existing policies and procedures, d.h.s. o.i.g. recommended the developing memorandum of understanding with the department of commerce, labor, and the s.e.c. to provide expertise and involvement in the adjudication of applications and petitions for the eb-5 regional center program. a third recommendation in the draft report related to the failure of the agency to maintain any metric whether the program was actually achieving its intended purpose. the dsigs acertified that director mayorkas should stimulate how the funds have stimulated the economy nowrns with the intent of the program. that hasn't been done. fine laicialg thfinally, the drt directs mr. mayorkas to institute quality control steps to ensure that regional centers comply with the code of federal regulations. the implication there is that they don't.

all of these recommendations raise serious concerns about the way director mayorkas was overseeing the eb-5 program and in turn should be considered as a qualifying factor to determine his fitness to be second-in-command in charge at the department of homeland security. to summarize, we know that the national security staff and the department of homeland security conducted reviews of the investor visa program that mr. mayorkas has been overseeing since 2009. these reviews found that the program created a danger to national security, including the threat of exploitation by spies, criminals, and other national security threats. i and others have asked for more information about the potential national security vulnerabilities in the program and we have received no answers. what we do know is that director mayorkas dramatically expanded a program that the administration, even d.h.s., believes for a threat to national security.

and according to a draft report by the inspector general, he did not take the actions that he should have taken that were at his disposal to fix these vulnerabilities and make sure that this visa program wasn't bringing spies, terrorists and other threats into the country. finally, i would say that this vote is not fair to the department of homeland security. d.h.s. is the agency we trust to secure our borders, make our skies safe and help our nation protect ourselves from terrorism. we know that the department has faced many challenges and has often struggled to execute its responsibility over the past ten years since its inception. and d.h.s. has had some of the lowest morale in the government. this week the senate voted with strong bipartisan support to approve jeh johnson's nomination to be the secretary of d.h.s. i was proud to support his nomination. he's the kind of leader that d.h.s. needs to help it address its many challenges and to

fulfilfull-- to fulfill its misf making our nation a strong. it is this body's job to vet those leaders to ensure their beyond reproach. with a cloud of this investigation with many of our unanswered questions about director mayorkas's tenure, we do not have full confidence that he should be in second schand at d.h.s. by voting on him now, this body is sending the wrong message to all d.h.s. employees. right now we cannot -- let me repeat -- we cannot determine whether mr. mayorkas is fit or unfit for this important position. and then finally i would say that this vote is not fair to the american people. in confirming the nominee for such an important position who has not been properly vetted, the american public depends on us to fulfill our constitutional

mandate, to properly advise the president on certain executive branch nominees. here we are not doing that. we are not doing that. in fact, we are voting to install a nominee that could be seen as unfit to serve in the number-two position at d.h.s. he may be fit, but this agency is tasked with protecting our country from terrorists. it is our responsibility to guarantee to the american public the leaders at d.h.s. are beyond reproach. in this vote, leader reid is not only ignoring the rights of the minority, but the long-standing precedent of the senate. he's ignoring history and he's inchviting us all to do the same -- and he's inviting us all to do the same. but history has a wai way of teaching us lessons. it is up to the senate to remember these lessons so the country does not have to suffer geng anagain and again.

those who are going to vote for mr. mayorkas do so at the rick of not -- at the risk of not knowing what the investigation shows. they also do so at the risk of obviating their oath that they swore when they came to this body to fairly and appropriately evaluate their decisions about advise and consent. my hope is that mr. mayorkas is clear. but, unfortunately, he won't have my vote and several of my colleagues because we don't have the information with which to make that judgment. with that, i yield the floor. mr. inhofe: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: madam president, let me first of all acknowledge that at 11:15 tonight we're going to be voting on the national defense authorization act. this is one -- this is a must-pass bill, it is one that has passed prior to december 31

every year for the last 53 years. so it is very significant that -- and i think people are tired of hearing about it because they recognize the significance and the enact it has to be done now -- and the fact that it has to be done now. i originally came down, madam president, to talk about in my state of oklahoma the problems that we are having with individuals. and i have a long list of people from all throughout the state who have talked about their insurance being canceled, talking about the increase in the deductibles, in the cost of insurance, and about the crisis that we're facing in the state of oklahoma with obamacare. now, since i just found out there are several senators who want to talk about their states, i will merely submit for the record a list of individuals who are having a very serious problem in my state of oklahoma with obamacare. and so i ask unanimous consent

that be included in the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: instead of that i just want to mention one thing that is -- has been overlooked in this debate. i mentioned it once b a lot of people have not recognized that. that is, the ultimate goal of obamacare -- and this has come from the leaders on the democratic side including the president of the united states -- would be a single-payer system. a single-payer system is socialized medicine. it's kind of interesting. i remember back when we had hillary health care back in the recallly 190'early 1990's, if ik in sweden, denmark, canada, the u.k., why would it work here? they never say it but they were thinking, if i were running it, it would work here. so, anyway, that's the ultimate goal. and i want to are share a personal experience, then i'll yield to th the rest of the members. i had a personal experience two months asmght i went in for a

colonoscopy, just a routine thing. after checking me, and going through the thing, they came and said, well, i have good news and bad news. i said, all right, it is what? the good news is your colon is fine. the bad news is, you're about to die because you have destruction -- 100% obstruction in two valves, 90% in two other valves -- art rirks i shoul arteries, e other arteries. any washings so anyway, i had ey bypasses. if i had been in the u.k. at my age, there would be a mandatory six-month waiting period, and i wouldn't be standing here today. if i had been -- i think it was canada, it's two years. so all of these -- it lets you know that ultimately -- and i've heard from our good friends, the doctors that are members of the senate, like senator barrasso, talking about what is happening in these other countries.

i was visiting with jackie davidson just a few minutes ago, who is scheduled for open-heart surgery on this monday. i was talking to about how much easier it was that inthought it was going to be. but the point is this: the same thing happened with my wife. at a certain age, if you are to have this, in these countries, you are denied the opportunity to have surgery. and so that, to me, i think needs to be back in our minds as we talk about the current problems we're having with obamacare and the fact that what the ultimate goal is -- and lastly i'll say, i have been contacted by two of my good friends who are members of parliament from the u.k. they asked me the question, why is it that you in your country are now trying to adopt something that we're traig to get away from -- we're trying to get away from here in the u.k.? there is one big overriding problem. if we cave in now, we will be

reaching. with thairks yield to my colleagues who want to speak. mr. thune:er i know my colleagues have come down here. we've done this on several occasions. because most of us are get being e-mails and phone calls and letters in our offices of real-world, real-life experiences that people are having with obamacare. and it's a reminder that the things that we do here have real-world impacts out there across the country. and i know, as someone who represents the state of south dakota, i have come down heard and shared a number of -- come down here and shared a number of stories of constituents of mine who have been impacted by higher premiums, canceled coverage, higher deductibles, all things that are doing great economic harm to the people in our respective states. so i just want to share quickly here a note that i got from a constituent in rapid city, south dafnlg he says "as my congressional representative, you need to know how obamacare is harming life and health care. my insurance company canceled my policy. i'm currently paying over $800 a

month for a family of four. if i sign up for obamacare, i would be paying over $2,500 a month. i cannot think of any way that this is considered affordable health care." madam president, this is just another of many examples that i have from my state of south dakota, that my colleagues have, that point out why this flaw is flawed -- this law is flawed, the economic harm it is doing to the american people, why it is so important that we here in the united states senate take steps to change this and do it soon before it is too late. a senator: madam president? mr. johnson: madam president? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. johnson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mr. johnson: madam president, like the senator from south

dakota, our office continues to get e-mails and phone calls and contacts from our constituents. tonight i'd like to read an e-mail we received from david and shannon mckitchen. they write, "i am trying to contact you with very little left to do. my wife and i, as of of i ha to, received a notice that our health policy is going up from $389 a month to $1,177 per mon month." that's more than 200% increase. basically, it is going from $4,600 per year to $14,000 per year. this is for the same level we have, which is an h.s.a. policy, $5,000 maximum out-of-pocket per year. this policy works for us, as we both self-employed small business owners. we have been hammered during the economic downturn and this is the straw that breaks the came

camel's back. we feel that our government is attacking us, and we have nowhere to turn. we are both in our mid-50's, and if things stay the same, we'll be without health insurance. i have always provided for my own needs, but this is making things impossible. please advise. what are we to do? please fight for us and know we do not have a voice without you. i was a city council representative for 15 years and always fought for the working man, but i now know that it is become ago losing battle -- becoming a losing battle." madam president, this is just one eafntle last week i was on the floor and i read a umin of e-mails with comments saying things like, you need to understand how cheated we feel. this is not right. i cannot afford this. why are we being forced to change to a plan that has benefits we don't need?

