you can see past programs and get our schedules at our website, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> and now to live coverage of the use of senate. lawmakers will be debating and voting on a series of executive nominations before they leave for the holiday break. and now live to the senate floor here on c-span2. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal spirit, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in heavenly places, we give reverence to your holy name. thank you for choosing us to labor for liberty during these challenging times. lord, keep us from the

temptations that would thwart or effectiveness as you deliver us from evil. use our lawmakers to lift the burdens of the lost, last, lonely, and least, bringing deliverance to captives and permitting the oppressed to be unshackled. dwell in the hearts of our senators, enabling them to be rooted and grounded in your lo love. we pray in powerful name. amen of the. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag.

i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, justice for all. mr. durbin: mr. president? the president pro tempore: the senior senator from illinois, deputy majority leader. mr. durbin: mr. president, senator reid, the majority leader, is absent today and i will be acting in his place. senator reid called me this morning. he sounded good and we look forward to his speedy recovery. following my remarks and those of the republican leader, the senate will resume executive session to consider the nomination of alejandro mayorkas to be deputy secretary of homeland security postcloture. the next hour will be equally divided and controlled between senators carper and coburn and there will be six roll call votes at approximately 10:15 a.m.

the president pro tempore: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. and under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of homeland security, alejandro nicholas mayorkas of the district of columbia to be deputy secretary. the president pro tempore: and under the previous order, there will now be one hour of debate on the nomination equally divided and controlled between the senator from delaware, mr. carper, and the senator from oklahoma, mr. coburn, or their designees. who seeks recognition? mr. carper: mr. president? the presiding officerer: mr. pre senator from delaware. mr. carper: thank you very much. i would like to speak very briefly and then i'd like to yield to senator leahy for some comments he might like to make on the -- the president's nominee to be our next deputy secretary of homeland security

and government -- homeland security. and he's know mr. mayorkas for a number of years, worked very closely with him through his oversight, his committee's oversight of the eb-5 program. and as a result, i'm delighted that he's willing to take the floor and move from presiding to speaking. i'm happy to yield to the senator from vermont for, say, five minutes. mr. leahy: i thank -- madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i thank my friend from delaware. you know, the department of homeland security is the leading agency for many of the pressing issues facing our nation -- disaster relief to protecting our borders. they need a full complement of leaders. you cannot do this just with acting people and that's why i'm glad the senate is considering the nomination of alejandro mayorkas to be deputy secretary of homeland security. and i want to thank the chairman of the homeland security and government affairs committee, senator carper, for pushing forward with this.

you know, this is the agency where he currently serves as direct of ussis. it's the u.s. citizenship and immigration service. director mayorkas is by every analysieveryanalysis has made ir and better functioning agency. it is unfortunate in these partisan days that director mayorkas' nomination has been the subject of unfair and partisan attacks. and it's wrong that some tried to create controversy about him even before his confirmation hearing occurred in the senate. the attacks are made even less credible by the conduct of the former d.h.s. deputy inspector general who was forced to resign in the face of allegations of serious misconduct. a person, who frankly, has no

credibility in my mind because of the egregious and inexcusable things he did. this former deputy inspector general, charles edwards, on the eve of director mayorkas' confirmation hearing, authorized the transmittal of an e-mail to a republican senate office that contained sensitive information about an ongoing investigation involving director mayorkas. one thing that both republicans and democrats should agree upon, that this is wrong, it's a clear violation i believe of the law. it is something that should be condemned no matter who did it. and, of course, the timing of it raises serious questions about the motivation for its disclosure. now, inspectors general are supposed to be way above politics. well, guess what happened on this? the e-mail authorized by this former and now disgraced deputy

inspector general was published shortly after its transmittal on the web site of a republican candidate for governor. come on. this is wrong. why would a virginia gubernatorial office or candidate care about the investigation? well, because of some of the anonymous allegations repeated in that. it was obvious, it was obvious this was done for political motives, not to make homeland security a better department. now, director mayorkas, to his credit, has always put the interests of the department, the parts that he has led, ahead of his own, as he did with usis. he made tough decisions and made that agency better. now, sometimes tough decisions are not popular but needed. he made the decisions and made

what was best for the country. he's brought significant resources to bear in the eb-5 regional center program. incidentally, the recommendations that he made were in a bill before the senate judiciary committee on immigration reform. and every single republican, every single democrat voted for those recommendations in the committee. now, we've been waiting for the house to pass this important legislation, but in the meantime, he's worked to ensure the program's -- program's integrity. now, i remember the judiciary committee the first time, former ranking member, senator sessions, praised what we had done following the

recommendations of director mayorkas. in fact, 68 senators, republicans and democrats, voted for the comprehensive reform bill which had these eb-5 programs in it. now, some have said here on the floor yesterday that we could make reforms to this program this very day. well, the senate voted for it earlier this year -- and i appreciate those senators who want the reforms for having voted for it, too. and i would like now, instead of taking the -- considering the circumstances of the disgraced former deputy inspector general and his disclosure and instead of taking the opportunity to ask opportunities of director mayorkas, they boycotted the committee meeting. come on. let's -- let's stop playing political games with this. we have a good person, a person we should be thankful is willing

to serve in this country, a person who has been the subject of lies and smears and now let's vindicate this person and let's put him to work for the good of the country. and i thank the distinguished chairman from delaware for his work on this. mr. carper: senator leahy, i thank you, as chairman of the judiciary committee, and one who spent many, many years of work on the eb-5 program to make sure it fulfills its potential. madam president, how much time have we consumed? the presiding officer: 23 minutes. mr. carper: i reserve the balance of my time. mr. coburn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: you know, the unfortunate thing is, we have a disagreement on precedence of the senate. we just had the president pro tempore of the senate say that

lies and smears. not one member of the minority voted against mr. mayorkas in his confirmation hearing. they all voted "present." and the reason they did that was for a very important reason. and the president pro tempore of the senate didn't mention the fact that there is still, regardless of all those things, there's still an ongoing investigation. never before in the history of the senate has a position at this level been approved with an ongoing investigation. facts are stubborn things. i'd like for him to tell me what the lies and smears are that he claims politically we have made. we've made no such claims. what we have said is the i.c.e. review of this program said it should be eliminated. it happened to have been authored by the president pro tempore. we have the majority whip on

wednesday night said the following. "colleague, senator tom carper, chairman of this committee, has gone to extraordinary lengths to investigate every allegation." is that right, every allegation? they don't even know what the allegations are because it's not -- we're not privy to them. to answer every question and be there to work with the other side of the aisle to resolve -- try to resolve any problems that they have with this nomination. "sadly, it's not been successf successful." because we don't know what the claims are. we think we know. we also have the -- the chairman of the committee, before he ever heard the specifics of any complaint by whistle-blowers, demean those very whistle-blowers and describe their words as rumors and innuendo. people who put their jobs on the

line to report. then he claims they won't meet with him, even though i've asked them to meet twice. and i can't blame them, because he's already dismissed any credibility that they have. we should wait for this investigation to be completed. i know we're not going to. we're going to roll this right through here. and it's a disservice to mr. mayorkas. it's a disservice to the american people. it's a disservice to this body. all that i've heard from people who know mr. mayorkas is positive things. it's positive. but a legitimate investigation ongoing -- and i'd make this other point. the administration knew that there was an ongoing i.g. investigation and failed to inform the chairman and failed to inform the ranking member

when they sent his nomination over. why is that? why would they not tell us that? was it just an oversight? or did they intend for us not to know? the worst thing that comes about because of this nomination moving forward is the relationship and the trust that has gone from our committee. the difficulties going forward will be major because things have been implied that i personally am doing this for a political person rather than from a principled basis. there's no nominee that i'll ever meet with that's under an investigation before that investigation's clear. the other claim that's been made is that we wouldn't meet with mr. mayorkas because we didn't want to know the truth. the fact is, is we didn't want

to prejudice our position without the knowledge of the facts. but that has not kept some in this body from claiming that we had a motive other than what we've stated. and so, therefore, all our motives, rather than finding out the truth, our motives are that it's got to be political. well, i reject that. i take great offense at that. so i have no doubt that mr. mayorkas will be confirmed today. here's the question i have. if in fact the i.g. investigation finds credible findings of wrongdoing or undue influence or impropriety, what then? how's his effectiveness going to be? and i'm not saying they'll find that. i don't know. but we certainly know the chairman's investigation is meeting -- the extent of his

investigation is meeting with the nominee. and i am sure he is an honorable man. but my duty as a u.s. senator is to know the facts, not to know my feelings. and we can't do that at this time. we're precluded from doing that. so, therefore, we're going to approve someone without full knowledge. we will not be able to ably give our consent advice because we know there are unanswered questions. and if those unanswered questions fall to the side that says mr. mayorkas has done nothing wrong, then he will be there but he will be there in less full power and less full confidence than he would have had otherwise. there's been 20 nominees come through our committee. i voted against only one. only one. i have been a good partner for the administration in moving their nominees.

but to ask us to ignore what might be potential critical information is to ask us to abandon our duty of advise and consent. madam chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. mr. carper: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: i'd like to yield at this time five minutes to the senator from louisiana, senator landrieu. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, madam president. it's unfortunate that this situation has occurred. and what's most unfortunate about it is it's cast a very poor light or really an extraordinary individual, someone that i've had the privilege to know very well for the last several years. and it really pains me and many members of this body who know ali mayorkas personally and know of his extraordinary service to

the united states of america to date, that his name would be dragged through the mud like this. now, i know that the senator from oklahoma has been sincere in many of his efforts to streamline our government, to make it more efficient. and while there have been individuals on the other side that have used the seats that they have been privileged to gain and not the most admirable way, he is not one of them. so i do not have any poor feelings or disappointment in him personally. but i think what's happened here is a complete breakdown of trust on all sides which have caused really extraordinary measures to be taken, because from our perspective, from our perspective, if a candidate like this who has already been

confirmed twice by the united states senate, who served our country already as a u.s. attorney with the highest credentials prosecuting criminal cases that senator coburn and criminal activity that senator coburn and senator carper have spent a career themselves pushing back so that our government can be better, more transparent, more honest, then i don't know where we go from here. i really don't. now, i do know that this gentleman was willing to meet with anyone to try to clear up any misinformation. and in fact, several republicans at my request, my specific personal request, met with him and came away with just amazing opinions, high opinions of him when they asked questions and he

answered. there's a lot of evidence to suggest that the investigation -- in quotes -- against him is bogus, is being conducted because of, for inappropriate reasons. and sometimes these things happen in government, and it's our job to sort through. senator carper, i know, is chairman because i serve on the committee as well. he tried for months and months and months to get meetings to try to clear this up. we just couldn't move forward in any way. so should this man's name be ruined because there's not cooperation in the senate for the first time in many, many, many decades? i've been here almost 20 years. i've never seen it like this. and it's not this gentleman's fault. i know his wife. i know his two girls. they have been to my office. i know his family.

i've met his brothers. this is very painful to his family, and it's un -- it's just not responsible. and it's not only about director mayorkas and ali phoeurbgz ali mayorkas and his family, it's about thousands of good people out there who would love to serve in this government despite the fact that many people on the other side think it's the worst thing ever created in the history of man. that's their view. it happens to be one of the greatest things ever created by man with divine help, but you cannot convince them of that. there are thousands of people that would want to serve in our government. but after listening to speeches that senator coburn just gave or senator grassley or the senator from iowa, the senator from oklahoma or others, who would want to put their family through this? no one. and just because there's a group

of people over there that just despise the government right now, for whatever reason i don't know, they shouldn't take their anger out on the individuals trying to make it better and fix what's broken. this eb-5 program was broken way before director mayorkas had the responsibility to try to fix it. and he's one human being. we have all a responsibility to fix this program. and to blame him and to drag his family through this after an extraordinary career prosecuting crime, when i understand -- and senator carper will speak in just another minute, will speak more to this -- but when people that he worked with in his past needed someone to like head up the integrity committee, they would choose him quite often.

he's run the integrity committees in places that he's worked. that's a great honor. so now he comes up in one of the most important -- i'll conclude here -- one of the most important departments in the whole government -- homeland security, which tom carper authorizes as chair, i fund to the best of my ability with all sorts of attacks to our budget, to try to provide resources to this agency, and this gentleman who we should be thanking him every day for stepping up to want to take this job has to be dragged through this. so i make no apologies for the rules changes that made this possible. i am sorry we were unable to convince people on that side of his outstanding integrity and that the investigation against him is bogus, personal and should be dismissed. and the i.g. that was in charge of it has resigned under a cloud.

that doesn't seem to make any difference to them. and i am proud to put my name and my vote behind this nominee who i know will do an exceedingly fabulous job for this country in a very important role that we need. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: i want to thank the senator from louisiana for that heartfelt passionate endorsement of ali mayorkas' nomination. how much time do i have, madam president? the presiding officer: 16 minutes. mr. carper: i reserve the balance of my time. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i appreciate the comments of my colleague from louisiana, and it goes right to the point. she may be 100% right, but we do

not know the facts. what we have is testimony of a lot of people that this is a fine man. but we don't know the facts. we say we do, but we don't. and, therefore, we are asked in this body to make a judgment without the knowledge. it goes against the very charge that we have for advise and consent. we besmirch all the people, the 650 people that work for this i.g. who has not been associated with this case for a month in terms of personally directing it. we besmirch all those other people. were there credible accusations made? there must have been. there must have been. maybe they're not accurate. they're allegations. but they should be cleared up. and they should be cleared up for mr. mayorkas' sake so that when he takes this position,

it's not under a cloud and that he's totally exonerated. but we're going to go ahead anyway. so i just wonder what crystal ball, regardless of our experience, facts still count. i've raised three daughters. they're in their 40's and late 30's, and i love them dearly. they have great integrity. but they have made mistakes in their life. they have made poor judgments. it doesn't mean they're not great individuals. but they have made mistakes. and what you're saying is cover your ears, cover our eyes and don't see if mistakes were made. make the judgment without that knowledge. and i have no doubt that the words my colleague from louisiana spoke were true in terms of her experience. but you weren't there. you didn't know. there are six individuals who have put their jobs on the line to make allegations that have to

be disproven by nonbiased people who work at the inspector general's office. what we're saying today is you're not capable. you don't have the quality or the integrity to make a fair decision on this issue. and so we're going to vote without it. it's amazing how good we are at looking into the crystal ball to know truth without knowing the facts. so the vote is going to be based on the faith that we think mr. mayorkas has done nothing wrong. i hope that's true. i would have loved to be able to have voted for him knowing the facts, fulfilling my constitutional duty. but you preclude that. so i have no choice, i have no choice but to oppose the nomination not because i oppose mr. mayorkas. it's because i don't have the facts. with that, i will yield back the reminder of my time.

mr. carper: madam president, how much time do i have remaining? the presiding officer: the senator has 15 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. carper: thank you, madam chair. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: our chair, our leadership is the most important element of any organization be it a public or private organization, a business, a school, a military unit, athletic teach; leadership is the key in everything. the department of homeland security which protects us from all kinds of attacks foreign and domestic, man-made and natural, needs leadership. they need confirmed senate leadership. they haven't had it for months. i'm going to thank my colleagues who voted to confirm jeh johnson's nomination as secretary of this department. he'll be sworn in next week, thank god. he needs a team and at the top of that team he needs ali mayorkas to be the deputy secretary. those aren't just my words, the words of senator landrieu, senator leahy or senator feinstein. we received dozens of letters from people who know him, people

who we know their names, we know their faces, we know their reputations, some are democrat, some are republican. a number of them helped lead the department of homeland security. lead it. jane halute, the last deputy of the department who stepped down eight months ago, this is the vacancy we're trying to fill. she literally oversaw his work. she was his boss, if you will. she thinks the world of him not just in the role he served but as a guy who can step in and fill the shoes she used to fill. i want to talk about this investigation. there is two tracks we're going down here. one is an investigation launched in september of 2012 by the i.g., o.i.g. for the department of homeland security. 2012, 15 months ago. how do we find out about it? we found out about it through ali. information leaked by the office to our friends on the other side. three days before the hearing was supposed to occur, we asked

