[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2232-2245]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

       NOMINATION OF ASHTON B. CARTER TO BE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, 
which the clerk will report.

[[Page 2233]]

  The bill clerk read the nomination of Ashton B. Carter, of 
Massachusetts, to be Secretary of Defense.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 2 
p.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Maine.
  (The remarks of Ms. Collins and Ms. Klobuchar pertaining to the 
submission of S. Res. 74 are printed in today's Record under 
``Statements on Submitted Resolutions.'')
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Department of Homeland Security Funding

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I always try to be accurate in what I 
say on the floor. Having been trained before Federal judges for almost 
15 years, practicing law, if you said something out of line, you got 
hammered for it.
  My friend, very good friend and colleague, the Democratic whip, 
Senator Durbin, earlier today came to the floor and said: Mr. 
President, I have been trying to understand what is holding up the 
funding for the Department of Homeland Security.
  I would ask my colleague Senator Durbin: Have you ever heard of a 
filibuster? What about the filibuster you are leading to block the bill 
that funds Homeland Security? I mean how much more obvious can the 
answer be to what is holding up funding for the Department of Homeland 
Security, the House-passed legislation?
  It is good legislation, to my knowledge. There is very little dispute 
about the agencies and the departments in Homeland Security in terms of 
what they would get in terms of funding. They simply said that the 
extra-lawful actions of President Obama would not be funded.
  The Los Angeles Times now says that this executive amnesty could cost 
up to $484 million. I think it will be much more. The Los Angeles Times 
isn't counting the cost to State and local governments, welfare costs, 
tax costs. This is just their idea of what it will cost to give lawful 
status to 5 million people. It is going to cost more than that. But 
$484 million is still a lot of money.
  Congress, the House of Representatives, said: Mr. President, we don't 
agree with this policy and your policy is unlawful. You said 20 times 
yourself you don't have the power to do this. Constitutional scholars 
say that. It is an erosion of our power and, based on the fact that we 
don't like the policy and we think it is unlawful policy, we are going 
to fund Homeland Security, we are just not going to allow you to take 
money from enforcement of homeland security laws to reward people who 
violated the laws.
  Isn't that a responsible thing for Congress to do? Isn't it an 
absolute fact that Congress has the power to fund what it desires to 
fund and not fund what it does not desire to fund? That is the power of 
the purse, vested in the coequal branch of Congress. It is Congress's 
fundamental power.
  Senator Durbin is now leading the filibuster. We have had a series of 
votes. He has been able to get every single Democrat to vote with him 
to block even going to the bill, even allowing a bill to come up on the 
floor of the Senate for debate and amendment.
  If he wants to offer language that says we want to ratify what the 
President did and allow all this to happen, he is free to offer that 
amendment on the floor of the Senate. But he is not even attempting to 
do that. He is basically saying we are not going to allow the bill to 
come up for a vote, and we are going to blame the Republicans for 
blocking the bill.
  What kind of world are we living in? I have suggested that is 
``through the looking glass.'' We have the people leading the 
filibuster accusing the House and Republicans in the Senate for 
blocking the bill when they, indeed, are the ones doing it.
  He also quoted our fine colleague Senator Flake to say: To attempt to 
use the spending bill to try to poke a finger in the President's eye is 
not a good move, in my mind.
  I agree with that, we shouldn't be using a spending bill to poke the 
President in the eye. But I suggest to my colleagues that the President 
is the one who has poked the American people in the eye, he has poked 
the rights and powers of Congress in the eye by taking money that was 
assigned and given to Homeland Security to enforce the laws of the 
United States. He is taking out money and spending it at this very 
moment to undermine and to violate the laws of the United States.
  Colleagues, the law of the United States--we have a lot of laws--says 
that an employer, for example, cannot hire somebody unlawfully in the 
country.
  So the President's proposal: Well, I am going to make 5 million 
people who are unlawful today lawful. I am going to give them a photo 
ID, I am going to give them a right to work, a Social Security number, 
and the right to participate in Social Security and Medicare, because I 
am angry that Congress wouldn't pass it.
  Senator Durbin says this--and our colleagues who have been leading 
the filibuster have been saying this--repeatedly.
  It is impossible to explain the situation, quoting Senator Durbin, 
where the agency ``with the premier responsibility to keep America safe 
is not being adequately funded.''
  He goes on to say that again about placing America at risk.
  I would ask a couple of questions. How does taking funding from the 
lawful, authorized policies of Homeland Security that are supposed to 
identify people unlawfully here, to identify terrorists, and do other 
things to make America safe--how does taking the money from them, to 
give legal status to 5 million illegal aliens make us safer?
  Does that make us safer? How absurd is that?
  Ken Palinkas, who is head of the union of CIS workers, the National 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Council, said:

       Unfortunately--and perilously overlooked in Washington--our 
     caseworkers are denied the urgent professional resources, 
     enforcement tools, and mission support we need to keep out 
     those who are bent on doing us harm.

  This is processing the 1 million or so per year who are given lawful 
status in America. He is not referring to the future when they are 
going to be expected to process--immediately, apparently--5 million 
more. They don't have money to process the people today. These are his 
words, not mine, in a letter dated September of last year. He said:

       The 9/11 hijackers got into the U.S. on visas and now, 13 
     years later, we have around 5 million immigrants in the 
     United States who overstayed their visas--many from high-risk 
     regions in the Middle East. Making matters more dangerous, 
     the Obama Administration's executive amnesty, like S. 744 
     that he unsuccessfully lobbied for, would legalize visa 
     overstays and cause millions additionally to overstay--
     raising the threat level to America even higher.

  That is what the people who enforce the law every day are saying.
  In January of this year, a few weeks ago, January 22, Mr. Palinkas 
said:

       The President's executive amnesty--

  And that is what they are objecting to. That is what the people who 
are filibustering this bill today are doing. They are protecting, 
advancing, supporting, and attempting to fund the President's unlawful 
amnesty.
  Mr. Palinkas, whose duty it is to enforce these laws, said:

       The President's executive amnesty order for 5 million 
     illegal immigrants places the mission of USCIS [that is the 
     immigration service] in grave peril. Instead of meeting our 
     lawful function to protect the Homeland and keep out those 
     who pose a threat to U.S. security, health, or finances, our 
     officers will be assigned to process amnesty for individuals 
     residing illegally inside our nation's borders. This 
     compromises national security and public safety, while 
     undermining officer morale.

  That is exactly right. You don't have to be a real expert to 
understand he is exactly right about this.

[[Page 2234]]

  He continues:

       The Administration's skewed priorities means that the 
     Crystal City amnesty processing center will likely have 
     superior worksite conditions for personnel relative to our 
     normal processing centers. Additionally, the security 
     protocols at place in this facility will be insufficient to 
     engage in any basic screening precautions, ensuring and 
     rewarding massive amounts of fraud. For the administration to 
     continue down this course after the Paris attacks is beyond 
     belief.

  This is what we are dealing with. In October of last year, Mr. 
Palinkas, when the President was proposing this amnesty before it 
happened, issued a statement on behalf of his workers and his 
colleagues in the immigration service. He concludes in his statement:

       That is why this statement is intended for the public. If 
     you care about your immigration security and your 
     neighborhood security, you must act now to ensure that 
     Congress stops this unilateral amnesty. Let your voice be 
     heard and spread the word to your neighbors. We who serve in 
     our nation's immigration agencies are pleading for your 
     help--don't let it happen. Express your concern to your 
     Senators and Congressmen before it is too late.