please help. circumstance i asir, iblg i'm b. this is unfair and hurting working families. this law is hurting us. be our voice. we need our help. i guess we are the collateral damage? why are they trying to destroy us in the process? we are scared. madam president, we are hearing the voice of the american people. we are hearing the voice of wisconsinites. the senate must hear the voice of the american people and act. the sooner the better. i yield the floor. mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: pliek my colleagues and like i have done several times before, i come to the floor to share the voice of one of many iowans who have contacted me over the sticker shock that they're experiencing under the affordable care act.

so this time i quote a constituent from sioux county, iowa, northwest iowa. that constituent writes, and i quote, "i am a pastor in rural iowa, and early this past summer, trusting naively in the integrity of our president's repeated promise that if you like your health insurance you can keep it, period, i made a change in my policy. moving to a higher deductible to save the church money. now i have been informed that because of that change, my policy is no longer grandfathered, and therefore i will be forced out of it in a year and compelled to purchase a more expensive, unaffordable care act-compliant policy. i am young, male, healthy and will not qualify for any

subsidy. in effect, because of legislation democrats supported, my government is kicking me off from health coverage that i carefully researched, chose and like a lot and forcing me to buy coverage that i do not need at a price i scarcely can afford, and the government has the audacity to resort to the orwellian doublespeak and call such a draconian policy the affordable care act. please convey to your democratic colleagues that i grew up on a dairy farm and now pastor a church of farmers. i am the epitome of middle-class america that they claim to champion. this bill is unjust. it is based on lies to americans like myself. it hurts real people, including the church i serve, end of

quote. i have done my job, mr. president. i have shared this constituent's message with my colleagues as he asked me to do. i hope that they were listening. i yield the floor. mr. barrasso: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, i join my colleagues on the floor tonight to tell stories of what we are hearing from our constituents at home, and i would say, madam president, that the -- the newspaper from madam president's home state, "the new york times," this morning, front-page story, uninsured, uninsured skeptical of health care law in poll. this whole law was passed to try to deal with issues of the uninsured. this article on the front page of today's "new york times" says 53% of the uninsured disapprove of the law. 53% of the uninsured disapprove

of the law. then they go through some of the numbers, and it looks like the same number of people who think they will be helped, an equal number of people who are uninsured think they will actually be hurt by this law. another headline, "wall street journal," "errors continue to plague health site." but the health care web site is just the tip of the iceberg. sure, there have been web site failures, but the thing that is hurting americans all around the country are the higher premiums that the senator from iowa talked about, the canceled coverage that the senator from iowa talked about, people who can't keep their doctor in spite of the president's promise, fraud and identity theft and higher co-pays and deductibles which we now know are actually going to be higher after the law has been passed, specifically for the bronze policies, than they were all last year before the law came into effect. so i'd like to share a letter from a -- a woman in carbon

county, wyoming, who writes about the harmful effect of the health care law for her life and for her health care. she says -- "i currently have health insurance through thigh husband's employer, but the reality is that the current health insurance we -- that we have may not be available much longer. this is scary to me since i recently did some insurance shopping for my mother." she said her mother is 63 years old and in good health. she said i was only able to get two quotes. the cheapest quote was for $756 a month, with a $6,000 deductible. so we see higher premiums and we see higher co-pays and deductibles. the prescription deductible for that particular plan was also $500, and then the co-pay for the prescription was still around $35. the other quote seemed like a better plan and had better

co-pay on prescriptions, but that premium was $985 a month. that is also with the $6,000 deductible. she says what the heck, who can afford these kinds of premiums? this is more than most mortgage payments. yet, madam president, the president of the united states said if you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage. if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. went on national tv, sat with bill clinton a few days before the web site was opened, and he said it's going to be easier to use than amazon, cheaper than your cell phone bill, and if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. it's fascinateing that the president was so clueless about his own law, and here we are today, people suffering all around the country and the president doing nothing about it. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.

mr. burr: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: madam president, i came to the floor last week, and for 45 minutes i pulled this folder out of my desk. it was my notes that i talked about in 2009 about the affordable care act before it became law. it talked about the increases that were projected in premiums, the deductibles. it talked about the networks that were changed, the doctors that wouldn't be available. you know, i wasn't a prophet. i was reporting what people reich the chief actuary were saying at c.m.s. at the time. hospitals were going to close, doctors weren't going to take benefits under the new plan, and more importantly the premiums and deductibles were going to become unaffordable, not affordable. i'm here tonight to read a letter from donna holter in clemens, north carolina, right in the middle of the state. she said -- "we own a small

automotive repair shop and have had continuous health insurance coverage our entire life, either through our company for the past several years on the individual market. we learned that our high deductible plan with a health savings account was not grandfathered into the affordable care act about four months ago. of course, at that time no pricing was available. we were paying $679 per month and felt that we were protected from catastrophic sickness, injury, and we liked the flexibility the health savings account provided in meeting our other expenses like dental and optical. we checked with blue cross once the costs for new silver plans they are mapping us to was available, and it's going to cost $1,379 per month. what a shock to the system, and

i'm not at all sure it has as much coverage as what we are losing. i'm pretty much a deer in the headlights, not knowing where we're going to turn, afraid to get onto the a.c.a. web site and give my information because i don't trust the security of it. it's totally foreign to me to apply for government subsidies for something we have always paid for and never depended on government to help us. this goes against everything we believe in being a hardworking, independent person. there are problems with health care and with costs. no doubt, but this is not making it more affordable, and from what i am hearing, doctors are retiring early and not taking these new policies. i feel like i'm spinning the wheels of my brain trying to find out the right way to go. this has pulled the rug from under my family." madam president, we're now

within three days of what was the cutoff. we have now extended the enrollment period to the end of march. but insurers are required april april 1-april 27 of 2014 to submit their pricing for 2015, and i have heard the folks talk about, well, this is only about 8% of the american people that this applies to in 2014. in 2015, it's all the american people. it's big business, it's small business, and you know what's going to happen when they price those products with no experience with the risk pool this year? prices are going to go up, deductibles are going to go up. if you think it's unaffordable this year, wait until you see what hits the 90% of the american people in 2015. it's time for us to change this. it's time for us to fix it. it's time for us to get an affordable health care policy in

place in this country. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: thank you, madam president. as a result of obamacare, millions will be forced to use money that they would have used to pay rent, help their children attend college or invest in a business. instead, they're going to have to use that money to pay for higher premiums and skyrocketing deductibles. here's one such example from huntsville, arkansas, which is in the congressional district which i used to represent when i was in the house. this constituent writes about how he and his family must have to take drastic steps to be able to afford the cost of obamacare, not the least of which includes returning to work after retiring last year. the email reads -- "i have never before contacted a senator until