to talk to folks who came forward as whistle-blowers to talk to the minority, we've asked and asked and asked. never been given the chance to talk to them, find out what are their allegations, what is their story. let's hear it. by the same token, they have refused to turn to the one person who knows the most about what is going on in this agency for the last four years, ali mayorkas, to say you've been accused of this. under our system of justice in this country, he could have had chance to defend himself. when he did, they had a hearing and didn't show up. and they won't meet with him either. so here's the situation. we've got people who elect -- they may be very good people. i don't know. we don't know them. we don't know their names. we don't know what they're saying. we just know we haven't had a chance to meet with them. and we know the one guy who is being accused here hasn't had a clans to give his side of the story to those who are accusing him. is that fair? i don't think so. i don't think so. we had that hearing at the end

of july. no republicans came. mr. mayorkas, we put very tough questions to him under oath and he came through. he said on this case involving terry mcauliffe, mr. mcauliffe and his company wanted something. they didn't get it. and the guy who really made the decision, who works for ali mayorkas basically said he made the decision. he made the decision. he was not pressured to make the decision. he ruled against terry mcauliffe's company. end of case. here we are at the end of july. we had the hearing, republicans don't come. dr. coburn joined me in a letter to the inspector general, said please provide the resources to expedite and make a priority of this investigation. we were nine months into the investigation at that time. that was the end of july. in august we reached out through staff and said what kind of assets, what kind of priority are you giving this case?

they had three people working on it. they have 650 employees in this office. 650. they had three full-time people working on it. an investigator, two research assistants. so we go in august, they say, well, we'll need a couple more months. well, a couple more months was october. dr. coburn and i sent another letter to the inspector general and said, how are we doing? let's provide some priority to this and let's get to the bottom of this. that was in october. two weeks ago, minority staff, majority staff on the committee had a conversation, phone conversation with the o.i.g.'s office and said, how are we doing? and they said, well, there's no evidence of any criminal wrongdoing by anybody. not by mr. mayorkas, not by anybody at d.h.s. but we're not done yet, we need several more months. maybe come back in february or march. in the meantime, the department of homeland security doesn't have the leadership that it needs, at least confirmed by us. how long are we going to wait? the terrorists aren't going to wait. the ones in foreign countries aren't going to wait.

the ones in this country aren't going to wait. we need leadership. it's key for everything. everything. madam chairman, there's another audit that's been going on as well by the i.g., same i.g., of the eb-5 program. i'm an old governor, i'm an old state treasurer. we used to get audits all the time in state government. the auditor would come in and do audits. it would drive me crazy when they would come in and make an audit. for some time in the past, refuse to acknowledge that the department or the agency being audited had actually fixed those problems and submit an audit like nothing's different, you've you've seen this. senator has seen this. drove me crazy. we've got an audit that's going to be release publicly i think in a day or two. it's been shared with us in the senate this week. and there are really four recommendations. four recommendations. as it turns out, of those four recommendations, one of them needs the congress to do something. we need to pass a law.

ale mayorkas 18 months ago -- 18 months ago -- said to the judiciary committee, senator leahy, senator grassley, in order for us to make sure there's not fraud in the eb-5 program, make sure there's not national security concerns, we need you, congress, to do something about it. well, when they reauthorized the eb-5 program in 2012, guess what? they didn't take his recommendations, none of them. this year we're doing immigration reform. in committee, senator durbin is one of the key players there, when we did it, pat leahy, chairman of the committee, made sure that those recommendations were actually included in the immigration reform law, the recommendations from ale mayorkas. and they're in the immigration reform bill. we voted for it. it's over in the house now. it's sitting there. gathering dust, unfortunately. if senator leahy doesn't introduce as a stand-alone bill those provisions fixing -- allowing the eb-5 program to have the kind of governance that

it needs through the -- through the uscis agency, if he doesn't do it, i said, i'll introduce the legislation myself. we'll have a lot of cosponsors. there are four recommendations. one of them needs the -- us to do something in order for it to be -- to occur. the other two are either completed, acknowledged, completed, done. the other one, we just -- there was just a disagreement. it is outside the scope of the law. that's the audit. that's the audit. so my friends, i just want to say -- i just want to say this. this is not a criminal investigation. the things that terry mccauliffe and his company sought were denied. but one person within the agen agency, who's actually worked on these investigations and worked on these programs, these eb-5 programs, has come forward and said, look, mayorkas did nothing wrong. i decided -- i decide against mr. mccauliffe's company. and mr. mayorkas stayed out of my way.

we have endorsements, we don't know who the folks that are the detractors of mr. mayorkas. i wish we did and i wish we had a chance to talk to them. we're never going to have the chance. i wish my friends on the other side had taken the time to talk to mr. mayorkas to say, listen, this is what you're accused of. the democrats don't know what you're accused of but this is what we've been told by these six people, what's your story? what's your story? whatever happened to the golden rule? what happened to the idea that justice delayed is justice denied? you know the mayorkas family, he's got a wife, they've got two kids. they have a life to live. we put them through hell for months. what kind of message does this send to other people, other agency leaders who go in, take an agency that's in trouble, that has problems, needs to be fixed, needs to be shaken up and that person goes in and does it and gets whistle-blowers or complaints out of the -- out of

the -- as a result? what do we say to other leaders who go into theagz are in trouble -- agencies that are in trouble, need to be shaken up, willing to, you know, get people to do things differently, what do we say to them? don't do it. don't rock the boat. just let things slide. is that the message we want to send? i don't think so. well, we'll not have a chance on this side to hear from those six people, but i tell ya, the other people who work in that agency had a chance to say something about the way they feel about how their agency's going. earlier this week, as my colleagues know, every year we get a report from a nonprofit organization that looks at 300 federal agencies and asked the question -- how's morale, how do you feel about the work that you're doing? and they asked 300 -- one of those 300 is this agency led by ale mayorkas, the citizenship and immigration services. the department of homeland security again this year -- we just got the results this year -- again this year, worst morale in the federal government of any department in our

government. worst morale. but guess what? there's one agency in this department that stood up, stood out, because out of those 300 agencies, number 76, the top 2 25%, number 76 was this agency, led by mr. mayorkas. and another question was asked of the employees, do you feel better or worse about your senior leadership? this year than last year? since 2009 since he took over this organization, since 2009, madam president, well, guess what? over 20% of them say they feel better. they feel better about their senior leadership of mr. mayorkas than they did without his leadership. something's going on in that agency, folks. we're not getting the full story. but that survey that we got this week says a lot. please. mr. durbin: through the chair i'd like to ask a question of the senator from delaware because he's touched on an issue which is important to everyone,

but especially to this senator from illinois. it was 12 years ago when i introduced the dream act and it was a little over a year ago when the president issued an executive order which said that they would defer the deportation of those eligible under the dream act. but there was also a little wrinkle to it. we -- they said the fees that we were going to collect under this dthis daca, they called it, executive order, had to pay for the administration of this executive order. this is extraordinary. we're basically saying this is a pay-as-you-go effort that has drawn more than 600,000 applications and over 450,000 approvals. and this went right through mr. mayorkas' responsibility and jurisdiction. so i would say to the senator from delaware, not only is the morale good in the -- in his agency but the job they've done is extraordinary. they were given an extraordinary responsibility and they rose to

the challenge and handled it professionally. and i can tell you firsthand knowledge, having met with him, watched him, this man is a capable administrator and the people who work for him clearly as a result of this survey are very happy with his performance. i would just add to the senator from delaware, what absolutely confuses, mystifies, infuriates me is the notion that people, unidentified people, will make nonspecific charges against this man and he is supposed to wait for month after weary month? if we talk about the basic standard of justice in america, when the government makes a charge against someone, there's a complaint, a bill of particulars. you know what the charge is. and fairness and justice require that you can confront your accusers and hear from them the information and evidence against them. in this situation, as best i can understand -- and what you've

said repeatedly on the floor, i say to the chairman -- is that that never took place. you've waited month after weary month for these accusers to come forward and at least tell mr. mayorkas what they think he has done wrong. their silence, their refusal to do so speaks volumes to me. and i'm sorry that they didn't make their report more fully, but i think, as i said the other night on the floor, you're an honorable person. i know you and i've worked with you for over 30 years, in the house and in the senate, and when i hear you stand on the floor, you do your best to be fair and bipartisan in everything. when you hear you stand on the floor and say this man has been treated unfairly, he deserves his chance. that's what i need to hear. and i would just say to the senator from delaware, has he had a chance to confront his accusers? has your committee had a chance to even know the allegations against him at this point? mr. carper: the answer, madam president, the answer, sadly, is no, we have not.

no, we have not. madam president, how much time do we have remaining? the presiding officer: the senator has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. carperer: madam president, y friend, senator durbin from springfield, illinois, land of lincoln, i'm reminded as i close here this morning about something that lincoln once sa said. he was meeting with his cabinet during the civil war, during the heart of the civil war, things started to turn to the union for the better. the union leader in the military side was a guy named grant, and he allegedly liked to drink a lot. and some of the folks on the president's cabinet didn't like him. they said, mr. president, we

need to get rid of grant. he's not the kind of guy we want to have leading our forces. and grant had led a reversal of fortunes so that the union, on the losing side, ended up on the winning side again and again and again. lincoln looked at his cabinet and he said these words -- and i paraphrase them. he said, find out what grant is drinking and give it to the rest of my generals. well, rather than criticize or hang out to dry a leader of an agency who turned it around, who enjoys the support, broad support, of the folks within his agency, rather than criticize him and finding fault and leaving him out there unable to defend himself against unknown accusations, we should find out, in the words of lincoln, find out what grant is drinking, and in this case find out what mayorkas is doing, what has he done to turn around an agency, and make sure the other people that come in to positions of authority are taking of the same pench. the presiding officer: all time has expired.

mr. carper: with that, i yield the floor and yield back my time. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the nomination. mr. durbin: madam president? officer assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: madam president, i'd like to make a brief statement that under the unanimous conse consent, it said that the -- that we would move to this vote on the mayorkas nomination following the debate. this debate has ended a little earlier than we anticipated and this first roll call we're going to accommodate members, leave it open and so they have a chance. but because most are anxious to go home, we're hoping they'll come to the floor early, vote and we can start the series of votes agreed to. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: does any senator wish to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 54. the nays are 41, and the nomination is confirmed. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: madam president, would you please bring the senate to order? the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. durbin: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the remaining mandatory quorums with respect to these nominations required under rule 22 be waived. further that all remaining votes be ten-minute votes. i urge my colleagues to stay on the floor so we can hold to these ten-minute deadlines. people have planes to catch. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with the proefrbgss of rule -- provisions of rule 22

of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of john andrew koskinen of the district of columbia to be commissioner of internal revenue signed by 19 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of john andrew koskinen of the district of columbia to be commissioner of internal revenue shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: does any senator wish to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 56, the anyways are 39. and the nomination is confirmed. mr. durbin durbin: madam presid? the presiding officer: i stand corrected, the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of the treasury. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: madam president, that 10-minimum nil roll call took 18 minutes. if people will stay on the floor, we can move through these

more quickly. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: department of the treasury, john andrew koskinen of the district of columbia to be commissioner of internal revenue. the presiding officer: under the previous order, all postcloture time is yielded back and the question occurs on the nomination. a senator: ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the yeas and nays have been called for. is there a sufficient second. there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. on this vote, the yeas are 59.

the nays are 36. and the nomination is confirmed. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: last roll call was 11 1/2 minutes. i that you all for your cooperation. the presiding officer: the clerk will report to invoke cloture. the clerk: we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of brian j. davis of florida to be united states district judge for the middle district of florida signed by 19 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination, brian j. davis of florida to be united states district judge for the middle district of florida, shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote: