mr. president, call us down into the white house, put us in a room republicans and democrats, and don't let us out until we find a $3.6 billion off sthaet doesn't do injustice to the military retired community. if i were president, i sure as hell would do that. nobody would be going home until we got this right. so, mr. president, you owe a duty to the troops greater than everybody because you're their commander in chief. i don't know if we're going to get this fixed. the train is running and the military retired community is on the tracks. a you a foof u few of us are trt them off. i promise their families, if we fail today we're going to come back at this tomorrow over and over and over again until the congress finds it's soul. i yield.

mr. inhofe: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: let me say, first of all, my good friend from south carolina is a mind reader. he always looks at you and figures out what you're going to say and then he says it better. so let me share -- there are a couple of things during this discussion that haven't been said. i just want to mention that. then i know we're going to go ahead and vote on this. one is that our military was told -- and i talked to several of the groups, the military, the retired groups and others -- that they would be grandfathered in. now, i want everyone grandfathered in, if they're going to do something like this. certainly one installation in my state of oklahoma, we have 13,000 civilian employees, they're going to be grandfathered in. that's the right thing to do because people make career decisions predicated on what they're told at the time. and these military guys -- and i

look around the room and most of the senators who are in here have spent a lot of time, as i have, over in afghanistan, iraq, we talk to these guys and talk to them in the mess hall. they talk about their career, how they happen to get in here. they make these decisions, then we come awade understand a take it away. i think it's been said enough about the example of the gunnery sergeant at age 42 having been in for 20 years. it is going to cost him some $72,000. not much is said about the officers. the officers -- it's actually a lot more than that. if you get an 05 officer, he would lose $124,000. these are not wealthy people. these are people who depended upon this for their retirement. i want to mention also that they were told -- as i mentioned, they were told that they, also, the military people would be grandfathered in. now, anytime you grandfather in,

then obviously they change the rule, the new people making a career decision will make it predicated on those circumstances of retirement that are there at that time. i have to say this: that tomorrow we're going to be involved in the bill that was put together by the big four -- the ndaa. it is a must-pass bill. we will pass it. i can't imagine there won't be the votes to pass t but i can tell you this, madam president. if we had known this was going to come up, we would have addressed it this in the ndaa. this is something that could have been addressed and offset. so i agree with everyone who has spoken on this. i think it is something that is just very difficult to understand how this could happen. and we do know this: that one of the differences between civilian employees and military employees, you can't recall civilian employees. we have a figure here -- are you aware, madam president, that we have actually since september 11

recalled 3,456 military retirees that have been recalled to duty? every one of them is going to be affected by this. and this is the travesty that we cannot allow it happen. i applaud my friend from alabama for bringing this up and hopefully we'll be able to correct it. we're going to have a vote right now, and i hope that this is a solution to it. then tomorrow we'll have a chance to get into the detail about the ndaa bill, which is a very, very significant bill that addresses things like this. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: madam president, i thank my colleagues for their heartfelt remarks about the cuts that are in this bill that will immediately impact the retirements of american military. and they are subject to recall to active duty. they are expecting these

payments, and other departments and agencies and government employees are not going to get their retirement reduced; only people who served in the military. and it is not correct. and it should not happen. but what i want to emif a to all of my colleagues -- but what i want to emphasize to all of my colleagues and highlight here today, is that the legislation before us now is brought forth in a way that will not allow any amendments. if people have an idea about a problem with this legislation that was agreed to in secret by a couple of senators, i suppose, maybe some staff involved -- so they agreed to this language. it is the first time we've seen it. it's the first time it's been before the light of day in the senate, and we find problems with it -- real problems. now, if you ask schoolchildren, if you ask senior citizens in america, if a bill hits the

floor of the united states senate and it's got bad provisions in it, what do you do, senator? why, they'll say, you offer an amendment. and you fix it. that -- isn't that what we were taught? isn't that what the history of the national is all about? it is a -- isn't that what the history of the senate is all about? it is a place where you can amend and improve legislation. but we are in an odd, unusual circumstance. not so odd in recent years. the majority leader of the senate has sought recognition, as he's able to do, and he's filled the amendment tree. and nobody can get an amendment. nobody can get a vote on this amendment to fix this part of the legislation that plainly needs fixing. it is not available to us. that's awfully hard to believe. it's awfully hard to believe that in the great senate, as

senator robert byrd said, there are two great senates, the roman senate and the american senate. and he defended it. it's rights and priorities. but we have one leader of the senate, supported by his colleagues, who says we don't want amendments because we might have to take tough votes. and all we want to do is rubber stamp this agreement, this bill written in secret. and we want to pass it without any amendments. how did that become the policy of america? how did that become the policy in the united states senate? what justification can be given to the concept that duly elected united states senators can't stand up on the floor of this body and defend their rights of their constituents and their states by offering amendments to improve legislation? and we're going to have tomorrow, the defense bill spending authorizing the expenditure of over $500

billion. $500 billion-plus to fund our military? a lot of people have ideas about how to improve that bill. we're not going to get a single amendment, because the majority leader has filled the tree, and he's going to deny the members of this body who represent millions of people in their states and really we represent everybody, the right to offer amendments to improve that bill. and it's contrary to our tradition. it's contrary to our heritage. it's contrary particularly to the heritage of the united states senate, where open debate and discussion is so important. so i thank senator wicker. he spoke this morning. senator ayotte, graham, and inhofe who shared their thoughts about the lack of wisdom in this legislation. and i am going to offer here a tabling motion and the purpose of it will be to remove the

parliamentary maneuver of majority leader reid and allow us to have a vote. so i want to say to my colleagues, what is this amendment about? this amendment will remove the filling of the tree, and it will allow the senate to vote on this amendment and other amendments perhaps -- but this amendment in particular. i believe that it is in the tradition of the senate. i believe it is extremely important. so, madam president, i would ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending motion so that i may offer a motion to concur with amendment number 2573, which is filed at the desk. the presiding officer: is there objection? mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, reserving the right to object -- and i will object.

