year whether or not they are able to clear up this package that they normally do sort of late at night when very few people are watching which is largely like routine military promotions and routine appointments at the state department's and public health service. if all of that is up then we know we will have trouble as the senate moves in 2014. >> we have been chatting with niels lesniewski from roll call. thanks for being with us this morning. >> the senate is gaveling in to start the week and lawmakers will be giving speeches for the first couple hours before turning to nominations at five eastern. on the calendar today patterson to the assistant secretary of state for the near eastern affairs and jeanne johnson to

head the homeland security department. votes on the nomination are scheduled for 5:30. right now the chaplain of the senate, berry black is giving the opening prayer. be instrumes of your glory, striving to please you in all that they do. make them so ethically congruent that they practice what they profess. may their hearts be so transformed by your spirit that they seek your approbation above any earthly approval. we pray in your merciful name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america,

and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the majority leader. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 243. the president pro tempore: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 243, s. 1356 a bill to amend the work force investment act of 1998 and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: following my remarks and those of the republican leader the senate will be in morning business until 5:30 this afternoon. at 5:30 nat the senate will proceed to executive session, there will be three roll call votes, cloture on johnson, confirmation of the johnson nomination.

mr. president, i ask consent calling goldfinch, a fellow of the finance committee and sphefn jenkins be granted floor privileges for tomorrow. the president pro tempore: without objection it is so ordered. mr. reid: last week was difficult for the entire senate community. when cooperation is lacking as it was last week, completing the business before this body becomes much more difficult. last week, though, the senate confirmed four district court judges, two d.c. circuit court of appeals judges an equal employment commissioner, and a deputy secretary of state. although we accomplished a great deal, the process was neither easy nor pleasant. this week the senate has just as much to achieve as last week and without cooperation we'll face another daunting vote schedule. but i'm optimistic the same spir o

mr. johnson served as the senior lawyer for the largest government agency in the world. he oversaw the work of more than 10,000 military and civilian lawyers. prior to his work at the defense department, mr. johnson served as assistant u.s. attorney and spent nearly two decades in private legal practice. he's eminently qualified and we look forward to his confirmation. tomorrow sentence will be in consideration of the budget measure passed by the house last week. although neither side got everything it wanted from this agreement, the legislation should break a terrible cycle of governing by crisis and it rolls back the painful cuts of the sequester, protects social security and medicare benefits and prevent another dangerous government shutdown in the new year. on wednesday, stns will turn to the defense authorization measure that safeguards the nation, ensures the troops have the resources they need and provide the support for military

families. the senate must confirm janet yellen to bed head of the federal reserve, alejandro my mayorkas and the nomination of robert wilkins to be the judge of the circuit court of appeals and brian davis are owls priorities for us. mr. davis' nomination has been pending for two years. the senate just move quickly to confirm sarah sewall, and sarah bloom rask into be second in command at treasury and mike connor at interior. sloan gibson we must focus on to be deputy at the veterans' affairs department and rick engler at the chemical safety board. madam president, christmas is one week from wednesday. we have a lot to do. we could complete all of our work by thursday.

by friday, by saturday, by sunday, by monday, or tuesday. but finish it we must. i've lined out what we need to do, and it's up to the minority to determine what if anything they're going to stop us from doing. i'm happy to be -- work with them on time but there are certain things as i've indicated, mr. president, we have to get done before christmas. would the chair announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 5:30 p.m. with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. mr. reid: madam president, i would note the absence of a quorum and ask consent that the time be charged equally to both sides. so not only for this quorum call but for those during the day

until 5:30. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. carper: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. carper: madam president, i'm proud to rise here today to speak in strong support of the nomination of jeh johnson to serve as the secretary of department of homeland security. as my colleagues know, i've been concerned for many months about the high number of senior level

vacancies that exist at the department. in fact, the department of homeland security has been without a senate-confirmed deputy secretary since april and without a senate-confirmed secretary since early september. that is simply too long for such critical positions to be vacant, especially since the department of homeland security has been without senate-confirmed leadership and a number of other senior leadership positions, too. that list of vacancies include these. the position of deputy secretary as well as the heads of customs and border protection, immigration and customs enforcement, and the inspector general. working with the president, we need to do something about it, and today we can. it's my hope and expectation that we will vote to confirm a new secretary to lead the department within the next few hours, allowing jeh johnson to be sworn in and to start work later this week.

getting a secretary of homeland security quickly confirmed is essential to help effectively run this department and protect the safety of our citizens. this department is a large and complex entity with a diverse set of missions and challenges. it is composed of 22 distinct agencies spread across various locations throughout our count country. and ten years after its creation, the department of homeland security still lacks a strong sense of cohesion. moreover, given the nation's fiscal challenges, the department, like many federal agencies, is being asked to do more and to get even better results with fewer federal dollars. that being said, over its ten years, the department has celebrated a number of important milestones. in fact, just last week for the first time ever, the department of homeland security received a clean financial audit. and there was one outlier there

among the major departments of our government that hasn't received a clean financial audit and that's the department of defense, which has been around for, gosh, what, 70 years. the department of homeland security, it took them ten years. they've been on the g.a.o. high-risk list for all those ten years and i'm delighted when i received the word last week that this goal had been achieved. major accomplishment and one for which i heartily congratulate the department. there's an old saying goes something like this, you can't manage what you can't measure. now the department can achieve a clean financial audit, its my hope that its financial management practices will continue to improve. and in order to build upon this and other successes, i believe the department needs senate-confirmed leadership. there's no doubt that even on a good day, though, serving as secretary of the department of homeland security is really a hard job. jeh johnson, however, is no doubt up to this enormous task and, again, i'm strongly supporting his nomination.

mr. johnson is a seasoned national security expert who is eminently qualified to take the reigns to run the challenging department of homeland security. after graduating from morehouse college and then columbia law school, jem johnson started his career in private practice. later he became an assistant u.s. attorney in the southern district of new york, where he prosecuted public corruption cases. he then returned to the private sector where he became a partner at the law firm of paul weiss, rifkin, and garrison. while working at this law firm, mr. johnson again answered the call for public service. first as the air force's top lawyer in the second term of the clinton administration, and more recently in the first term of the obama administration as the top lawyer for the entire department of defense. in both positions, he was confirmed by the u.s. senate with strong bipartisan support. having served in such important

positions at the department of defense has no doubt helped him develop a number of outstanding skilled that will enable him to lead this department effectively. there are few better places to learn how to manage a complex national security bureaucracy than at the department of defense. for example, for four years, he was a partner -- he was a part of the senior leadership team that ran the defense department. he played a critical role in overseeing more than 3 million military and civilian personnel scattered around the country and across the world, including having direct responsibility for nearly 10,000 attorneys. he provided key advice to two exceptional defense secretaries, bob gates and leon panetta, and was an important member of their management teams. to me, this is an invaluable experience for the huge task to which he has been nominated. he also participated in almost every discussion of consequence for the department, helping to shape the policies that directly

impacted the lives of our brave men and women in uniform and their families. in fact, during his time at the pentagon, mr. johnson developed a reputation for tackling some of the toughest issues in the department of defense and finding a way to build consensus and develop thoughtful and effective policy. for example, he won praise from both sides of the aisle for his work on the issue of don't ask/don't tell and on the military commissions system. additionally, mr. johnson was an influential member of the president's national security team and helped design and implement many of the country's policies to fight terrorism and dismantle the core of al qaeda. because of his experience in these positions and in other demanding roles, mr. johnson is well prepared to face the challenges that will await him if he is confirmed by the senate today. but you don't have to take my word for it. mr. johnson has received high prize from many distinguished former government officials from both sides of the aisle. in a letter to our committee on

the homeland security and governmental affairs, for example, every single former secretary of that department, tom ridge, michael chertoff, janet napal tony, lauded him an eminently qualified nominee. jeh johnson's service at the highest level of the u.s. department of defense, the largest government agency in the world, provided him a keen understanding of how to successfully execute large-scale operational missions of varying complexity and purpose. now, here's what former defense secretary bob gates, a highly regarded and much-admired manager himself, said about jeh johnson and his time at the department of defense. this is a quote. "take my word for it, jeh johnson has successful managed asuccessfully managedan array ot

bureaucracies in the government and in doing so has won the praise of virtually everyone with which he has worked." former defense secretary leon panetta said this about jeh johnson. "jeh has proven himself to be a talented, capable, bipartisan and trusted public servant. i give him my strongest recommendation and full support to his confirmation as our nation's next secretary of homeland security." former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mike mullen, who stepped down in late 2011, has also expressed his deep confidence in the nominee, stating -- quote -- "jeh johnson is as fine a person and professional as i have ever me met." let me say that again. "jeh johnson is as fine a person and professional as i have ever met. i'm confident in his choice and that he will succeed in leading this most complex a organization

at a critical time in our country." those are the words of mike mullen. mr. johnson's also received encouraging words of praise from a law enforcement groups, including the major cities chief association, the national fraternal order of police. i'd also add that mr. johnson's confirmation hearing, our ranking member, dr. coburn, made support his support for jeh johnson and even went so far as asking him to stay on as secretary after the 2016 election. a high compliment, indeed. and mr. johnson's wife was sitting immediately behind him, madam president. and when dr. cohen asked that assurance from the nominee, i wasn't sure if she was going to come out of her seat. and it was in support of the idea. well, mr. johnson is undoubtedly a highly-skilled leader. he is just the type of person that we need for this extremely important and challenging position.

mr. johnson, of course, will not be alone in the task of leading the department of homeland security. it is critically important that mr. johnson be allowed to surround himself with a capable leadership team and we can help. indeed, we must help. at the department of homeland security alone, there are 14 presidentially appointed positions that are without a permanent replacement. of these, 10 require senate confirmation. this is a condition i call executive branch swiss cheese, madam president. and as we consider mr. johnson's nomination, we must remember that protecting the homeland is a team sport and those of us in the legislative branch are critical members of this important team. if mr. johnson is confirmed, we must do our part to expeditiously but thoroughly vet and confirm his leadership team as well. we need to put aside our partisan differences, work together and give the president and the department the entire team it needs to better protect

our homeland. that includes confirming holly myorcius for deput deputy secref homeland security. but today the question before us is mr. johnson's nomination. for any of my colleagues still on the fence about mr. johnson's nomination, i leave you with a few thoughts on his character and his integrity. i've gotten to know jeh johnson pretty well over the last couple of months. i've been impressed by his forthrightness, his thoughtfulness, his core values and his impeccable moral character as well as his deep commitment to public service, to serving our nation. he treasures his family and strives to honor th their legacy through his work. i had the privilege of meeting several members of his family at the confirmation hearing last month, his wife is an accomplished professional in her own right. in fact, jeh met his wife when she was practicing dentistry and i think he may have been the patient. together they are the parents of two young adults that any parent would be proud to call their own. he's also a devoted son and a

brother. although they could not attend his confirmation hearing, i know his parents are deeply proud of the son that they raised. i noticed at his confirmation hearing that jeh proudly wore a pin that was his great-grandfather's. his great-grandfather worked as a pullman train carporter in the early 20th century. i think that quiet statement says a lot about the importance of family to jeh and how the values and character his family instilled in him are always with him. and it's clear that he is a student of history and draws inspiration from the civil rights movement. one of jeh johnson's guiding principles is a lesson he learned from dr. benjamin bennie mays, a mentor to dr. martin luther king who said, "you are

living by what you get. you are a life by what you give." think about that for a second. "you earn a living by what you get. you earn life by what you give." think about that and think about all the times that jeh -- jeh johnson has left the comfort of the private sector -- three times before -- so that he could give back and serve the people of our country as a leader in our government. with that in mind, i think we know what kind of leader we're getting in jeh johnson and what he will bring to the department of homeland security. i urge my colleagues -- i urge my colleagues to join me in voting today for jeh johnson. thank you, madam president. i would note, madam president, the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: madam president, i want to share for a few minutes first some thoughts about the bipartisan budget act that passed, i guess, they call it in the house and we have it here and we'll have a cloture vote on that in the morning. i appreciate the hard work that chairman ryan and chairman murray put into that. it's a complicated and important

task for sure, but i'm not going to be able to support it. i'm ranking member on the budget committee. i've dealt with these issues, and congressman ryan, chairman ryan and chairman murray and i have talked about them for a number of years. and there are a lot of things that are important as we work through this. the proposal that's before us would increase spending. it would increase taxes and fees, and it would violate, in my view, the core promise congress made when passing the debt ceiling in 2011. in august of 2011, we told the american people if you would allow to us raise the debt ceiling $2.1 trillion, we would cut $2.1 trillion in discretionary spending essentially over the next ten years. we try to reach a bigger agreement, but if it didn't, we would cut money through the discretionary accounts, defense

and non-defense. no agreement was reached. the automatic cuts went into place. now, i think we could modify those reductions in spending in a way that makes them less harmful and gives the agencies and departments, particularly defense, much better ability to meet the reductions in spending we ask them to meet without doing damage, unwise damage, as i think we probably are today. we can make it a lot better but not to spend more than we have agreed in the more than eight years left remaining in the budget act time. i'm willing to give-and-take on some of this, but i'm a bit frustrated, frankly, that we are going to spend $65 billion, $63 billion more mostly in the next two years over the amount that was limited, over the budget control act limits.

and that includes the sequester that we agreed to. so i'm worried about that. it's going to be spent, and we're going to try to get some cuts somewhere else to fund it. over half the cuts that are going -- half the cuts that are going to fund the $65 billion occur outside the eight years remaining on the budget control act in the last two years. so that's not good. we promised in 2011 we would reduce spending tkhr-rts -- $65 billion more this year or contain its growth more than this legislation says. we promised that and now this legislation is going to pump $63 billion, $65 billion more this year and next year into spending that we promised just two years ago. so i'm a little uneasy that we're going to say we're going to pay for that extra spending in years eight and ten over the

next ten-year budget. forgive me if that causes me concern, but it does, and so i'm worried about it. and i hope that our colleagues will study this. and, frankly, there are a couple of big issues that are out there. one is a real, real hit to retired military people who served 20 years, going to have their retirement pay reduced. their military pay until they're 62 reduced significantly. and in addition to that, we've got a problem that i think is even more serious and important to me. as a member of the budget committee who's made and raised budget points of order on the floor of the senate, i want to make this point clear. there's a budget point of order on the current law that if this congress attempts to spend more

money than was agreed to in the budget control act in the sequester, that any member can raise -- and i've raised it on at least three occasions and we prevailed on each one of those three occasions, i've raised it. and what it says is even though you may say you've got more money, you raise taxes or fees, we agreed not to spend over this level. this is our spending limit. now it shows growth over ten years in spending. it's not a real cut, although it cuts in the short term this year. but in the -- after this year defense and non-defense discretionary spending will grow 2.5% each year. so this is not a permanent savaging of the federal budget. sand so, the point is that it was an agreement to limit spending. and somehow in this agreement

that was reached by chairman murray, the democratic senate leader, and chairman ryan, the house republican budget leader, who is not familiar with senate rules, but senator murray is, they -- the democrats obviously insisted that we change that budget point of order, which means if somebody proposes to spend more than the budget control act says and proposes to pay for it with taxes and fees, it's no longer subject to a 60-vote point of order. and that will undermine in a real way our ability to be successful because it will pit unpopular taxes on some business against some needy cause, and it will say that you didn't vote to help people in need. whereas in truth, we agreed to

spending limits, and we should adhere to those limits. so in the past we've had votes, and the vote was simply this amendment, this bill that's before the senate spent more money than we agreed to spend to, go back and find some other way to fund this good cause you want to fund, not by more taxes and more spending. so this has been eroded significantly, and i'm worried about it. there are a number of other problems with the legislation. i know people will complain about it. but nothing is perfect. i know that. i know we would like to have an agreement, and hopefully somehow we can. but what should happen is the senate should not agree to reduce retirees, military retirees' benefits, at least not before we know there's no other alternative, and the other employees of the federal government at least have the same kind of reductions.

it doesn't appear to be so here. and we ought not to change the internal budgetary enforcement powers that are included in this point of order. that should not be eliminated. and unfortunately, that is what's happened today. madam president, in a little bit we will be voting on the secretary of the department of homeland security. this is a very, very important position, one of the most important positions in our entire government. it's a massive agency. it was cobbled together under president bush's tenure after pushing from congress. what happened was president bush after 2001, the attack, 9/11,

was under attack to have a new agency for homeland security, and he didn't go for that at first, but the pressure built and he just decided to do it. he submitted legislation to do so, and i supported it. but being a federal prosecutor, having worked with virtually all of these federal agencies, i probably knew better. it was a big deal, and it's very, very hard to cobble these agencies together with their own history, own administration, their own policies, their own rules and regulations into one. and i'm not sure it's a totally win-win. but the country did it. i voted for it eventually, and now it's the law of the land. the problem is it has not yet been brought under control. it has not yet been unified in an effective way. there are over 240,000 employees

of the department of homeland security, and we need a strong leader to make this happen. we need a strong leader that can blend these agencies into one harmonious whole. i don't know why nick sabin came into mind or whatever, but you need somebody who is strong enough to drive the special interests, the old historical biases, the idea of doing tphaoeupbgz one focused -- doing things to make one focused whole. that's what we need. and the nominee, mr. jeh johnson, doesn't come close to that. he is not a good choice for this. i'm not saying he's not a good man. i'm saying he's not a good choice. let's go over some of the things here. with over 240,000 employees, the department of homeland security

is the third-largest cabinet-level department he behind only the department of defense and veterans affairs. and it is less cohesive than those two by far. when it was established, it subsumed 22 government agencies all came together. some of the many d.h.s. components that still exist today as part of homeland security include the u.s. customs and border protection service, which itself has 25 component parts. the u.s. citizenship and immigration service, which itself has 21 parts, and they are an unhappy group, and they have complained to this administration about lack of support and lack of commitment to law, their offices association have. the united states coast guard is part of homeland security. fema, the federal emergency management aeupbl is i, which

has -- federal emergency management agency which has 37 parts, u.s. immigration and customs, i.c.e., has 41 component parts. i.c.e. is an important agency. it has been designate pha*euted under this -- it has been decimated under this administration. they have voted no confidence unanimously in their supervisor john morton, who finally retired. all of these report directly to the secretary of homeland security. secretary napolitano, before the judiciary committee two years ago, two and a half years ago, i asked was she aware of the i.c.e. officers association morale according to government surveys were virtually the lowest in the entire united states government, and would she meet with them. and she didn't make a commitment

to do so. so a year later she comes back before the judiciary committee. and i said have you met with them yet? no. she didn't meet with them. so this is a big problem. the united states secret service, a group that protects the president and provides security, very important agency. the t.s.a., the transportation security administration, airport security people, 21 component parts of that entity, the domestic nuclear detection office, the federal law enforcement training center, the directive for national protection and programs, which includes the office of emergency communications, the national cybersecurity and communications integration center, the stakeholder engagement in cyber infrastructure resilience division, the federal network resilience division and the network security deployment division. when i was a united states

attorney, i worked with many of these federal agencies for years, but i never -- never heard of those, but they are out there and they are important. the directorate for science and technology, which has 37 component parts. the office of infrastructure protection, which has five difgz. the office of operations, -- divisions. the office of operations, coordination and planning. the office of intelligence and analysis. and that doesn't include ten other offices. well, so on december 12 of 2013, the governmental accountability office, our independent agency that investigates departments and provides information to congress, published a report last -- in december of this year, stating that since its inception in 2003, the department of homeland security -- quote -- "has faced challenges in implementing its

human capital functions and federal surveys have consistently found that d.h.s. employees are less satisfied with their jobs than the governmentwide average of federal employees." close quote. and some of those agencies are at the very bottom of satisfaction and so forth. d.h.s. has ranked 36th out of 37 agencies that participated in the office of personnel management employee viewpoint survey, so they survey the employees. how do you view your agency? they are at the bottom. we need a leader that can turn that around. this program is down. we need a coach that can build a winner. that's what we need. so this survey includes questions such as whether leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment in the

work force and whether employees have a high level of respect for their organization's senior leaders. that's what they ask when they do this survey. from the years 2006-2013, d.h.s. scored lower than the governmentwide average each year, while the governmentwide scores for this index have declined three percentage points since 2011, d.h.s.'s scores have decreased even more by five percentage points from their previous level. so what my point is that this is a massively important agency that we spend billions of dollars on, and it needs a top-flight manager, a proven leader, somebody who understands law enforcement. it could be a governor, it could be a state attorney general, but in my opinion you really need somebody, mr. president, who is

a federal law enforcement officer who has been a leader or deputy leader at the very tops of some of these agencies. the f.b.i., the secret service, the coast guard, somebody who understands these issues and is committed to turning this agency around. and i have got to tell you, the secret is there is no real intent to turn this agency around, because the immigration system, the u.s. customs, i.c.e., the border patrol, the customs and immigration service that evaluates requests for admission to the united states, those are all in disarray. and this administration's goal is to further undermine their ability to be effective, because they don't really want vigorous enforcement in these agencies. and that's one reason their moral is so bad.

now, i.c.e. officers of the united states of america filed a lawsuit in court in texas, and they said their supervisors were instructing them not to fulfill their sworn duty which was to enforce the laws of the united states. and the lawsuit wept on for some time and eventually got dismissed on technical grounds, but the judge found that the survivors of these agencies, the top people in these agencies could not direct people not to enforce the law, which is what they are doing. we can go into that in some depth. now, i am going to do it. if i have the time, i'm going to do it this afternoon, i'm going to do it tonight and i am going to document for the last four or five years the systematic

actions by the president of the united states and his homeland security officers and sub secretaries to undermine law enforcement. not to help our officers do better but to block them from doing their job. it's just breathtaking. we have had too little discussion of it. and jonathan turley, legal scholar, supporter of president obama, i believe, has said this is -- this goes beyond. this crosses the line. this goes beyond what a -- an executive power that the president has. it goes beyond his power to basically tell his agencies to implement a dream act law that congress three times refused to pass. congress wouldn't pass it, so he directed his agencies to do it

anyway. professor turley said this is a breathtaking violation of the madisonian concept of three branches of government. and it crosses the line. and he was crystal clear. if i have time, i'm going to talk about what he said about that. so mr. johnson, who is a nice individual and capable, is a lawyer. and he came by to see me and we talked some about this, and i expressed, frankly, my concerns to him. now, the administration has pointed to mr. johnson's position as general counsel for the department of defense as proof of his management ability. that position is actually substantially equivalent to being an assistant secretary of

defense, and there are 15 of those. but one thing that counsel for the department of defense doesn't do is manage the department. and deal with all the conflicts about the agencies and departments and so forth. an assistant secretary of defense is the fifth highest ranking official within a department's organizational hierarchy. first the secretary of defense, then the deputy secretary of defense, then the executive secretary, undersecretaries and deputy chief management officer. you have to go that low, and then he's the counsel. not a manager. a lawyer. he was previously a litigator at some big new york law firm, an assistant united states attorney, federal prosecutor two years. i was a united states attorney. i managed an office, a

relatively small office of 12. so he was two years an assistant united states attorney. he is now supposed to be able to manage this entire monstrosity of an agency. the first homeland -- the first secretary of homeland security, tom ridge, had served as governor of pennsylvania for six years. that's a big state. and was possible's homeland security advisor from 2001-2003 and was a part of the post-9/11 response and president bush appointed him and he was the first leader in homeland security. his successor, might chertoff, had been a judge on the u.s. court of appeals, but more significantly to me was he had had a long time in the department of justice and as a united states attorney in one of the biggest offices in america,

the district of new jersey. he worked with every one of these agencies for a long period of time, decades of prosecuting cases, and he understood the culture of the agencies that came together to form homeland security. and even secretary napolitano had been governor of arizona for six years and had been the state attorney general, both of which were management positions. so in an interview with the blog abovethelaw.com, the nominee, mr. johnson, was asked why he left a lucrative private practice to join the department of justice, and he replied loyalty to this president, commitment to public service and safety for our country. the first thing he mentioned was loyalty to this president. according to one article, johnson was described as a loyal political operative of the president who often referred to himself as -- quote -- the

president's plan -- close quote -- at the department of defense. so the president has his plan, the lawyer at the department of defense. i suppose that's okay to have a friend at the department of defense. but is he capable of running the department of homeland security? on october 18 of this year, at the press conference announcing his nomination, mr. johnson said i love this country, i care about the safety of our people, i believe in public service and i remain loyal to you, mr. president." close quote. while at the department of defense, mr. johnson is credited with spearheading the president's effort to repeal the don't ask, don't tell law or policy. despite the fact that a poll of

the combat unit showed it wasn't -- they didn't favor that. a report he produced dismissed these attitudes as laden with emotion and misperception. he was hailed as -- quote -- "a hero of don't ask, don't tell repeal by" the washington post "." i think that's the thing he has been given most credit for, being active in that issue. i'm not saying that's disqualifying. i'm just saying that's kind of what he spent his time doing at the department of defense. he wasn't dealing with how much aircraft carriers ought to cost. he wasn't dealing with the kind of weapons we need to be providing -- building today to be used by our military down the road and doing so within a constrained budget. and according to senator mccain recently, the white house instructed mr. johnson not to be responsive to senators' requests for information in

relation to his nomination, and he has complied with that instruction. i think it was a concern of senator mccain that cabinet members have a duty to be responsive to the united states congress and that when you ask a nominee or cabinet member, they need to respond. and if they are going to be loyal to the president to the extent they don't respond, there are legitimate questions from congress, then maybe they don't need to be confirmed to the job. are they not going to respond? and who at the white house told him to do that? it wasn't the president, probably. he was -- it was probably some staffer, maybe in his 30's. never done any of this stuff before. they decided politically they wanted him to answer questions, so they told him not to and he didn't do it. and we're having a problem today with this.

this is getting responses is an important matter for any cabinet head. but of course he had some other matters, and i'm not -- i'm not attacking mr. johnson's integrity. i'm not attacking any -- him in any way personally, but according to the federal election commission, he has donated over $130,000 to various democratic candidates since 1998, including $30,000 to the president's 2008 campaign, according to the web site opensecrets.org, mr. johnson was a bundler for president obama's 2008 campaign to the tune of $65,000. he also served on one of president obama's -- on president obama's fundraising committee. he donateed to many other

groups. so i guess what i have -- and was a counsel to senator kerry's 2004 campaign. so look, he's an insider, he's close to the president, they are close personally, he is perhaps a good lawyer, maybe have some good political skills, but we have a department that is in disarray, the most -- department hurting perhaps more than any other department in washington. a massive department that needs real leadership. they need a new coach. they need somebody who whip them into shape, to break down these barriers and to eliminate the petty turf fights that are still going on in that agency. we need strength and integrity and a commitment there that i just don't see mr. johnson has ever had the opportunity to demonstrate, he's not been trained in those kind of issues, and he's had no example of it.

now, most --, most of my colleagues remember the execution of the nuclear option in this very chamber in which the majority leader broke the rules of the senate to change the rules of the senate, to eliminate the ability of the senate to have 60 votes to confirm nominees, though most of the president's nominees were being confirmed and overwhelmingly have been confirmed. and they got irritable about a few judges and they changed the whole rule of the senate, and it's a devastating change for a lot of reasons. one of the ramifications is with loyal democratic senatorial

support, mr. johnson doesn't have to respond to my letter, doesn't have to respond to the inquiries of senator mccain, he has to respond to some staffer in the white house who says don't give them any information. just give them some general junk. and he's still going to get confirmed because we got 55 senators and i only have to have 51. so the ability to put pressure on these groups is -- on these nominees is important. and i know my friend, senator reid, i really believe he made a huge error. he's got a tough job, but he did not need to go along with this. i know he had radical and progressive groups pushing him to do this nuclear option, to pull the trigger, stick it to them, do it, and he eventually ended up doing it.

and it's reported that right over here in the mansfield room when mr. -- senator reid left the senate chamber, he went in there and there was raucous applause and cheering from the aclu and for special groups, many left-wing groups that were over there wanting this thing to happen. and i know the hard left wanted that. they've been pushing for elimination of the classic senate prerogatives that allow -- make us different from the house of representatives, and i guess this was the first big step they feel like they achieved. and it certainly has undermined our ability to ask this nominee before we confirm him to this hugely important agency to get some commitments from him about how he's going to manage this agency.

so senator grassley and i'm ranking republican on the budget committee, senator grassley, ranking republican on the judiciary committee, senator hatch, ranking republican on the finance committee, senator cornyn, second in command, the whip in the united states senate for the republicans, senators lee and cruz sent a letter to mr. johnson on november 15 regarding several issues, most of them focusing on the outright refusal of this administration to enforce immigration law as written. on friday we received a letter that can only be described as insufficient. he refused to answer, really, straightly, a single question providing his more -- -- quote -- "more general views as they exist at this stage." now, what kind of commitment is

that? i'm going to give you some of my more general views as they exist at this stage, close quote. is that the kind of response the united states congress should expect about a man about to head this agency? i'm sure it's the kind of response the white house staff told him to give. mr. johnson's answers are critical to the ability of senators in this body to properly judge him. it goes to the essence of his qualifications for the post and one of the central areas of responsibility under his direction. according to senator mccain, senator johnson said the white house prevented him from giving more complete answers. now that president obama, majority leader reid, and the leftist interest groups have

decided and successfully nullified the senate's constitutional right of advice and consent, why should any nominee be responsive to questions on any topic, let alone controversial ones like will you enforce the immigration laws of america? isn't that something we ought to be able to ask him, or will you continue to direct your officers to violate their oath and not enforce the law faithfully? which is what's being done right now as i will document if we have time to do so. this department has been at the epicenter of this administration's refusal to enforce our laws. this administration's political appointees have amounted to little more than rubber stamps and abdicated their sworn duty to enforce the law. the white house has sum summariy suspended entire portions of federal sphwraition immigration law granting unilateral

reprieves to people based on everything from family connections, age of entry and criminal record. and these policies i fear are only the tip of the iceberg. the one thing that mr. johnson was clear about in his letter is that he supports the senate's immigration bill. when it passed the senate but the house has said was dead on arrival, this bill provides amnesty without ever securing the border and that further erodes interior law enforcement and what's left is even weaker than current law. it is weaker. it provides the secretary of homeland security unprecedented discretion in waiver authority. one of the big problems is, the reason the law is not being enforced is the secretary says i'm waiving all these portions of the law and that's why you don't enforce the law, officers. under the bill that cleared the

senate, it gave even broader power to the secretary to not enforce plain law. so i would think there's no doubt that mr. johnson is confirmed, he'll use the additional powers he has to even further undermine enforcement. speaker boehner of the house has said that they will not take up the senate bill but will take up several immigration bills in a step-by-step approach but does anyone believe this administration will actually enforce anything that they pass, and not -- they're not enforcing current law. i urge the house to ensure that really before they get into passing laws and conferring on any comprehensive bill they start insisting and help us insist that this administration enforce the law that we have. if they just refuse to do it, why should we assume that passing a law has any ability to

change the path we are on? the first responsibility of congress must be to restore the rule of law, to secure the border and bring the administration into compliance with the laws of the united states. until that happens, there's no reason or basis to offer up any legalization plans considered in congress. congress cannot capitulate into this overreach and the first place we ought to start is mr. jeh johnson, the nominee of homeland security. he has the customs officers, the border patrol officers and the immigration service. those are all under his direct control. and they need to be strengthened and not further undermined. the record of lawlessness is what we sought to explore in our policy oriented inquiry to mr. johnson, but we got no response to it.

on september of 2011 the president said we live in a democracy, you have to pass bills through the legislature and then i can sign it, close quote. but yet less than a year after personally disputed the notion that the executive branch could not act on -- he decided to grant legal status to a class of individuals he instituted an action called the deferred action for childhood arrivals, a directive to all the agency department heads and all the way down to the officers at the lowest level, which would grant legal status to a mass population of individuals who were here in the country illegally. the directive combined with the so-called john morton memo ordered law enforcement agencies in the field to stop apprehending and removing people

in the country illegally, certain groups of them and instead allow them an opportunity to apply for legal status. well, there's no law that allows them to apply for legal status. the law came up three times in congress and three times congress rejected the law. as professor turley said, this was a big deal. congress rejects a law and then the president directs his officers to execute a law that was never passed. in fact, rejected. the president told an audience in november of this year that he did not have the power to halt deportations stating -- quote -- "if in fact i could solve these problems without passing this through congress, i would do so. we're a nation of laws. the easy way out is to try and yell and pretend i can do something by violating our laws." he said that but he's doing just the opposite. his statement is accurate.

every member of congress should be alarmed by this. i asked my democratic friends who have been awfully quiet on this issue what would you do if a president refused to enforce welfare laws or minimum wage laws or fair housing laws. what would you do if a president circumvented congress to implement a policy you disagreed with? and congress had explicitly rejected. would your reaction be the same silence that we're seeing today? once the rule of law begins to be undermined, this whole republic is in danger.

and the american people get it. they talk to me about it all the time. they use different phrases. they say what's the constitution, the people don't tell the truth, the law is not being enforced, how can he amend the obamacare, the affordable care act, he's -- he can't -- i was taught in elementary school, high school, the president executes the laws, he doesn't make law. how can he change the law that you guys just passed? i get asked that all the time and i have to say it's not a frivolous question. because we have an abuse here as professor turley and others have said is very significant, it's got to end. no one is above the law. that's what the judge in texas said and that's what the judge said to president nixon when he didn't want to do some things, he said you're not above the

law, said it to president clinton, too. failure to uphold our laws violates our legal and moral responsibilities to our own citizens and those who came to this country legally and creates the preconditions necessary for a repressive and capricious government. and when the majority leader can stand before this senate and the rules of the senate say to change the rules of the senate you must have a two-thirds vote and to shut off debate you must have 60% of the people to vote for it, and make a parliamentary inquiry and use -- and overrule the parliamentarian and the presiding officer who rule exactly that, and say that we can shut off debate on presidential nominees with 51 votes, something bad has happened. that is a real clear problem

that we've got. now, i talked to mr. johnson. we had, by chance, an opportunity to have a few minutes in my office and he said he has supported the law. so i asked him why he wanted this job because he was not going to be allowed to enforce the law. because this president's policies were contrary to that. he had his own ideas about -- he had his own ideas about immigration inconsistent with the law of the land and he was executing his idea about immigration laws, not what was the law of the land. so i'm going to detail, if i don't finish, i'll offer it for the record and maybe speak on it later, just a host, a long, continuous trail of violations

of law and improper policies designed to block the enforcement of law in america concerning immigration. it's really stunning, and we should be talking about that with mr. johnson. but he doesn't have to answer our questions. he just says he'll give you some general ideas about what his views are and the views that he has at this time. of course, they may change. most americans probably don't know a law enforcement officer that an prehendz someone for speeding and discover the person is illegally in the country does nothing. the federal people will not come to pick him up, it's against the policy. they just release them on the spot. they could have caught him for lesser offenses. they're released because people won't come and get them. it's actually being applied to people in prison that are

supposed to be deported. in early 2009, there was an immigration and cuss tosms -- customs enforcement raid -- this explains how we got into this. in -- any initiated the plan when president bush was in office and he's been weak on enforcement of the laws too but he was actually getting a little better. he called out the national guard and momentum was moving in the right direction. so they executed enforcement action at an engine machine shop in washington state where i.c.e. agents detailed illegal immigrants who were working without authorization. in a statement about the operation, i.c.e. said that they were investigating criminal activity. they discovered hiring records revealing a significant number of people that were using bogus social security numbers and counterfeit documents. they found 26 illegal immigrants working. it was a completely legitimate

and justified law enforcement action but president obama had just taken office and he by -- clearly had promised this kind of thing wouldn't happen. so shortly thereafter, certain pro-amnesty groups criticized him. as a result, secretary that poll tony vowed she was get to the bottom of it. an article in "the washington times" quoted a homeland security commission saying, "the secretary is not happy about it." and instead of enforcing the law, the secretary investigated the law officers for simply doing their duty. apparently in response to some demand or promises made to advocacy groups during the campaign. and so, mr. president, i appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts. as i said, that was the first event and we've had a series of those since, a long list of them

that got us into a point where we, by -- we need to know where the secretary of homeland security stands on these issues and we should not confirm somebody who's not crystal clear about what their policy would be for this great office. and we shouldn't confirm somebody who has no apparent training or background or capacity to be the kind of strong leader we need at this point in time in history. i see senator mcconnell so the floor. i appreciate his leadership in trying to make sure we adhere to our spending agreements and do the right thing on spending. thank you, senator mcconnell, for your steadfast and solid good judgment as we've wrestled with some very tough issues. i would yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i thank my friend from alabama. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: -- for his kind words and commend him for the great job he's been doing in outlining the issues before us,

not to mention the particular nominee that he was talking about. you know, mr. president, a few weeks ago the obama administration essentially declared that it had met its goal -- its goals of fixing the obamacare web site. and with the web site fixed, they let us to assume that obamacare was fixed as well. but that was never true. as i've been saying all along, the problems here are much, much bigger than a web site. and even the administration's claims about the web site have been exaggerated. recent news reports suggest that many americans who thought they'd enrolled on the exchanges will find that they do not -- do not -- in fact, have coverage on january 1st. largely as a result of lingering problems with the site. an even larger problem lies with the coverage options folks are actually finding if they manage to make it through the web site.

for folks patient enough to successfully navigate through healthcare.gov, many are finding that obamacare offers higher premiums, higher costs, or deductibles, sometimes all thr three, in exchange for coverage that is in many cases inferior to what they had before. fewer choices, restricted hospital networks, losing doctors our stitch wednesday knoconstituents know or trust. and skyrocketing premiums even after the president said that obamacare was cut costs and make insurance more affordable for families and small businesses, end quote. despite the president's serial pledges to the contrary, the government's own studies on this issue now indicate that obamacare will actually increase the cost of health care in america by more than $62

$620 billion. obamacare will actually increase the cost of health care in america by more than $620 billion. as one california woman recently put it, for her obamacare has meant being forced into lower coverage for more money. many kentuckians feel exactly the same way. jezelle martino is a constituent of mine from prospect, kentucky. here's what she recently wrote to me after losing her coverage. "i paid a very high premium to have a major medical plan. i'm now forced into the exchange for a lesser plan with more exclusions and higher deductibles. i will most likely never reach those deductibles. how does this help me? i'm basically paying into the plan for the others.

if i must pay for my higher-tier heart drugs anyway, why should i bother with the health plan? what a disappointment this administration has caused. higher costs and less care -- that's what obamacare means for jezelle martino. aircraft has been a disappointment for mike conn of prestonsburg, too. here's what he had to say about this law. a "policy that has similar coverage to what we had would cost us around $1,100 a month. that's a 100% increase for me and my wife. i was informed by the individual that was helping me find coverage that it was because we live in eastern kentucky." mike said his plan is no longer available in that part of the state and now he's evidently facing a 100% increase in costs because of where he lives.

a 100% increase in costs because of where he lives. it's not fair. mike and jezelle both have every right to be upset. but that's the reality of obamacare for too many kentuckians, a state where 280,000 people have already lost the coverage they had because of this law. it's a reality facing millions of americans across our country. and when the white house was asked today if they were confident that the millions of americans with canceled policies would be able to sign up for new insurance before january 1st, they couldn't give a straight answer. that's why republicans are going to maintain our focus where it belongs -- on the people we represent, on the issues that truly matter to them, because our constituents understand that obamacare is about so much more

than just a web site. the administration needs to start understanding that, too. fixing a few lines of code isn't going to help people keep the plans they like, plans that work for their families. it isn't going to help our constituents afford the law's exorbitant premiums and deductibles. it isn't going to help our constituents cope with fewer choices and lower quality of care. these are the things that actually matter to the middle class. so the administration and its allies in congress can talk until they're hoarse about a web site or about nominees or about whatever else they think they can say to distract americans from the failures of this law, but that isn't going to work. and to the millions of americans suffering under obamacare, you should know that republicans are on your side. we're going to keep fighting for

true health reform that lowers costs, for reform that promotes choice and a better quality of care, and we're going to keep fighting against the idea that government knows better than you do when it comes to your family's health care. that's what our constituents expect of us. i know it's what kentuckians expect. and that's just what republicans are going to continue to do. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mrs. warren: i ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. warren: mr. president, i rise today to honor one of the great leaders in the history of boston. it might seem odd to describe a man who is still with us today, alive and well, as a figure in history. but in the almost 400 years

since boston was founded, a history that is filled with names known across this country -- winthrop, lowell, adams, lodge -- in its 400-year history, few have done more for boston that our mayor, tom menino. looking back at his 20 years in office, it is clear how much tom menino has done for our city. mayor menino revitalized boston, from the waterfront and the own ovation district -- innovation district to dudley square and rocksbury, he expanded our neighborhoods, livable parks and creative spaces, and created a city whose potential is unlimited. mayor menino worked for boston with confirm convictions, he cautioned against predatory lenders starting the "don't borrow trouble" long before the great recession. with political will and courage, he improved education for all

our kids, creating full-day current gardekindergarten and ms school some of the best in the country. with foresight of the next frontiers, he fought for hospitals and scientific research, giving boston the world's leading health care institutions. and with fierce moral clarity, he stood firmly for equality, equal opportunity for immigrants, equal rights and equal marriage for the lgbt community, equal pay for women. but perhaps most importantly, mayor menino has been there for boston. now, it's often said that more than 50% of boston residents have met mayor menino personal personally. i do not believe this is true. i believe the number must be much greater. it seems as if the mayor attends every community event, every potluck dinner, every school play and every soccer game. from growth hall to the north

end, boden to west roxbury, we know mayor menino will be there for us in our moment of greatest triumphs. ribbon cutting for new parks, world series victories, new citizenship and a child's graduation. and we know he will be there for us in our moments of great tragedy -- the death of a loved one, terror in copley square. of course, he could not have done it alone. by his side for all these years, he has had angela mendoza-martinez. angela is a devoted wife, mother, and grandmother. to all of us in boston, she was not just a first lady but a first friend. angela championed causes that ofng went unheralded in the press, supporting women and children, employment, and education and fighting to end homelessness. today we thank angela as well for helping make our city into a

warm and thriving community. almost 400 years ago on a ship sailing from england to the new world, john winthrop declared that the new city they would found, bos boston, would be a cy upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us. and if that experiment, our city, was to succeed, he said, "we must be knit together. we must entertain each other in brotherly affection. we must rejoice together, mourn together, plaib labo labor and r together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work as members of the same body." for 20 years mayor menino has made boston into a city that all eyes can see as a model for the country and for the world. and he has succeeded because he knew that all along our fortunes

depend on our work together, as one people, as one community, as one boston. on behalf of a grateful people, tom menino, we thank you for your hard work, for your service, and, most of all, for your dedication to making boston a better place. thank you. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. corker: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator tennessee.

mr. corker: is it my understanding we're in a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. corker: i ask unanimous consent that it be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. corker: mr. president, i rise today to speak about an outstanding member of our staff, a friend, and a very special person who will soon leave the snad senatsenate after almost 1f service with her family to go to nashville to begin the next exciting phase of their lives. i first met laura leller when she was a staffer working with senator lamar alockbox ander's front office, answering the phones and greeting visitors. i was in washington to try decide -- like you -- whether to run for the united states -- whether running for the united states senate was something i should consider. seeing her smiling face and listening to her tennessee accent certainly made me feel at

home. later, after i decided to run, we became involved in one of the most difficult races in the country in 2006. i was the only new republican to make it through. toward the end with the race nationalized and dealing with all kinds of issues, a whole crew of folk folks descended upr office to help us get across the top. one of those was young laura, who helped us in our communications office. i think she was sprielse surprie fearness of a campaign like this. she took it all very person laicialtion a sig--personally, e you want to be on your side. then came the transition. lawyelaura was the first persono open our office and she helped us interview people and find our way through the daunting task of opening a new senate office whvment it came down deciding who would lead our communications office, we got down to people who had been here

and done it for a long time and miss laura lefler. she always said that i was concerned about whether she should really be the person, and in fairness, now that she is leaving, i will say i was. she was young, she had never done anything -- she had never done this before. certainly i had never done it b and i wondered whether we needed someone who was more seasoned and had different experiences. without question, hiring laura to lead our comien indications office is one of the best decisions i've ever made in my life. i cannot imagine the last seven years without laura in our office, and i know the rest of our staff feels the same way. laura has been instrumental to our office in every way. no doubt she's done an outstanding job as a communications director. i think that every person in our

office, those in other offices, the media people throughout the capitol and throughout tennessee would all speak to the fact that she's been a professional. she's been endearing. and a reasonable communications director. but she's also been instrumental in other ways, like always ensuring that i've never forgotten where i came from. she has that knack when we're making a tough decision over -- over making a decision over a tough vote to slip in towards the end and sit down privately and express her own feelings, something i value greatly. as time went orntion i realized something was different about other senate offices. most senate offices sit around the united states senator. our office has never been that way. it's always revolved around laura.

it began with this guy named john herzog whom she later married. was he going to end up having the kind of job tholed allow him to support a family? then when he did, was he going to ask her to marry him? this went on for months and months. then there was a wetting after he asked. i don't think i've ever seen so many photographs of dresses and flower arrangements, nor have others in our office. then came the decision about their home purchase. where would it be? what would it look like? how far of a drive would it be? you know the drill. then came young jack. his hair was so perfect when he was born, he instantly was born the weatherman. then of course which day care would he attend? would it be close enough? would she continue to be a communications director and a good whom. and as we all knew would be the

case, she has been exceptional at both. then more of the same in tennessee. at a town hall meetings in tennessee where over 1,000 people showed up. the place where lawyer are had been the value dick to en. i remember walking in with such excitement that so many would be there at this town hall meetings tmeetingsto hear me discuss theg issues. but not surprise beingly, the first thing that was said when i walked in the door was, where's laura? now that she -- now as we all knew would happen at some point, it is time for them to move on to the next phase in their life. while we've all been a part of her life and lived the ups and downs, we've all -- she has been a part of all of ours. we will miss her greatly. she knows full well that i would

gladly continue to be second if i had untifiddle in our office e would say. but we all know it is time for her and son and her son jack to go back to tennessee. time to go back and be a part of other people's lives the way they have been a part of ours. she has made life better for all of us over the last seven years. her big smile and ability to take ribbing and also dish it out has made each day so much more enjoyable. she is a consummate professional, always seeking perfection, but with the ability to make it fun along the way. we will miss her, but we are so happy for her, for john, and for jack. we are happy for her mother who lives just across the line in tennessee and her dad who lives right up the road in loudoun.

we know nashville will be a much, much better place with the herzogs there. we look afford to visiting them often and we all hope they will continue to involve -- to involve us all in their wonderful life, their story and the evolution of the herzog family in tennessee. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i rise to speak as if in morning business for approximately ten minutes. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i come to the floor today to urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan budget agreement. i want to congratulate our colleagues, especially budget committee chairwoman murray for her outstanding leadership in forging this bipartisan agreement with her house

counterpart mr. ryan. she reached this agreement in a way that is indeed a compromise. not everyone's desired outcome but a fair and necessary one. i urge my colleagues to support it. i think it's fantastic that they actually got a budget done. this is the first time in several years that we're actually going to vote on a bipartisan budget conference agreement, and i think it bodes well for future activity where we return to the due order of passing legislation -- one in each house, a conference committee to hammer out the disagreements and then back to us for final agreement. what i like about this agreement is that it creates certainty by avoiding sequester for two years. giving the top-line funding to

we on the appropriations committee for 2014 and 2015. many people do not realize that we on the appropriations committee, that actually puts money in the federal checkbook for spent, have a cap put on our spending by the budget committee. that's called the 302-a or the top line. we have not been able to do our appropriations committee because we haven't had a top line. this enables us to have one for 2014. we are under a mandate to bring it back to the senate and to the house by january 14. we will met that deadline. it's going to be tough, it's going to be stringent, but we're going to get the job done. it also gives us certainty for 2015 so we can return to a regular order of actually

knowing where we stand with our cap, holding our hearings, and bringing bills to the committee. the other thing that i like about this agreement -- this bipartisan budget agreement is it prevents harm. it protects seniors and families. it preserves the social safety net like medicare and social security. and finally, the agreement ends gridlock. the american people are tired of shutdowns, slowdown, slamdown politics. this ends the lurching from crisis to crisis and shows that we can compromise and govern. first of all, and foremost, this budget agreement creates certainty for america's businesses and families. by avoiding sequester for two years, it prevents further across-the-board cuts, not that we don't need strategic cuts -- and welcome up with them in the appropriations committee -- but

across-the-board cuts where you don't know if a program works or a program is dysfunctional. this way we can actually look at those programs that we do need to cut, those that are dated, those that are duplicative, those that are dysfunctional. sure, let's cut those. but, at the same time, let's keep the good programs and make sure that they are a adequately funded. i believe that by avoiding sequester and the meat-ax approach to cuts really helps us have better governance. we will have a more frugal government but a more sensible way of spending. it also gives us this top-line funding for 2014 and 2015 to the appropriations committee. it means that we can write an omnibus bill. what does an omnibus bill mean? we on the appropriations committee -- excuse me -- have

12 subcommittees. we would like to have brought these subcommittees up one by one and have had the house exercise their due diligence in looking at the bills to see what they want to add, subtract or change. we couldn't do it, so now we're going to, because we failed to have this budget agreement to give us the top line. what we will now be able to do is for 2014 be able to bring them all up at one time in a bill called the omnibus. and i hope