today. sir, i am outraged about the obamacare issue and the affordable care act. because of recent developments over the affordable health care act and the obvious problematic issues related to its operation, policy and implementation, we are selling two of our vehicles to save money. this is due to the direct impact of this legislation and due to the broken promises of president barack obama that have been repeated over and over to us for three years. we are also canceling our cable tv in order to save about $1,500 per year. we are cutting back on internet and switching to save another $1,000 per year. we are christmas shopping in january. our purchase of a new vehicle is now delayed for another three years. our planned vacation trips for 2014 and beyond are being pared back. this is the number one issue

that i'm hearing from arkansasans. the high cost, in some cases the unaffordable costs of obamacare. it is interesting as we hear other members of the senate come and read the same types of emails, the same types of letters that they're getting, they all have the same thing. they are put in positions that are simply untenable. they simply don't have the money to afford the so-called new insurance that they needed as their old insurance was dropped from them. now, we need health care reform, but obamacare certainly isn't the answer. we need to transition the affordable based private insurance market towards ones that allow for flexibility, choice, portability and fairness. let's allow small business owners to pull together to purchase group insurance, introduce portability into the market. these are things that we need to do and continue to do. some of these things are actually in the affordable care

act, and yet the reality is we can do that without a trillion dollars of increased taxes and rapidly because of the way that the business community is responding, making this a nation of part-time employees. we need to allow individuals to purchase insurance across state lines. we need to expand health savings accounts and flexible savings accounts. these are free market reforms that would drive down costs. the problem that we had prior to introducing the affordable care act was affordability, and what's happened is instead of driving down costs, we have driven up costs dramatically because of the way that the bill was structured. we also need medical malpractice reform. i am an opt tom terrorist by -- i am an optometrist by training, and i can tell you there are

people all over the country that have to take care of patients that have to do things that are above and beyond the things they feel they need to do in order to protect themselves, and as a result there is no ifs, ands or buts, that definitely drives costs. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: madam president, good evening. i had not anticipated coming to the floor tonight to talk about health care in this country, but i feel compelled to do so after listening to a number of our colleagues share with us letters, messages from folks who -- whose lives have been adversely affected, apparently because of changes made in the coverage of their health care through the affordable care act. i -- and i regret -- i regret

that any of the consequences that have been shared with us here this evening. my hope is that we will find ways over the next -- the coming weeks and coming months to address the kind of concerns that have been raised, but i wish i'd heard some of that concern in past years as we prepare to take up the affordable care act. in the finance committee where i serve, i wish i heard those kind of concerns about millions, tens of millions of people in this country who really don't have any health care coverage tonight, some 40 million. follower a lot of them -- for a lot of them health care is a chance to go to the hospital. when they get really sick they go to the hospital. it is hugely expensive ultimately for the rest of us

because we pay for it. where's the outcry on behalf of those tens of millions of people? and where was the outcry four years ago when we had several million people who signed up for medicare prescription drug program and found that when their purchases of prescription medicines reach a certain level, $3,000, $4,000 a year, instead of medicare paying 75% of the cost for their medicines beyond that in a year, medicaid paid nothing. that's the doughnut hole. a lot of people fell into it. a lot of older people fell into it and they couldn't afford the medicines they needed to stay well or stay out of the hospital. where was the outcry on behalf of fixing that problem? where was the outcry on behalf of millions of young people who when they turned 22 they were dropped off of their parents' health insurance plans. they aged out.

where was the outcry in those cases? we had republican and democratic presidents have had a chance for years, for decades to do something about the fact that we spend twice as much money for health care as the rest of the world; don't necessarily get better results and don't cover everybody. frankly, i didn't hear a lot of outtkpraoeu my friends -- outcry from my friends on the other side of the aisle during those years. as much as we heard the stories tonight, i wish the sympathy, empathy for the folks from whom they heard, i wish that same sympathy was extended to those people who now don't fall in that doughnut hole when prescription drug programs exceed a certain amount during a year. now we have people 22, 23, 24, 25 years old who don't have time

off -- are covered up to their 26th birthday. we will add to the number of people who have health insurance over the next year or so somewhere between five million and ten million people who have health care coverage because they are able to qualify on the medicaid program or because they will get coverage at one of the state exchanges across this nation. is the affordable care act perfect? no. are there problems with it? sure. anything this big and this difficult to do is, there is going to be problems. i think the implementation, the start-up in october, november is totally unacceptable. we're trying to work our way through it and provide the kind of access to this coverage, explanation for this coverage that people deserve. and eventually we'll get this right. eventually we'll get this right.

the outcry now that we hear attributed to the implementation of the affordable care act, it reminds me a lot of the outcry i heard in 2006, 2007 when we were beginning to implement the medicare prescription drug program. to put it bluntly, it was a mess. people were confused by it. the information technology didn't work. the headlines in the newspaper actually look a lot like the headlines from october, november and even now. but a year or two later guess what. we fixed the program, everything but the doughnut hole. and today we fixed the doughnut hole, starting about four years ago through the affordable care act. and people don't fall off that cliff anymore like they used to. rather than simply criticizing the provisions of the affordable care act that are troublesome or problematic, why don't we fix them. why don't we fix them.

that's what we did with the prescription drug program, part-d under medicare, that's what we should do here. madam president, i did not come here tonight respond to our colleagues. i just felt that somebody needed to say something. and i'm pleased i had that opportunity. madam president, i rise tonight to speak in strong support of the nomination of alejandro mayorkas to serve as the deputy secretary of the department of homeland security. i spoke yesterday here about director mayorkas' impeccable credentials and experience that prepared him for this important position. my kphraoeg from louisiana -- my colleague from louisiana, senator landrieu did the same yesterday. today i'd like to address concerns about director mayorkas that have been raised by our friends on the other side of the aisle and seek to set the record straight. i understand that some of our republican colleagues believe that we cannot move forward with

consideration of director mayorkas' nomination until the office of inspector general finishes its investigation begun -- get this -- in september of 2012. an investigation begun into his management of the complex hp-5 program some 15 months ago. 15 months. well, i must say i just disagree with my republican colleagues. i think we waited long enough. let me explain why. the department of homeland security has been without a deputy secretary since april of this year, eight full months. six months passed since director mayorkas was nominated. for much of those months, for many of those months we did not have a senate-confirmed secretary of the department of homeland security. just three days before

mr. mayorkas' confirmation hearing in july, information about the o.i.g. investigation was leaked to congress. leaked to congress and the media in a highly irregular manner. the information that was leaked indicated that in september 2012, the office of inspector general for the department of homeland security had received allegations about conflicts of interest, misuse of position, and appearance of impropriety by director mayorkas and other agency officials. we also now know that the o.i.g. did not actually begin investigating these allegations for almost one year. almost one year after receiving them. importantly, the o.i.g. confirmed that this was not in any way a criminal investigation. let me say that again because some of our friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be confused about this. the o.i.g. confirmed in july of this year, we confirmed in december of this year that this

is not and never has been a criminal investigation. to my amazing, director mayorkas has never been contacted nor interviewed by the o.i.g. about this investigation. no phone call, no letter, no e-mail, nothing in 15 months. director mayorkas only learned of this investigation after its existence had been leaked to the congress in july, just days before our committee hearing on his nomination. even then director mayorkas ably and vigorously disputed the allegations in his interviews with committee members who would meet with him and staff who would meet with him as well as at his confirmation hearing in july. unfortunately rather than question the nominee about this matter and give him a chance to refute these anonymous allegations, republican members of our committee boycotted his confirmation meeting and refused to meet with director mayorkas to give him an opportunity to respond to these allegations

from people whose names and faces we don't even know. senator grassley said that director mayorkas should be given a chance to defend himself and has utterly failed to rephrao*eu to senator grassley -- reply to senator grassley's letters. on the contrary director mayorkas did respond in august. in fact he would have tkpwhratly spoken with any senator about the allegations face-to-face. that's the way we do things in delaware. i can't imagine it's not the way we do things in other states. i'm perplexed that an even better option, speaking to director mayorkas himself, was not taken advantage of by senator grassley. in fact, i offered to fly to iowa with director mayorkas in august to meet with senator grassley, face-to-face, so that senator grassley could have his

questions answered face-to-face. but sadly, senator grassley declined. so i think the record shows that director mayorkas has been eager to meet with senators on both sides of the aisle to answer their questions, not to duck them but to answer them. but our colleagues on the other side have been unwilling to give him what seems to me should be a common courtesy. again, we're not talking about a criminal investigation. we're talking about the mismanagement of a program, allegations brought by people, again, my staff has never been able to interview. never been able to interview. getting back to the o.i.g. investigation, in a perfect world i would prefer it be completed before moving forward. at one point i thought that it would be. first, let me make it clear to all that there is nothing improper about the chairman of a committee to ask for an update on the status of a pending

investigation. there's nothing improper about that. accordingly in july, dr. coburn joined me in inquiring about the status of this investigation. i was told it would be completed in october. again, this is an investigation that started a year earlier., in september 2012. in october of this year i inquired again about the status and was told it would be completed in december. on december 2, a bipartisan group of committee staff participated in a telephone call with the head of investigations at the office of inspector general at the department of homeland security to receive a status update. they were told it would likely take two or three more months to complete the investigation. in fact, every time we have spoken with the i.g. staff, we were told that they are just two or three months away from completing an investigation begun now some 15 months ago.

i respect that the o.i.g. must do its job, but we've got to do our job too. and the president has to do his job too. we cannot wait another two months every other month especially for a position as critical as this one. lest we forget, the department of homeland security is charged with helping to protect our nation and its citizens from all kinds of attack foreign and domestic. terrorists from abroad, homegrown terrorists from within, securing our borders, our aircraft, you name it, responding to all kinds of natural disasters whether they happen to be hurricanes or tornadoes. there's a lot going on. it's a busy neighborhood and a tough neighborhood to try to run and manage an operation. and we need to confirm leadership. i thank our democrat and republican colleagues for their

vote for jeh johnson to become secretary of the department. he needs a team. he needs a team. and he needs a team that includes alejandro mayorkas. during the call that i mentioned a little bit ago, a bipartisan committee staff in december of this month, trying to find out the status of the investigation, the o.i.g. confirmed that to date. they found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by anybody -- anybody -- at d.h.s., including director mayorkas. that's right, no evidence. none. nada. given that the investigation appears to be months away from conclusion and its completion date has already slipped several times, and given the confirmation by the o.i.g. that there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, i believe it is time to move forward. in fact, it is past time to move forward. the allegations that have been made by a public cluster around director mayorkas' administration of the eb-5 visas

program, it is an extremely complicated program that provides foreign investors an opportunity to emigrate to the united states in exchange for significant investments in job creating enterprises right here in america. the department of homeland security o.i.g. just completed an audit of this program, as a matter of fact, but i'll get to that in a little bit. the primary complaint, though, about director mayorkas' concern, an eb-5 related application by gulf coast funds management, the regional center which has ties to virginia governor elect terry mcauliffe. anonymous sources have provided and reportedly alleged that director mayorkas improperly intervened to help change a draft legal decision so that it would come out in favor of terry mcauliffe's former company green tech automotive. first of all, i think it's important for everybody to understand up front that green tech did not get what they

wanted. let me say that again. the final decision in this case did not come out of green tech's favor from the agency run by alejandro mayorkas. second, it's important to note that the author of the green tech decision, the former head of the administrative appeals court, appeals office at the u.s. citizenship and immigration services, mr. perry rue told my staff just last week that he strongly disputed the allegations that director mayorkas had inappropriately influenced his decision. many of the other allegations that have been made public about director mayorkas's management of the eb-5 program contend that applications appear to have been processed without regard to security concerns however, in reviewing the leaked e-mails that were attached to these ack glaigz, director -- accusations, director mayorkas actually says the exact opposite.

i found this disconnect between the allegations and the e-mails presented as evidence so striking that i'm -- i'm going to read them exactly. i want us to hear exactly what director mayorkas said in his e-mail to subordinate on january 30 of this year concerning an application for a regional center in las vegas. this is what he said -- quote -- "we will take the time needed to resolve the security issue and we will not act until we've achieved resolution. i agree that we need to run enhanced security and integrity checks." this e-mail directly refutes -- directly refutes -- the claim that director mayorkas was pushing to expedite applications despite the security concerns raised by his subordinate. in another e-mail attached to one of the letters making accusations against director mayorkas, director mayorkas forwards a question about miss mccauliffe's company to subordinate and this is how he notes it -- his words --

mr. mayorkas's words -- i want to make sure that we're providing customer service consistent with our standards but that we are not providing any preferential treatment." now, i would ask, are these -- are these the actions of someone who is trying to exert improper influence or subvert security checks? i think any fair-minded person would agree that the answer is no. no. even our committee's ranking member, my friend, dr. coburn, indicated that the allegations against mr. mayorkas, although serious, are most likely not grounded in reality. i don't want to mince his words so i'll quote him directly. in reference to the allegations against mr. mayorkas, dr. coburn said at a committee meeting -- and again this is a quote -- "i doubt that they are true but we do not have the facts." i agree with dr. coburn. we don't have any facts pointing to any sort of wrongdoing by director mayorkas at all, as best i can tell. none of the anonymous sources or

so-called whistle-blowers have provided information to the majority regarding their concerns, something i think is unprecedented in these types of circumstances for our committee. we've been unable to question those bringing these anonymous concerns on the majority side and our republican friends on the committee, and maybe largely in the senate, have refused to talk to the accused and he's not been accused of any criminal wrongdoing. that doesn't add up to me. maybe it does to some people. that just doesn't add up. we don't get to talk to the people who have raised these concerns? and our republican friends won't talk to the accused, who's not been accused of any criminal wrongdoing. on the other hand, we have over 30 people from both sides of the aisle who are well-known and hugely respected citizens. they've gone on the record with glowing support for director mayorkas. on the other hand, not one person, not one, has stepped

forward publicly opposing director mayorkas. some of the people who have written in strong support of director mayorkas include the last deputy secretary of the department of homeland security, jane hall-lew, the last senate-confirmed inspector general of the department of homeland security, richard skinner, who's a bush appointee. and the three most senior border security officials in the george w. bush administration, robert bonner, ralph basham and jason ahern. the fact of the matter is that director mayorkas has been proactively addressing national security and fraud concerns in the eb-5 program for years. soon after being confirmed, director mayorkas took a number of administrative and operational steps to address national security concerns. where he lacked the administrative authority to approve -- improve the eb-5 program, he repeatedly appealed to congress for the legislative authority that he needed. unfortunately, congress dealt

director mayorkas and his entire agency a bad hand when we reauthorized the eb-5 program in 2012. we failed -- we failed -- to give the agency any of the legal authorities that director mayorkas and his team at c.i.s. had specifically requested in order to enable them -- they made this request i believe in june of 2012 -- and made the request in order to enable them to address the national security and fraud vulnerabilities that it could not address on its own. it said, congress, we'd like to do this. we need the authority. please give it to us. they started asking for that in june of 2012. well, earlier this year during the committee -- judiciary committee debate on s. 744, the immigration reform bill, senator leahy introduced an amendment that virtually all the national security fixes that director mayorkas had requested. and while the comprehensive immigration reform passed the senate with strong bipartisan support, it's unfortunately stalled in the house. well, fortunately, senate

committee chairman patrick leahy is working on a stand-alone bill to address these national security and fraud concerns. much in the way that director mayorkas and his team had asked for in june a year ago. i would urge all of my colleagues concerned about security issues in the program to join me as a cosponsor of that bill. it strikes me as grossly unfair, madam president, to punish director mayorkas for the inability of congress -- for the inability of congress -- to address the vulnerabilities in the eb-5 program that director mayorkas and his team brought to our attention and asked us to fix over a year and a half ago. in essence, those of us in congress, we failed to do our job, yet director mayorkas is taking the fall for our failure. how is that fair? how is that fair?

i'll tell you, it's not. i mentioned previously that the o.i.g. completed an eb-5 audit and all that -- although that report has not been publicly released just yet, some of my colleagues have been discussing the o.i.g.'s findings earlier today n. light of that, i think this is a good time to debt some facts -- to get some facts straight because this audit remarkably -- remarkably -- misses some key facts. first of all, the report says the eb-5 program is vulnerable to fraud and national security risks and that the legislation that created the program makes it difficult to fully address those risks that. is something that's been well-known by congress and the administration long before this report and long before director mayorkas took over the u.s. citizenship and immigration service in august of 2009. the e-mails i just discussed demonstrate that director mayorkas did not take national security and fraud matters lightly. in fact, a review of the

legislative history of the last year and a half might suggest that we take them lightly, that we take them lightly. well, despite the widespread knowledge about the national security and fraud vulnerabilities in the eb-5 program and all visa programs, for that matter, c.i.s. did not and does not have the authority that it asked congress for in order to adequately police regional centers and the eb-5 program. i find it incredible that the o.i.g. audit report makes no mention of director mayorkas' efforts to get congress to pass legislation to address this problem since june of 2012. in the absence of being granted those authorities by us, by congress, director mayorkas took it upon himself to implement other reforms. again, many of these reforms took place before or during this audit, and yet incredibly, those reforms are not even mentioned

in the audit report. one of his -- ione of his first actions as director was to get a directorate to report directly to him, mr. mayorkas. this ensured that national security professionals had a seat at the management table and a voice in all major decisions. he expanded reporting requirements and security checks for regional centers, which led c.i.s. to increase the number of national security investigations in the eb-5 program by more than 50% in the last four years. increased eb-5 staffing from nine people in 2009 to more than 80 today. and hired senior economists and national security officers to work side-by-side with immigration specialists. and he positively engaged other agencies, such as the securities and exchange commission, the f.b.i. and treasury department to help police the program. in fact, senator grassley himself noted this week that

director mayorkas convened a national security staff working group to examine the program last year. well, the actions i've described are not the actions taken by someone who does not care about national security. the audit report says that the eb-5 adjudication process is ambiguous. well, c.i.s. has recognized that there was a need for an adjudicated consolidated -- consolidated adjudication manual and they published one in may of this year. one more fact that is not even mentioned in the audit report. the audit report says that the program is fraught with the perception of outside influence. there is no denying the fact that this program gets a lot of attention, including from us, from congress. in fact, the u.s u.s. c.i.s. receives 1,500 queries about the

eb-5 program each year from congress, from senators, from u.s. representatives. 1,500. as it turns out, almost half of our senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle have inquired about the eb-5 program since 2009. that's an enormous amount of interest from congress in this one program. but let me be clear. in many cases, most cases, that interest was -- was a -- was provided or demonstrated to c.i.s. on behalf of our constituents, from state -- from one corner of america to -- to the other. but let me be clear. the fact that this program garners a lot of attention and a lot of members of congress and other high-level officials from both parties inquire frequently about the status and prospects of pending applications, it does not mean that the citizenship and immigration service's adjudicators are swayed by the

attention. you know, perception is not always reality. contrary to what some have suggested or assumed, the o.i.g. reported that all the files they reviewed in their audit, including the ones associated with terry mccauliffe's company, appeared to support the final decision. let me say that again. the o.i.g. audit concluded that the evidence it reviewed in these cases supported the final decision. based on the evidence that we have before us, i believe it's clear that director mayorkas has taken strong steps to improve the eb-5 program. these are the actions of a dedicated, thoughtful and committed public servant. these are the actions of a leader who is willing to make tough but necessary decisions in order to shake things up and improve a program that needed improving.

that's exactly the kind of leadership we need at the department of homeland security. i think we need it across the federal government. i also believe that we need leaders who are committed to doing what they believe in their heart is the right thing to do. at his confirmation hearing in july, i specifically asked director mayorkas about the allegations raised by some of these anonymous sources. director mayorkas testified before this committee under oath he has never put his finger on the scale of justice. and i have seen no evidence since then that would lead me to question his veracity. i do not believe that we can allow rumors spread by anonymous sources to rule the day. and some of the -- some of our colleagues have been very critical of d.h.s.'s shortcomings and they're quick to point out its failures. however, one of the major reasons the department fails to live up to expectations more than they and the rest of us might like is because their top

leadership packs have been riddled with vacancy for much of this year. and the same is true of many other agencies. again, it's -- it's not fair to criticize the agency on the one hand and yet seem content on the other to -- to leave them without senate-confirmed leadership for months on end. we can't have it both ways. we can't have it both ways. we have some responsibility he here. -- here as well. well, it's time to stop playing political games. it's time to vote to confirm ale mayorkas for the deputy secretary position at d.h.s. madam president, there was something else that came to my attention today that i thought was real interesting. it's not from an anonymous source. it's not rumor or innuendo. it's actually a report from the partnership for public service. one of the things that they do at the partnership is issue on a -- i think maybe an annual basis the rankings of the best

places to work in the federal government in 2013. and as it turns out, also maybe the worst. because they do a ranking from top to bottom. i was dismayed to find out just today that the department of homeland security ranked last -- ranked last -- maybe i heard this yesterday. but anyway, i was dismayed to find out this week that the department of hopdepartment of y ranked last on their list of cabinet departments in terms of employee morale. last. and it's not the first year. it happened for a number of years in a row. however, although the department ranked last among all the departments, the u.s. citizenship and immigration services led by director mayorkas was one of the highest ranked components within d.h.s. coming in at i think out of 300 federal agencies at number 76 which my math is good that 23u9s putts them in maybe the top 25%

of all agencies. after mayorkas -- mr. mayorkas took over in 2009, employee satisfaction with senior leadership there increased by over 20%, increased by over 20% since he took over in 2009. every now and then on driving on my way to the train station in wilmington to catch a train to come down here to start our day, i listen to the news, usually right at 7:00. about a year ago i heard a report on npr of an international study that was done involving thousands of people across the country. and that international study they asked the same question of thousands of people from all kinds of walks of life and different kind of jobs and vocations. the question that was asked of each of those thousands of people was, what is it about your job that you like?