but, first, i want to say that as many of my colleagues here know, i have dedicated much of my career to fighting for our nation's veterans and our military families. i am the daughter of a world war ii veteran. i am the first woman ever to chair the senate veterans' affairs committee. i have worked time and again tirelessly to safeguard the health care and the benefits and services that those in our uniform have sacrificed for. so, obviously, any provision that impacts them or the benefits that our service members have earned is of great concern to me. but, madam president, as is true with any very difficult compromise, there are certain policy changes in this bill that i would have never made on my own. thankfully, though, we wrote this bill in a way that will allow two years before this change is implemented -- two years -- so that democrats and

republicans can keep working together to improve this provision or find smarter savings elsewhere. in that time, i know that there is an armed services mandated military retirement commission due to report their findings, which would give both chambers time to legislate a solution before any cola change is ever implemented. i also know that the senior senator from michigan, the chairman of the armed services committee, has indicated he is going to move afford with efforts to review this change before it takes effect. and i support that effort. and i am quite sure that other members of the senate will look for ways to replace these savings in a different way. in other words, we can and we will look at other hopefully better ways to change this policy going afford. but opening up this bill to changes today, after the vast majority of congress has voiced

their support for a deal theands the repeated crisis we'v we have faced in this nation is not the solution. jeopardizing this deal right now only threatens our national security, and it will force layoffs of those very service members and civilian military personnel that so many members have come out here to speak for. as with any bill, the oversight process here in congress will move afford the moment we pass it. and there is no doubt that improvements will be made. where they are needed. but this motion, i tell my colleagues, is an effort to bring down this bill. to stop us from moving afford, and for that reason alone, it should be voted down. therefore, madam president, i object -- i object to the unanimous consent. mr. wicker: will the distinguished chairman yield on

her reservation? a senator: the senator doesn't have the floor, does he? the presiding officer: that's right. mr. sessions: i would yield to the senator for a question. mr. wicker: i don't mean to prolong this, but did i want to ask this of the distinguished chairman: i do think that everyone should understand that although the senator from washington chairs the committee and was a member of the conference committee, this -- this is not a report of the conference committee. and i would -- the question i with a ntwant to ask is, did the negotiators realize when this cola less 1% provision was inserted in the conference committee that it would mean $80,000 lifetime out of the retired pay of the typical

enlisted retiree? did the conferees realize the magnitude of what they were agreeing to? did the two negotiators agree to the magnitude of what they were sending to the house and senate? mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: does the senator from alabama yield to the senator from washington to thane answer that question? mr. sessions: i would be pleased to yelled too the senator to answer that question without yielding the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i would suggest that the senator ask that question to chairman ryan. but i would say again, as many of us have talked about here today, this isn't the deal that democrats would have written on our own. it is not the deal that republicans would have written on their own. nobody got everything they wanted. and we each had to give up some things to get to where we are today. madam president, again, to bring us back to a time of certainty -- because without a budget moving afford today, we would be

facing a time in a few short weeks where there would be dramatic changes and cuts to, in particular, our department of defense, meaning furloughs and layoffs and a threat to our national security, as so many members of the military have told us. so, madam president, i hope that we can move afford. i no he that we're going to go through some parliamentary inquiries and a motion in a minute. er but i hope that our members would take the time to say, what is the end process here and vote with us to not -- to not change this at this point and to allow us to go afford and bring certainty to so many families across this country at this holiday season time. mr. wicker: madam president, i wonder if the senator from alabama would yield to me for 60 seconds? the presiding officer: the the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would yield without losing my right to the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: and i would ask the

senator from alabama, it seems to me no one wants to claim parenthood of this very onerous penalty on the retired service members of the united states of america. mr. wicker: i would have to inform from the senator from washington's answer that she was not aware. 1% from colas sounds so innocuous. when it comes to $130 for officers and $80,000 for enlisted people, it's real money. this is a penalty and it's hitting the people that step forward aan and volunteer to see our country and protect our security. so until someone is willing to step forward and claim ownership of this, i have to assume that the negotiators didn't know th the -- the impact that this would have on our military retirees.

and it seems to me that the senator from alabama has devised a way to surgically remove this provision, pay for it elsewhere and send it back to the house and i think we'd be doing them a favor, frankly. and i thank my friend from alabama for yielding. mr. sessions: well, i thank the senator. i would notice senator ayotte has spoken, senator graham and senator wicker, along with myself, where conferees on the budget conference committee -- who were conferees on the budget conference committee, that this was supposed to be the kind of thing that we would discuss but we weren't called to final discussion and some legislation is brought to the floor now that we didn't have time to approve in advance. mr. wicker: would the senator yield for a second? mr. sessions: senator graham from south carolina, i would be pleased to yield for a question. mr. graham: thank you. to follow on what senator wicker started out with, i've been trying to find out whose good idea was this. so i called the secretary of defense, and they said we didn't do this.

i talked to chuck hagel. they said, this did not come from us. because i said, what are you all doing over there? please understand, senator graham, this did not come from us. now, i think senator wicker knows the exact number, but if you're a military retiree on your dd-214 form -- the senator from alabama, i don't know if you know this or not -- but when you get your retirement, your discharge dd-214, at the bottom, it says, "subject to being recalled." do you know how many military retirees have been recalled since 9/11? mr. sessions: i do not, senator graham. mr. graham: i think the senator from mississippi may have the exact number and it amounts to a brigade of soldiers almost. the senator from mississippi? mr. wicker: well, if the senator would yield for an answer to that. precisely 356 d.o.t. retirees have been recalled to active duty since september 11, 2001.

mr. sessions: so, senator graham, you're full colonel in the air force, still serving in the reserves. mr. graham: yeah, take my pay. [laughter] mr. sessions: but it's a fact that this retirement pay is really more than retirement pay, is it not? it's really a -- a income, a source of payment that ensures that the person can be recalled. so it's part of the right to recall you, compensation for it. mr. graham: well, the answer is when you retire after 20, you're subject to be recalled as long as you're physically able, and i guess -- i know one individual who was recalled at 56 who was a j.a.g. officer who had been out of the military for years, set up his practice and he said, can they do this? and he said hey, man, you're the lawyer. of course. you know they can do this. and they did. only because we had to and he went and did his part. i bet you those 3,400, some of them were volunteers, some of

them were not. but the cost-of-living adjustment is to make sure your retirement over time maintains its value. that's why we have a cost-of-living adjustment. and how much money do you make if you're a master sergeant after 20 years of service? it's less than $25,000 a year in retirement. so it's not -- these people don't become millionaires when they retire. try to raise a family of four on $25,000 without a cola. so the -- the cola is designed to keep the benefit vibrant over time, and when you do a cola minus 1%, it does diminish the value of the package. and here's what just gets me it is most. if we did it for everybody in the country, that would be one thing. these are the only people in america that get this special good deal. mr. sessions: madam president, i thank senator graham. i think he made a defining point there, that this is a one-sided

reduction of retirement benefits to people who served in the military not impacting lots of others. i just want to report -- return to the central point here. this bill that will be voted on tomorrow, final passage, cuts military retirement $6 billion. that $6 billion is counted in the numbers of the proponents of the legislation toward their justification for spending more money the next two years. they say they're paying for it by reducing this $6 billion over time. and it's mandated. it's not an option in the bill. we should not pass legislation that does that. so what i would propose is that we not go along with majority leader reid's determination to run the train over the men and women of our military, that we slow down and we follow the

regular process of the senate, not fill the tree and allow amendments to be voted on on this substance -- substantive matter. so parliamentary inquiry, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator will state his inquiry. mr. sessions: is it correct that while the majority leader's motion to concur in the house amendment with an amendment to which the majority leader has also offered a second-degree amendment is pending -- while it's pending, no senator is permitted to offer an amendment to the house-passed spending package? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. sessions: so let me repeat, to be sure my colleagues and i understand the situation. the chair has just told the senate that i cannot offer an amendment to the house-passed spending bill that would strike

the military retiree pay cut because the majority leader has filled the tree with his own amendments. i've read the majority leader's amendment and i see they are merely -- they merely changed the date of -- at enactment by a few days. further parliamentary inquiry. madam president, if a motion to table the majority leader's motion to concur with an amendment is successful, would there be an opportunity for me to offer a motion to concur with amendment 2573? the presiding officer: yes, there would. mr. sessions: again, summarizing for my colleagues, the presiding officer is telling this senate that if there can be 51 votes to table the current amendment tree to the house-passed spending bill, then there will be an

opportunity for me or other senators to offer by motion a motion to condition occur with the amendment -- to concur with the amendment that strikes the military pay cut. so, madam president, in order to make a motion to concur with the amendment 2573, i move to table the pending motion to concur with an amendment offered by the majority leader, ask i ask for r the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a second? the yeas and nays have been requested. is there a sufficient second? yes, there appears to be a sufficient second. there is a sufficient second. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, i would just state to all of our colleagues that this motion will -- is an effort to bring this bill -- mr. sessions: madam president, there's no debate. the presiding officer: debate is not in order. the question is on the motion. the yeas and nays have been

ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senators wishing to vote or change their votes? the presiding officer: any senators wishing to vote or to change their votes? if not, on this vote the yeas are 46, the nays are 54. the motion is not agreed to. the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: i yield one hour of my time postcloture to senator sessions. the presiding officer: the senator has that right. the senator from washington.

mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business -- madam president, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for ten minutes each with the exception of senator grassley for up to 20 minutes, further that the time count postcloture. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 3588 which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: h.r. 3588 an act to amend the safe drinking water act to exempt hydrants from the the -- the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the motion? without objection the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i ask that the bill be read three times and passed and the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: madam president -- the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: just to go over what happened here, this is on behalf of myself and senator toomey, it's a bipartisan bill. it was -- there was a recently released environmental protection agency interpretation of a law that could cost local governments, municipalities and taxpayers millions of dollars across the country and undermine public safety. it's a classic case of the federal bureaucracies in restriction harming local

communities and budgets and you wouldn't believe this but it's about one of the most basic functions of government, fire hydrants. almost three years ago, congress passed the reduction of lead in drinking water act. that legislation is with an admirable goal, the goal spelled expelled out in the name and implemented on january 4, 2014. as you know, congress intended for the e.p.a. to make rules to keep our drinking water safe from coming into contact with lead-based parts. so congress did that and exempted an e.p.a. exempted parts in bathtubs and showers that don't have direct impact on the drinking water like the knobs, the hot and cold knobs but the fawfts would be under the law. at the end of october the e.p.a. released a new interpretation for the first time put fire hydrants under the standards set by law meaning everyone needs to buy and install new and upgraded fire ride hasn't -- hydrants

that contain less lead. it took everyone by surprise. only a small fraction are fire hydrants are used for crink drinking water and lied poisoning doesn't occur on occasions someone might drink from a hydrant. while that rule was announced in oklahoma city the e.p.a. is expected all new hide rantsz to be of this. no manufacturer can make hydrants that quickly and if the interpet prettations stands the cities would be forced to throw out hundreds of hydrants now in stock wasting millions of dollars and passing that waste on to consumers in terms of rate hike and at the same time there would be new hydrants they could install when one malfunctioned, when it was run over by a car in an accident, when a snowplow knocked it down. so we're glad that this legislation that we have just passed and with my colleague and i from pennsylvania are glad

that we would -- we will now exempt fire hydrants from the reduced lead standard as bathtub and shower pieces that don't have contact with the water are exempt. simply put, the e.p.a.'s interpretation of reduced lead standards unnecessarily imposed a huge burden on municipalities and first responders without any discernible safety benefit. we have now undone that danger. i yield the floor. i'd be happy to yield to my colleague from ohio. mr. portman: i want to thank our colleague for their work on this issue. municipalities including the state of ohio were shocked to hear about this and i appreciate joining my colleague from new york on a letter to the e.p.a. and cash strapped cities in new york, ohio and other states are happy to know they're not going to have to take on this burden. it makes sense to stop, take a look at this, be sure we're not forcing these hydrants to be

repaired and replaced, it's not something that's in these budgets that these cities have and so i appreciate the gentleman's work on it and look forward to ensuring this does not move forward as a regulation but we figure out a more sensible way to deal with the issue. mr. schumer: i thank my colleague from ohio and appreciate his good work on this. we've now saved municipalities millions of dollars as well as ensured safety in our communities because the fire hydrants that are in stock will be able to be used. i yield the floor, madam president. mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: on the last vote i just want to mention to my colleagues what happened and what has happened. a major bill dealing with the debt of the united states was supposed to come out of conference budget committee, budget conference committee and come here. the budget conference committee failed to complete its meetings and a piece of legislation was sent to the senate.

that legislation has not been subject to amendment. the majority leader decided there would be no amendments, and he would simply sell us that if you have amendments that will kill the bill or if you have amendments that will make us delay and we can't do it and we won't do it and you don't get an amendment. a number of good amendments have been filed. the one that we just voted on was one of the most egregious. that amendment reduces the retirement pay of the united states military without reducing the retirement pay of anyone else that served in government, just the military. so i filed and i move to table the filled tree that majority leader reid has been using to block anybody to have amendments in the united states senate on serious legislation. i mean this is serious

legislation. we didn't get to vote on it. so the choice for our colleagues when they cast their vote, would they vote to allow an amendment to be voted on that would protect veteran military retirees from having their pensions reduced or would you support the majority leader in his determination to block any amendments to the legislation. so a majority has voted. they voted to block the classical rights of united states senators to have amendments and to protect the leadership and the domination really of this senate in an unprecedented way by the majority leader. he's already filled the tree more times than the previous four majority leaders combined. more than twice as often. every bill now, it seems, he

fills the tree. and to get an amendment, he has to approve it or you don't get it. or if he decides there are no amendments, there are no amendments. so this is contrary to the tradition of the senate. we've got to change this. and this highlights the danger of supporting that kind of process because it keeps us from fixing bad legislation and improving it. i would thank the chair and would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: soon we'll be voting on the nomination of mr. mr. mayorkas. i have concerns about the nomination. first i'll discuss how

mr. mayorkas carried out the president's directive giving status to thousands of individuals in the united states unlawfully. in 2012 mr. mayorkas was charged with implementing this president's director known as daca, deferred action for childhood are arrivals. i have always questioned whether the president's directive is legal. the administration never responded to our request for their legal basis or opinions. this administration has not been transparent about who is getting deferred action, how they are processing them, and whether those who have been denied have been processed for removal. they may call this program deferred action for childhood arrivals, but it clearly benefits older adults and possibly people who intentionally broke our laws. the agency didn't deny any

single applicant until after the 2012 election. we still don't know how many people were actually denied. we do know, however, that people were approved despite shoddy evidence, such as an xbox receipt and a facebook posting. they always seemed to find a way to get approval. and all denials for daca have to be run through washington. adjudicators on the line were given clear instruction that they were not allowed to deny any applicant. now, whistle-blowers tell me, they said that mr. mayorkas himself had to approve all denials. now think about that. no denials were allowed unless the head of the agency personally approved the denial.

what kind of message does that send to civil servants, the career employees trying to do their job under the law as the law requires to be very impartial? the boss has his thumb on the scales. that isn't the rule of law. mr. mayorkas' message to adjudicators seems to have been that they had better get to "yes" or he'd personally get involved. this get to yes philosophy came up time and again with agency whistle-blowers. the office of inspector general looked into the situation and the inspector general confirmed what employers had said. a quarter of immigration service officers interviewed felt pressure to approve questionable applicants.

90% felt that they didn't have sufficient time to complete interviews of those who seek benefits. the office of inspector general report clearly showed that the agency had been pervaded by this "get to yes" culture. unfortunately that culture hadn't changed under mr. mayorkas' leadership. in fact, based on concerns that i heard from whistle-blower who tacted my offices in -- who contacted my offices in mid-july this year, it seems to have even gotten worse. these whistle-blowers were aware that mr. mayorkas had been nominated to this homeland security position by late june. they were also aware that since the fall of 2012, mr. mayorkas had been a subject of an office of inspector general investigation into allegations of ethical or criminal

misconduct. when mr. mayorkas' nomination hearing was scheduled, the whistle-blowers were very surprised. they wondered why a hearing would proceed while the investigation was still open and pending. and contacted then my office to make sure congress was told about the investigation. the existence of this investigation was news to me at that time. however, i didn't sit on the committee on homeland security and governmental affairs, so my staff contacted the staff of ranking member of that committee, dr. coburn. his staff was also unaware that the nominee was under investigation by the inspector general. it is extremely troubling then that a hearing was scheduled to proceed without the ranking member of the committee knowing about the pending investigation of the nominee within the executive branch.

both my staff and ranking member coburn's staff contacted the inspector general's office. we told his office about the whistle-blower allegations and asked for confirmation as to whether there was an open inquiry. this type of procedural information is routinely disclosed by an inspector general's office to congress, and rightly so. further, we asked for an explanation of why that information would be withheld while the committee was considering the nomination. now, you understand that the senate has a constitutional function of providing advise and consent on these nominations. in order to do our duty, every senator who is asked to vote on that nominee needs to have all the relevant information about that nominee, and particularly when there's a pending investigation. to its credit, the office of

inspector general answered our questions and confirmed there was indeed an open criminal investigation. their written description stated that the inquiry involves -- quote -- "alleged conflicts of interest, misuse of position, mismanagement of eb-5 program and the appearance of impropriety by mayorkas and other management officials." end quote. how is it possible then that this information was withheld from staff for the ranking member of the committee considering that nomination? if not for the whistle-blowers that came forward, would we have known this fact of the nomination? or, i mean of the investigation. when a nominee is under investigation, the senate has no business approving that nominee until the facts are in. historically committees have

followed this precedent. as ranking member coburn explained last week, both the president and vice president supported this precedent when they were here in the united states senate. in july of 2005, one ambassadorial nominee owned a company under investigation. then-senator biden spoke out and supported delaying the vote on this -- on that nomination because of the investigations. eventually the nominee's company agreed to settle the investigation against him. then-senator obama's spokeman issued a statement saying that due to the fact that a settlement was reached, senator obama would not seek to block the nomination. like then-senators obama and biden, i believe the senators should wait for investigations to conclude. or if the executive branch is taking too long, then congress should do its own fact finding. but forcing senators to vote in

ignorance is not a legitimate option. in fact, it's irresponsible. voting to approve a nominee who is under investigation without waiting for the facts is incredibly risky. what if the investigation determines allegations are true? then by rushing to approve the nominee, this body would have failed one of our key functions under the constitution. i pointed this out when the senate was considering the nomination of b. todd jones to become permanent head of bureau of alcohol, firearms and explosives. mr. jones was a subject of an office of special counsel investigation due to allegations that he retaliated against a whistle-blower in the u.s. attorney's office in minnesota. as mr. jones' nomination progressed in the senate, the justice department, the whistle-blower agreed to try mediation. the majority tried to claim that

the special counsel's case was there for a close. however, i did state on the floor the special counsel's investigation would continue if mediation failed. nevertheless, despite the open special counsel investigation, we voted on july 31 to confirm mr. jones. in early september, the whistle-blowers mediation with the justice department did indeed fail. the special counsel has resumed its investigations of mr. jones just as the special counsel told the senate that it would. so the retaliation complaint against mr. jones is still pending this very day. we don't know what the outcome will be because we did not take time to gather the facts as senators should. if we're unwilling to wait for an executive branch inquiry, then we should further gather the facts ourselves.

last week ranking member coburn asked chairman levin of the permanent subcommittee on investigations whether that committee would consider interviewing witnesses in controversy involving mr. mayorkas. while he dekhraeupbd, chairman -- declined, chairman levin rightly noted if the subcommittee were going to launch such an investigation the vote on mr. mayorkas would need to be delayed. i completely agree. this vote should not take place until someone has been able to gather testimony and draw conclusions about these allegations. whistle-blowers provide my office with very troubling evidence regarding the substance of some of the allegations. much of the evidence involves the eb-5 regional center program which mr. mayorkas is responsible for managing. the evidence appears to support allegations mr. mayorkas and his leadership deem at citizenship and immigration services are u.s.s. september able to

political pressure and favoritism. our immigration system should be governed by equal application of the law, not by who has the best political connections to the director of the agency. i have given mr. mayorkas a chance to defend himself and explain the evidence which seems compelling. back in july and august i wrote several throwers mr. mayorkas outlining whistle-blower allegations and attaching some of the documents, documents that the whistle-blowers provided. i asked how he accounted for this evidence, but he has utterly failed to reply to my letters. it's been four or five months since i sent mr. mayorkas these letters. just like his personal oversight of daca, these documents show mr. mayorkas being much more directly involved in individual eb-5 cases than he has led my staff or homeland security committee to believe.

they appear to show him intervening in eb-5 decisions involving gulf coast fund management, an organization run by nobody other than hillary clinton's brother anthony rodham. this decision benefited green tact automotive, a company run by terry mcauliffe that was receiving funding from gulf coast funds management. this evidence about political influence and intervention is particularly troubling because mr. mayorkas' prior history. in 2001, mr. mayorkas had a role and a group of pardons and commutations issued by president clinton in the closing days of the second term. in 2002, a house report found that then-u.s. attorney mayorkas inappropriately sought to influence a decision regarding whether drug traffickers carlos

vinally prison sentence should be commuted. however my concerns about the allegations pending against mr. mayorkas are about more than just improper political influence. under his leadership over the last few years, the eb-5 program has grown far beyond its original intent, which i supported. it it is intended to be an avenue for foreign investors to participate in new commercial enterprises that actually create jobs in this country in exchange for a u.s. visa. the program was created as a pilot allowing regional centers to pool funds from investors to create businesses and jobs. in the process, the centers had to prove their creating those jobs that they promised to create. skeptics question if the program truly creates jocks. whistle-blowers trul truly belie they are not being vetted

enough. they say mr. mayorkas is more interested in approving applications quickly than making security checks more robust. given what we know about these security concerns inside the agency, congress needs to reexamine this program. it should serve its purpose without compromising national security. mr. mayorkas claims that he has changed the program. the only tangible change that we have seen is that additional economists vk hired and adjudicators from california were moved here to washington, d.c. yet moving the the eb-5 process increased mr. mayorkas's participation in the program. whistle-blowers have pride me with e-mails from mr. mayorkas sthaig wants to keep fraud and national security concerns about

green tech "close hold." the rule of law isn't possible when the boss has his thumbs on the scales. further, the regional center programs has national security risks that the director hasn't addressed. he convened a working group with national security advisors but no formal product was finalized. the inner agency collaborations seemed to fizzle. whistle-blowers say the working group was mere window dressing. in the agency, employees received eb-5 applications from individuals with derogatory information about them in classified government files. but they were given little or no guidance about how to make sure that such were denied. instead, they were pressured to approve applications as quickly

as possible. the integrity of the our immigration system is in question as long as the program continues without needed reforms, which could be done this very day. on the may 15, 2012, chairman leahy and i wrote to mr. mayorkas regarding the program and expand -- expressed our concerns about the potential for abuse of the pravment we asked for his commitment to administratively reform two aspects of the program. he responded that he was interested in the reforms. yet it has been these long nine -- 19 months and i has taken no action. mr. mayorkas says he is concerned with fraud and abuse in the program. but actions speak louder thank word. despite nigh recent letters with questions about fraud and security concerns, not to mention political influence, mr. mayorkas is either completely unwilling or unable to respond to the allegations. i sat down with chairman carper

on august 1 and he agreed that i deserved answers to my questions from the nominee, and now he has pressed afford without getting answers. i'm truly surprised that this majority is not interested in getting to the bottom of these allegations. in other words, something that's under investigation, in the same way that senator biden and senator obama demooned that we do -- demanded that we do during a previous presidency. if this body is unwilling to wait till the end of an investigation or if we aren't willing to conduct our own inquiry, one day will -- this whole nomination will come back to bite us. as i said with b. todd jones when he was confirmed. eventually one of these situations will embarrass the senate and damage the reputation of the federal government. if this majority is determined to ignore ongoing investigations

and at the same time ram through nominees, the american people should hold the senate accountable for not doing its constitutional job. in fact, refusing to do its constitutional job. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, madam president. i'm coming down to the floor today for just a few inins. i know our senator from ohio is seeking recognition as well, just to mark, as i have most weeks, a new number, and that number is 11,584, the number of gun deaths that america has experienced over the last year since december 14 of last year. that date is burned in the member riffmemory of those of un

connecticut because that is the date that 26 six and seven-year-olds died at sandy hook and we recognize the one-year anniversary -- "anniversary" sounds like a horrible word. since then almost 12,000 people have died at the hand of guns since then. i have tried to come down to the floor of the senate in nt in the months since to remind people that these victims have stories. i juris want ti just want to she today. we were all gripped just a few days ago by news of another school shoot being, not too far from columbine, arapaho saw another young man, very troubled, walk in with a shot gun and essentially open fire, apparently because of a grieve a

grievance i had with his debate coach. caught in the cross fire was a 17-year-old girl, clean air dairvetion an excellence student. she loved horses and recently placed second in an equestrian competition. another student said that clean air i -- that clair is one of te nicest people i've ever met. clair survived but she's snil a coma today. 17 years old. just because she was in the wrong place at her high school, a place where everyone expects you shall able to go to school in safety. she isn't on this number yet because she survived, but her life is changed forever because of yet another school shooting, school shootings that now seem to pop up on the news on a weekly basis. but it's not just these school shootings where mass violence takes place.

now you can pick up most local papers and every month see evidence of a new mass shooting. in manchester, connecticut, december 7 of this year, 4-year-old john lynn shot brittany mills, 28, kamisha mills, 23, an and atara benson before i will cannin can killin. police haven't sorted out exactly what happened. but all four are dead marking the eighth homicide stemming from partner violence since 2013. just days before in alma, arkansas, tim add damns, believed in his early 50's, before killing himself, killed his 4-month-old grandson, his

4-year-old granddaughter, and the 31-year-old boyfriend of his daughter, michael williams. in the midst of what seemed to be a pretty simple argument about his daughter's court date, which exploded into an episode of mass violence, which took the lives of a 4-month-old, a 4-year-old, a 31-year-old and then apples of these episode -- and then as many of these episodes do, the life of the shooter himself. so these episodes are not just about whaptd what happenwhat hae theaters or places of worship. they're happening in bac backyas in alma, arkansas, in parking lots in manchester, connecticut. and this body in the 360-some-odd days since december 14 has done absolutely nothing about it.

and the survivors of these incidents of violence are the story that we don't talk enough about. i've come down here to tell you the story today of clair davis and brittany mills and kamisha mills and atara benson and chaseton adams and michael williams. they all died by gun shots but they left behind children and parents and neighbors who are scarred for life. psychologists will tell you that when a shooting occurs, there are at least ten people who experience life-altering trauma. and what we know is that episodes of trauma just don't affect you up here. they affect your entire body. we have new developing evidence that show that children that are -- that experience multiple episodes of trauma in their life and they frankly don't have to be as grave or as serious as a shooting are physical logically affected for the rest of their

life. people who witness ma and experience -- who witness trauma anand experience trauma die earlier, let alone have episodes from post-traumatic stress. so the spill joarvetion the ripple effects of these 11,000 deaths frankly represent a number that can't even fit on a chart like this. and there's no simple solution, madam president. i know that sometimes it seems like the only thing we come down here tawngdz about are stricter -- here and talk about are stricter gun laws. i don't see any reason why we don't require stricter background checks before they're purchased or say that the dangerous assault weapons should stay out of people who aren't in law enforcement or the military. but that's not the beginning or end of the conversation. this young man who walked into arapaho high school, carl

peerson, started shooting the place up because he was upset about his place on the debate team. he apparently had had a history of discipline incidents at that school, but he clearly had some serious issues in mental illness inside him that was not being identified and treated. and oskt same thing can be -- and of course the same thing can be said of adam lanza and now the long list of mass shooters across this country. we absolutely have to put more resources into our mental health system. and i appreciate my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have said, yeah, we're not willing to go with you when it comes to background checks or assault weapons, but we'll work with you on mental health funding. well, in order to do that, you actually have to put the moing t the money behind the system. we've closed down 4,00,000

facilities with mental health beds. the federal government is pulling funds from the visa programs that can identify these individuals before they perpetrate incidents of mass violence. so there is an illusion of bipartisan support around the issue of mental health, even while we have these disagreements on gun laws and yet there isn't agreement because when you're fighting over the budget, when republicans are calling for massive cuts to programs like medicaid or the mental health block grant, then they're undermining the very programs that actually help identify people and help people like carl pearson or like adam lanza. and so enough is enough. i'll be down here after the holiday, and that number will now be over 12,000 -- 12,000

individuals, many of them little girls and boys like those represented on this chart, like daniel bardon and dillon hockley. and back in newtown, out of respect for the families who are just tired from 365 days of grieving, there was no big public remembrance on saturday. there was a smawcialtion private care -- there was a small, private ceremony that i had the honor of attending at the church where so many children were parishioners. as tired as that community is, they also were bewildered in newtown. because they went up to the state capital in connecticut and got laws passed that will prevent these kind of episodes of mass violence in the future. they came down to washington and while they got a lot of meetings, they got absolutely no progress -- zilch, zip, nada as

we head into 2013, madam president, i hope that the memory of these little boys and girls won't fade. -- as we getted beyond the one-year mark of san day hook. and my hope will be that people will start paying attention to this number, creeping up to 12,000 deaths. and will recognize that while this number simply represents the number of people who have died, there are all sorts of people out there like clair davis who survived but survived gun incidents with injuries that will cripple them for the rest of their lives and there are hundreds of thousands of more people who surround these incidents of violence, who have their lives changed forever because of the flaw they experience. -- trauma they've experienced. all of these victims, whether they were killed in the incident or were part of the collateral

damage, they have voices, voices that should command this place sometime soon to action. i yield back the floor. mr. whitehouse: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president, may i ask consent to speak as if in morning business for up to 20 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you very much, madam president. this is my 53rd time for consecutive weeks that we're in session that i've come to the floor to speak about climate change and to urge my colleagues that it is time to wake up. these speeches aren't easy and a great deal of effort goes into assisting me with research and crafting of them. and i am particularly grateful for the hard work of dr. todd

bianco in helping notice prepare them. he's the fellow sitting on the other side of the sign looking embarrassed that i've just called him out. todd joined my office in september 2012 as a geological society of america u.s. geological survey congress science fellow, and he has contributed considerable scientific understanding and analytical rigor to our work. his ability to interpret the latest climate research has helped me to convey complex scientific concepts both accurately and in a way that is accessible and meaningful to policy makers and the public. you may be used to seeing him with me here on the floor for each week's speech, but he's also been effective in researching legislation and preparing for hearings in the environment and public works committee. i say this because this week marks the end of todd's fellowship and he will soon return home to rhode island with

his wife allison. allison bianco, by the way, is a very talented artist whose work reflects our deep human connection to the natural world. so in addition to lending us todd, allison has also lent us some of her artwork which is hung on display in my front office. so in addition to thanking todd for his efforts, i also want to thank allison. todd, like me, is an overmarried human being. i wish them both the best of luck back home and i thank todd for his work in the united states senate to advance responsible public policy grounded firmly in the best science. and, madam president, it is time at last for congress to heed that best science and act responsibly. it is time to wake up.

denying and delaying is irresponsible. in the judgment of history it will ultimately, i believe, be shameful. carbon pollution from the burning of fossil fuels is altering the climate. the consensus around this fact within the scientific community is overwhelming. and public awareness of this crisis is growing stronger. and interestingly, it's gron stronger across party lines. republicans might want to listen to this. a survey conducted for the league of conservation voters found that more than half of young republican voters, 53% of republicans under the age of 3 35 -- 53% -- would describe a politician who denies climate change is happening as -- and i

quote -- "ignorant, out of tou touch, or crazy." 53% of republicans under 35 view that kind of climate denial as ignorant, out of touch, or crazy. well, even though a majority of young republicans understand that denying climate change is out of touch with reality, republicans in congress refuse to get serious. why? well, another national survey, this one by the pew research center, found that most, 61% of non-tea party republicans actually agree -- actually agree -- there is solid evidence the earth is warming. with a plurality saying it is mostly because of humans.

but the tea partiers are different. 70% of tea partiers, contrarily, say there is -- quote -- "no solid evidence the earth is warming." and 41% of tea partiers assert that warming is just not happening. not that we don't have enough information yet, but it's just not happening. just not happening? regardless of what you think the cause of this is, there are legion independent measurements that the earth is warming. this isn't a theory. we measure that the temperature of the atmosphere and oceans is rising. we measure that snow, ice caps and glaciers are melting. we measure that seas are rising. we measure that the very seasons are shifting.

i mean, it's one thing to be the party that's against science. the tea partiers would make it the party against measurement. just as the tea partiers led the republicans off the government shutdown cliff, just as the tea partiers tried to defeat the budget deal most republicans supported, so the tea party wants to lead the republican party off the climate cliff. outside these walls it is different. responsible republican voices more and more acknowledge the threat of climate change and call for responsible solutions. many want to correct the market failure that aids and abets the polluters' irresponsible practices. my colleagues, representative henry waxman, representative

earl bloomenauer, senator schatz and i, have put forward just such a revenue-neutral fee on carbons emissions, the revenues of which would be returned back to the american people. here within congress, where the polluters' money flows so abundantly, no republican colleague has come forward to join us. but outside of congress, here are some of the responsible voices in the republican party. former south carolina representative bob englis has long urged his party to get serious on climate change. in an article in "the duke environmental law and policy forum" this year, mr. englis invoked the tenets of conservative economics. he wrote, "if you're a conservative, it is time step forward and engage in the

climate and energy debate because we have the answer -- free enterprise. conservatives understand that we must set the correct incentives and this should include internalizing pollution and other environmental costs in our market system. we tax income but we don't taxi missionmission -- tax emissions. it makes sense to conservatives to take the tax off something you want more of -- income -- and shift the tax to something you want less of -- emissions. that was bob englis. and that's exactly how you used his words, do you it with a carbon fee. sherwood boler and wayne gilchrest, former republican representatives from new york and virginia, in a joint february 2012 "washington post" op-ed with representative waxman

and senator markey, made the fiscal case for a carbon fee. here's what they said. "the debate over how to reduce our nation's debt has been presented as a dilemma between cutting spending on programs americans cherish or raising taxes on american job creators. but there is a better way. we could slash our debt by making power plants and oil refineries pay for the carbon emissions that endanger our health and environment. this policy would strengthen our economy, lessen our dependence on foreign oil, keep our skies clean, and raise a lot of revenue. the best approach," they continue, "would be to use a market mechanism, such as the sale of carbon allowances or a fee on carbon pollution, to lower emissions and increase

revenue." for one former republican member of this body, the threat of climate change has serious professional implications. as secretary of defense, it's chuck hagel's job to account for all hazards to our national security and our interests in the world. he gave this clear-eyed assessment at the halifax international security forum just last month. here's what he wrote. "climate change does not directly cause conflict but it can significantly add to the challenges of global instability, hunger, poverty, and conflict. food and water shortages, pandemic disease, disputes over refugees and resources, more severe natural disasters -- all place additional burdens on economies, societies and institutions around the world. the effects of climate change and new energy resources are far-reaching and unpredictable,

demanding our attention and strategic thinking." top advisors to former republican presidents have joined this chorus of republicans speaking out on climate and urging a carbon fee. republican presidents listened to these men and women. who knows? maybe republican members of congress will listen to them also. william d. ruckleshouse, lee thomas, william k. riley and christine todd whitman all headed the environmental protection agency during republican administrations. they spoke with one voice in an august "new york times" op-ed. they wrote -- "as administrators of the e.p.a. under president's richard m. nixon, ronald reagan, george bush, and george w. bush, we held fast to commonsense conservative principles,

protecting the health of the american people, working with the best technology available, and trusting in the innovation of american business and in the market, to find the best solutions for the least cost. these former republican officials recognize both the wisdom of properly pricing carbon and as well the obstinant opposition that stands in the way of progress in congress. they continued in their articl article -- i quote -- "a market-based approach, like a carbon tax, would be the best path to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. but that is unachievable in the current political gridlock in washington. but we must continue efforts to reduce the climate altering pollutants that threaten our planet. the only uncertainty," they say, "the only uncertainty about how

our warming world" -- i'm sorry. "the only uncertainty about our warming world is how bad the changes will get and how soon. what is most clear is that there is no time to waste. they could even have said that it's time to wake up." george schultz, another prominent republican, served as secretary of both labor and treasury under president nixon and secretary of state under president reagan. he, too, is calling for an end to the polluters' free ride. in an april op-ed with nobel economist gary becker that appeared in "real clear politics," george schultz appealed to our american sense of fairness, writing, "americans like to compete on a level playing field. all the players should have an equal opportunity to win based on their competitive merits, not

on some artificial imbalance that gives someone or some group a special advantage. we think this idea should be applied to energy producers. they all should bear the full costs of the use of the energy they provide." let me repeat that. "they all should bear the full costs of the use of the energy they provide." clearly, schultz continued, "a revenue-neutral carbon tax would benefit all americans by eliminating the need for costly energy subsidies while promoting a level playing field for energy producers." veterans of a much more recent republican administration are likewise acknowledging the appeal of a carbon fee proposal. david frumm, speechwriter to george w. bush, wrote in a december, 2012, cnn com op-ed

that a carbon fee that help address number of other pressing issues. here's what he wrote. take three worrying long-term challenges -- climate change, the weak economic recovery and america's chronic budget deficits. combine them into one, and suddenly three tough problems become one attractive solution. tax carbon. the revenues from a carbon tax could be used to reduce the deficit, while also extending new forms of payroll tax relief to middle-class families, thus supporting middle-class family incomes. gregory mancu, economic advisor to george w. bush and mitt romney, specifically highlighted our carbon fee proposal in an august op-ed in "the new york times."

our bill, he wrote, is more effective and less invasive than the regulatory approach that the federal government has traditionally pursued. speaking of us, he said if the democratic sponsors conceded to using the new revenue to reduce personal and corporate income tax rates, a bipartisan compromise is possible to imagine. among economists, he concluded, the issue is largely a no-brainer. well, i say to mr. mancu, as one of the democratic sponsors, we are very interested in a bipartisan compromise. we just need a republican to come to the negotiating table, and we can begin. that is what the american people want. it's what voters want, and it's what responsible state and local leaders want as well.

take, for example, jim brainart, a five-term republican mayor of caramel, -- of carmel, indiana. in an op-ed this month, brainard implored republicans and democrats alike to face up to the reality of climate change. here's what mayor brainard said. this issue isn't just about saving our polar bears, it's about saving our cities. no matter your politics, there is overwhelming evidence of climate change, and we as a nation have a moral obligation to address these issues, a moral obligation to address these issues. for himself, he says he plans to urge the federal government to take a stronger leadership role in helping our cities prepare for what is certainly coming our way. madam president, there are a lot

of republicans out there who are awake to the threat of climate change and to the win-win benefits of pricing carbon and using the revenues to invest in tax reductions and adaptation and other ways to protect ourselves and advance our economy. unfortunately, here in congress, the dark, heavy hand of the polluters is helping the tea party drive the republican party off the cliff. one day, the republican party will pay a heavy price for this, and that day may be soon. they need to make the change. it is the responsibility of congress to heed the warnings of environmental calamity, to stamp out market distortions that favor polluters and to steer this country on a prudent,

reasonable path toward a proud future that is both sustainable and equitable. it is time, madam president, for congress to wake up. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: madam president, i rise today to talk about the budget agreement that's before the united states senate. we had a vote today on moving ahead to that legislation, and i supported that movement, the cloture vote, and i supported the cloture vote and will support the underlying budget agreement because it does take modest steps to reduce the deficit. it does so without raising taxes. it also relieves some of the sequester's worst impact on our national security. and it also prevents another government shutdown, next month, but also next year. i also support it because it's

time for us to have a budget around here, and we have not had a budget for four years. it would enable us to begin the process of having appropriations bills again, and in the appropriations process, of course, you have oversight over the federal departments and agencies, and you prioritize spending, which is really important. among other things, this will give us the opportunity to root out some of the waste and fraud and actually determine what programs are working and not working to be able to use the power of the purse that congress has to help be sure that taxpayer funds are being used efficiently and effectively. as members know here, this agreement was the culmination of what's called a budget conference committee between the house and the senate, so it was democrats and republicans but also the house and senate coming together. that has not happened in four years. so we haven't had a budget in four years. we haven't had a budget conference in four years. and you think about that, is it any wonder that during those

four years, congress has racked up historic debts and deficits. the deficits of the past four years have been the largest deficits in the history of our country, and one reason is we haven't had the discipline that comes with having a budget and being sure that there is some accountability for the spending. we haven't made the hard choices that our constituents have to make every day -- how much to spend, what to spend it on. that's what a budget is supposed to do. now, this budget agreement that will be voted on this week is far from perfect. there are a lot of things i don't like about it. in fact, i just supported the attempt to amend it here on the floor of the senate to improve it. but i do believe that with a divided congress, republicans in charge in the house, democrats in charge in the senate, it was the best we could hope for. no tax increases, as the democrats wanted. we just heard from one of my colleagues talking about more taxes needed, but no tax

increases in this budget agreement. actual deficit reduction. although i will acknowledge the deficit reduction is way too small. it's about $22 billion in deficit reduction over ten years compared to existing law. it does provide some sequester relief for the department of defense. the department of defense was facing across-the-board sequester cuts which are kind of arbitrary across-the-board cuts of about $20 billion starting on january 15 and over the next few months. this relief is very important to our military. we've heard from them. it's important to our readiness. it's important to our troops. it's important to wright-patterson air force base in ohio and other bases around the country. it's important to our war fighters who around the globe tonight are putting their lives on the line for us. so i think that sequester relief for the department of defense that's in this budget agreement was important. while this might be the best two-year budget agreement that is imaginable in a time of

divided government like we have, with all of the dysfunction here in this town, it is certainly not the comprehensive agreement that the american people deserve. through this agreement, congress has now accomplished really the bare minimum of what the american people should be able to expect from congress. after all, congress does have, as i said earlier, the power of the purse. that's in the constitution. every dime has to be appropriated by the united states congress. we should be the ones determining how taxpayer dollars are spent. you certainly need a budget. there are some who took to the floor today and will tomorrow, i am sure, who are going to say this is a great budget agreement, it's a sign of how washington can work, how things get done, how we can come together to fix the problem. fair enough. we avoided a government shutdown. and yes, we're not going to gut national security, and yes, we will have a small deficit reduction, again about $22 billion, but let's be honest about the opportunity that congress missed this week with this budget agreement.

when it comes to the real, very real budget and fiscal problems we face as a country, when it comes to the mandatory spending, that's the two-thirds of the budget that's on auto pilot. that's the part that's driving our country toward bankruptcy, threatening to undermine really important vital programs like social security, medicare and medicaid. we've done nothing in this budget agreement, nothing on that side of the ledger. we have kicked the can down the road one more time, missed the opportunity. and as we all know, unless we address these fiscal problems, the day of reckoning is coming. this is a pie chart of federal spending that will kind of show you where we are relative to 1965 when mandatory spending -- this is the part again that congress does not appropriate every year. it's on auto pilot, was 34% of the budget. defense 43%, domestic discretionary 23%. here's where we are today.

mandatory spending 66% of the budget. from 34% to 66%. remember, this is social security, medicare, medicaid. also interest on the debt. by the way, defense spending has gone from 43% down to 18%, and yet the sequester takes most of the savings disproportionately out of defense, which is one reason this budget agreement was needed. so we have seen a big growth in the mandatory spending. and by the way, over the next ten years, it goes from 66% to 76%. what does that mean? that means it crowds out discretionary spending. defense spending, research spending, education spending, infrastructure spending, that's what's happening. so our deficits are going to record highs over the coming couple of decades, and mandatory spending is exploding, and it's squeezing the other spending in our budget. over the next decade, the federal government is going to collect revenue of about

$40 trillion, spend about $46 trillion, run a deficit of $6.3 trillion. over the next ten years, another $6.3 trillion on top of the $17 trillion debt. in that tenth year, by the way, 2023, the best-case scenario has a projected deficit, annual deficit of nearly a trillion dollars. $895 billion for one year. and by the way, that assumes no wars, it assumes a decade of prosperity, it assumes ten years of historically low interest rates, quite a rosy scenario. if any of these factors fall through, things could be much, much worse, well over a trillion dollars. and this is not a problem that can be solved by just cutting discretionary spending. over the next ten years, washington will spend more than $22 trillion on these vital

programs, medicare, medicaid and social security. if we were to cut our defense budget over the next decade all the way down to zero, have no defense spending at all, zero, we could pay for just one quarter of that cost of the $22 trillion. if we removed every penny of potentially identifiable waste in government -- which we should do, by the way, and that's why we need to get back to appropriations, but if we did that, if we removed every penny of every potentially identifiable waste in government, we could pay for less than 10% of this smoke detectorring cost on the mandatory side. if we pulled out of iraq and afghanistan today, ended all bailouts in corporate welfare, reversed the tax cuts for all americans making $450,000 a year that we kept as part of the cliff agreement, if we repealed obamacare, if we did all those things, we would recover just 20% of the cost of all those programs, just $22 trillion. in other words, even if we wanted to try to do it, by

cutting this spending, we couldn't do it because there is not enough money in that part of the budget. so it's not just a matter of choosing spending priorities, and it's certainly not a matter of raising taxes. my colleague earlier talked about how we need to raise more taxes for different things. i understand a lot of people are saying that. but let's be honest about this. it's a bad idea at a time of a weak economy to raise taxes anyway, plus over the next decade, do you know what happens on taxes? over the next decade, we're told by the congressional budget office taxes will be as a percent of the economy, which is the way you ought to look at it, economists tell us, taxes will be at historically high levels, historically high levels. so the economy is already weak, tax revenues are headed toward their highest sustained levels in history, and when it comes to taxes, there's an alternative,

which is let's reform the tax code. what we should be doing is restraining spending, reforming these vital but unsustainable programs and also raising more revenue through growth and economic growth can come through tax reform. that tax reform gives the economy a shot in the arm, it helps bring back the jobs, it increases revenue through growth, and that's why we need both entitlement reform and tax reform. the issue of entitlement reform is a tough one politically, and a lot of members of congress are hesitant to touch it. it is called the third rail of american politics. the electrified rail in the new york rail system, where if you touch it, you are electrified. let's start small. how about means testing of medicare? this could be a first step in the right direction. under medicare, the average two-earner couple retiring