  Well, that is what it is all about. The President 20 times said he 
did not have the power to do such a thing, but he--under political 
pressure, I suppose, or just an overreach on his part--decided to do it 
anyway. He said he didn't have the power to do this. Now he has acted 
on it, even though the officers pleaded for him to not do it, even 
though an overwhelming majority of the American people said don't do 
it, even though at least nine Democratic colleagues who were supporting 
this filibuster said the President didn't have the power or shouldn't 
do it this way, that these kinds of decisions are part of Congress's 
power.
  Mr. President, don't do it, is what they said. Yet all nine of them 
are now standing in lockstep to block the funding of homeland security 
that funds every part of homeland security--it just doesn't fund this 
building they have leased across the river in Crystal City that is 
supposed to process up to 5 million people.
  Colleagues, I want you to know it is absolutely true they will not 
even have face-to-face interviews with these applicants. This is going 
to be coming in by mail and computer. They will eventually be sent 
someplace to get a photo ID, they will be given a work permit to take 
any job in America, and the right to participate in Social Security and 
Medicare, weakening both of those programs over the long term, without 
any doubt.
  That is what is occurring without congressional approval. This is 
going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars just in the process.
  But what I want Senator Durbin to know is this is going to weaken 
national security. Because if someone is here to do harm to America--
perhaps they are a drug dealer or they are a terrorist and they want to 
do criminal acts in America, and they have a record--they are not going 
to ask for the amnesty. They are going to stay and continue to work 
their wicked will. That is what they are going to do. Nobody is going 
to go look for them. Nobody is looking for them now, and nobody will be 
looking for them then. It will be business as usual.
  But if you came here with a bad purpose--terrorism, drug dealing, 
other criminal activity--and you don't have a criminal record, you will 
just call in, send an email in, get your identity, and be allowed to 
permanently operate in the United States.
  And colleagues, the American people, I think, understand this. Nobody 
is going to investigate anything, other than maybe to run a computer 
background check--a computer check to see if there is a criminal record 
out there. There is no way anybody is going to go back and try to 
verify whether someone has actually been in the country a number of 
years, verify family relations. They are not going to go back to some 
school to see if they actually graduated. There are no people to do 
that. This is just a blanket approval for people who apply, basically. 
You send in a few documents, and you are in. There is no capability of 
doing anything other than that.
  So the President has just made a big mistake--a big mistake--and 
Congress needs to push back. Congress has the power to consider what 
kind of policies we want to set with regard to immigration. Those have 
been set. It is unlawful for people unlawfully in America to work in 
America and to participate in Social Security and all of those 
programs. It is just unlawful to do that. The President is violating 
that law in issuing directives through these departments and agencies 
to Federal employees, and those employees are protesting dramatically, 
but nobody seems to care.
  Congress is the one body that is supposed to stand up to that, and 
the House of Representatives has done so. They passed a bill that would 
stop this activity, that says: we will not authorize the expenditure of 
any money to carry out this plan that Congress has not approved, that 
undermines the laws we have in place, and that--as Palinkas and other 
officers have told us--will encourage more people to come to America 
unlawfully, further decimating any integrity the system has.
  We issued a 49-page document of 200 different actions taken since 
President Obama has been in office that undermine the moral integrity 
of the immigration system, making it more and more difficult to 
maintain even a modicum of legality in the system. His actions are 
continuing to erode that--the most dramatic, of course, being this 
Executive Amnesty. So we are just supposed to accept this.
  This isn't a personal issue to attack President Obama or any of our 
colleagues. It is a big American policy issue. It is a huge issue for 
this country, and we need to understand it. It is a constitutional 
question as well as a policy question.
  The constitutional question, which the House of Representatives 
understands, is that Congress appropriates money. Congress has no duty 
to placate the President of the United States when he wants to carry on 
an activity that Congress chooses not to fund. Congress has a duty to 
history and to generations yet unborn to defend and protect its power 
of the purse. Congress has to do that.
  I plead with and say to my colleagues that those who know the 
President overreached on this, this is the time, this is the bill when 
we should fix this. Passage of this bill without the language of the 
House would basically fund all of the Executive Amnesty. It would not 
block funding of this activity. To take out the House language and to 
pass what our colleagues want to pass--a bill that makes no reference 
to the Executive Amnesty--takes no action to stop that activity; that 
is, it ratifies it. It is in effect a financial ratification of an 
unconstitutional overreach by the executive branch that will have 
ramifications in the future that we can't even imagine today.
  Somebody asked the question--and I think it is a valid analogy--what 
if the President wanted to reduce the tax rate from 39 percent to 25 
percent and Congress wouldn't pass it. So he tells all of his IRS 
agents--they work for him--don't collect any money over 25 percent. He 
says to the people: Don't send in money more than 25 percent. I told 
the agents not to collect more than 25 percent.
  Is that so far-fetched, if this were to pass?
  What the President is saying is, I know the law says you can't work 
here. I know the law says you are supposed to be removed if you are 
here illegally. I know all of these things, but we are just not going 
to do it. Not only am I not going to enforce the law with regard to 
immigration, but what I am going to do is I am going declare you as 
lawful. I am going to give you Social Security numbers and work 
permits.
  A recent report from a liberal group, the Economic Policy Institute, 
announced on February 10 that the unemployed exceed job openings in 
almost every industry in America.
  We know unemployment is exceedingly high, and we know that we have 
high job unemployment in the country. Remember, the unemployment rate 
we see today does not include people who drop out of the workforce, it 
only reflects those people who are underemployed and looking for more 
work or people who are actually seeking employment aggressively and 
have signed

[[Page 2235]]

up on the unemployment rolls in efforts to get a job.
  This indicates that in the big industry we used to hear a lot from--
the construction industry--there are six times as many construction 
workers as there are job openings. Even for professional and business 
services they are higher. In retail trade there are far more applicants 
than jobs. It goes on and on, sector after sector.
  So remember, at a time of this high unemployment, we are also going 
to be legalizing 5 million people to take jobs. We know we have to get 
over 200,000 jobs created in a month--that it takes 180,000 or 
200,000--just to stay level with the growth in the population of 
America. We have been slightly above that recently, and there has been 
a lot of positive spin about that. But we still have the lowest 
percentage of Americans in their working years actually working that we 
have had in this country in 40 years.
  Income is down $4,000 since 2007 for middle-class working families. 
The median income is down $4,000 since 2007. So how is this good for 
lawful immigrants, permanent residents, American citizens? How is it 
good to bring in even more workers at a time when we have the smallest 
percentage of Americans in the workforce in 40 years? I point to 40 
years ago because we began to see a lot more women working in those 
years, so this is a reversal of that trend.
  What do the American people think about it? Here is some Paragon Poll 
data that says by a more than 2-to-1 margin Americans strongly oppose 
rather than strongly support the President's Executive actions. Blue 
collar and middle class workers strongly oppose the President's action 
by more than a 3-to-1 majority. By a 50-point margin, voters want 
Congress to pass legislation making it harder for companies to hire 
workers now illegally in the country--71 to 21.
  The American people want to make it harder. Their children, their 
husbands, their wives are looking for work and not finding any. They 
want to have a decent wage, a rising wage, and a chance to get a job. 
So this is a 50-point margin. Remember, the President's action--far 
from making it harder for people to get a job--is going to provide a 
photo ID, work authorizations, and Social Security numbers to 5 million 
people unlawfully here. Almost all of those are adults, frankly.
  Just to show how people feel about this and how strongly they feel 
about it, Kellyanne Conway's polling data shows that by a 75-to-8 
margin Americans say companies should raise wages instead of allowing 
more immigrant workers to fill jobs.
  People would like to see a pay raise around here for a change. 
Salaries dropped 5 cents in December. We are not doing nearly as well 
as some would like to say. That is a Department of Labor statistic--a 
government statistic--that says that.
  How about this? What about people who have the hardest time finding 
work right now. African Americans, according to the Conway poll, by an 
86-to-3 margin say companies should raise wages instead of allowing 
more immigrant workers to take jobs. For Hispanics that is true by a 
margin of 71 to 11. So by a 71-to-11 margin, Hispanics in America say 
companies should raise wages instead of bringing in more workers to 
take jobs, pulling wages down. That is what the market says.
  So let's go back to the morality of all of this, which is 
fundamental. We as members of Congress represent the people of the 
United States. That includes immigrants, recent immigrants--naturalized 
citizens--living here today. It includes native-born citizens. That is 
who our obligation is to. So we need to ask ourselves, how are we 
helping them at a time of difficult wage conditions, difficult job 
conditions, while allowing a surge of workers to come to compete for 
the few jobs there are? Is that fulfilling our duty to the voters, to 
the electors who sent us here? I think not.
  I think it is time for somebody to focus on the needs of people who 
go to work every day, who have had their hours reduced, who have had 
their wages decline, who have had their spouses and children having a 
hard time finding work. That is what is happening.
  To repeat for my good friend Senator Durbin, who says he has been 
trying to understand what is holding up the funding for the Department 
of Homeland Security, let me answer that question. The House has passed 
a bill. They have sent it to the Senate. More than a majority of the 
Senators have voted to pass a bill and fund the Department of Homeland 
Security. And you, as the Democratic whip, are leading the filibuster 
to block it from even coming up on the floor so amendments can be 
offered.
  That is the answer to your question. So I don't think you should 
continue blaming Republicans for not attempting to fund Homeland 
Security. The whole world knows who is blocking the bill that funds 
Homeland Security: You and your team of filibusterers.
  That is what it is. There is no doubt about that, and we need to get 
this straight. I don't believe the American people are going to be 
misled by that argument. I believe they are going to know what is 
happening in this Senate and why we have this difficulty.
  I thank the Chair, and 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. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate will vote later today on the 
confirmation of Dr. Ashton Carter to fill a critically important 
Cabinet position, that of Secretary of Defense. I think we all know Dr. 
Carter is a dedicated and distinguished public servant. He has actually 
been confirmed twice, unanimously, to two senior positions at the 
Pentagon. He has been recognized as a four-time recipient of the 
Department of Defense Distinguished Service Medal, and he has been 
awarded the Defense Intelligence Medal. I have no doubt the vote today 
in support of Dr. Carter will be overwhelmingly favorable.
  The Defense Department faces important, timely, and difficult 
decisions in the coming months and years. They have to learn how best 
to balance what we know are our fiscal constraints with not only 
existing but emerging international challenges. Dr. Carter served as 
the day-to-day financial officer of the Pentagon, so he is one of the 
few people who understand the complexities of the Pentagon's budget. I 
believe that Dr. Carter will build upon the fine work of Secretary 
Hagel to chart a path toward fiscal accountability while maintaining 
the kind of military capabilities we need to face current global 
threats.
  Dr. Carter is receiving his confirmation vote just over a week after 
he testified before the Armed Services Committee and two days after his 
nomination was reported to the full Senate, and that swift action is 
commendable. But I want to contrast how his nomination was handled as 
compared to Loretta Lynch's for Attorney General.


                            Lynch Nomination

  It is a disappointment that contrary to what was done for Dr. Carter, 
Republicans on the Judiciary Committee chose to hold over for another 
two weeks another critical nomination, that of Loretta Lynch to be the 
Attorney General of the United States, the Nation's chief law 
enforcement officer.
  Loretta Lynch is a renowned prosecutor, twice unanimously confirmed 
by the Senate. She has worked to put criminals behind bars for such 
crimes as terrorism and fraud. Some Members of this body said these 
terrorists should be held in Guantanamo because we, the most powerful 
nation on earth, should be afraid to try them in our Federal courts--
the best court system in the world. She showed a lot more courage. She 
said, we will try these terrorists in our Federal courts, and we will 
show the rest of the world America is not afraid--and it worked. She 
got convictions. Now, the President announced the nomination of Ms. 
Lynch nearly one hundred days ago. It has been more than two weeks 
since she testified before the Judiciary Committee. In addition to 
nearly eight

[[Page 2236]]

hours of live testimony, she has responded to more than 600 written 
questions. Her nomination has been pending for longer than any modern 
Attorney General nominee.
  I contrast this to another nominee. In 2007, Democrats, who had been 
in the minority, took back over control of the Senate. President Bush 
had had an Attorney General, a man who, by just about any objective 
standard, had been a disaster. He was removed, and President Bush 
nominated Michael Mukasey to serve as Attorney General. It took only 53 
days from the time his nomination was announced to his confirmation. 
That included doing all of the background checks and having the 
hearings. And then, after Mr. Mukasey's hearing, of course under our 
rules we could have held his nomination over in Committee, but I asked 
the Committee not to and we did not. While I ultimately voted against 
Mr. Mukasey because of his responses relating to questions on torture, 
as Chairman I made sure to have the Committee act quickly on him. In 
fact, I held a special markup session in order for the Committee to be 
able to report his nomination as soon as possible, because the 
President should have an Attorney General--and he was confirmed by the 
Senate two days later. Now, Republicans should extend the same courtesy 
with respect to Ms. Lynch's nomination to serve as the Nation's top law 
enforcement officer.
  I look forward to working with Dr. Carter. I am not suggesting we 
should hold him up because they are holding her up. Of course not. He 
should be confirmed, as she should be confirmed, and I look forward to 
working with Dr. Carter on issues of great importance to Vermonters and 
to the Nation, particularly concerning our continued diplomatic efforts 
to end Iran's nuclear program, in halting and reversing the 
proliferation of landmines around the world, in responsibly managing 
the Pentagon, and in supporting our servicemembers at home and abroad.
  And I look forward to working with Loretta Lynch when the Senate 
ultimately confirms her nomination, as it will. I urge the Republican 
Leader to serve the national interest by scheduling a confirmation vote 
on her nomination as soon as she is reported by the Senate Judiciary 
Committee on February 26. She has already waited far longer for a 
confirmation vote than any Attorney General in modern history, and she 
should be confirmed just as Dr. Carter is going to be.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to join my friend and colleague 
from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, in supporting the nomination of Dr. 
Ash Carter to be Secretary of Defense. I am confident Senator Reed and 
I feel we have had a very good nomination hearing and that Dr. Carter 
is qualified to be the Secretary of Defense.
  I have known Dr. Carter for many years during his lengthy service in 
Washington. He is one of America's most experienced defense 
professionals, respected by Republicans and Democrats alike.
  He has served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic 
Affairs, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 
Logistics, and most recently as Deputy Secretary of Defense. In these 
positions, I have known him to be an honest, hard-working, and 
committed public servant. I have had the opportunity to work together 
with Dr. Carter on several issues of shared concern, especially trying 
to reform the Defense Acquisition System, improving financial 
management of the Department, and repealing and rolling back 
sequestration.
  I was also pleased to hear Dr. Carter explain his views on a number 
of critical national security issues at his confirmation hearing 
earlier this month.
  On Afghanistan Dr. Carter told the committee he would consider 
revisions to the size and pace of the President's drawdown plan if 
security conditions warranted. To achieve the success that is possible 
there, he urged the United States to ``continue its campaign and finish 
the job.''
  Dr. Carter indicated he is very much inclined in the direction of 
providing defensive lethal arms to help Ukraine resist Russian 
aggression.
  He pledged to do more to streamline and improve the Defense 
Acquisition System that takes too long and costs too much, and Dr. 
Carter agreed it is time to roll back sequestration because, in his 
words, ``it introduces turbulence and uncertainty that are wasteful, 
and it conveys a misleadingly diminished picture of our power in the 
eyes of friends and foes alike.''
  America is confronted with a diverse and complex range of national 
security challenges. A revisionist Russia, a rising China, and radical 
Islamist groups each seeking in their own way to fundamentally 
challenge the international order as we have known it since the end of 
World War II, a system that cherishes the rule of law, maintains free 
markets and free trade, and relegates wars of aggression to their 
rightful place in the bloody past.
  We need a coherent national security strategy incorporating all 
elements of America's national power to sustain and defend the 
international order that has produced and extended security, 
prosperity, and liberty across the globe.
  We need to stop holding our military hostage to domestic political 
disputes and send an unmistakable message to friend and foe alike that 
America intends to lead in the 21st century by repealing sequestration 
immediately.
  We need to reform our Defense Acquisition System to restore 
confidence that every defense dollar is spent well and to ensure that 
the men and women in uniform are getting the training and equipment 
they need on time and at a cost acceptable to the taxpayer.
  That is why America needs a strong Secretary of Defense now more than 
ever. I think Dr. Carter will be a good Secretary of Defense, who will 
always keep faith with our men and women in uniform and work tirelessly 
on their behalf and that of our national security. I am hopeful about 
the prospects of working together with Dr. Carter, along with my 
colleagues in the Senate Committee on Armed Services on both sides of 
the aisle, to achieve our shared priorities, especially the reform of 
our Defense Acquisition System, the modernization of our military 
compensation system, and the repeal of sequestration.
  But when it comes to much of our national security policy, I must 
candidly express concern about the task that awaits Dr. Carter and the 
limited influence he may have.
  Two of his predecessors, Secretary Gates and Secretary Panetta, have 
severely criticized White House micromanagement of the Defense 
Department and overcentralization of foreign and defense policies. 
According to numerous news reports, Secretary Hagel experienced similar 
frustrations with the insular and indecisive White House national 
security team over issues ranging from ISIL to Ukraine, detention 
policy to sequestration.
  Dr. Carter is a worthy choice for Secretary of Defense. He has the 
experience, knowledge, and skill to succeed. The Armed Services 
Committee voted unanimously to approve his nomination last week, and I 
will gladly vote to confirm him today. I do so with sincere hope, and 
sadly, little confidence that the President who nominated Dr. Carter 
will empower him to lead and contribute to the fullest extent of his 
abilities. At a time of global upheaval and multiplying threats to our 
security, the American people need and deserve nothing less.
  I thank my colleague from Rhode Island for his cooperation and 
coordination with the hearing and for his input and influence which led 
to a unanimous vote from the committee.
  I yield the floor for my friend and colleague from Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I commend the chairman for his very clear 
and thoughtful conduct of these hearings with respect to Dr. Carter. 
The reason we are here today on the verge of a very strong vote for Dr. 
Carter to be the next Secretary of Defense is due to the contribution 
that Chairman McCain has made to this process,

[[Page 2237]]

which was extremely thoughtful and bipartisan. I thank him again for 
that.
  Mr. President, I join Senator McCain, and I not only commend him for 
his leadership but I also wish to express my strong support for the 
nomination of Dr. Ashton Carter to be the 25th Secretary of Defense. 
Dr. Carter is uniquely qualified to lead the Department of Defense at a 
time when--as Henry Kissinger recently said in a hearing before the 
Armed Services Committee--``the United States has not faced a more 
diverse and complex array of crises since the end of the Second World 
War.''
  Dr. Carter was born and raised in Philadelphia. He received a 
bachelor's degree in physics and medieval history from Yale and a 
doctorate in theoretical physics from Oxford, where he was a Rhodes 
Scholar.
  During his career, Dr. Carter has already held three critical 
positions in the Department of Defense: Assistant Secretary of Defense 
for Global and Strategic Affairs in the Clinton administration; Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics from 
2009 to 2011; and most recently, Deputy Secretary of Defense from 2011 
to 2013. He is well aware of, and has already been deeply immersed in, 
many of the significant challenges facing this Nation and the Defense 
Department.
  As Deputy Secretary of Defense, Dr. Carter was a critical player in 
the discussions and decision making on a myriad of international 
issues--issues that will continue to need the close attention in his 
tenure as Secretary of Defense.
  I wish to name just a few. While the Secretary of Defense is not a 
party to the negotiations relating to Iran's nuclear program, the 
Secretary will undoubtedly be responsible for any number of potential 
contingencies. In the event of a breakdown in the negotiations, the 
consequences could alter the face of the region for generations and 
generations to come, and the Secretary of Defense will be intimately 
involved in shaping the reaction.
  Another area of deep concern is ISIL. Their violent campaign in Iraq 
and Syria to establish an extremist caliphate threatens to erase 
borders, destabilize the region, and create a breeding ground for 
foreign fighters willing to return to the West to carry out attacks 
against the United States and our allies. The Department must provide 
critical leadership in a coalition effort that includes Arab and Muslim 
States to degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL while being careful to 
ensure that the United States does not end up, as Brent Scowcroft and 
Dr. Brzezinski indicated to us in a hearing before the committee, 
``owning'' some of these conflicts in Syria and elsewhere.
  In Afghanistan the hard-won gains of the past decade are significant 
but remain fragile. As the Afghan National Security Forces continue 
taking over responsibilities to secure Afghanistan, the United States 
and coalition forces have transitioned to a more limited mission of 
training and assisting the Afghan forces and conducting 
counterterrorism operations. Yet it remains to be seen whether 
conditions on the ground in Afghanistan will improve sufficiently by 
the end of 2016 to warrant the pace of further reductions under the 
current plan. Dr. Carter's participation in evaluating that plan will 
be absolutely critical.
  Russia's aggression against Ukraine has raised tensions in Europe to 
a level not seen in decades. Recently separatists in eastern Ukraine, 
with substantial Russian equipment, training, and leadership, have 
abandoned any pretext of a cease-fire, although there were discussions 
that were held overnight that perhaps might indicate a cease-fire. But 
in any case, the United States must determine the best way to support 
the Ukrainian people and their forces in defending their country.
  Political instability in Yemen has caused the United States to 
evacuate its Embassy and created a vacuum, allowing the free reign of 
Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which is intent on striking the 
United States and its interests. Again, the Defense Department plays a 
key role in supporting our partners in Yemen and navigating the complex 
political situation and continuing to have a presence there--which they 
do--which can effectively help to preempt any attempt to use that as a 
launching pad for operations in the region or across the globe.
  The same brand of violent extremism in the Middle East can also be 
found in parts of Africa--al-Shabaab in Somalia, Al Qaeda in the Lands 
of the Islamic Maghreb, and Boko Haram in Nigeria. Countering the 
threat posed by these groups will require building partner capacity and 
enabling support to foreign security forces at a time when resources 
are scarce and those capabilities are in high demand.
  In North Korea, Kim Jong Un's regime has increased tensions on the 
peninsula with his provocative and belligerent behavior. The recent 
cyber attack on Sony is just the latest in a string of destabilizing 
actions. The regime is playing a dangerous game that could have 
disastrous consequences--especially for its own civilian population 
which has already suffered untold hardships and deprivation under his 
leadership. The North Korean regime is painting itself into a corner 
where it will be left with few friends and few options, and again, the 
United States, and particularly the Department of Defense, must be ever 
vigilant.
  While the United States and China have many areas of coordination and 
cooperation, our future relationship remains uncertain. We welcome the 
rise of a peaceful and prosperous China. Especially in this new century 
of global commerce and economies, a prosperous China is not only in the 
region's best interests but also in the world's best interest. China's 
increasingly controversial claims of sovereignty in the South China Sea 
and dangerous altercations with its neighbors raise serious concerns. 
While legal and peaceful avenues for dispute resolution are available, 
China has instead chosen to pursue, in too many cases, adversarial and 
unilateral actions that raise questions about its intentions.
  On the cyber front, China is engaged in massive theft of U.S. 
intellectual property from American industry and government, which 
threatens our technological edge and sows distrust and profound 
misgivings. China will remain one of the Department's most persistent 
and complicated challenges. With the focus on so many crises overseas, 
it is easy to overlook the challenges on our own continent. We have a 
violent threat of transnational organized crime in our own hemisphere. 
When the United States faced a threat stemming from violence and the 
drug trade in Colombia in the 1990s, it dedicated significant resources 
and entered into a decade-long commitment to provide training and other 
enabling assistance.
  Colombia is a success story, but the problem has simply moved, in 
many cases, to other nations in the region. General Kelly, Commander of 
U.S. Southern Command, leads the Department's efforts in the 
hemisphere, but he operates with scarce resources, a situation that may 
have serious consequences.
  In addition to these traditional challenges that nation-states have 
faced for many, many years, the United States now faces new 21st 
century threats. For years we have devoted significant attention to the 
complex challenge of cyber warfare. The attack on the Sony Corporation 
was a watershed event in many respects, and it should and must 
stimulate fresh critical thinking. This attack demonstrated that a 
relatively small and weak rogue nation can reach across the oceans to 
cause extensive destruction to a U.S.-based economic target and very 
nearly succeed in suppressing freedom of expression through cyber 
space.
  The real and manifest advantages of the offense over the defense in 
cyber warfare that enable militarily inferior nations to strike 
successfully against the homeland are a new and worrisome factor for 
our national security and that requires not only the attention of the 
Department of Defense but the attention of the Congress.
  All of the issues I have talked about are external, but there are 
local issues that the Secretary of Defense has to deal with. Senator 
McCain pointed out probably the most significant one, and

[[Page 2238]]

that is the budgetary and programmatic challenges that have been forced 
upon us by sequestration.
  The most immediate threat facing the Defense Department is, indeed, 
sequestration because without resources, the programs, the policies, 
and the initiatives which must be undertaken to confront these national 
threats cannot be done.
  General Mattis, former Commander of Central Command, recently 
testified before our committee. He said: ``No foe in the field can 
wreak such havoc on our security that mindless sequestration is 
achieving today.''
  Only one-third of Army brigades are ready to fight. Less than 50 
percent of our combat squadrons are fully combat ready. Sequestration 
threatens not only our national security, but it risks damaging our 
public safety, our health, our transportation, our education, and our 
environment. In the world we face, there is not a neat distinction 
between what the Department of Defense does, what the Department of 
Homeland Security does, and what other civil agencies such as FEMA must 
do. It is something that we have to consider, not just in the context 
of the Department of Defense but in so many other agencies of the 
Federal Government--in fact, in every agency of the Federal Government.
  When the Budget Control Act was passed, Dr. Carter organized the 
Strategic Choices and Management Review to find options for 
implementing the required defense cuts. The results of this review have 
helped the Defense Department navigate through difficult fiscal 
constraints, but Congress must find a balanced and bipartisan solution 
and a repeal of sequestration across the entire government.
  Even without sequestration, the Defense Department has to tackle the 
rising personnel costs which could crowd out other items in the budget. 
Currently, military personnel benefits, including health care and 
retirement, consume approximately one-third of the Defense Department's 
budget.
  If we are to adequately train and equip the force we have, to ensure 
they are capable of performing the arduous task we ask of them, and to 
modernize weapon systems, we must slow the growth of these costs within 
the Department in line with the slowdown of the overall top line. The 
congressionally mandated Military Compensation and Retirement 
Modernization Commission recently released their recommendations. They 
are far-reaching and would fundamentally change military personnel 
benefits. They did so with the idea of improving the benefits available 
to many of our forces. They did it with the idea of insisting that our 
recruitment and retention efforts continue to be successful because we 
are a volunteer force. Their focus was really on the troops, but one of 
the effects of the recommendations was to make these costs sustainable 
over time.
  As Secretary of Defense, Dr. Carter will have to work with Congress 
to carefully consider these recommendations to ensure that the 
Department has the resources to properly train and equip its fighting 
men and women.
  The other major cost driver in the Defense Department is acquisition. 
To put it succinctly, defense acquisition takes too long and costs too 
much, but the Defense Department has undertaken significant reforms in 
recent years and many of these were personally led by Dr. Carter.
  As Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 
Logistics, Dr. Carter oversaw implementation of the Weapons System 
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, and again, I must commend Senator 
McCain and Senator Levin for their leadership in this effort. The 
largest restructuring of DOD acquisition policies in more than two 
decades resulted from this initiative.
  He also oversaw and contributed to improvements in a number of major 
acquisition programs, including the major restructuring on the Joint 
Strike Fighter program, the largest DOD acquisition program; efforts to 
reduce the cost of the Virginia-class submarine program and to improve 
contract performance, which has allowed the Navy to begin a two-per-
year procurement program for these submarines, which are under budget 
and ahead of schedule--a remarkable achievement; improvements to the 
littoral combat ship program, which was experiencing major costs 
increases and delays, with Dr. Carter's participation DOD shifted to 
competitive fixed-price contracts in 2011; restructured procurement for 
the Air Force's KC-46A strategic tanker program, which led to a 
competitive procurement, incorporating a firm fixed-price development 
production contract for buying up to 120 tanker aircraft; and 
cancelling of the VH-71 program, an out-of-control program to replace 
the current Presidential helicopter fleet.
  Clearly not all acquisition problems have been fixed and the Defense 
Department can and should do more to streamline and improve the system. 
I believe, from what I have just indicated, that Dr. Carter as 
Secretary of Defense will do just that. He has already demonstrated he 
can do it and he will do it.
  Finally, and most importantly, as Senator McCain indicated, if 
confirmed as Secretary of Defense, Dr. Carter will be leading 1.3 
million Active-Duty military, 820,000 Reserve and Guard, and 773,000 
civilians. They are under strain after over a decade of war and years 
of fiscal uncertainty. They are wrestling with many of the same issues 
as civilian society--issues such as sexual assault and suicide. Yet 
they are committed to protecting this Nation and remain the finest 
force in the world.
  Every decision Dr. Carter makes, I know he will make it thinking 
ultimately about what is in the best interests of the men and women in 
uniform and the DOD civilian workforce who give so much to this country 
every day, and that, I think, is one of the factors that compels all of 
us to support this nomination.
  Dr. Carter has proven time and time again his commitment to the men 
and women who serve this Nation. I believe he is the right leader at 
the right time for the Department of Defense, and I urge my colleagues 
to support his confirmation.


                    Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel

  Mr. President, I would urge them also at this time to commend and 
thank Secretary Chuck Hagel for his service. It began decades ago as a 
young sergeant in Vietnam where he was wounded twice, where he fought 
in close combat against the enemies of the United States. He took this 
ethic from his own experience of understanding that ultimately the 
decisions made here in Washington are carried out by young men and 
women across this globe. In his tenure, he brought principled 
leadership, he brought a dedication to the men and women of the Armed 
Forces, and he also looked ahead in many different ways. One notable 
approach was his complete review of the nuclear establishment, the 
triad, not only in terms of its effectiveness but its security and its 
ability to respond to the threats not just of the Cold War but of the 
new world we face.
  So for many reasons, he has done a remarkable job, and at this 
juncture, it is an opportunity to salute his efforts.


                Department of Homeland Security Funding

  Mr. President, I have concluded my remarks with respect to the 
nomination of Dr. Carter, but I wish to speak for a moment on a 
different topic.
  We are in the midst of trying to provide appropriations for the 
Department of Homeland Security. It is an action we must take and we 
should take and we should do it without extraneous policy provisions.
  Over the past few weeks, the State of Rhode Island has been beset by 
a series of snowstorms. In fact, the State could face another foot of 
snow this weekend. In coordinating a response to a disaster such as 
this, my State depends upon the Rhode Island Emergency Management 
Agency as well as local emergency managers. Those agencies, in turn, 
depend on Federal funding through the Department of Homeland Security, 
particularly the Emergency Management Performance grant and Homeland 
Security grant programs, to build the capacity they need to respond to 
snowstorms, to hurricanes, and to natural disasters of all forms.
  However, uncertainty about Federal funding makes it harder on my 
State

[[Page 2239]]

to plan and prepare. It is harder for every State to plan and prepare. 
It is one of the many reasons we ought to pass the bipartisan bill that 
was negotiated by Democrats and Republicans on the Committee on 
Appropriations without the provisions added by the House regarding 
immigration.
  A clean Department of Homeland Security bill would probably pass in 
this Chamber by an overwhelming majority in a matter of minutes. We all 
understand the security of the United States--not just with respect to 
natural disasters but with respect to many of the issues that are 
handed off, if you will, from the Department of Defense to the 
Department of Homeland Security. When we are worried, as we all are, 
about the lone wolves who may be in combat zones but coming to the 
United States, that is quickly a Department of Homeland Security 
responsibility. I don't think we want to confuse the issue of defending 
the homeland and protecting communities from natural disasters with 
other issues.
  This is commonsense legislation. We have done it before. We have to 
move I think with alacrity to get this done. It is about protecting the 
American people from natural disasters as well as, unfortunately, in 
this world we live in, the potential for terrorist activities that 
emanate elsewhere but are directed against the United States.
  Issues that are unrelated to funding the Department of Homeland 
Security I think should be put aside. We can deal with them. We can 
deal with them through the authorization process, but let's get this 
Department fully appropriated so it can continue.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I support Dr. Ashton B. Carter to be 
our next Secretary of Defense.
  I have known Dr. Carter for many years, both inside government and 
out, and especially as members of the Aspen Strategy Group. I have 
found Dr. Carter to be deeply thoughtful and extraordinarily competent. 
I am confident he will serve with distinction as our next Secretary of 
Defense, and I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.
  It is vital to swiftly confirm Dr. Carter because we face countless 
threats around the world, many of which know no simple resolution. On 
all these national security issues, I strongly believe we need someone 
in charge who brings leadership, experience, intellect and a strategic 
lens. Dr. Carter possesses all of these things, and I fully expect he 
will put his expertise and counsel to good use in tackling our Nation's 
pressing challenges.
  First and foremost, Dr. Carter will need to lead the Pentagon in 
confronting and ultimately defeating the Islamic State of Iraq and the 
Levant, ISIL.
  ISIL is an unconscionably evil terrorist organization. Its barbarity 
knows no bounds. ISIL has burned alive Jordanian Capt. Moath al-
Kasasbeh, beheaded American journalists and aid workers, and inflicts 
daily savagery on the people of Syria and Iraq, including the murder of 
civilians, women, children, and minorities. To marshal international 
support to sustain the global coalition and ensure ISIL is ultimately 
eliminated, I trust Dr. Carter to serve his country well.
  At the same time, Dr. Carter will need to focus on our drawdown in 
Afghanistan. The Taliban is resurgent, ISIL is attempting to establish 
itself in the country, and the Afghan National Security Forces need our 
continued support. In 2011, the United States fully withdrew from Iraq 
only to see that country fall apart due to sectarian violence and undue 
foreign influence. We cannot afford the same in Afghanistan.
  I have discussed with Dr. Carter my view that our drawdown in 
Afghanistan should not be linked to an arbitrary timeline, but rather 
to the needs on the ground and the necessity of an orderly transition.
  Dr. Carter's deep history with nuclear nonproliferation issues will 
also be important in the coming years. Unfortunately, many of our 
nonproliferation programs with Russia have gone dormant due to our 
worsening bilateral relationship. We cannot let this continue to 
happen.
  For decades the United States and Russia have worked together to 
secure nuclear materials and reduce our nuclear arsenals because doing 
so is important not only for U.S. security, but for global security. 
Finding a way to work constructively with Russia on securing and 
eliminating nuclear material, despite its invasion of Ukraine and 
continued support for the Assad regime in Syria, is clearly a most 
difficult assignment. I think Dr. Carter is up to the task.
  Finally, Dr. Carter will need to deal with the extremely difficult 
spending limitations created by the 2011 Budget Control Act. If 
Congress cannot come together to find a bipartisan solution to raise 
the spending caps, like we did for fiscal years 2014 and 2015, overall 
security spending will only be allowed to increase by $1.8 billion this 
year, that is a less than one-half of 1 percent increase.
  At a time when threats to our Nation are increasing, not decreasing, 
I am deeply concerned that, under current law, our defense budget will 
not be allowed to rise to meet current threats. Dr. Carter understands 
this. In his confirmation hearing, he said, ``I very much hope that we 
can find a way together out of the wilderness of sequester.'' I fully 
agree, and I urge my colleagues to work together to increase the 
spending caps for both defense and non-defense programs.
  Dr. Carter is a rare combination of a strategic foreign policy 
thinker and an expert on the roles and procedures of the Department of 
Defense. In his time as Assistant Secretary of Defense under President 
Clinton, he focused on key national security issues like proliferation 
of weapons of mass destruction and relationships with other major world 
powers.
  In his two recent positions at the Pentagon--as Undersecretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and as the Deputy 
Secretary--Dr. Carter has managed the Department's business functions 
and ran its day-to-day operations. As Secretary, he will bring his 
unique experience in both sides of the job to the numerous challenges 
the Department and the Nation face.
  Dr. Carter returns to the Defense Department at a time of immense 
global upheaval. Leading the Defense Department in such a time is no 
easy task, but I believe he will prove to be an excellent pick to help 
our country address these challenges head-on. He has the support of the 
President, the military, the civilian leadership of the Department, and 
by virtue of this vote, the U.S. Senate.
  Mr. REED. 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.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


  Realities of Drug Sentencing in the Federal Criminal Justice System

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President and Members of the Senate, as chairman of 
the Committee on the Judiciary, I have mentioned publicly that I am 
open to certain Federal sentencing, or prison, reforms, and I have 
tried to make it very clear that I am very opposed to others.
  Today I wish to address the realities of drug sentencing in the 
Federal criminal justice system. I do so because there are many myths 
that surround this topic.
  The myth is that there are thousands of low-level drug offenders, 
such as people smoking marijuana, in Federal prison for very long 
terms. This is supposed to mean a waste of Federal tax dollars, 
overcrowding, and unfairness to people who should not be in prison. 
These myths are often used to justify lenient and, frankly, dangerous 
sentencing proposals in the U.S. Senate. One of those proposals is the 
so-called Smarter Sentencing Act.
  It is time to set the record straight, and that is why I am here. It 
is important to know how many people are in Federal prison for drug 
possession, who they are, and why they are in prison.

[[Page 2240]]

Then it will be clear why it is unwise to make wholesale, one-way 
lenient changes in drug sentencing. In fiscal year 2013, the most 
recent year we have statistics, according to the U.S. Sentencing 
Commission there were 2,332 drug possession cases in the Federal 
prison. Almost 94 percent involved marijuana, more than 86 percent were 
against noncitizens, and 88 percent of the cases arose along the 
southwest border, so it is clear why so many noncitizens were charged. 
Federal drug possessors were rarely prosecuted for small quantities.
  The median amount of drug possession in these southwest border cases, 
which are 88 percent of the Federal drug possession cases, was about 48 
pounds. Understand, we are not talking about a few ounces of possession 
of marijuana. The average is 48 pounds. Can you imagine being in 
possession of 48 pounds of illegal drugs? These are not low-level, 
casual offenders by any stretch of the imagination. Moreover, well over 
90 percent of the drug possession cases are along the southwest border. 
So more than 80 percent of all Federal drug possession cases were 
brought in the State of Arizona.
  In that district, the U.S. attorney will agree to charge a drug 
trafficker with only drug possession if the offender is a first-time 
offender who acted only as a courier. Again, the median quantity of the 
amount of possession is 48 pounds, and many who actually committed 
trafficking there are charged only with mere drug possession.
  Since 88 percent of all Federal drug possession cases derive from the 
southwest border, only 270 simple drug possession cases arose anywhere 
else in the United States. Get this, please. The odds of an American 
being subject to a Federal prosecution for drug possession in any given 
year are less than 1 in 1 million. It is also imperative to remember 
that mandatory minimum sentences are not an issue in these cases. The 
average Federal sentence for drug possession is 5 months; that is, only 
5 months--I say that for emphasis--not the years of imprisonment some 
of the proponents of lenient sentencing would have us believe.
  The brevity of Federal drug possession sentences is emphasized by how 
in the vast majority of these cases the median amount of drugs at issue 
was 48 pounds. In the 270 cases not along the border, the median amount 
of drugs the offender possessed was only 4 grams. The average sentence 
was 1.3 months. Most of those convicted were sentenced to probation.
  There is no basis whatsoever to advocate change in Federal mandatory 
minimum sentencing laws based on drug possession cases since they are 
not subject to such mandatory minimums. Anyone who raises drug 
possession as an argument against Federal mandatory minimum sentences 
is using a stalking horse to lower sentences for much more serious 
offenders.
  There is no separate Federal offense for what is called possession 
with intent to distribute. Those who possessed with that intent are 
treated the same as those who distribute. We need to look at drug 
distribution sentences in the Federal system as well.
  Drug trafficking cases are sometimes subject to mandatory minimum 
sentences. For instance, just under half of all drug courier offenders 
were subject to mandatory minimum sentences, but under 10 percent were 
subject to mandatory minimum sentences at the time of their sentencing.
  There are two main reasons so few of these offenders are actually 
sentenced to a mandatory minimum. The first is they may fall within the 
safety valve Congress has enacted to prevent mandatory minimum 
sentences from applying to low-level, first-time drug offenders or, 
second, they may have provided substantial assistance to prosecutors in 
fingering high-level offenders in a drug conspiracy.
  That is an intended goal of current Federal sentencing policy, to put 
pressure on defendants to cooperate in exchange for a lower sentence so 
evidence against more responsible criminals can be attained. As a 
result, even for drug couriers the average sentence is 39 months. That 
seems to be an appropriate level.
  We are not sending huge numbers of nonviolent drug offenders to 
Federal prison under lengthy mandatory minimum sentences. I want to 
make it very clear, this is the biggest sentencing myth of them all. 
When Federal drug sentencing is discussed, we need then to keep in mind 
the facts. There are hardly any nonviolent drug-offending Americans in 
Federal prison for mere drug possession. The quantities of drugs 
underlying the vast majority of Federal possession cases are high and 
sentences are fair. For drug courier distribution cases, only 10 
percent of offenders are subject to mandatory minimum sentences at the 
time of sentencing.
  I hope you will be on notice and be on guard. Don't let anyone tell 
you Federal mandatory minimum sentences are putting large numbers of 
nonviolent offenders in jail for long periods of time at great taxpayer 
expense. Don't let anyone tell you such offenders are the reason for 
the increase in Federal drug prisoners over the years. Don't let anyone 
tell you harsh mandatory sentences for low-level nonviolent offenders 
are decimating various communities.
  Apart from the clear evidence from the Sentencing Commission 
regarding Federal drug offenders, I want to draw attention to the 
responses to questions from witnesses before our Judiciary Committee 
just this month. Testifying before the committee, Milwaukee County 
Sheriff David A. Clarke, Jr., stated: ``Federal mandatory minimum 
sentences have struck terror into the hearts of career criminals . . . 
and have provided longer periods of respite from the impoverished and 
crime-riddled communities that can least afford their return.''
  The sheriff said he feared the effect in his inner-city community of 
changing Federal drug mandatory minimum sentences. I have told my 
colleagues I am going to be open to lowering some Federal mandatory 
minimum sentences but only where specific situations may warrant that 
and if we can add or raise new ones for such offenses as arms export 
control violations, financial crimes, and child pornography 
possessions. Those three categories do not have to be extremely long 
sentences under present law, but too many judges are systematically 
sentencing these offenders to probation. Especially when the Supreme 
Court has taken away any other means of making sure judges do not let 
these offenders walk, mandatory minimum sentences are the only way 
Congress can require these offenders serve any time at all.
  I am trying to inform my Senate colleagues through the use of facts. 
In doing that, by looking at the facts, we will not make unwise and 
dangerous changes to our Federal sentencing laws. I ask my colleagues 
to stick to the facts and avoid repeating myths. I pointed out those 
myths. It is a myth to say sentences for drug possession and nonviolent 
offenders justify the Smarter Sentencing Act. That bill does not apply 
to possession at all. Many drug offenses necessarily involve violence. 
Drug conspiracies operate with the threat or the use of force.
  Whatever the offense charged, if the offender has a history of 
violent crime, he is a violent offender, and the sentence will and 
should reflect that fact. It is a myth to say the Smarter Sentencing 
Act would save money. All it would do is shift costs from incarceration 
to the victims who bear the cost of the crimes that earlier released 
offenders would commit. That is one of the reasons the bill is 
dangerous.
  The Congressional Budget Office also says it would add billions of 
dollars in mandatory spending, regardless of what upfront discretionary 
savings there may be. I would ask my colleagues to get this: It is a 
fact the Smarter Sentencing Act would cut sentences for a range of 
heroin offenses, including importation and dealing, while the entire 
Nation is in the midst of a heroin epidemic and a rising number of 
deaths from heroin overdoses.
  I would ask my colleagues to get this: It is a fact from the heads of 
the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Agency and Federal police 
organizations that mandatory minimum sentences spur cooperation from 
defendants and enable the successful prosecution of high-

[[Page 2241]]

level drug criminals who cause most of the tremendous harm. That 
includes cooperation from defendants charged with narcoterrorism.
  I would ask my colleagues to get this: It is a fact the so-called 
Smarter Sentencing Act would cut in half the mandatory minimum 
sentences Congress put in place for distributing drugs to benefit 
terrorists or terrorist organizations. It would cut in half the 
mandatory minimum sentences for members of Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS or 
Hezbollah who deal drugs that fund terrorism. That would mean less 
cooperation to bring charges of narcoterrorism, get terrorists off the 
streets, and obtain intelligence to help prevent future attacks.
  As President Obama's U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New 
York has remarked, ``[T]here is a growing nexus between drug 
trafficking and terrorism, a threat that increasingly poses a clear and 
present danger to our national security.
  So I ask my colleagues to get this: It is a fact that the so-called 
Smarter Sentencing Act is dangerous not only because of its effect on 
increased crime and victimization but on national security as well.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Department of Homeland Security Funding

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to urge our colleagues to 
come together quickly to pass a clean Homeland Security bill. We are 
now just 16 days away from a Homeland Security shutdown. The clock is 
ticking. A shutdown would be wholly unnecessary and, quite frankly, 
completely dangerous. We know we do not lack for security threats. It 
was less than 2 years ago that terrorists attacked the Boston Marathon. 
It was just weeks ago that we witnessed a horrific series of terror 
attacks on our friends in Paris. We know the brutal destabilizing force 
known as the Islamic State, or ISIL, is determined to hurt our Nation 
and our citizens. The world is a dangerous place.
  At a time like this, we should be working together on a bipartisan 
basis to fund and strengthen Homeland Security, but instead we are 
facing insecurity, instability, and uncertainty because some want to 
hold the funding for the Department of Homeland Security hostage--
hostage to a partisan political debate.
  Is it really more important to hold a fight over deporting children 
who came to the United States and know no country other than the United 
States, came here through no fault of their own? Is it more important 
to hold this fight over deporting those children than it is to protect 
America against terrorist threats?
  Although protecting against these threats is reason enough to oppose 
this misguided strategy, the resulting fallout would not just be 
limited to national security. This bill includes FEMA grants to 
disaster-stricken areas. This bill includes funding for grants to local 
fire departments--grants that would not occur.
  Thousands of essential public servants--from Homeland Security, to 
FEMA, to our terrific men and women in the Coast Guard--would be asked 
to keep on working even though we are not paying them. This is not the 
way to run a nation. This is certainly not the way to address national 
security threats that face us.
  I think it is telling when a strategy is being criticized from 
Members on both sides of the aisle. This is a foolhardy game being 
played with our national security.
  A colleague from Arizona said on this floor just yesterday--a 
colleague from across the aisle--that ``to attempt to use a spending 
bill in order to poke a finger in the President's eye is not a good 
move.''
  Another colleague from across the aisle, from Illinois, said, ``The 
American people are pretty alarmed, as they should be, about security . 
. . the way to go forward is just fund DHS,'' the Department of 
Homeland Security. He continued, ``We ought to strip the bill of 
extraneous issues and make it about homeland security.''
  That is the path forward, to have a funding bill for Homeland 
Security, stripped of political riders designed to take on one issue or 
another when those issues can be addressed in separate bills. If 
someone really wants to prioritize the deportation of children who came 
here through no fault of their own and know no country other than the 
United States, our DREAMers, then they should write that bill, put it 
through committee, and then the majority should bring the debate to the 
floor of this Chamber. I can tell you that I would be voting against 
that bill, but we would have the debate on that issue separate from the 
conversation about funding Homeland Security.
  I found it interesting to read the Wall Street Journal the other day. 
It refers to immigration restrictionists who want a larger brawl and 
have browbeat GOP leaders into adding needless policy amendments. That 
is coming from the Wall Street Journal. They proceed to say in regard 
to the fight over prioritizing the deportation of folks who are here 
without legal credentials and who have criminal backgrounds, that the 
President is ``prioritizing'' those deportations of those with criminal 
backgrounds. The Wall Street Journal says:

       That is legitimate prosecutorial discretion, and in 
     opposing it Republicans are undermining their crime-fighting 
     credentials.

  So if some of my colleagues want to argue that the President should 
not prioritize deporting individuals with criminal backgrounds, which I 
think should be prioritized, have that debate, but do not hold the 
Homeland Security bill hostage to that particular fight.
  In this morning's paper, there was an article about the funding of 
the Department of Homeland Security. This is in the Washington Post. It 
refers to the Grand Old Party at impasse as a measure stalls in the 
Senate. It quotes the Speaker of the House, Mr. Boehner. Speaker 
Boehner says, ``It is time for the Senate to do their work,'' and he 
proceeds to give a little lecture to Senators. He says, ``You know, in 
the gift shop out here, they've got these little booklets on how a bill 
becomes a law.'' Well, I encourage Speaker Boehner to actually read 
that book because what that book says is that in order to pass through 
the Senate, it has to get on the floor and it has to have support to be 
approved by this Chamber.
  So, Speaker Boehner, I encourage you to actually read the pamphlet 
you recommended because sending over funding for Homeland Security 
laden with unrelated policy riders is going to make sure that bill dies 
here in the Senate. Don't take my word for it, take the Senate's 
version or expression on this. It has come up for three votes in the 
Senate. We have voted three times to kill this House bill, giving clear 
instruction to the House: Send us the actual Department of Homeland 
Security bill free of these political riders, and we will put it on the 
floor, and we will have that debate, and we will undoubtedly pass that 
bill. But if you want to play political games rather than looking out 
for the security of the United States of America, don't expect the 
Senate to rubberstamp your political games, Speaker Boehner.
  So that is where we are now. I do encourage the Speaker to go right 
down the gift shop--I will be happy to buy him a copy of this, and I 
will be happy to read the phrases to the Speaker on exactly how a bill 
becomes law.
  It is deeply disturbing to the American people to see these types of 
political games being played with our Nation's security. We live in a 
dangerous world, and we need to take seriously our responsibility to 
fund this Department.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 2242]]

  (The remarks of Mr. Brown pertaining to the introduction of S. 522 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, 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. RUBIO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, are we on the Carter nomination?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, this is an important nomination, at a 
time when this country faces very significant national security 
threats.


                                  AUMF

  As I commented yesterday, the President came to us yesterday asking 
us to authorize the use of force, and I think we should do that. I am 
not necessarily sure we should do it in the way he has asked us to do 
it. I think it should be a pretty straightforward authorization, and 
here is what it should say. It should say we authorize the President of 
the United States to destroy ISIS and to defeat their military. It is 
up to the Commander in Chief to decide the right way in which to do 
that.
  I have very serious concerns and very serious reservations about our 
current strategy when it comes to ISIS. I am not sure it is sufficient. 
I think it is a strategy that will contain them but will not defeat 
them. In fact, ISIS is now popping up, for example, in Libya, where 
they have a very significant hub. They have a very significant presence 
in Benghazi. Just a few days ago they carried out an attack in Tripoli. 
We are now hearing media reports that ISIS has a presence in 
Afghanistan, perhaps even terrorist training camps.
  So they continue to grow their affiliates, they continue to grow 
their presence, and we need an authorization of the use of force that 
allows us to defeat them anywhere in the world where they are to be 
found.
  The President's suggestion has been well received. We thank him for 
submitting one. But now it is the responsibility of the Senate to do 
its job and to write one of its own. It may reflect many of the things 
the President wants, but what I believe it should reflect more than 
anything else is that we authorize him to defeat ISIS no matter what it 
takes and no matter how long it takes. If we have problems with the 
President's strategy, there are different ways to address it. I do have 
problems with the strategy and I want that to be addressed.


                                 Israel

  Mr. Carter's nomination comes at another important moment. In that 
same region of the world, one of America's strongest allies and its 
very existence is under attack. Of course I am talking about Israel, 
the Jewish State--an extraordinary story in the history of the world. 
Here is a country founded after the end of World War II as a homeland 
for the Jewish people so that never again--never again--would they have 
nowhere to go if they faced the sorts of oppression, the sort of 
genocide they faced during the Holocaust.
  Since that time the Jewish State has had an extraordinary story. From 
an economic perspective, it is a vibrant, first-rate country with a 
first-rate economy. What is most interesting is this is not a country 
with oil or a country with vast supplies of natural gas. This is not a 
country that is an agricultural superpower, yet it has a world-class 
economy providing prosperity and upward mobility to millions of its 
people, and it has done so on the basis of innovation.
  There is a very good book recently written called ``Start-up Nation'' 
that talks about the extraordinary story of Israel.
  It is also a very vibrant democracy--in fact, observers of Israeli 
politics often joke perhaps a little too vibrant. They have heated 
debates. But it is a democracy.
  So what we have here is a democratic nation with a vibrant free 
enterprise economy in the middle of the Middle East.
  Israel is everything we want that region of the world to become. We 
wish every nation in that region were a real democracy, a vibrant one. 
We wish every nation in that part of the world had a first-rate economy 
that provided upward mobility to everyone. And we wish every nation in 
the Middle East was as strong an ally of the United States as Israel 
has been.
  This is the extraordinary story of this small but important nation, 
and this country must continue to be their strongest ally in the world. 
But they face extraordinary threats to their safety, to their security, 
and to their existence.
  It begins with what I believe is a concerted effort around the 
world--including in American academia, including in the universities of 
this very country--to delegitimize Israel's right to exist and its 
right to exist as a Jewish state, and it is an outrage.
  It continues with the growth of anti-Semitism all over the world, 
increasingly in Europe. Every day we see stories of a mass exodus as 
more and more Jews are leaving Europe because of the growth of anti-
Semitism.
  We saw what happened in Paris--not just the attack that happened but 
how Jews were deliberately targeted for death by terrorists. It was not 
a random attack. It was a deliberate act to target Jews. It was a 
deliberate act of violence in the furtherance of anti-Semitism.
  In every international body in the world, Israel is often the target 
of scorn and criticism, without any consideration whatsoever to what 
its enemies intend to do to them. And now perhaps the greatest risk of 
all is to its very existence from the threat of an Iranian nuclear 
program.
  I, like everybody else, wish that I would wake up tomorrow morning to 
the news that the Ayatollah had come to his senses and realized Iran 
cannot continue down its path; that they have given up their nuclear 
weapons ambition; that they have given up sponsoring terrorism all over 
the world; that they have given up their anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic 
rhetoric; that they have given up oppressing their own people. But I 
know that is not going to happen because Iran is not governed by a 
normal leader the way we would consider a leader of a nation. Iran is 
governed by a radical shia cleric--a radical shia cleric who believes 
he is not only the head of Iran, he believes he is the head of all 
Islam everywhere in the world. Iran is where he lives. Iran is where he 
is based. But Iran is not what he believes is his domain; he believes 
every Muslim on the planet under the Sun is under his control and 
leadership.
  But here is the scariest thing he believes: He believes it is his job 
to trigger an apocalyptic showdown between the Muslim and non-Muslim 
world because that would bring about the emergence of the 13th Imam--
the Hidden Imam, the Mahdi, as they call him--who will then come and 
govern the entire world under the flag of Islam--his version of radical 
Islam. We may say that stuff sounds a little far-fetched. That is what 
he believes. That is what he passionately and legitimately believes.
  So when someone wants to trigger an apocalyptic showdown between the 
Muslim and non-Muslim world, when someone says they want to destroy the 
State of Israel, wipe it off the face of the Earth, and that person is 
trying to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities, we had better be very 
concerned, and we had better conclude that is an unacceptable risk for 
us to take. It is particularly scary for Israel because they are closer 
to Iran than we are. They are in their crosshairs both verbally and 
militarily.
  The administration would have us believe that we are in the midst of 
this negotiation and hopefully we will delay the Iranian nuclear 
program or extend the amount of time they would need to break out. Let 
me break it to everyone: They are not going to break out. They are 
going to sneak out. They will concoct some sort of excuse at some point 
in the future as to why they need a nuclear weapons program.
  Let me begin by saying that Iran is an oil-rich nation. They have no 
need for civilian nuclear power. But if they

[[Page 2243]]

want one, they can have it, like most of the other countries in the 
world do, by importing enriched uranium or reprocessed plutonium and 
using it for their reactors for peaceful purposes. But instead they 
insist on the ability to enrich and reprocess, and there is only one 
reason why they would insist on that--because they want the 
infrastructure necessary to one day build a weapon when they decide 
they need it.
  But don't take my word for it. That is not the only thing they are 
doing. There are two other aspects of their program that aren't even 
being discussed.
  The first is that they continue to develop long-range rockets. Why do 
they need intercontinental missiles? Why do they need long-range 
rockets? They don't need them for conventional purposes. They don't put 
a conventional warhead--they don't spend all the time and energy and 
money that it takes to build that capacity to bomb someone with a 
conventional weapon. There is only one reason to build long-range 
rockets such as those, and that is to put a nuclear warhead on them. 
That is not being discussed in these negotiations, and they continue to 
make unabated progress toward their long-range rocket capabilities.
  The other is a weapons design. The three things they need for a 
nuclear weapons program: a weapons design, long-range rockets, and the 
ability to enrich and reprocess. They are already building the rockets. 
The weapons design they can literally buy from dozens of people around 
the world who will sell it to them. And the reprocessing? Even under 
the deal the President is asking for, if it went down exactly the way 
the President is asking for, they would still keep all the 
infrastructure, all the things that it takes to enrich to weapons-
grade. They would have all the equipment, all the scientists, all the 
infrastructure.
  Here is one more point. Iran has always had a secret component to 
their nuclear program. They have always had some secret component to 
their program. And I would venture to guess that right now they have a 
secret component to their program as well that we do not know about.
  That is why I have little hope in this deal, and that is why Prime 
Minister Netanyahu is so concerned about the deal. See, he doesn't have 
the luxury of living an illusion. He doesn't have the luxury of 
pretending that somehow we can work this out, as if somehow we are 
negotiating with Luxembourg or Belgium. He knows the neighborhood he 
lives in, and he knows his enemy. He knows their true nature. He knows 
their true intentions. And it is his obligation not just to protect his 
people but to fight for that nation's very existence. So he has chosen 
to come before the Congress at the invitation of the Speaker. I am glad 
he has accepted his invitation, and I think we owe him the courtesy to 
hear what he has to say.
  I want you to go back and look at the United Nations rollcall votes. 
Time and again, when the interests of this country are being challenged 
around the world, I want you to see how many times Israel is one of the 
few countries--often the only country--that vote with the United States 
of America in that international forum. I want you to see all the times 
that the Israelis have stood with America on issue after issue around 
the world.
  I also want you to think about what it says about us as a nation if 
we are not prepared to make it very clear that before anything else, we 
are the friends of our allies. What does it say to our other allies 
around the world, to other nations in other parts of the world that are 
counting on the American security guarantee for their own existence and 
their own security, what does it say to Japan and to South Korea and to 
our allies in NATO if the United States is prepared to create daylight 
between us and the State of Israel?
  That is exactly the message people will get--that there is a division 
between us and Israel--if, in fact, Members of Congress carry through 
on their threat to boycott the Prime Minister's speech before Congress 
on the 3rd of March. If a significant number of Members of the Senate 
and the House boycott his speech, that message will be heard not only 
by Israel's enemies but also by our allies. And the message will be 
twofold--one, that America is no longer firmly on the side of Israel as 
it once was, and two, that America is an unreliable ally; look what 
they just did to Israel.
  I think everyone has the right to go or not go to any speech they 
want, but I hope my colleagues who are thinking about not going will 
reconsider. You may not like the way this went down. You may not like 
the fact that the Speaker did it the way he did it. That is your 
choice. But I want you to think about the implications beyond that. I 
want you to think about the implications this leaves on Israel. I want 
you to think about the message this sends to Israel's enemies because 
what we have seen decade after decade is that anytime Israel's enemies 
get the perception that somehow America is no longer as committed to 
Israel's security as it once was, it emboldens them to attack Israel, 
and Israel has no shortage of enemies that want to not just attack them 
but destroy them. We have seen what Hamas has done. We have seen what 
Hezbollah has done. We have seen what Iran wants to do and is doing.
  If you boycott this speech, if a significant number of Members of 
Congress boycott this speech, you will send an incredibly powerful 
message to Israel's enemies. So I hope you will reconsider.
  I don't question anyone's commitment on this issue. I believe there 
are supporters of Israel who won't attend the speech because they think 
it is disrespectful to the President. This is a lot bigger than that. 
We are talking about the existence of this nation. We are talking about 
whether people in that nation will survive in 20 years or 15 years. 
That is how important and monumental this moment is.
  I am not claiming that by you not attending the speech, somehow that 
is going to lead to Israel's destruction. I am claiming that if you 
boycott this speech, you will send a message to Israel's enemies that 
could embolden them, and I hope you will reconsider that position.
  I find it quite frankly outrageous that reports are that the White 
House has asked Members of Congress to boycott the speech. I find it 
outrageous that the Vice President of the United States--the Vice 
President--has decided to boycott that speech. I find it outrageous, 
for example, that on the one hand we are more than glad to send 
administration officials at the highest levels to sit down and meet 
repeatedly with the highest ranking officials that Iran will send, but 
our strongest ally's Prime Minister is coming to Washington and they 
won't even meet with him? One of our strongest ally's Prime Minister 
wants to speak before the Congress and they won't even attend the 
speech? What do you think the headlines will be read as in Iran, by the 
terrorists in Gaza, by the terrorists in Judea and Samaria, by the 
terrorists in all parts of the world, such as in Lebanon, who want to 
destroy Israel? What do you think they are going to read into it? What 
they are going to read into it, unfortunately, is that somehow 
Congress's commitment to the future security of Israel is not as strong 
as it once was. And I fear what the implications of that will be. We 
should not take this lightly.
  I can think of no nation on Earth that needs our help more right now 
than Israel, and I can think of no people on Earth who deserve our 
support more than they do. As I said earlier, they are a reliable, 
strong, committed ally of this Nation. We have strong links to them on 
personal, cultural, political, and economic levels. They have stood by 
us time and again in international forums when America's interests have 
been challenged. They are everything we want the Middle East to look 
like in the future--free, prosperous, democratic, aligned with America, 
peace-loving, desirous of a better future. What more do you want? What 
more could they do? What else could they be for us to be any stronger 
an ally of theirs than we should be or are right now? Yet there are 
people who are talking about boycotting the speech to protest because 
their feelings are hurt, because they are upset about

[[Page 2244]]

the way it went down, because they don't like the way it was scheduled, 
because it was disrespectful to the President.
  You have the right to voice your concerns, but don't do this to an 
ally. Don't do this to a nation that is as threatened today as it has 
ever been at any time in its existence. Don't do this to a people who 
are in the crosshairs of multiple terrorist groups with the capability 
of attacking them. Don't do this to a nation whose civilians are 
terrorized by thousands of rockets launched against them at a moment's 
notice. Don't do this to a country that is facing down the threat of a 
nuclear weapon annihilating them off the face of the Earth. Don't do 
this to a people who are being stigmatized all over the world even as 
we speak, who are being oppressed. Don't do this to a country that in 
forum after forum has become the subject of delegitimization, as people 
argue that somehow Israel's right to exist is not real. Don't do this 
to them.
  I hope my colleagues will reconsider their decision to not attend. 
This is an important speech. It is the Prime Minister's choice, 
obviously. He must always act in the best interests of his nation and 
his people. But I hope he will speak to us on March 3, and I hope he 
will speak to us clearly. I hope that through his speech he will open 
the eyes of this Congress and the American people that this is not 
child's play, that what Iran intends to have is not just a nuclear 
weapon to destroy Israel but ultimately to terrorize the world. I hope 
he will speak to us bluntly about the true nature of this threat.
  I know there is a lot going on in the world, but there is no greater 
threat to the long-term security of the planet than the Iranian nuclear 
ambition. No people and no nation on Earth know that better than the 
people of Israel, and no leader on Earth understands that better than 
Prime Minister Netanyahu.
  I think after years of commitment to this alliance, after the bravery 
he has shown in his time in office and the bravery the Jewish people of 
Israel have shown in defending their nation's right to exist after 
being attacked multiple times throughout their history and even to this 
modern day, they deserve our unambiguous support. Of course, there are 
differences between allies. There always have been and always will be.
  If we won't stand for Israel, for whom will we stand? If the United 
States of America will not defend its ally, whom will we defend? What 
message do we send to our alliances across the planet and what message 
do we send to our enemies and Israel's enemies?
  I hope cooler heads will prevail. I hope Members of the House and 
Senate who have announced they are boycotting will reconsider. I hope 
we will all be there, if we can, to hear what the Prime Minister has to 
say the first week in March.
  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. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, are we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in executive session.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Tributes to Kathie Alvarez

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, regular C-SPAN viewers, this is your DVR 
alert. Get your TiVo ready. After today you will no longer hear the 
dulcet voice of Kathie Alvarez calling the roll in the United States 
Senate. After nearly 30 years as an integral part of the floor staff, 
Kathie is leaving the Senate.
  Her road to the Senate began as a young seventh grade history teacher 
in Louisiana. In 1984 she chaperoned her students during a class trip 
to Washington, DC. During the trip she met an old college friend who 
told her about a job opening in the Senate Document Room. While her 
students were touring the Capitol, Kathie interviewed and was hired on 
the spot. Unfortunately for those students, they lost a great teacher 
that day, but it turned out to be a gain for the Senate.
  In 1985 Kathie was hired as the second assistant bill clerk and was 
quickly promoted to assistant bill clerk.
  In 1991, for the first time, Senators came to this Chamber and heard 
a woman's voice taking the rollcall vote. It was Kathie Alvarez, the 
first female bill clerk of the United States Senate. What an 
achievement.
  Before the end of the millennium, Kathie Alvarez was a part of 
another first when she was 1 of 10 officers--all women--presiding over 
the Senate at the start of the day. If that were not enough, Kathie 
once again made history when she was promoted to legislative clerk in 
2009. She was the first woman to serve in this role too. What a career.
  In 1922, for the history books, Rebecca Latimer Felton was the first 
woman to sit in the Senate. She served in this body for only 1 day, but 
during those 24 hours she made a bold prediction for her time about the 
future role women would play in the Senate. She said:

       When the women of the country come in and sit with you . . 
     . you will get ability, you will get integrity of purpose, 
     you will get exalted patriotism, and you will get unstinted 
     usefulness.

  Well, I will certainly second that.
  As the first woman to serve as the bill clerk and legislative clerk 
of the United States Senate, I would say Kathie Alvarez has certainly 
lived up to Senator Felton's prediction. She began her career as a 
seventh grade history teacher and came to the Senate, where she made 
history.
  Thank you for your service to this body. I know you will be joining 
your husband John and your high school student daughter Georgia in a 
much more fulsome way now, but we will miss you in the Senate, and I 
wish you and your family the very best.
  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. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I wish to say a word about a 
remarkable woman in the Senate we will soon be losing.
  Kathie Alvarez, the Senate's legislative clerk, is a bit of a 
celebrity. Every C-SPAN aficionado knows her voice. All she has to say 
is ``Mr. Alexander, Ms. Ayotte . . .'' and it is instantly 
recognizable.
  Kathie has been calling the roll around here for quite a while. In 
1991, she became the first woman to ever call the roll in the Senate. 
In 1999, with Senator Collins in the chair, Kathie became a member of 
the first all-female team to preside over this body, and in 2009 she 
became the Senate's first female legislative clerk.
  So Kathie Alvarez has been making a lot of history since she first 
arrived here in 1984.
  And you will notice, Madam President, that every female floor staffer 
is paying tribute to her today. They are each wearing something with 
Kathie's favorite design--animal print.
  Along with the love of Cajun food, sartorial distinction is one thing 
this Louisianan has become known for, a passion for perfection is 
another.
  Kathie has maintained a laser-like focus for three decades. That is 
good news for the Senate because we rely on her--and the American 
people rely on her--to ensure that every bill, every amendment, and 
every message from the House is processed perfectly. That is a lot of 
pressure.
  So we can't blame Kathie for wanting to retire. I know she is looking 
forward to spending more time with her husband John, and I know Kathie 
wants to see more of her daughter Georgia.
  It will not be as though Kathie is leaving us entirely. We will still 
be able to hear her voice on the film every

[[Page 2245]]

tourist watches when they come to visit the Capitol.
  So the Senate thanks Kathie Alvarez, its history-making celebrity, 
for her many years of service, and we wish the very best to her deputy, 
John Merlino, as he steps into Kathie's role as the Senate's new 
legislative clerk.
  (Applause, Senators rising.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Ashton B. Carter, of Massachusetts, to be 
Secretary of Defense?
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 5, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 56 Ex.]

                                YEAS--93

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--5

     Blunt
     Boozman
     Crapo
     Kirk
     Risch

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Moran
     Reid
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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.

                          ____________________