what is it about your job that you like the most? and not surprisingly, those people asked the question had different responses. some people said they like getting paid. some people said they liked getting a pension. some people said they liked having a vacation or having health care. some people said they liked the environment in which they worked. some people said they liked the folks they worked with. but you know what most people said? most people said the thing they liked most about their job is they felt that the work they were doing was important and they felt they were making progress. think about that. the reason most people cite for liking their job, the work they do, is because they know it's important and they feel that they're making progress. it's ironic to me that an agency if you rely on the anonymous sources that we've not been on the majority side permitted to talk with, it's ironic to me

that in a department where morale has been low and a problem and a concern for years, at this agency that mr. mayorkas has led now for four years, employee morale is by comparison fairly high. fairly high. he doesn't get any credit for that. but if employees really do care that the work they're doing is important and that they're making progress, maybe that belief is reflected in these numbers. maybe that is reflected in these numbers. on behalf of the leadership mr. mayorkas has provided for citizenship and immigration services. let me close, if i could. my friend from kansas has arrived. a couple things i want us to keep in mind. again, i think -- this is one

that's hard for me to understand. people who are bringing -- people who we don't though, have not talked to on the majority side haven't had an opportunity to hear from them, to hear their story, and it's kind of impressive -- maybe unprecedented for that opportunity to be denied the majority, or for the majority to deny the minority in a case like this. we've been denied that opportunity. and i think the person who is maybe best able to provide to rebut or respond to the concerns raised by these anonymous folks we've not been able to talk to is mr. mayorkas himself. but our republican colleagues have refused to talk to him even though there's no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, they refuse to talk to him to give him a chance to rebut or respond to the accusations from anonymous sources that we've never heard from. that just -- that one just blows my mind.

if the shoe were on the other foot, if democrats were in the minority and republicans were in the majority, if i were the ranking member on the minority side, we had a republican president who had nominated somebody for an office and the chairman of our committee asked me as the ranking minority to meet with someone from -- that the republican president had nominated, i'd meet with him in a heartbeat. i'd want to hear that person's story. that's what i'd want to hear. i would encourage -- if the anonymous sources were talking just to us, i'd encourage them to talk to the other side as well. the one person we did talk to, that is the person, we got his name out of a statement given by senator grassley on the floor and we talked to him and set the record straight. he set the record straight. i've already cited that in my comments but we've never had the chance to talk to any other i

think half dozen or so sources. the other thing i would say, there's nothing inappropriate for a committee chairman to -- or staff of a committee chairman to inquiry of -- inquire of an o.i.g. of the pace and resources provided to conduct an investigation. this is just not any department that's lacked leadership, senate-confirmed leadership for months. this is the department of homeland security. americans have a lot riding on that department doing their job well. they need senior leadership and they haven't had the kind that they need. but despite the repeated efforts to get the o.i.g. to expedite their efforts begun in september of 2012, a joint letter from dr. coburn and i to the o.i.g. in july of this year, two months later, get a response that maybe we'll have something in october, two months later

it's december, bipartisan staff, democrat, republican, minority, majority, have a chance to be briefed by the o.i.g. and rather than say well, this investigation we started 15 months ago is done, it's ready to wrap up, they said a couple more months. maybe two or three more months. are we supposed to continue to wait, until we have the leadership we need at the department of homeland security? at some point you say enough already. what we've learned in terms of full-time people working on, there are 650 people i think full-time equivalent people at the office of inspector general at d.h.s., that's 650 and as i understand it, three full-time people, one investigator and two research assistants have been devoted to this investigation. no wonder it's taken 15 months. i'd ask us to keep in mind our

failure, our failure to act on the recommendations made to congress for reforms in the eb-5 program to address national security concerns and address concerns about fraud. mr. mayorkas did the right thing. he and his staff pulled together a long list of changes that they need, legislative changes they need so they'd be authorized to address this concern. we dropped the ball. we didn't include those changes when we reauthorized the eb-5 program for three more years, a straight reauthorization. didn't make any reforms, no changes despite the fact he had suggested them months before we acted. finally they ended up, there's changes in the immigration bill, we passed it here, most democrats volted for it, some republicans. it's over in the house, it's languishing and not moving. if we're really concerned about giving this agency, c.i.s. the tools they need to address the

security concerns, fraud concerns why don't we join senator leahy and the legislation he's going to introduce that specifically from the really largely taken from the immigration reform bill and when we introduce, let's cosponsor that bill. and finally, if we're going to accept as gospel criticisms about the way a person has run a particular agency, and not of a criminal nature, but criticisms about the way it's been run, why not give that person a chance to defend themselves? why not give them a chance to say there's another side of this story. or maybe there isn't. but at least give them that opportunity. and lastly, the morale at the department of homeland security -- they do great work, important work at the department of homeland security and better work. i'll mention a couple of things

if i can. remember the response of fema which is part of the department of homeland security, remember their response to katrina, it was deplorable. response to hurricane sandy, for the most part, all around kudos were won. how about t.s.a.? t.s.a. has been a whipping boy for a lot of folks, all of us who have the opportunities to fly commercially. we've seen t.s.a. make changes. they've taken criticism, taken it to heart, among other things created trusted traveler program so a local of people don't have to take off their shoes or belts or do all kinds of things to get through a security check. the t.s.a. has done a number of things. some of the technology they're using is not as intrusive as it was before. security is actually stronger. and most recently for ten years the friends at the g.a.o., the

government accountability office have every two years on the high risk list at the beginning of every congress have cited the department of homeland security needs to be able to earn a clean financial audit of their books. they said ten years, that's enough time. well, it's turns out the department of defense which has been around since, gosh, about 70 years -- over 60 years ago, they still are not auditable. the department of defense isn't auditable, much less have a clean audit. last week the department of homeland security for the first time in their existence received a clean financial audit. they did it in ten years. d.o.d., also a big operation, it's 60 years and counting and they're not even auditable yet. for those who want to constantly criticize the department of homeland security, the people who work there work hard, they have a tough job, they need our help. and one of the things they need our help in doing is securing

the kind of leadership that they haven't had and that's confirmed senate leadership. we've had some very good people who have been acting as the secretary, acting as the deputy secretary. but friends, it's not the same. it's not the same. they need leadership that's going to be there with not just the blessing of the president but the blessing of this body and they're going to be there today, tomorrow, next month, next year and provide the leadership that's needed. the most important element i've ever seen, my time in the navy, 23 years active and reserve, my time as governor, my time here in the senate, the most important element i've ever seen in any organization to determine whether it's successful is leadership. show me a school with a great principal, i'll show you a school on the way up. you show me a business with a strong leader, the same is true. show me a body like this or a military unit. leadership is always the key. and it's the keep at the department of homeland security.

and if the improvement i've noted, mentioned a minute ago is to continue and actually be strengthened, they need confirmed senate leadership. we'll have the opportunity in a couple of hours to give jeh johnson the newly confirmed secretary of homeland security a key player in the leadership team that he's trying to build at that department. he deserves our support and so do the people of that department and if they get it, they'll provide the support that we need in this country to be safer in the days ahead. with that, madam president, thank you for allowing me to give this statement. i see my friend from kansas is on the floor and i thank him for his patience and i'm happy to yield the floor. mr. moran, madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas.

mr. moran: thank you. chief warrant officer 2 joshua b. silverman, age 35, scottsdale, arizona. sergeant peter c. bowler, age 29, willow spring, north carolina. specialist terry k.b. gordon, age 22, chabuta, mississippi. sergeant first class omarw. ford, age 28, marietta, georgia. chief warrant officer 2 randy l. billings, age 34, havener, oklahoma. staff sergeant jesse l. williams, age 30, elkhart, indiana. those names are names of soldiers who lost their lives this past week. they lost their lives in a

helicopter incident in afghanistan and five of those soldiers were from my home state based at fort riley, kansas, the big red one. our nation is forever indebted to these young men for their service and sacrifice. this evening i ask the senate to pay tribute to these six soldiers who in serving their country lost their lives. if we here in washington, d.c., need a reminder about our responsibilities, we need only look to our servicemen and women who for no partisan reason -- nothing to do with republicans or democrats -- volunteer to serve their country and recognize that there are things much more important than even life itself. these soldiers were committed to preserving the freedoms and liberties guaranteed americans

by our constitution, and they sacrificed their lives -- sacrifice their lives every day to make certain that americans have the opportunity to pursue the american dream. i once heard a hymn that has stayed with me ever since the first time i heard it. it was sung at the funeral service of president reagan. it's called "mansions of the lord," performed here at the national cathedral in washington. the words are these: "to fallen soldiers let us sing where no rockets fly nor bullets wing, our broken brothers let us bring to the ma mansions of the world. no more bleeding, no more fight, nor more prayers through the

night. lord, no mother's cry, no children weep, we will stand and guard though angels sleep. through the ages safely keep the mansions of the lord. we honor these six soldiers who this week were welcomed into the mansions of the lord. i am grateful for the blessings these brave men afforded us with their service to the country. we thank god for giving us these heroes, and we remain committed to preserving this nation for the sake of the next generation by honoring that sacrifice. we americans have indebted to every member of our military. we're indebted to do nothing less than to preserve america's freedom and to make certain it remains the bright, shining star for the world. i would ask god to bless these servicemen and women, to bless our veterans, to bless our

country. you know, this coming week, just a few short days, families will gather around dining room tables across our nation to celebrate the holidays. in the instance of these six families, there will be an empty chair at the christmas table. for those of us who are christians, we celebrate christmas as the arrival of the prince of peace, and i would ask that we have peace in our land, peace in our world, and no more wars. and i would ask that these families find peace knowing that their son, their husband, their father, they sacrificed for something more important than life itself. they sacrificed for others.

may they find peace in knowing what worthy lives their loved ones live. i yield the floor.

quorum call:

mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: we're not in a quorum call. mr. sessions: am i allowed to speak at this time? the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. sessions: there has been considerable controversy in recent days over a provision in the recently passed spending package that became known as a

bipartisan budget act that cuts pensions for military members, including even wounded warriors. there was bipartisan agreement, i think, people on both sides of the aisle believed it ought to be fixed. it was an error and should not go forward and that there were better ways to find the money if you have to have money to spend somewhere else than taking it from military retirees. but majority leader reid and every single member of his conference, save one, stood together to block an effort that i proposed to restore the pensions for military officers and also finding better offsets for it. they blocked us from making any alteration to this spending package that was before the congress, before the senate, including my amendment to close the egregious tax welfare

loophole, the tax credit, the payment directly from the united states of america to illegal aliens that could pay for these cuts itself. indeed, the only inspector general of president obama's treasury department has said this loophole needs to be closed and would save a substantial sum of money, and it's an open gate allowing massive fraud and illegality. so we simply wanted to do that. we asked that if we had to pay for this new spending, pay for it by closing this loophole that the treasury department has basically asked us to close instead of reducing the retirement benefits by as much as $70,000 for a sergeant who served to age 42 in the united states military. so how can this blockade be defended? how did it happen?

why can we be in such a position? is there any member of the majority that would really defend the practice that we are undergoing now where legislation that clearly needs an amendment to fix a problem in it is just blocked and no amendments are allowed and the legislation is rammed through the united states senate, without any amendment at all ever being voted on. this has been the pattern around here for much too long. the majority leader is eroding the senate's historic role as the great chamber where the issues are debated, changes in amendments are voted on. and he is being enabled and supported by his conference. consistently time and again when objections are made to try to stop this practice and get this amendment and get votes on

important bills, his conference has stood with him on roll call votes. in other words, his conference are saying we choose to stand with reid, the majority leader, and his procedural actions that block other colleagues and even their own members from having amendments and against the right of individual americans to have their united states senator be accountable to stand up and be able to offer amendments to legislation to improve it, and if you don't do that, you're accountable for voting for the final bill. that's imperfect and should be fixed, and that's the way the voters have a right to hold us accountable. they need to be able to see us vote and look at our voting records and decide when they do so whether we are serving their interests, some wall street interests, some special interests, some political group

instead of national interests. that's what this whole system is about. so here's how it happened. we have a bill. now we have before us the defense bill that is so important for america. i serve on the armed services committee. i have been on there nearly 17 years. here in the senate, we moved a bill out with a big majority. i voted for it in committee although i expressed great concern about the budgetary problems that needed to be fixed and unfortunately have not been fixed. i wanted to see the bill moved forward and i tried to be cooperative on that, and the bill moved to the floor. the budget problem hasn't been fixed. and there are other problems with the legislation that need to be refined. and the bill that's before us, the defense bill spends

approximately $500 billion. the largest single department of the agency in the united states government, and to think it is going to pass in this body without a single person having a single idea that ought to be made a part of that bill. can it not be made better? they all admit it's not a perfect piece of legislation. we certainly know that. and the american system is designed so that when an imperfect bill moves forward, a senator can offer an amendment. maybe it's not a good amendment, maybe it will be voted down. maybe it's a good amendment and a good amendment will be accepted, but no more. not what's happening here today. what's happening here today is the majority leader when -- what's happening today is when republicans want to offer an amendment, senator reid basically says no, he doesn't want any amendments. he then uses a device called

filling the tree, filing because he gets to be first recognized, a series of amendments, leaving no place for anybody else in the senate to file an amendment, and he won't remove the amendments from the tree unless he decides he wants to. and on this defense bill now, we had two votes when the bill was up for an entire week. we could have easily had 30 or 40 votes that week, had we chosen to do so, so only two votes were held and none now, and we are moving to final passage, the tree is filled and we have not been able to force even a single vote to fix matters. senator cornyn offered an amendment this afternoon. he asked that he filed a motion to table some of the amendments

that senator reid had placed on the tree, filling the tree, so no one else could file an amendment to the amendment tree, and it was voted down by the supporters of senator reid on the other side of the aisle. we have been talking about this for a long time. this is contrary to the history of the senate. senator cornyn laid out how year after year for 51 years we moved a defense bill through the senate and there have been multiple amendments, every time, but this one. it's unthinkable that the great senate of the united states would not allow amendments to a bill as significant as a defense bill. so what does he do after he fills the tree? and republicans say wait a minute, senator reid, there were no amendments allowed on the bill. we have got amendments.

he said oh, you're being obstructionist. i'm going to file for cloture. i'm going to file a motion to shut off debate. and it -- and we're not going to have any amendments. and then if the republicans resist and say we're not going to vote to end debate because we haven't had any amendments, he said you're obstructionist. this is the pattern that's going on. and he files cloture virtually immediately with the filing of the bill, and he claimed that is a filibuster by the minority, by the republicans. so by filing cloture immediately , he contends that republicans are filibustering a bill, and he counts up these filibusters and saying there are too many filibusters in the senate, you're obstructing the business of the senate, when in

truth he's the one that is obstructing the senate, he's the one that is blocking debate and ealts. if you ask a schoolchild somewhere in america, if you ask a senior citizen, a world war ii veteran who loves this country and has studied the great principles of america and you say there is a piece of legislation on the floor of the united states senate and there is something in it that's wrong, they want to cut benefits for wounded warriors, veterans who have served and been wounded in combat and disabled and you don't want that to happen, what would you do? why, they would all answer. you would file an amendment to the bill to fix this problem, but not in the senate today, that's the classical understanding of the way this body ought to operate. that's what james madison, i'm sure, conceived of and the way it's worked for so many years,

but not any longer. this bipartisan budget act, just like the defense bill, no amendments, no matter how important the bill is, no matter how many problems there are in it, no amendments. oh, you want to go back to that old senate where people could actually debate and have amendments and offer changes and improve it. no longer, that's obstructionist. that's delaying tactics. we won't have it anymore. you're keeping it slowed down, and it is an unacceptable matter. so really what's happening and when i vote not to end debate on the bill for the national defense that's before us, i'm not voting to not have a defense bill. that is so obviously wrong, it's

hard to believe you have to explain it. but we're not voting to do that. we're voting to just maintain the classical principles of the united states senate where individual senators from whatever state there is can come to the floor and make a contribution to the country. they were elected by their people. there's almost five million alabamans elected me. do i not get to offer an amendment to the defense bill of the united states. it diminishes my role. it diminishes the role of every single senator. so i'm asking my colleagues who on the other side of the aisle, who have been defending this abuse of power to begin to consider what it may mean to them and how this is not the right way the senate should operate. look, there will be some tough votes. we'll all have to take tough votes.

probably most people can explain their votes if they know what they're doing. maybe some can't and they'll be voted and sent home. so be it. you can't defend your vote and you're not casting good votes on bills and you can't respond effectively as to why you voted for or against a certain amendment, then you ought to be sent home. we're not entitled to these jobs. we have to be elected to them. i'm concerned about it. i really believe it goes even beyond the significance of this important defense bill. i think it goes beyond the awesome era in we're reducing the pay of military retirees when we're not reducing other people's retirees' pay. this is not a belt tightening across the board. it seems to be a targeting of wup group -- one group of ameri, those who perhaps served the country more than any other

group. so majority leader reid continues to complain that the trains are not running on time, not running with enough ruthless efficiency to suit his ideas. and so he then uses the filling the tree tactic. but that's not all. although president obama has had judge after judge after judge confirmed and cabinet people and subcabinet people confirmed in large numbers, the senate refused to approve one appointment recently and refused to fill three federal judgeships at the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit because they weren't needed. the average caseload for those

judges was 149. of the eight judges that are there now, there are authorized 11 judges. so there are eight judges there now, have 149 cases per judge. whereas my circuit, the 11th circuit sitting in slant has over 7 -- sitting in atlanta has over 700 cases per judge. the national average is around 350 cases per judge. we don't need to fill three judges for which the caseload is not there. the caseload for the d.c. circuit is half that of the next circuit, almost half of the next lowest circuit in the country. so we don't need that judge. and the caseload continues to decline. so the congress refused to give cloture, refused to confirm those judges. and so in an action or

calculation or deliberate heness -- deliberateness, the majority leader altered the rule of the united states senate about how we ought to conduct business here. and he did so by breaking the rule of the senate. and this is what happens. the united states senate rule 22 says that before you can -- in order to bring debate to a close, three-fifths of the senators duly sworn would need to vote to end the debate. there was not sufficient votes to end the debate on the d.c. judges because they weren't needed. and this i are taeutd the majority leader. and so he petitions to the presiding officer and the parliamentarian and asserted

that it only takes 51 senators to vote to end debate. but rule 22 explicitly says it takes three-fifths, 50 and he goes on to say except when you change the rules of the senate. and that takes 57. it takes 60 votes to end debate. so what does senator reid do? he asked the parliamentarian to say it only took 51. and the presiding officer, president pro tempore of the senate, senator leahy, our longest serving member, and the parliamentarian said no, senator reid, the rule is it takes 60 votes to shut off debate. so what did senator reid do? he used the ability to appeal the ruling of the chair and he

asked his colleagues to overrule the ruling of the chair which by any plain reading of the rules of the senate would be without dispute requiring 60 votes to shut off debate. but he wanted it to be 51. and his colleagues supported him. his colleagues supported him, and they supported him, and he overruled the chair. his own parliamentarian that he selected and the presiding officer that he put in the chair. and they voted to change the rules of the senate that's in plain language with 51 votes. not 67. now this is dangerous, colleagues. this is the kind of thing you see in third world republics or

would-be republics. this is the kind of lawlessness that will endanger the american system of government at its most fundamental basis. it is endangering us. the president says whatever he wants to, you can keep your doctor. the president says your plan is going to save you $2,000 a year. the president says all these things and he gets his bill passed and none of it is true. i don't see any members on the floor who voted for this bill, this obamacare, down here apologizing to the american people saying i'm sorry, the bill i voted for didn't do any of the things i promised you it would do. and i'm willing to have an amendment process on the floor to fix it. no, we're not going to get a vote on obamacare. they're going to block that too. and if any attempts are ever

made, he'll fill the tree and block that vote. so we're not able to bring to the senate floor and require senators to vote on serious issues involving health care for millions of americans, because senator reid doesn't believe in it and he's backed by his conference. i guess the president probably said, oh, don't let them vote on obamacare. they might change some of it. you know they're finding out what's in it. we don't want to actually think they've got enough muscle to actually pass a law to fix it or change it or alter it. that would be terrible. who do they think they are? they think this is a democracy or something? so that's where we are. and i'm not -- this is huge and significant, and we've got to confront what's happening. and it's very, very important that we cool down and we get

some sort of work going on. but i'm not confident at all right now. and this effort should result in a retreat from this breaking the rules to change the rules, this nuclear option. and the reason a nuclear option was called up because once you do that, it blows up the entire senate. senator levin explained the problem very succinctly. one of two democrats that voted against senator reid's attempt to execute the nuclear option and to change the rules of the senate. he said if a majority can change the rules of the senate, there are no rules. it's simply what the majority says. there are no standards and no rules, there are no procedures. if we can change them whenever we're frustrated and by a

majority vote in the united states senate there are no rules. there are no protections. that is so true. that's why what's happened here is so significant. and i believe that this late-night work and this process to consider nominations is healthy because it requires us to go through a painful period of introspection as to what is happening to us and how we ought to conduct this great senate. so this afternoon we didn't have the support for senator cornyn's resolution. yesterday when i made the motion to table to break the filling of the tree and clear a place off of the tree so my amendment could be held -- heard and voted on, my colleagues, a majority of

them voted no. only one broke with senator reid actually, one democrat did. and every republican voted to allow amendments to go forward, allow my amendment to be heard. so the rights of all the senators in this body that defend their state, who defend equal representation was undermined. there are two independents in our senate, delightful individuals for sure, that caucus with the democrats and vote with the democrats. maybe sometimes they'll be willing to prove that the letter "i" independent, means something and maybe they'll help us stand up and defend the heritage of the united states senate. we need to make this thing change. we can't ten to aggregate more

and more power into the majority leader. we're no longer -- we're -- where the right to demand 60 votes to shut off debates could be further eroded, where we'll continue to see bill after bill after bill brought up with no amendments being allowed. and they say oh, well, we're at the end of the year. we must do that. we don't have time. but the defense bill has been on the floor since june. it's been huge amounts of time for us to bring it to the floor. it's been out of committee since june and it should long ago have been brought up and in fact could have been voted on last week and with full amendments, and we'd already be through with that had we gone today. well, the armed services bill, a defense bill, is an important

bill. i'm very disappointed we're at this period of impasse. i'm very disappointed that i cannot support going forward with it, to final passage because no ability to amend it and fix some of the obvious flaws that are in it will be allowed. in particular, this legislation will not allow us to prevent a cut of veteran retirement pay and disabled wounded warriors retirement and benefit pay. and it also is outside the budget spending limits that we agreed to. so i just want to say it's a disappointment for me to be in this position. i tried to be supportive of the defense bill every year. i worked in committee to do so. i believe last year we had a unanimous vote. we had a unanimous vote, republicans and democrats, quite a number of times in the

committee. a lot of that is due to senator levin and senator inhofe's leadership. but this time we've got a problem, and it's not going well, and i'm deeply disappointed. i believe we can do better. we must do better. and i will not be able to vote to end the debate as we go forward tonight. i thank the chair and would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: