't want to make the choice. Of course not. Those are 
terrible choices if you oppose the President's position.
  I think the President has done what is reasonable, and it is what 11 
other

[[Page 18932]]

Presidents have done--Executive orders on immigration.
  I want strict border enforcement. I voted for it here on the floor of 
the Senate, the strongest in our history. But I can't understand the 
Republican position which opposes funding border enforcement on a 
regular basis, opposes filling the position that administers border 
enforcement, and which has no alternative to offer. That is what we 
have before us.


                           Murthy Nomination

  I will yield the floor and add in closing that coming up for a vote 
at 5:30 p.m., if I am not mistaken, will be the nomination of Dr. Vivek 
Murthy to be Surgeon General of the United States of America. I gave a 
speech about him earlier today. He is eminently qualified. Here is a 
man who has an extraordinary academic background, including graduating 
magna cum laude from Harvard. He has worked on a combined degree of a 
medical degree and a business degree. He has taught at Harvard. He is 
published in the journals and has the support of over 100 professional 
medical organizations that believe he would be an extraordinary Surgeon 
General.
  I ask, at a time when we are facing the greatest public health crisis 
in current memory with the Ebola epidemic, how in the world can we 
leave this post vacant?
  I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                           Saldana Nomination

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise to strongly oppose the nomination 
of Sarah Saldana to head ICE for a very simple reason: If confirmed as 
the head of ICE, Ms. Saldana would be a key player in the 
administration to help President Obama further a very bad policy that 
is very unconstitutional and completely beyond the President's proper 
constitutional authority.
  In my opinion, it all comes down to this very important issue of his 
Executive amnesty--his recent decision, without authority, to move 
forward on his own, without legislative approval and without 
congressional action, to grant about 5 million illegal aliens in this 
country an Executive amnesty.
  I think that is a horrible and dangerous decision for two reasons.
  First of all, I think the policy is wrong and is guaranteed--alas, 
even designed--to produce more illegal border crossings, which will 
increase the problem, not solve it. Some things are pretty simple, and 
one simple rule with regard to law enforcement is that when you reward 
certain behavior, you are going to get more of it, not less of it. 
Through his Executive amnesty, President Obama is clearly rewarding 
that behavior and rewarding illegal crossings. In every instance in our 
past when that has happened--including a 1986 amnesty that was at least 
passed through Congress--it produced more of that behavior, more of the 
illegal crossings, and more of a problem, not less of it. I think it is 
horrible policy from that point of view.
  The second reason I am very concerned about this recent Executive 
action is even more fundamental, and that is because I think this is 
clearly beyond the President's proper legal constitutional authority. I 
think his actions are clearly unconstitutional, beyond that authority, 
and therefore a very serious matter for the country and the Congress to 
focus on.
  I am the first to admit that every President has significant 
Executive power, and every President has the power to provide details 
when statutes are silent about them, to figure out necessary details in 
implementing and in executing statutes. His job as the Executive is to 
execute. But that is fundamentally different from taking action that is 
completely contrary to statute. Of course, that is what the President 
is doing in this case--granting amnesty to about 5 million illegal 
aliens when the statute, properly passed through Congress, says these 
folks came into our country illegally, they are here illegally, and 
allowing them to stay here and work is contrary to law.
  Again, it would be one thing if the President had to figure out 
details consistent with that statute, but instead he is taking action 
directly contrary to those statutes and that directive. It is not 
simply prosecutorial discretion. It is not simply saying, well, because 
of a particular circumstance, we are not going to prosecute that case 
or this case or that case over there. He is making a broad policy which 
will affect about 5 million cases, and he has gone way beyond saying: 
We won't prosecute these cases. He is having his bureaucracy--his 
administration--actually issue work permits by giving folks who cannot 
work legally in this country work permits. He is telling employers to 
hire them because they have this new work permit. He is giving them 
Social Security numbers and other affirmative identification. Again, 
that is not figuring out the details on how to execute law; that is not 
figuring out unspoken details about how to further law; that is acting 
directly contrary to our law and to our statutes on this very topic. 
Clearly, anyone in the position of heading ICE, including this nominee, 
Ms. Sarah Saldana, if she is confirmed, would be clearly and directly 
furthering that bad policy and illegal and unconstitutional action.
  To the point of this being unconstitutional, don't take my word for 
it. There are a lot of authorities on the subject, a lot of legal 
authorities, such as professors and academic experts.
  The Supreme Court directly recognized that on the policy of 
immigration in particular, Congress absolutely has clear authority to 
act in that area under the Constitution. In fact, in previous opinions, 
the Supreme Court has written that ``over no conceivable subject is the 
power of Congress more complete'' than on immigration.
  Another interesting expert and source on this topic is President 
Obama himself. Prior to taking this enormous action--in the years 
prior--President Obama said very directly to his supporters urging him 
in this direction: I don't have the authority to do it. He repeatedly 
acknowledged that.
  He said:

       This notion that somehow I can just change the laws 
     unilaterally is just not true.

  He also stated:

       For me to simply, through executive order, ignore those 
     congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate 
     role as President.

  Well, President Obama was right back then. The problem is his recent 
actions--his Executive amnesty--constitute a complete turnaround on 
that by doing exactly what he himself previously said he doesn't have 
the authority to do.
  Again, why is this pertinent? Because Sarah Saldana, if confirmed to 
head ICE, will be a key participant in the administration thereby 
furthering this policy that is a bad policy. It is a counterproductive 
policy that will make it worse, not better. Even more seriously, it 
will further this action, which is illegal, unconstitutional, and well 
beyond the President's constitutional authority.
  This is serious stuff. This is serious constitutional business, and I 
urge my colleagues to look hard at these matters. After they do look 
seriously at these matters, I urge my colleagues, Democrats and 
Republicans, to vote no on this confirmation.
  Again, the whole issue is serious. Illegal immigration is a vexing 
problem. Yes, we need to act. It is a complete straw man for the 
distinguished leader on the Democratic side to say that Republicans in 
the House--or anybody else--just don't want to act. Of course we need 
to act. Of course we have proposed actions.
  The question is, what actions, in what order, in what time?
  This action is wrong on so many grounds. It is wrong on policy 
because it is going to make the problem worse. It is rewarding illegal 
crossings, so we will get more of them. It is wrong, even more 
seriously, on constitutional grounds. It has gone well beyond President 
Obama's legal and constitutional authority. Based on those serious 
areas of concerns, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this 
confirmation.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page 18933]]


  Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Murthy Nomination

  Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I rise to speak briefly to say that Dr. 
Murthy is about as well qualified to be Surgeon General as anyone has 
ever been. He brings a unique set of skills, background, and 
perspective that is going to serve our Nation very well. It is my hope 
the Senate will take this great opportunity to ensure he is given the 
position to serve our country with his incredible background in the way 
that I know all Americans are ultimately going to come to be very 
proud.
  I want everyone to know that in Massachusetts we are very proud of 
him. We in Massachusetts know that he has developed a skill set which 
is much needed for the 21st century, much needed in an era where 
diseases cross international boundaries, where there is a recombinant 
of DNA of disease that increasingly, because of the global nature of 
the world we live in, is coming back here to the United States. This is 
our opportunity to put a real leader in this position--a leader who 
then can give leadership not only to our own country but to the rest of 
the world as well.
  So I urge an affirmative vote for Dr. Murthy to become our new 
Surgeon General.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. 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.


                       Small Business Legislation

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I know that so many of my colleagues are 
looking forward to wrapping up this year's business and hopefully 
getting home soon for the holidays.
  I wish to take a few minutes to speak about a couple of issues. First 
I wish to give some remarks about my colleague, the Senator from 
Louisiana, on her retirement, and to mention a few things that have 
been going on in the small business committee which will be wrapping up 
business. The small business committee and Senator Landrieu are kind of 
synonymous in my mind because my colleague Senator Landrieu has been, 
for the better part of the last couple of years, the Chair of that 
committee and has done some incredible work. As legislation is moving 
through the final days in the U.S. Senate, we have been very successful 
in getting some important legislation passed for small business.
  One piece of legislation we were able to make a part of the Defense 
authorization bill is sole-source contracting for women entrepreneurs 
so they can more easily get contracting with the Federal Government. 
That is going to help us have their great products and services more 
easily contracted and get access to those contracts.
  There is also money for microlending programs. My colleague from 
Michigan, Senator Levin, has pioneered an idea that is so important to 
women entrepreneurs and that involves the kind of lending they would 
like to see from the Small Business Administration, which is 
microlending, and for women to be able to get access to microloans. 
They also want an intermediate loan level of $200,000 or less. That 
helps them target some of the business interests they have, because we 
definitely need more women entrepreneurs in our country.
  The third item is the STEP program, which is a small business export 
assistance program that works with States. The Federal Government and 
the Small Business Administration work with States to help them target 
businesses within their States that can use export assistance to become 
exporters. This is such an important issue for our country, because we, 
with a growing middle class around the globe, have a great opportunity 
to sell new products and services around the globe. But many of our 
small businesses are challenged by the risk of making those kinds of 
attempts to sell in those markets. So this export assistance program, 
which had been a pilot, is now going to be a funded permanent program. 
So we are excited about that and excited it is moving through.


                        Tribute To Mary Landrieu

  I also didn't get a chance last week to speak about my colleague 
Senator Landrieu on the floor, so I wanted to take a few minutes now to 
remind my colleagues that as someone who has served with her on the 
energy committee and served with her on the small business committee, I 
have been so impressed with the accomplishments she has achieved in her 
career here in the U.S. Senate. For much of the time she was talking 
the other day--rightfully so--she shared a lot of moments of her career 
and a lot of personal moments. I wanted to remind my colleagues of some 
of the very big challenges she faced as a Senator and how impressed I 
am with what she was able to actually overcome.
  Many people know that obviously being hit by Katrina was one of the 
biggest economic challenges not just in Louisiana but to our country, 
and her impassioned leadership and calls to hasten the efforts to make 
sure we were doing everything we could for those individuals to receive 
medical aid and shelter and help find loved ones was nonstop for many 
days. She successfully, as she mentioned on the floor, urged OMB to 
fully fund the repairs of the levee system in southeast Louisiana and 
continues that work. She succeeded in passing legislation that directed 
the Army Corps of Engineers to analyze, design, and strengthen the 
storm mitigation systems against category 5 hurricanes.
  Now if any of my colleagues in the U.S. Senate have ever worked with 
the Army Corps of Engineers, say no more. You know how challenging it 
is. We don't control them. They base all of their work on science. They 
have a budget. It is never enough money. It can seem as though we are 
fighting them for ever and ever to get something we think is essential 
to protect the people in our State to move forward. So she did all of 
that and moved the focus to make sure we establish a defense against 
category 5 hurricanes.
  Also, if any of my colleagues ever had a flood or a storm in their 
State post-Katrina, they know the first person they were going to hear 
from was Mary Landrieu. She didn't stop her efforts in Louisiana. She 
wanted to take everything she learned from that emergency and call you 
up and tell you these are the things you need to do immediately and 
this is how you should get prepared. I know she did that for many of my 
colleagues and we so appreciated it.
  Then another catastrophe happened--the Deepwater Horizon oilspill. As 
a member of the Commerce Committee, I can tell my colleagues I spoke to 
her many times about issues as they related to the Clean Water Act and 
what was eventually passed, the RESTORE Act, which was a bipartisan 
effort. Basically, the bill made sure that 80 percent of the Clean 
Water Act fines from BPA went directly into the Gulf States, making 
this the biggest individual investment in environmental conservation 
and restoration in our country's history. That was no easy task. There 
were a lot of people at the time who wanted to focus on many different 
aspects of that disaster, and so many events have taken place since 
then. But I can remember clearly the catastrophe and what it meant for 
the fishing community, the individuals, the States' economies--all of 
the questions. A lot of people were looking backwards about what 
happened, but the Senator from Louisiana was looking forward to make 
sure those funds were invested right there in the gulf. That was a big 
challenge that she was successful in meeting.
  Obviously, she used her voice for many issues related to Louisiana, 
but I wish to emphasize to my colleagues how much she also used her 
voice for many other people who didn't seem to be here in the Halls of 
Washington and made sure that those issues were at the top of the 
agenda.

[[Page 18934]]

  We had the 2009 economic crisis in our country and many people 
remember because it had such a huge economic impact to individual 
families. The Senator from Louisiana made sure she was standing up for 
small businesses during that time period. There were millions of 
Americans who lost their jobs during that time period, and as everybody 
was here talking about what to do to help these big banks--and we all 
know that they got a bailout--many small businesses across the country 
actually had performing lines of credit cut out right from under them. 
So they didn't have anybody knocking on the door to make sure they were 
being helped. But the Senator from Louisiana got very vocal here about 
the prioritization of making sure that we did something about 
conventional lending and tried to tackle this issue.
  From 2007 to 2009, the number of SBA borrowers dropped by more than 
half and the amount of loans dropped by more than one-third. Many of 
these small businesses were paying the price. So Senator Landrieu got 
busy fighting for what was the Small Business Jobs Act. If my 
colleagues remember that debate, there were many times that some people 
on the other side of the aisle didn't want to support that legislation 
or even moments when Treasury didn't know if they wanted to support 
that legislation. She was successful in the end in getting that 
legislation passed 61 to 38. The Small Business Jobs Act leveraged more 
than $42 billion in loans to more than 90,000 businesses throughout the 
SBA. The bill, along with other measures, helped target about $12 
billion in tax cuts for small business. So while the big banks had 
immediate relief, they had someone here in DC fighting for small 
businesses, and that was Senator Landrieu.
  That legislation also saw a small business lending fund increase so 
that there was more capital on Main Street for small business. As a 
result of the legislation, 2011 and 2012 were the two biggest years on 
record for the 7(a) and the 504 program, which are kind of the premier 
programs for the Small Business Administration. That went a long way to 
helping small businesses begin to recover. Also, the small business 
credit initiative helped small businesses get access to capital.
  So all of these things were what my colleague from Louisiana fought 
for to help small businesses. I think it is a perfect example, along 
with those other things about how she used her voice to try to bring 
clarity to the challenges we were facing and stand up for those who 
weren't being heard.
  She also, though, lent her voice to another group that is often--we 
don't necessarily always understand all of the issues surrounding it. I 
kind of think that she took over for Senator Byrd who was a great 
advocate on behalf of animals and spoke a lot about his dog, and many 
of the stories he shared warmed everybody's heart. Senator Landrieu 
last year was the Humane Society's Legislator of the Year for her 
consistent work to prevent the cruel practices of horse slaughter, to 
protect wild animals, and strengthen provisions against animal 
fighting. So she clearly deserved that title and we certainly 
appreciate her efforts there. She was also a voice for the District of 
Columbia. People get committee assignments, and, yes, she had that 
committee assignment, but the thing about Senator Landrieu is that once 
she took an assignment, she was tough on making sure those issues were 
addressed. She did that for the District of Columbia.
  I want to add my sincere thanks to the Senator from Louisiana for all 
of her work and public service here in the Senate. She will be missed. 
I know she and I share a passion for the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund. It is an issue that is near and dear to my heart and something 
she has tried in her time in the Senate to get fully funded. We are 
going to continue that work on her behalf in the energy committee.
  Again, I thank my colleague and dear friend for her incredible 
passion and for fighting for those whose voices were not always heard. 
There is no mistake her voice was heard here in the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                           Murthy Nomination

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be here today to 
speak on behalf of President Obama's eminently qualified nominee to be 
Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek Murthy.
  I request that I be permitted to yield to my colleague from 
Connecticut, Senator Murphy, at the end of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. The Surgeon General of the United States is a person 
of public trust in this country who has a long and eminent record of 
informing the Nation and fighting on behalf of the public health of 
Americans. He has addressed some of the Nation's most pressing public 
health problems. Over time, there have been a variety of people in that 
position of public trust to address some of the most pressing public 
health problems in this Nation. Those challenges have included nicotine 
addiction, the menaces of Big Tobacco, AIDS, and other emerging 
diseases, nutrition and food labeling. These challenges require someone 
of courage and expertise, indeed eminence as a public health warrior.
  In just a few months, the Nation has faced a public health crisis 
that caused many to question who would be that warrior, that fighter, 
that eminent and expert physician, and who would defend this Nation at 
a time of public health crisis.
  Many decried President Obama's appointment of an Ebola czar to fill 
that position when no one could step forward as Surgeon General, and 
the reason is that there was no Surgeon General. We lacked someone who 
could fulfill that role because of a misplaced and misguided 
opposition. That position has been vacant for far too long. Hopefully 
today we will confirm Dr. Murthy and allow him to get on the job and 
get to work on this and other pressing problems facing our country.
  Ebola cases continue to present a dire threat to our Nation because 
in parts of Africa they are still spreading. Just last week the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention announced that there are serious 
doubts about whether the Nation's supply of flu vaccine will be 
effective against the strain of flu that is circulating this winter. We 
need a Surgeon General to handle that potential public health crisis as 
well. We are not out of the woods, to quote what Dr. Frieden told me in 
a conversation just last week on Ebola. We are about to go into the 
woods in the flu season, and the Surgeon General, as a leader, is 
needed right now.
  The Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, under the leadership of 
the Attorney General, was deployed to field hospitals and emergency 
clinics in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the Deepwater Horizon 
oilspill, and the 2010 earthquake in Haiti. They are fighters and 
warriors for public health as well.
  Dr. Murthy's credentials are without question. They are impeccable, 
unquestionable, and indisputable. He is a graduate of Harvard College 
and Yale School of Medicine. He completed his residency at the Brigham 
and Women's Hospital in Boston. He is one of our country's most 
respected medical professionals. He now works and teaches at the 
Brigham and Women's Hospital. He also earned an MBA, also from Yale. He 
has been a leader of business and nonprofit organizations that work on 
many aspects of medical practice, biotechnology and domestic and 
international public health issues.
  If the question were only about his qualifications, he would be in 
that position right now, confirmed by the Senate, but unfortunately he 
has been blocked. The only point raised against him, unconscionably and 
unnecessarily, is a political smokescreen, essentially, going to 
comments he has made about gun violence as a public health issue.
  The simple fact is gun violence impacts far too many people. It 
destroys far too many lives. It is the second leading cause of death in 
this country after car crashes. Gun violence kills twice as many 
children as cancer, 5 times as many children as heart disease, and 15 
times as many children as

[[Page 18935]]

infection. Between 2000 and 2010, more than 335,000 people died as a 
result of gun violence.
  Pointing out these facts and asking whether there are strategies we 
could apply to bring that number down is exactly what a person tasked 
to keep Americans healthy ought to be doing. But he has said he is 
going to focus on issues that concern the American public health and 
will be a fighter for American children, for Americans, against heart 
disease and cancer and other kinds of issues that affect public health, 
especially of children, and that is to be valued.
  That smokescreen about gun violence should not have blocked him and 
should not impede this body voting for him today, approving him as 
Surgeon General because of his qualifications and because he will 
contribute enormously to make Americans healthier and safer in this 
country.
  I am enthusiastically and proudly a supporter of him, and I ask my 
colleagues to approve him as Surgeon General of the United States to 
make America safer and healthier and to reject the slick smokescreen 
that has tried to stop him.
  I yield to my colleague from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his advocacy on 
this issue. I know we are approaching a vote, so I will be brief in my 
comments. Not to repeat those of Senator Blumenthal, but he is exactly 
right--there are absolutely no questions about the qualifications of 
Dr. Vivek Murthy to do this job.
  In addition to his professional background and his teaching 
responsibilities, he also has a very impressive history of commitment 
to international public health--building two international 
organizations, one that empowers hundreds of youth in the United States 
and India to educate over 45,000 students on HIV prevention and another 
one which works in rural health partnerships in India training young 
women to be health educators and counselors for thousands of patients.
  That is a pretty impressive record, when you combine it with what 
Senator Blumenthal already laid out, for a still fairly young 
physician, someone who will bring an enormous amount of energy to this 
job at a moment we need it. Ebola is at the top of the list as to the 
reasons why we need a Surgeon General now, but we are in a remarkable 
period of contraction when it comes to health care spending increases. 
Health care costs grew by 3.6 percent in 2013, which is the slowest 
rate on record since the government started keeping track in 1960.
  Frankly, a sound, good, sensible public health policy has a lot do 
with our ability to continue curtailing the rate of health care 
spending increases. Why? Because obesity rates in this country--even if 
they were just trimmed by 5 percent, that could save $160 billion over 
the next 10 years. Smoking, which will hopefully be a centerpiece of 
the Surgeon General's advocacy plan, contributes about $133 billion in 
direct costs.
  If we want to do something about the size of the health care budget 
in this country--which is something the Republicans and Democrats 
believe in--then we need a Surgeon General because that is the person 
who is leading our public health conversation all across the country, 
eminently qualified and desperately needed. I am glad we are having a 
vote here today.
  Let me say just a few words about this controversy that has 
surrounded his choice. The criticism effectively amounts to comments 
that Dr. Murthy made saying two things, generally--one, that he thinks 
gun violence is a problem; two, that he generally agrees with where the 
President stands on this issue.
  Let's take the second first. It is not surprising that the President 
is choosing people to be part of this administration who agree with him 
on a variety of issues. But, as many of my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle have said, the Surgeon General doesn't set gun violence 
policy in this country, and so there shouldn't be a question as to 
whether he can separate his views on guns from his job, just as there 
is not a question as to whether Secretary Castro or Secretary Burwell 
can do the same. But it is also not surprising that he has those views 
because the President is entitled to pick people for important 
positions who generally think the same way he does on issues that are 
relevant to the job they are taking but also on issues that aren't in 
that particular appointees's responsibilities.
  But let's take the first criticism--that he made these statements 
about guns being a public health problem, gun violence being an issue 
that we should confront. If a nominee for Federal office is unqualified 
simply because they have pointed out that gun violence is an issue we 
should work on, then this debate is so far removed from what is 
happening on the ground floor of this country as to possibly be 
irretrievable for the purposes of commonsense debate. That is what Dr. 
Murthy essentially said, that gun violence is a problem we should be 
working on. If we can't even get to point where we all agree on that 
general notion, separate and aside from whether you agree with what he 
thinks we should do about it or what somebody else thinks we should do 
about it, well, maybe this is more hopeless than I thought.
  I am glad we are going to move forward on a vote on Dr. Murthy today. 
He is qualified to do this job, and he has an admirable background in 
public health policy, in the practice of medicine, and in the teaching 
of medicine. We need a Surgeon General right now, whether it is to 
confront Ebola or to help us continue on a path toward controlling 
health care costs.
  Separate and aside from this nomination, let's agree to agree that 
Dr. Murthy is right that gun violence is a problem that this country 
should be addressing. No matter what your view on how we get there, 
that is something we should all be able to unite around.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. 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. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back any 
remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of 
     Vivek Hallegere Murthy, of Massachusetts, to be Medical 
     Director in the Regular Corps of the Public Health Service 
     and to be Surgeon General of the Public Health Service.
         Harry Reid, Tom Harkin, Patrick J. Leahy, Patty Murray, 
           Tom Udall, Brian Schatz, Charles E. Schumer, Barbara 
           Boxer, Benjamin L. Cardin, Richard Blumenthal, Jeff 
           Merkley, Al Franken, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Elizabeth 
           Warren, Richard J. Durbin, Christopher Murphy, Bernard 
           Sanders.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on the nomination of Vivek Hallegere Murthy, of 
Massachusetts, to be Medical Director in the Regular Corps of the 
Public Health Service and to be Surgeon General of the Public Health 
Service, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. 
Cochran),

[[Page 18936]]

the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns), and the Senator from Florida 
(Mr. Rubio).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 355 Ex.]

                                YEAS--51

     Baldwin
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--43

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Boxer
     Brown
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Johanns
     Rubio
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 
43.
  The motion is agreed to.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. We have three more votes tonight. I ask unanimous consent 
that they be 10 minutes in duration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Murthy Nomination

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it has been 10 months since the Senate 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions favorably reported 
the nomination of Dr. Vivek Murthy to serve as Surgeon General of the 
United States. While this seat sat vacant, our Nation has suffered 
through concerns and divergent information about the possibility of an 
Ebola outbreak and is on the cusp of what is predicted to be a 
difficult flu season. It is past time to move forward and confirm this 
nomination.
  The Surgeon General is the Nation's chief medical officer and plays 
the role of chief medical information ``explainer'' for all Americans. 
There is a vast amount of information available about how to best take 
care of your health and the health of your family. The Surgeon General 
has the authority to distill the best research to present a clear 
message on effective disease prevention and health promotion. As the 
health policy advisor to the President and the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services, the Surgeon General plays an important role in 
proactively addressing the many public health issues that face 
Americans. With an aging population and chronic diseases such as 
diabetes on the rise, this is a key position in the effort to improve 
the overall health and wellbeing of the American people.
  Unfortunately, this nomination has been stalled for months due to 
comments Dr. Murthy made in the context of the school shootings in 
Newtown, CT. Dr. Murthy referred to gun violence as an ``important 
public health issue'' but also acknowledges that the causes of gun 
violence are ``complex and multi-faceted.'' He urges Congress ``to 
develop a comprehensive national plan to stop gun violence.''
  While there is significant disagreement over firearm regulations in 
our country, we should all be able to agree that reducing gun violence, 
and the devastating effects it can have on our communities, is a 
priority. Many doctors' groups treat gun violence as a public health 
concern and believe it is a relevant and important issue to discuss 
with patients. Dr. Murthy testified in his confirmation hearing before 
the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that he does ``not 
intend to use the Surgeon General's Office as a bully pulpit for gun 
control. That is not going to be my priority.''
  Dr. Murthy further explained that his ``concerns with regards to 
issues like gun violence have to do with my experience as a physician, 
seeing patients in emergency rooms who have come in with acute 
injuries; but also seeing many patients over the years who are dealing 
with spinal cord injuries, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other 
chronic complications from gun violence.''
  I am a gun owner myself, and I have enormous respect and appreciation 
for the freedoms the Second Amendment protects. However, I do not 
believe that gun violence, and the injuries and fatalities that result 
from it, is a problem we can simply ignore. On average, more than 
100,000 people are shot every year in the United States. From 2000 to 
2010, more than 335,000 people were killed by guns in the United 
States. This is an issue about which we must be able to have an honest 
discussion.
  Dr. Murthy's impressive background as both a hospitalist attending 
physician and instructor in medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital at 
Harvard Medical School, and his background as the founder and president 
of Doctors for America make him well qualified to serve as our Nation's 
Surgeon General. I hope his nomination is confirmed today.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to express my opposition to the 
nomination of Vivek Murthy to be Surgeon General.
  While Dr. Murthy may have future promise as both a physician and 
public health expert, I have serious concerns about his current 
qualifications, as well as his choices regarding public health 
advocacy.
  One former Surgeon General, Dr. Richard Carmona, shared a letter with 
the Senate highlighting his opposition to the nomination. In his words, 
``The nominee, Dr. Vivek Murthy is a physician very early in his career 
with great promise but no formal public health education training, 
leadership or management experience.'' He goes on to say, ``His 
partisanship and lack of qualifications for the job of Surgeon General 
give this nomination the scent of political patronage.'' This insight, 
from someone who served in that position, is concerning.
  Dr. Murthy's main public policy and public health activity to date 
has been to use the group he founded, Doctors for America, to promote 
President Obama's campaign to advocate for expansive gun control, going 
so far as to even recommend that doctors counsel their patients about 
gun ownership. He is entitled to his opinion, but the opinion of the 
Surgeon General becomes something much more significant.
  At a time when our Nation is at risk from deadly chronic conditions, 
dangerous disease outbreaks like Ebola, and the ever-present threat of 
public health disasters and pandemics, this is not the moment to 
devalue the role of the Surgeon General. The person who serves as 
Surgeon General must be someone Americans can trust. But Dr. Murthy, so 
far, has not demonstrated that he is capable of fulfilling that role, 
and so I must oppose his nomination at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time 
is expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Vivek Hallegere Murthy, of Massachusetts, to be Medical Director in 
the Regular Corps of the Public Health Service, subject to 
qualifications therefor as provided by law and regulations, and to be 
Surgeon General of the Public Health Service?
  Mr. RISCH. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)

[[Page 18937]]

and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. 
Cochran), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns), and the Senator from 
Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 356 Ex.]

                                YEAS--51

     Baldwin
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--43

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Boxer
     Brown
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Johanns
     Rubio
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the 
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.


                             Cloture Motion

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair 
lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will 
state.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of 
     Daniel J. Santos, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Defense 
     Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
         Harry Reid, Carl Levin, Brian Schatz, Patrick J. Leahy, 
           Bernard Sanders, John E. Walsh, Patty Murray, Jack 
           Reed, Tom Udall, Sheldon Whitehouse, Amy Klobuchar, 
           Debbie Stabenow, Christopher A. Coons, Robert Menendez, 
           Barbara Boxer, Tom Harkin, Richard J. Durbin.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is, Is it the sense of 
the Senate that debate on the nomination of Daniel J. Santos, of 
Virginia, to be a Member of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 
Board, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. 
Cochran), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns), and the Senator from 
Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 357 Ex.]

                                YEAS--54

     Baldwin
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     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
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--39

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

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Boxer
     Brown
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Johanns
     Rubio
     Sanders
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 54, the 
nays are 39. The motion is agreed to.


                             Cloture Motion

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair 
lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will 
state.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of 
     Frank A. Rose, of Massachusetts, to be an Assistant Secretary 
     of State (Verification and Compliance).
         Harry Reid, Robert Menendez, Patrick J. Leahy, Martin 
           Heinrich, Jack Reed, Dianne Feinstein, Tom Udall, 
           Benjamin L. Cardin, Bill Nelson, Barbara Boxer, Thomas 
           R. Carper, Edward J. Markey, Jeff Merkley, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Jon Tester, Richard J. Durbin, Charles E. 
           Schumer.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is, Is it the sense of 
the Senate that debate on the nomination of Frank A. Rose, of 
Massachusetts, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Verification and 
Compliance), shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. 
Cochran), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns), the Senator from 
Illinois (Mr. Kirk), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 358 Ex.]

                                YEAS--54

     Baldwin
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     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
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--39

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Coats
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe

[[Page 18938]]


     Isakson
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Boxer
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Johanns
     Kirk
     Rubio
     Sanders
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 54, the 
nays are 39. The motion is agreed to.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the two votes scheduled in the morning will 
be done by voice. The first vote is going to be at 2:30 p.m. tomorrow 
afternoon.


                    Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention Act

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, shortly, the senior Senator from 
Connecticut, Senator Blumenthal, will ask consent that the Senate take 
up and pass the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention Act.
  The reason Clay Hunt was used as a model for this situation we have 
is because of his outstanding record. And ``60 Minutes'' has done 
specials about him. He had two tours of duty. He was a marine who 
served in Iraq and Afghanistan and received the Purple Heart. He was a 
wonderful human being. He even helped out in Haiti after they had an 
earthquake. But he could not overcome what happened to him in his 
combat mission.
  This issue is so important for our veterans. Since 7 a.m. this 
morning until 7 a.m. tomorrow morning, 22 veterans will have killed 
themselves. They commit suicide every day. They don't take weekends 
off. It happens 7 days a week. We need to stop this devastation--and 
that is what it is.
  Suicide is very personal to me. As some of you know, my good dad 
killed himself. The heartbreak that is caused--the total loss and 
inability to understand--from a needless and preventable death of a 
loved one is hard to comprehend.
  The Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention Act is bipartisan legislation. The 
bill passed the House last Tuesday.
  I thank Senators McCain and Walsh for their work on this veterans 
suicide issue. They have both introduced their own legislation to 
address this important issue--a Vietnam veteran and an Iraq veteran.
  I commend Senator Blumenthal for all of his efforts to get this 
important bill passed. We should not delay a minute more in passing 
this legislation. The bill is supported by an overwhelming majority of 
the Senate. We could pass it just like that if we could have 
cooperation. It is my understanding that there is only one Senator 
standing in the way.
  Let's do what is right for our veterans one more time before we close 
the 113th Congress. Twenty-two veterans are dying by their own hand 
every day.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 5059

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored and proud to follow the 
majority leader, and I thank him for his remarks. I will make my 
remarks in support of my request for unanimous consent.
  If there is an objection, in deference to the Senator from Oklahoma, 
I will withhold the body of my remarks until after there is an 
objection.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of H.R. 5059, the Clay Hunt SAV Act, which was received 
from House and is at the desk; and further, that the bill be read three 
times and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  I will proceed at the conclusion of any remarks by the Senator from 
Oklahoma and the Senator from Ohio.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. COBURN. Reserving the right to object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, first of all, I will say that I recognize 
the honor of the Senator from Connecticut for his distinguished service 
in the military.
  I didn't serve in our military. I was actually in college during the 
Vietnam war. I drew No. 354 on the lottery the week before I was to be 
drafted. I had two brothers who served--not in Vietnam--in the 
military. My father and both uncles served during World War II. My 
grandfather was awarded the Croix de Guerre, the highest honor the 
French give, for his work during World War I.
  I will also state that, as a physician, I know suicide all too well. 
I have failed patients in the past even though I did everything I knew 
to do. Yet they still took their lives.
  I have also experienced it personally in my own family. I know this 
issue. I also know what we did 3\1/2\ months ago--we passed the 
Veterans Choice Act, which I ultimately voted against because it didn't 
do what we promised the veterans we would do.
  To this day Secretary McDonald has fired one person out of hundreds 
who should have been fired because we didn't give him the right 
authority on that day to hold the VA accountable.
  I have treated patients with the demons that these young men and 
women have when they come back from war--the night terrors and the 
conflict that happens when they turn a corner and get a flashback of 
where they were versus seeing their wife and daughter. On top of that, 
they have the guilt that has built up, and they wonder to themselves, 
what is wrong with me?
  Thirty-four percent of the people who are applying for mental health 
benefits today from the VA are getting seen within the appropriate 
time. Almost everything in the bill has already been authorized and 
approved with the $10 billion that we sent to the VA.
  When every veteran--regardless of how long his hair is or how 
unshaven or how scraggly or how nice he looks--is greeted with a smile 
and a ``yes, sir'' or ``yes, ma'am,'' when they are treated with the 
respect they deserve at every veterans facility because they served and 
some of us didn't, that is when we know we have put the VA back on 
course.
  My great colleague from Connecticut is going to be the ranking member 
on the VA Committee, along with Johnny Isakson from Georgia. I have a 
challenge for him. I am going to be objecting to this bill because it 
throws money out there and doesn't solve the real problem. I know most 
of my colleagues disagree with me on that, but I actually did the work.
  I started a year before all the VA scandals started, and I documented 
nearly 1,000 deaths at the hands of lack of our oversight and the lack 
of us holding the VA accountable. People are going to make mistakes all 
the time, but we are the ones who have no excuse for not holding the VA 
accountable.
  Our veterans deserve the very best. We cannot eliminate all of the 
tragedies that occur with war. Some of the most remarkable things 
happened during this bill.
  I have a military liaison who had significant injuries as a result of 
serving this country. He got targeted by the veterans groups who wanted 
to pass this bill--talk about dishonoring a veteran. You are going 
after my MLA who served this country with distinction, who has had 
multiple operations because of his injuries and second degree burns in 
his service to this country. Nothing could be lower than that. That is 
politics at its worst.
  So I believe in all my heart--I prayed all weekend. How do I answer 
this question? And the answer to the question is to do the hard work 
over the next year. Don't pass another bill. Hold the VA accountable. 
There should be a hearing every week on every aspect of every aspect of 
everything the VA does for the whole next 2 years so that they, in 
fact, will treat the people who put their lives on the line with the 
very respect, the very service that they so richly earned and we have 
spoiled because we undervalue it.
  We have great employees at most of the VA facilities, but we have 
some stinkers. Until we change the attitude, until we hold the 
administration of the Veterans' Administration accountable, we will 
never change the attitude that our veterans aren't getting the very 
best. And they deserve the very best.
  My heart breaks for the people who commit suicide. Do we know what it 
is? They find no relief anywhere else

[[Page 18939]]

except death. There is no answer for them. We don't give it to them. We 
have failed them. I personally have failed them in my own medical 
practice. So they look at the only option that gives them relief from 
the tremendous pressure and tension they are experiencing.
  I had a very close friend in the House whose son took his own life. 
We spent years building and loving that family to help them to deal 
with that loss. Catastrophic events, depression, and situations lead 
people to suicide--not any one individual. They are searching for an 
answer we have failed to give them. They are searching for the support 
and the nurturing and the love that needs to be there to say: I am 
going to mentor you and get you through this. That is where the VA has 
failed. That is where the military has failed. That is where we have 
failed.
  Even the Veterans' Administration says everything in this bill has 
already been authorized. So what is it really about? It is about 
addressing an issue without addressing the issue. The real, hard work 
will come when, on C-SPAN, with me sitting in Oklahoma, I get to see 
Dick Blumenthal and Johnny Isakson grilling every aspect of the VA to 
make sure they are top notch, they are putting their sacrifice on the 
line the same way our soldiers do. That is when we start changing 
things.
  So, regrettably, I object to this bill, not because I don't want to 
help save suicides but because I don't think this bill is going to do 
the first thing to change what is happening. What is going to change 
what is happening is when we as Members of the Senate and the Congress 
start bearing down and creating the transparency that is necessary so 
that Americans can see that our veterans are getting everything they 
deserve and a ``yes, sir'' and a ``no, sir,'' a ``no ma'am,'' a ``yes 
ma'am,'' a smile, and a greeting, and when they interact with the VA, 
they leave there fulfilled and proud that they are a veteran.
  I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I wish to respond to the Senator from 
Oklahoma by, first of all, expressing my deep respect and appreciation 
for the work he has done to hold accountable the Veterans' 
Administration and many other agencies of our U.S. Government. In fact, 
he leaves a legacy of oversight that I will be honored to continue and 
I hope will continue through the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
  The efforts of the Senator from Oklahoma to scrutinize government 
spending through individual and independent assessments, in fact, are 
addressed in this bill in section 2, which requires, in fact, an 
independent third party to annually evaluate the Department of Veterans 
Affairs to establish metrics, to identify the cost-effectiveness of 
programs, and to propose best practices. Holding the VA accountable is 
one of the core purposes of this bill.
  I am asking that the Senate take up a bill that was passed 
unanimously in the House of Representatives and that is supported on a 
bipartisan basis by 21 of our colleagues, that is blocked by a single 
Member, and that will make an impact on the spreading scourge of 
suicides among some of our very bravest and best warriors. We don't 
know--it remains a mystery--how some of our most courageous and 
steadfast warfighters can stare down death on the battlefield and 
succumb to it at home by their own hand. Those demons, those inner 
doubts, the invisible wounds of war, post-traumatic stress and 
traumatic brain injury are taking their toll at the rate of 22 a day.
  This measure is actually scaled back. It is targeted and focused to 
provide incremental benefits to those veterans who are at risk by 
providing additional resources--psychiatrists and counselors--by 
mandating accountability in the use of those resources. That is more 
than we did 3\1/2\ months ago in another measure I strongly supported.
  I express my appreciation to our 21 colleagues who have supported 
this measure but also to the IAVA and the VFW, to the survivors of 
veterans' suicides across the country and their families, and the 
families who came before us in the committee such as Susan Selke's, 
whose son, Clay Hunt, is in the name of this bill. Susan Selke urged us 
to pass this legislation that will provide for an independent and 
strong source of accountability, because she believes it is necessary 
to help others such as her son before they succumb, as her son did.
  That kind of outside review to impose discipline on the VA is, as my 
colleague has said, absolutely necessary not only for the VA but for VA 
clinics and hospitals around the country. But we need more 
psychiatrists in those VA clinics and hospitals, and this measure will 
provide those resources, along with accountability.
  In one of his most recent reports, my colleague from Oklahoma 
highlighted the appalling case of Dr. Margaret Moxness, and I thank him 
for that report and others he has authored.

       Dr. Margaret Moxness, a former physician at the Huntington 
     VA Medical Center in Charleston, West Virginia, said that 
     when she reported patients who needed immediate mental health 
     treatment, supervisors instructed her to delay care anyway. 
     She saw at least two patients commit suicide while waiting 
     for treatment between psychological appointments.

  I share my colleagues' view that we cannot simply hire our way out of 
this problem. We have a nationwide shortage of mental health care 
professionals, and that is why this legislation, in section 4, grows a 
pool of psychiatrists through tuition assistance, and that is why in 
section 6 it requires the VA to collaborate with outside nonprofit 
mental health organizations to improve the efficiency and the 
effectiveness of suicide prevention efforts.
  This scaled-back bill is a down payment. It is not the end of 
solutions to this problem. It is a worthwhile measure that takes 
limited, targeted steps. Much more can and should be done. It has been 
championed by Chairman Sanders, and I thank him and Ranking Member Burr 
for their efforts in the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability 
Act. This job will not be done until we end every suicide--not just the 
22 every day, but every one of those 22 every day in this country.
  Every single one of us, if we are honest with ourselves, knows a 
family that has been touched by this problem--every single Member of 
this body. I know it all too well because a friend of mine, Justin 
Eldridge of southeastern Connecticut succumbed to suicide as well. He 
was deployed in combat in Afghanistan where he braved mortar fire and 
sniper fire, and he returned to his family, his children, and his 
wife--his very young family--suffering from traumatic brain injury and 
post-traumatic stress. As brave as he had been on the battlefield, he 
could not win that war at home. He sought mental health care at the 
Connecticut VA facility. He had gone through a long battle for 
benefits. I helped him with it. But there was a significant gap in the 
continuity of his medical care. Basically, he slipped through the 
cracks and eventually took his life.
  I knew him as the founder of the Marine Corps League in southeastern 
Connecticut, which I was proud to join as a member. How he fell into 
that black hole of depression and despair I certainly will never 
understand. But I hope someone could have understood it if we had 
provided the kinds of resources that are necessary in Connecticut and 
around the country. We have an obligation to leave none of these 
veterans behind, to hold the VA accountable, to make sure the resources 
are well spent, to avoid duplication, but to reach out to those brave 
and fearless warriors who fight on our battlefields and defend our 
Nation, and then are threatened and sometimes lose the war at home to 
post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injuries--medical conditions 
that can be overcome with the right care as soon as possible.
  I hope my colleague from Oklahoma will withdraw his objection. I 
thank my colleagues for supporting this measure. If it fails this time, 
we will bring it back and we will win and leave no one behind.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.

[[Page 18940]]


  Mr. WALSH. Mr. President, today the Senate had an opportunity to act 
and pass important legislation that will continue to address the crisis 
of veteran suicide. The numbers have been talked about. We are losing 
22 servicemembers--veterans--each and every day across this country. 
Thousands of men and women each year are dying by suicide. If we were 
losing 22 of our servicemembers on the battlefield each and every day, 
the citizens of this country would be up in arms. The Members of 
Congress would be up in arms. We would be taking action to ensure that 
we were doing something about it. I recall when this body did take 
action, I was in Iraq, in Kuwait, getting ready to go across the 
border. There was the Secretary of Defense at that time who came over 
for a townhall meeting, and we talked about how poor the equipment was 
that our Reserve component members were being given to go across the 
border from Kuwait to Iraq. Shortly after that time, the Reserve 
component started to receive up-armored Humvees. The action this body 
took made a difference. Once the Reserve components started to receive 
up-armored Humvees--the same type of Humvee our Active-Duty 
counterparts are receiving--it did make a difference.
  This body has an opportunity to take action. We have put over a 
million men and women into the VA health care system over the past 13 
years, and we have not provided the resources our men and women in the 
VA need to take care of these men and women who have been put into the 
VA health care system.
  When we talked about the fact that the VA health care system needs to 
do a better job, think about us not providing them with the resources 
they need to do their job. That is what this body is being asked to 
do--to provide the VA health care system with the resources and provide 
additional psychological health care providers in VAs all across our 
country so that the men and women who are coming back with 
psychological wounds of war can be dealt with.
  When I introduced the first version of this important legislation 
back in March, I committed to use my time in office to bring attention 
to this issue. I thank all the Members of this body who have stood up 
and all the organizations that have come together and realized we have 
a problem. There are 22 men and women each and every day dying by 
suicide. We need to do something. We have done some things, but it is 
not enough.
  It is a terrible disservice to millions of veterans and their 
families that this important bill has been blocked from passing because 
we are not doing everything we can do. Congress can't just thank our 
veterans. We hear each and every day on this floor and in the House how 
much we appreciate our veterans and how much we appreciate the men and 
women who are willing to sign on the dotted line, how much we 
appreciate their families for the sacrifice they make each and every 
day while our men and women are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Our men and women who serve in the Armed Forces are willing to put 
their lives on the line for our freedoms and the things we enjoy each 
and every day across this country. We need to do more than provide 
lipservice from this Chamber about taking care of our men and women who 
sign and are willing to give their lives for this country and for those 
who have given their lives for this country.
  As somebody who has seen the invisible wounds of war in the men and 
women under my command, I am deeply disappointed today that we haven't 
been able to pass this legislation and begin taking action to help our 
men and women who are contemplating dying by suicide.
  One of the pieces of this legislation--right now when a young man or 
woman comes home, he or she can go to the VA, and they are taken care 
of for up to 5 years. Sometimes the wounds of PTSD or traumatic brain 
injury take longer than 5 years to surface. We need to continue to 
provide that service for up to 10 years or, in my opinion, for as long 
as these men and women are around and still living. Again, they were 
willing to put their lives on the line for this country. We need to be 
willing to take care of them for the rest of their lives, for those who 
were fortunate enough to come home from serving our country.
  I am glad to see that Senator Blumenthal will be around for the next 
Congress because I know he and other Members of this body will continue 
to fight to make sure our men and women who served our country and who 
are suffering from the visible and invisible wounds of war will have 
someone here to fight for them because I know they will continue to 
carry on this message.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio.

                          ____________________