vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their

vote? if not, the ayes are 54. the nays are 38. the nomination is confirmed. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. the senate will be in order. the majority leader. mr. reid: sorry about that. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that postcloture time on the motion to proceed be considered expired, the senate proceed to vote on adoption of the motion to proceed, that if a motion is agreed to senator mikulski or her designee be recognized to offer a substitute amendment number 3244 which consists of the text of -- mr. president, we need to have

order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. please take your conversations out of the well. mr. reid: be recognized to offer the substitute amendment 3244 which consists of text of s. 2437 calendar number 411. as division a, calendar number 412 as division b and the text of s. 2389 calendar number 390 as division c provided further that the division of consideration ba-3745 and division c as reported by the house committee on appropriations be deemed house passed text and h.r. 4660 for purposes of rule 16. further that the substitute amendment offered by senator mikulski or her designee be considered a committee amendment for purposes of paragraph 1 under rule 16. further all amendments or motions to commit be subject to a 60 vote affirmative threshold.

mr. president, let me -- before you call for approval of this consent, let me say a few words so everyone understands all this procedural stuff. it's a fairly simple matter. it's taken us -- mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. if you could please take all your conversations out of the well. the majority leader. mr. reid: sorry, but it's terribly distracting to have conversations going on behind you. or at least it is for me. mr. president, we've waited all week to get a simple agreement to move forward on appropriations bills the way we've always done it. and if it had been just one appropriations bill, we wouldn't need consent. but we put three of them together, and that was the right

thing to do. but it seems to me that we spend all week doing so much of the time nothing. sadly, i'm sorry that's the norm around here. for every single matter, even wildly popular matters like an appropriations bill, requires the full play of the cloture rule to advance. this has been so even though on tuesday when cloture was invoked on proceeding, 95 senators voted to get on the bill. only 3 voted against it. senators on both sides said they want to have amendments, and we should have amendment votes. and i'm willing to have amendment votes on this and other things, but let's talk about this today. and i want to have votes on the conditions that senator mcconnell has so frequently stated, 60-vote threshold. the idea of a 60-vote threshold will not come as a surprise to anyone in this chamber, i don't think, because i'd like to take just a minute responding -- i'm

sorry -- outlining to you direct quotes from my friend, the republican leader. here's one, "look we know on confidential matters in the senate it has for quite some time required 60 votes." number two, he said requiring 60 votes particularly on matters of importance is not at all unusual. it's the way the senate operates. the next quote: matters of this level of controversy requires 60 votes. so i would ask my friend -- referring to me -- if he would modify his consent request to set the threshold for this vote at 60. again, he said -- and i quote -- "for him to suggest that a matter of this magnitude in a body of 60 votes for almost everything is going to be done with 51 votes makes no sense at all." and he said, "so it is not at all unusual that the president's proposal of this consequence would have to achieve 60 votes? that is the way virtually all

business is done in the senate. certainly not extraordinarily unusual." finally he said "mr. president, i can only quote my good friend" again referring to me "who repeatedly said most recently in the senate has been the case we require 60 votes. it requires 60 votes certainly on measures that are controversial." let's just make this pretty simple. we're going to have the ability to offer germane amendments and we will follow the mcconnell rule and have 60 votes on them. it seems fair. that's my consent request. i would ask that it be approved. the presiding officer: is there objection to the request? mr. mcconnell: mr. president, reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: what i think i hear the majority leader saying is that any amendment offered by any republican is controversial and, thus, must require 60 votes. it was my hope we could get forward on this appropriations bill with a full and open amendment process and a

reasonable number of amendments from both sides. the only restrictions on amendments to this bill are those in the stand rules of the senate which create a requirement that the amendments deal with appropriations matter or if legislative in nature, have a defense of germaneness to one of the underlying house appropriations bill. chairman mikulski has been determined to try to get us back to regular order in considering appropriations bill. in 2011, just a couple of years ago, we considered this same appropriation package, the very one that we're considering now, under the regular order, and all senators, democrat and republican, were treated fairly. just three years ago. today's senate is a totally different place. a totally different place. the majority leader has blocked all but nine roll call votes on republican amendments since july

of last year. that's about a year ago. all but nine republican roll call votes. by contrast, during that same period, house democrats got 153 amendments roll call votes over that same period of time. that's in the house where you would think it would be hard for the minority to get amendments. in fact, one member of congress, sheila jackson lee from houston, has had 15 amendments herself. sheila jackson-lee has had more votes over the last year than senate republicans. in fact, the house seems to have turned into the senate, and the senate seems to have turned into the house. now the gag rule, as was pointed out by senator alexander and others this morning, in an appropriation meeting seems to now apply to committee meetings as well. so not only do we not get votes on the floor, we don't get votes in committee either.

so they canceled the scheduled markup on the energy and water bill, i assume out of concern that some republican amendment might, my goodness, actually pass with democratic support. so we're being shut out of amendments in committee as well as on the floor. when do we start legislating again? what's happened to the united states senate? therefore, i would ask consent that the proposed agreement by the majority leader be modified so that all amendments be considered under the regular order. chairman mikulski and ranking member shelby, and move this bill across the floor in a bipartisan manner exactly like we did it on the very same bill back in 2011. mr. reid: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: does the majority leader so modify his request? mr. reid: reserving the right to object, mr. president.

my friend, the republican leader, is obviously not in contact with what's going on around here. this doesn't apply to republican amendments. it applies to republican or democratic amendments. as all his requests which are in the record and i read. a reasonable number of amendments he wants, fine. that's what we want to do. we want to have a reasonable number of amendments on this bill and move it forward. it's important we get this done. now, mr. president, i've served in the house of representatives. and not without going into a lot of detail here, as the presiding officer has served in the house of representatives, the rules there are totally different. of course there are a lot of votes because every vote is predetermined in the house with

rare exception, because they have a rules committee that sets the boundaries of what happens. and so over in the house the majority never loses. here, mr. president, the senate is the way it is. we're willing to do votes as the republican leader has stated time and time again we should do it. i disagreed. but as he has said, this is the way the senate operates now. i wish it didn't, but it does. and that's the way we should proceed. i'm willing to move forward on this bill. we should have 60-vote threshold, and i think that would that would be the appropriate thing to do. therefore, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. is there objection to the original request? mr. mcconnell: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. reid: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: my friend the majority leader always reminds me he gets last word and i'm sure he'll have something to say further. let me say during this last period going back to last july senate democrats have had seven roll call votes. congresswoman sheila jackson-lee in the minority in the house has had 15 roll call votes over the last year. i yield the floor. mr. reid: the house is different than the senate, mr. president. there is no question about that. we could have on this bill a lot more than seven votes. so we should do that. i would now note -- it's my understanding, mr. president, would the chair state the business that's before this body. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question occurs on the nichols nomination.

all in favor say aye. all opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the question occurs on the mcwatters nomination. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order the question occurs on the wormuth nomination. all in favor say aye. all opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the

motions to reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate will resume legislative session. the senator from tennessee. mr. reid: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: there's seven quoll cull i woulms. mikulski: o claim those minutes. mr. reid: i'm sorry. ms. mikulski: before we move to the adoption of the motion to proceed on the c.j.s. appropriations, if we do so, i want to speak as the chairperson of the appropriations committee and the chair of the

subcommittee on c.j.s. i'm really sad about what just happened here. i'm really sad that we couldn't find a way to proceed to bring these thrie outstanding bills -- threes outstanding bills up. i just want to note that what we wanted to bring to the floor was the commerce-justice-science bill, the agricultural bill, and transportation and housing, urban development. there are significant policy differences even on each one of of those bills, whether it is truck requirements, whether it's school nutrition, whether it's environmental -- important discussions and decisions on environmental protection. on my own c.j.s. bill, we're going to really lose a lot. i had money in this bill working with senator shelby for more money for bulletproof vests for cops to protect those who protect us, more money for domestic violence to be able to protect those in their own homes, and i've also had more

money in there to work for those people who've been rape victims, doubly assaulted by the system where they were not only raped by a perpetrator, but the very system didn't process the forensic evidence that would have found -- would have validated the guilty party or even ascertained that there was a serial rapist. agriculture fed the hungry in this country and fed the hungry around the world. and, of course, transportation-housing both created jobs, solved problems in physical infrastructure, and also at the same time met compelling human needs in our housing, particularly i note the things like housing for the elderly and then economic development. i am not going to take my full nine minutes, but i would hope that at the end of today we figure out how we can have another day. i know on both sides of the aisle in the appropriations committee itself those

subcommittee chairmen really worked hard to produce bills. as of today, we have moved six bills out of our -- out of our full committee and are pending on the floor. but now we have to truly arrive of rules for the road on how to proceed to bring these bills to the floor. i really hope we can do so. there has been so much good will on both sides of the aisle, and also on both sides of the aisle really incredible effort to be able to meet needs of our country, have a more frugal government, and a really truly civil process. so this day will come to an end, but i really hope that the appropriations committee coming to the floor doesn't die today. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: mr. majority leader. mr. reid: i nona ther know thate

are others who wish to speak. if they want to use time postcloture, that's fine. otherwise i yield the time back and the floor will be open for anybody to talk as much as they want. so does anybody want to speak for the two minutes remaining on this? i ask unanimous consent that all time postcloture be yielded back. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: are we now -- the presiding officer: the question owe curbs o he occurs e motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed, nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have t the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to calendar number 34 -- s. 3263. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number s. 2363, a bill to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting, and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: madam

president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i know my friend from tennessee is on the floor and would like to make a few observations smed observat. i would just very briefly make the following point ahead of him: another way of looking at the way the senate is being run that affects democratic senators, democratic house members from oregon -- from oregon -- have gotten 12 roll call votes on their amendments, but oregon's democratic senators haven't gotten any ... none. democratic house members from virginia have gotten 11 roll call votes on their amendments, but virginia's two democratic senators have gotten none -- zero. democratic house members from colorado have gotten seven roll call votes on their amendments, but the democratic senators from colorado have gotten none -- zero. democratic house members from california have gotten 37 roll call votes on their amendments,

but california's democratic senators have gotten none -- zero. so, madam president, that is the condition of the senate today, not just affecting the republican minority but the democratic majority as well. i see senator alexander is on the floor. i yield the floor. mr. alexander: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: madam president, let me see if i can say something that's not -- that contributes to the -- to progress, especially while the senator from maryland, the chairman of the appropriations committee, is on the floor. she has really done a terrific job in working with the republican and democratic leader to try to get us back to the business of appropriating. and we're not that faraway from that. i mean, we have three bills ready to come to the floor. we have consent on the

republican sited, whicrepublicae unanimous over here, to bring it up this way. now we have a difn difference of opinion between the two leaders about whether all amendments ought to be 60. i would respectfully suggest that that's not the norm. it is true that the republican leader has said many times that an important amendment ought to be 60 votes. and even recently when we were workinworking on the child care development block grant, we would say the normal 60 vote. but phs a non-germane amendment, maybe it will be 60 votes. that is a matter of negotiation. so my hope is that we could move through these appropriations bills in the normal way, which would mean most votes would be 51. occasionally there might be a 60-vote vote. that's what we usually have done. that's what we historically have done. and the majority party has 55 members the last time i checked.

it has a president who can veto anything and it takes 67 to override him. so, so they have plenty of advantages on their side. let me conclude in this way: i said this this morning in our appropriations committee. last week i was visiting with some senators with an ambassador -- we had dinner at the home of an ambassador from a country that greatly admires the united states. and he was saying how much he envisaenvies the united states e and how other countries envy t and how it is the only tribunal anywhere in the world that is set up to have extended debate on important issues until we reach a consensus and stop debate and come to a result. i mean, that's the history of the civil rights bill, the medicare bill, the student loan bill last year, and bills even more recently than that. and what that means in very simple terms is that the

majority decides what we're going to talk about, the minority decides what amendments it would like to offer, and we keep talking and keep talking until it's time to cut off debate and try to come to a result. that's what we should be doing. and i would respectfully say that this -- that this business of not being willing to vote on amendments because it might hurt some individual senator is not really worthy of the united states senate, it's not practical, and it really doesn't knack much difference in campaigns -- make that much difference in campaigns. the idea that only nine republican roll call votes out of 850 amendments offered since last july have occurred is probably a record in the united states senate. and what is even worse is that there, according to the senator from wyoming, who has counted these, only seven democratic roll call votes out of nearly

700 offered sings last july. now -- since last july. now, why are we here if we're not here to speak on behalf of our constituents about benghazi, about the new health care law, about whether we need a college rating system from washington, d.c., about fixing no child left behind? i remember in senator byrd's book he talked about the panama canal treaty that he and senator baker marshaled through. it took 67 votes, very divisive issue. he said, we allowed 200 amendments, reservations, and other codicils to the amendment. and we killed them all. we beat them all. but he said, we never would have gotten the treaty ratified if we hadn't allowed senators to have their say. so we've gotten to this level of distrust between that side and this side, and a number of us -- most of us are trying over here to say, all we want is an opportunity to have amendments

offered in the regular order, a chance to debate them, and a chance to vote on them, and if we're defeated, so be it and to impose a gag rule on us imposes a gag rule on the people we're sent here to represent. and this morning in the appropriations committee that gag rule moved from the senate floor to the appropriations committee. if the republicans were in charge of the senate, the democrats wouldn't put up with that. and i don't know why they're putting up with it today. so i know there's distrust on both sides, but we're very close to a situation where we have three major appropriations bills which are on the floor. we have a disagreement only about whether they all ought to be 60 votes. that's not been the norm before. we should be able to work that out and use our time to represent the people of the united states so that ambassador, when he has another group of united states senators out there, can there, you belong to the tribunal that's unique in

the world, that every country in the world wished it had because it is the forum, the only one of its kind, where you have extended debate on major issues until you get a consensus and come to a result. that's the only way to govern a complex country like the country that is the united states of america, and we're getting back toward that, and hypocrite that our leaders -- and i hope that our leaders and our appropriations committee members can take the next step and let us go to work like we aimed to do. we have rhodes scholars and former governors and people who have been here a long time and a short time. it is not easy to get here and it is not easy to stay here. so while we're here, we'd like to work. which means we'd like to speak, have our say, vote, and if we can, get a result. i thank the chair and yield. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader.

mr. reid: my friend from tennessee is a fine man, he's been a good senator, a good member of one of the president's cabinet, and he really has tried to be a peacemaker all the time i've known him. but his speech that he just gave could be given by any democrat about the obstruction, the delay, the diversions taking place during the entire time president obama has been president. we've never had to file cloture on every motion to proceed, as we did on this one, as we've done on everything that comes along. so we can -- we can talk about where we have been, but i think we should talk about where we are. everyone knows that there has been, because the republicans want a threshold of 60 votes. but sty my friend from tennessee, i ask my consent agreement. he says we're very close. with his skills of negotiating

compromises, i'm willing to listen to something else. if he has a better idea to change the mcconnell 60-vote threshold rule -- i have some ideas myself, but perhaps they should come from him. i, on behalf of my caucus, is entirely agreeable to listening to any reasonable counteroffer. madam president, we have been trying really hard to get things done, but every step we take is a stalling tactic. my friend talked about ambassadors. mr. president, i don't know the exact count, but last count i had we had 54 ambassadors held up -- 54. the continent of africa, about a third of the countries there do not have a united states ambassador. that doesn't count the scores of other people that are being held up. why are they being held up? they're being held up because we are now able to move judges.

the ambassador related to judges is nearly emtivmen empty. we have a few district court junls, we have a circuit court judge. they'll report some more out. but in an effort to us -- use whatever term you want -- we'll show you guys. you'll get your judges and we're not going to give you any other nominations. we're working through those very slowly. so as much as i care and respect the senator from tennessee, he does not need to lecture me. about stalling around here. we are not. if they want to beat the record of eight or nine amendments, however many it is, move to this bill. they'll have lots of amendments, and we can move to start doing that this afternoon. so, mr. president, i repeat now for the third time, if my friend from tennessee has a better idea of moving forward -- he says we're so close -- i'm willing to listen to him. mrs. boxer: madam president? the presiding officer: the

senator from california. mrs. boxer: madam president, i want to say to my friend from tennessee that the majority leader has offered a way forward and he's taken a page out of the book of the republican leader. and he's quoted him, and i have those quotes here. "matters of controversy always require 60 votes." and my friend knows. he knows. i stand here as the chairman of the environment and public works committee. i'm grateful i've moved bills through here, highway bills, water bills. my friend knows that the two big amendments that his side wands to offer don't deal with -- wants to offer don't deal with ordinary matters; deal with matters that have jurisdiction in the environment committee. deal with a repeal of parts of the clean air act and a repeal of parts of the clean water act. so my friend wants to move forward. i'm sure he would agree that to repeal parts of landmark laws on

an appropriations bill is legislating on appropriations and ought to require 60 votes. it's wrong. now, i would say to my friend why the other side is so determined to repeal a law or two laws -- one dealing with the clean water act and the safe drinking water act, and then the other one is the clean air act. why my friends on the other side continue to go against these laws, these landmark laws, which, by the way, were signed into law by republican presidents, he has to explain. because i don't understand why people want to put children at risk and families at risk, pollute our rivers, our streams, and suspend a plan that the president has announced that's going to save thousands of lives, going after carbon pollution, making sure we don't go back to the days of smog and ozone. and we know these are the riders

that my republican friends want to offer. there's no secret. and the republican leader defined the 60-vote threshold for controversial amendments. i can assure my friend that if there was a tweak or two that were going to be made and senator mikulski and senator shelby agreed with it, i would not demand 60 votes. we are talking about repealing basic, important landmark provisions of environmental laws. and that's exactly what this is about. ms. mikulski: would the gentlelady yield for a question? mrs. boxer: i'd be happy to yield, yes. ms. mikulski: i was just listening to what you said. senator reid proposed a 60-vote threshold on amendments to our appropriations bill. it was rejected. okay. you said now you wouldn't

object -- mrs. boxer: to the 60-vote threshold, no. ms. mikulski: all amendments? could you clarify? in other words, would you not want a 60-vote? mrs. boxer: i go with the mitch commonly rule which he -- with the mitch mcconnell rule which he has stated seven times, which is on controversial amendments we have to have 60 votes. i'm not going to stand here, and my friend says -- i just want to answer my friend. my friend says we're trying to spare people tough votes. that's ridiculous. members on your side and members on our side, we're grown-up senators. we know how to win elections casting tough votes. i want to protect the american people, and so do a lot of folks on our side of the aisle. and we don't want to see majority rule to repeal landmark environmental laws. we're not going to stand for it.

and neither would the majority leader in the way he describes it. he said over and over again on amendments of controversy, we have to have a 60-vote threshold. so my friend, if he's sincere about this -- he is sincere about this. but if the two chairmen can come up with a plan where amendments like this, controversial amendments require 60, but amendments that both sides feel are not controversial can go to a voice vote, i'm a happy person. i've gotten bills through here before. i wasn't born yesterday, as you can probably tell. and we know a controversial amendment from a noncontroversial amendment. so i'll close with this. i know my friend, senator mikulski is an incredible chairman. and richard shelby working with her, they are quite the duo. and i have seen their work, because every single member cares about the work they do, and it's stellar.

but i'm not going to sit here and see amendments come to the floor that would repeal clean air, clean water, safe drinking water, and just nod approval and say oh yeah, just take it away, no big deal, that's it. and that's why i feel the majority leader was right when he said let's move forward with a 60-vote threshold. that makes a lot of sense. i'm sorry that the republicans objected, and i yield the floor. mr. hatch: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to continue and finish my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: madam president, i've been really interested in this debate. let's just be honest about it. the senate is being run in a shoddy fashion. i don't care which side you're on. i've only been here 38 years, and i've never seen a bigger mess than we have right now. i've never seen the majority stifling amendments by the minority like we have right now.

i've never seen cloture filed almost immediately when a bill is brought up like we're filibustering when we're not. all we want are amendments and have a vote up and down, something we always gave the democrats on crucial bills like this one. it's pathetic and it's got to change. and, frankly, if the american people really knew, we've had nine amendments since last july that we voted on. the democrats have had only seven. even some of my democrat friends are up in arms on it. they're not able to act as senators. they're not able to do the work. they're not able to be part of it. my gosh, is protecting your side from the election, is that more important than having the senate run like it should? the answer to that is a resounding no. this is pathetic. i've never seen anything like

it. and to come out here and act holier than thou about it like it's just normal around here is just plain wrong, and everybody knows it. that's the thing that just kills me. if we were doing that and we were in the majority, my gosh, the whole world may be coming down on us, especially in this beloved media we have in this country. and rightly so if we were pulling the kind of stunts that are being pulled on the democrat side. look, i'm tired of it. i know democrats who are tired of it. every republican is tired of it. we're being treated like we don't count in this battle, in this battle between the two parties in the senate. it doesn't have to be a battle every time. both sides have been wrong from time to time, but nothing like this. this is pathetic.

and, madam president, i ask that my remarks from here on in be placed in the appropriate place in the record. madam president, about a year ago the american people learned that the i.r.s., one of the most feared and powerful agencies in our government, had engaged in political targeting. there's no doubt about that. specifically, we learned that the i.r.s. had, by its own admission, singled out individual conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status for harassment and extra scrutiny during the run-up to 2010 and 2012 elections. and the i.r.s. admits it. at least some in the i.r.s. admit it. needless to say, the american people were outraged when this news became public, and the i.r.s.'s credibility was seriously damaged. we saw numerous groups and individuals come forward to acknowledge that they had been targeted.

politicians across the political spectrum, including the president of the united states, condemn these actions and vowed to get to the bottom of it. in the many months since the targeting scandal was revealed, i have said numerous times that the most important objectives for the i.r.s. and its leadership consisted of repairing its reputation with the american people. and for awhile there, it appeared as though the agency was serious about doing that. sadly, over the last few days a chapter in this scandal has been opened. a new chapter in this scandal has been opened. and as a result, the i.r.s.'s credibility has taken yet another serious hit. for more than a year, madam president, the senate finance committee has been engaged in a bipartisan investigation into the targeting scandal. and during most of that time we were under the impression that the i.r.s. was acting in relative good faith to cooperate

with our inquiry. as of last week we believed we were close to completing our investigation. we had prepared the bipartisan majority report, and the majority -- and minority views in addition. we were about ready to come out with that. the facts we believed were coming together. then in what i thought would be one of the last steps in the investigation, i insisted that we send a letter to i.r.s. commissioner koskinen, john koskinen, demanding he formally certify that the agency produce all documents that were relevant to our requests. it was then, after we sent that notice to them, asking them to verify, that we learned that there was an enormous hole in our fact finding. i'm sure glad we sent the

letter. on friday of last week the i.r.s. informed us that due to a hard drive crash, it was unable to produce thousands of pages of e-mails from lois lerner -- that is the one who took the fifth amendment, the former director of exempt organizations, and one of the central figures by anybody's estimation, if not the central figure in this investigation. the gap in the e-mails was from 2009 through april 2011. a pivotal time for the activities -- or in the activities under investigation. you heard that right, madam president. a full year after our initial investigation request, or information request, the i.r.s. informed us that a huge chunk of relevant e-mails was mysteriously gone.

not just the i.r.s., but e-mails between the i.r.s. and the treasury department, the political arm of the administration, and the white house itself. needless to say, this was, this was disturbing. that's why chairman wyden and i demanded to meet with commissioner koskinen on monday of this week. sadly, this meeting produced even more bad news. the first thing we learned during the course of this meeting was that ms. lerner's e-mails were not going to be reproduced. the i.r.s.'s redundancy operations were apparently insufficient to ensure that these e-mails would be saved in the event of a hard drive crash. according to commission koskinen, the i.r.s. only saves e-mails on its servers for six months.

get that. the i.r.s. only saves e-mails on its computer servers for six months. now, they require you and me and everybody else to save at least three years of our tax returns, but they only, according to them, were saving e-mails on its service, servers for six months. can you imagine that, madam president? the agency that requires the american people to preserve its documents for three years only saves e-mails for six months. i don't know about you, but i have a rough time believing that. i can't believe that that's what they do. the next thing we learned was that officials at the i.r.s. became aware of this gap in ms. lerner's e-mails as early as february of this year and that the kph*eugs himself was -- the commissioner himself was made

aware about the hard drive cash about three weeks or more prior to our meeting. he wasn't sure but sometimes towards the first part of march towards the end of april, but certainly more than three weeks before our meeting. it was never made clear to us why it took at the very at least three weeks in a letter from us demanding a signed certification from the commissioner for i.r.s. to inform the finance committee that the e-mails were missing. as of right now, we still don't know why the agency failed to inform us immediately that the emails were gone. the i.r.s. was more willing to share this information with others in the administration. yesterday we learned that by april, the i.r.s. had already notified treasury that some of miss lerner's emails appeared to be missing. we also learned in april the treasury informed the white

house of this development. they didn't inform us. the i.r.s. has offered no explanation of why they waited two more months to inform congress, and particularly the senate finance committee, the crucial committee here in the senate, which was performing an active investigation into this very issue. you haven't heard from either the chairman, senator wyden or i popping up about this. we have conducted a reasonably good investigation doing everything we thought we could do without mouthing off about it. now, moreover, we do not know what discussions have taken place between april or since april between the white house, treasury and the i.r.s. about the lost emails. now, that would be bad enough, madam president, but it gets worse. after our meeting on monday, we were surprised to learn via a press release from the house ways and means committee that

even more emails relevant to our investigation may be missing. apparently, the i.r.s. had informed ways and means but not us. knowing that we're conducting an investigation, that it might have lost the emails for six i.r.s. employees, all of whom were covered by the finance committee's document request. think about that. after that meeting on monday, it was surprising to learn, because in a press release from the house ways and means committee, that even more emails than lois lerner's relevant to our investigation may be missing. apparently the i.r.s. had informed ways and means that it might have lost the emails for

six, six i.r.s. employees, all of whom were covered by the finance committee's document request. now, one of these employees was reported to be nicole flax, who was the chief of staff of the former acting commissioner steve miller. in that role, miss flax helped oversee the processing of tax-exempt applications. we also know she directly dealt with the white house and the office of management and budget on a number of issues. it seems, madam president, that there is an epidemic of hard drive crashes going on at the i.r.s., and it seems to be particularly focused on individuals relevant to the targeting scandal and the ongoing congressional investigations. chairman wyden and i just wanted to get to the truth on these matters, but it's going to be impossible to ever get there now. needless to say, it's very

troubling that even more emails might be missing and may never be recovered. it's also troubling that neither commissioner koskinen nor his staff thought they should reveal this information to senator wyden or myself during our long conversation earlier this week. they knew about it, but they didn't deign to tell the people who were conducting the investigation about it at all. it's obvious from the timing of the revelations that people in that room were aware of the additional missing emails. yet it didn't occur to any of them that they should disclose this information to the chairman and ranking member of the only senate committee with oversight authority over this agency. like i said, madam president, the finance committee was getting close to completing its investigation last week, we were getting close to issuing our report, and we were moving forward under the assumption

that the i.r.s. had been cooperating. it took me a week to read the bipartisan report and the -- and the majority and minority views that were added to it. not because i'm a slow reader but because i was interrupted all day long every day. i had to set aside various times where i could read it. and we were moving forward under the assumption that the i.r.s. had been cooperating, honestly cooperating. we thought. now we have to ask ourselves whether we can trust any of the statements coming out of this agency. our investigation is important. we need to have a full and complete account of what went on at the i.r.s. during the 2010 and 2012 election campaigns. sadly, it seems that in order to get such an account, we're going to need to also delve into what has gone on at the i.r.s. during the months that the agency was supposedly trying to respond to

our reasonable document request. one way or another, i'm going to get to the bottom of this, and i am prepared to take any steps that are necessary to do so. we need to get the closure on what the facts are before we can close out the investigation. otherwise, the conclusions in the investigation would be based on a faulty factual premise. i might add that -- that we were getting close to being able to come out with the relevant investigative materials. earlier today, i sent a letter to commissioner koskinen demanding to know what he knew about the additional missing emails and why the chairman and i were not informed about them during our meeting this last monday. he had three others with him, and at least one of them fully

knew about the additional six hard drives that crashed. i'm not naive. i do a lot in the i.t. world, and i can tell you this -- these are the first hard drives that crashed that i have known about that some of our i.t., information technology experts couldn't get into and find some of the data. that's possible, but not probable in seven different cases. once again, it appears that either the commissioner, and his staff were less than forthcoming in the meeting, and someone needs to be held responsible. this is important. if we can't trust these agencies to be truthful to congressional leaders, we really have serious problems. this letter is only the first step. more action needs to be taken. there needs to be an independent review of the fiasco surrounding

all of these lost emails and these crash servers. we need an independent arbiter to determine if the agency's account of the computer problems is accurate and whether the relevant emails are in fact unrecoverable. we also need a review that determined that there are more missing emails. like i said, this review needs to be independent as we apparently can't trust the i.r.s. to be fully forthcoming on these issues. this is what we're going to need to get to the bottom of this, but sadly even that won't be enough. the problem with these missing emails is that we won't have any assurances that we'll ever get a complete picture of what went on. we need to take the necessary steps to find out just what communications these individuals were making during the time in question. now we have received many of these employees' emails from the i.r.s. because for obvious reasons they tended to include

the email addresses of other i.r.s. employees. however, what we don't have are emails sent by these individuals to parties outside the i.r.s. and if the computer problems at the agency have indeed made these emails impossible to recover on the i.r.s.'s end, the only way to recover them is to extend the inquiry to agencies outside the i.r.s. let me just say this is -- this is really a mess. i don't see how any reasonable person could not conclude that there is a real possibility that something is wrong in washington, something is wrong at the i.r.s., something is wrong at treasury and something is wrong at the white house. communications agencies like the treasury department, the justice department, the federal election commission are all relevant as

are emails sent to the white house. i plan to send document requests to all of these parties asking them to produce any communications they receive from the seven i.r.s. employees whose emails have been lost. unfortunately, in an ideal world, none of this would be necessary, but we're not living in an ideal world. instead, we're living in a world where apparently hard drives crash every day and administration officials decide to withhold information from congressional investigators. as a result, additional steps are necessary in order for the truth to finally come out. in conclusion, madam president, i want to make one thing clear. while i am angered and disappointed by this recent turn of events, i am not the aggrieved party here. that unfortunate distinction belongs to the american people. once again, the i.r.s. is one of the most powerful and feared agencies in our government. it's one that millions of

americans have to deal with on a daily basis. the american people have a right to expect that this agency will conduct itself in a fair manner without regard to parties and politics, and that trust was broken last year when the targeting scandal was made public. now, a year later, after all the work we have done to hold this agency accountable and to get to the bottom of these matters, that trust has been broken again. i have to say that chairman wyden has been very, very good on these matters. he has tried to work in a bipartisan way in every way, and i personally appreciate it, and i think he will continue to work in a bipartisan way as we try to get the real facts about all of these matters. it's a shame, madam president, but once again, i am going to get to the bottom of this one way or the other. it's going to be difficult because it appears that going forward, we will not be able to trust anything the i.r.s. says

to congress. that's why we're going to have to bring other parties into the inquiry. now, this is unfortunate, but like i said this is the world we're living in. i'm really discouraged about this. i mean, i -- the administration knows that i'm as fair as a person can be on our side. all i want to do is get to the facts, get to the truth and resolve these problems in the best interests of the american people, and why some of these things weren't brought up when they were known, it's beyond me. and it's beyond me that only after we sent a letter saying is this all and will you verify basically that all of a sudden there were other emails found, but not from these servers. not for two years in the case of

the lois lerner server. lois lerner took the fifth amendment, which is her right. i'm not about to condemn her as a criminal around here, but i think the best thing she could have done was help provide these emails that hopefully would exonerate here, but which i believe would not. otherwise, i don't think there would have been a crash of the computer. and what really bothers me is this, too -- when computers crash, usually in the federal government they have backups. and the backups will allow us to get back and get the computer up and working. for some reason, there apparently were not backups here either. not only were they only keeping track of the prior six months,

so you would never gotten the two years if the computer crashed. but we don't have -- we don't have those two years that were relevant years in anybody's estimation. there's something rotten in washington. i'm not sure who is responsible for it. i have to say that i like mr. koskinen. i helped put him through in a very ready fashion. i got him confirmed. i believed he was telling us the truth, but i'm really disturbed that the only way we even got the rest of the available

emails, none from 2009-2011, and who knows on the other six servers how many of those, it crashed, how many of those emails are gone forever. the administration will say we did, we did look at the addresses and we got the emails in some respect from some of the people that they were sent to but that isn't what -- what a real investigation would show, either. they don't have a good excuse here. and it just makes you wonder why did lois lerner take the protections of the fifth amendment? why has not the administration been outraged as much as we are? and i can i can say i believe our distinguished chairman is as

outraged as i am. i can't speak for him, naturally, but i know him and he's upset as i am. because we sat right there last monday and they never told us about the six servers. and as far as i know, they disposed of the crashed server of lois lerner. so nobody will ever be able to examine it and determine whether there is a possibility of getting the emails for that crucial period between 2009 and 2011. which is probably the most crucial period of the whole investigation. senator wyden and i have to rework our report on this and hopefully we can do that, even though we don't have all the information that anybody with

common decency would expect us to have. madam president -- madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that i be recognized to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: thank you, madam president. and we all continue to follow the events in iraq that have significant national security implications for the united states now and in the years to come. the president spoke on this issue a few moments ago and i wanted to share a few thoughts before we returned to our states for the next few days and then come back to washington early next week and continue our work. the first thing i'd like to say about this issue of iraq is while i certainly respect those members that have served in this body, those commentate commentators who served in government and are now out, and have strong opinions with regard

to the past, i hope what we spend the majority of our time in this process is focused on what is before us now and what lies ahead. that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a debate about the decisions made in 2003 and beyond. those are important debates dwa debates to have because we learn from history, the successes and the hiz mistakes but we're spending a lot of time around this process talking about the past. we have the rest of history to debate who was right and who was wrong with regards to the war in 2003 or the surge thereafter. i have strong opinions about it and we should certainly spend time talking about that so we can learn from it so we can apply it to new decisions being made, for example, in afghanistan. but i would hope that 90% to 95% of what we spend our time on is talking about how to deal with this threat now, the one right before us. the president today announced and it's going to be covered, that they're going to send close to 300 additional american trainers and advisors into iraq.

i have no direct objection to that decision. i am hopeful, however, that it but is first step in a multistep process in this counterterrorism risk that we now face. i'm hopeful that what this is designed to do is set the framework for the united states to achieve a number of important goals that directly impact the national security of the united states. the first, of course, is i believe that the united states working in conjunction with others in the region need to do everything we can to cut off isil's supply lines. many people may not be fully aware of this but ice ill, or isis, the same group involved in syria, is not simply a bunch of sunni syrians or iraqis, these are foreign fighters including hundreds that are estimated to have come from the west, who have flocked to syria and now iraq to partnership in this fight. -- participate in this fight. in addition to that this group

in order to make the advances and gains it's now making in iraq require as any force would distinct supply lines that allow them to transport individuals and weapons and ammunition in addition to, by the way, the things that they're now getting their hands on as they make these advances. one of the goals the united states must have working in conjunction with others is to sever those supply lines so they cannot continue to make these gains. the second thing that i hope this is part of a process of doing, what the president announced today is the beginning of a process that would achieve is focusing on the command and control areas that they currently operate frim from within syria. without these safe havens they would not possibly be able to expand the reach they now have and i hope again what the president announced today is but a first step that allows us to address those two things. in addition, i think it's important to continue to revisit the issue of the opposition in syria. when people read about the opposition in syria it's

important to note there is no such thing as the opposition. there are a handful of groups operating within syria against the assad regime but these groups also fight each other. and there is a group of nonjihadists, nonradical terrorists who are fighting in syria to topple assad but this group also takes on the mist ra front and isis and i have for many months now been calling on the administration to do more to capacitate those groups, the nonjihadists. i felt it was a mistake not to do it early on because it created the possibility that we now face and that is that the best organized, best equipped, best trained groups in syria happen to be the most radical ones. that includes isil and all nusra. and al-nusra and isil fight each other which adds complexity to

this. last but most importantly it's nemps to support our allies in jordan. if you play out what is happening, and isis is able to erase this border between syria and iraq and establish this sunni caliphate their next move logically would be to threaten the kingdom of jordan, an incredibly important ally of the united states, to the stability of the region and to israel and others. we should continue to provide assistance to jordan in protecting their borders and their future. these are four goals that i hope we will continue to move towards and i am hopeful that with the announcement the president made today was a first step as we work towards those goals. a couple points here that are important to point out and i do so every time i address this issue of iraq. the first is, this is not about the u.s. taking sides in a sunni-shia civil war. the future of iraq depends on the people of iraq. it is up to them to establish a

government that functions. it is up to them to provide a secure and safe country where people can prosper. it is up to them to create a political system and a social system where both sunni and shia feel like they have a voice in governance of their country. this is not about the united states stepping in and saying we are on the shia side. in fact, i cannot tell you while this is not uniform there are many sunnis within iraq that do not necessarily sympathize with isil and what they're doing. so this is not about the u.s. engaging itself in a civil war. this is also not about the united states trying to build a country. this is not about the u.s. going into iraq and saying we've got to rebuild iraq. this is about counterterrorism and this is about the future security of the united states. every time i come on the floor i remind everyone, the reason why 9/11 was possible was because al qaeda was able to establish a safe haven in afghanistan under the protection of the taliban

and from that safe haven they raised money, they recruited, they plotted, planned and ultimately carried out the most devastating terrorist attack in u.s. history. and we can never allow for another similar safe haven to take root. this is especially true when the group trying to establish such a safe haven, in fact, not just a safe haven but a caliphate run by a radical government, is a group whose express goal is to establish that caliphate, to use it to terrorize the people of the united states by attacking us here in the united states, in the hopes of driving us out of the middle east and then of destroying israel. and of establishing their brand of islam and forcing it on all the peoples and countries of the region. we cannot allow such a safe haven to take root. if it does, if they are successful in their goals of

creating a new country, a new state, this islamic radical caliphate, we will have in the future grave risks and potentially severe and devastating terrorist attacks against americans both abroad and here in the homeland. this group has a very clear mandate, they have been very clear about what their goals are but in order to carry that out successfully they need an operational space and we cannot allow them to create one in iraq and that is what this issue is about. that is why this issue matters. now, i know that when i say things like what i say i open myself up to those voices that say there are warmongers and people going back to war. absolutely not. on the contrary, what has happened here is after looking at this issue, studying the lessons of the past 20 years and what we have learned after 9/11 especially, it becomes evident to me that we're going to have to deal with this group. that is not what we are debating. the issue before us that we have to decide is when do we deal

with them. do we deal with them now when they still not have created that caliphate or do we deal with them five or ten years down the road when they've established a safe haven and significant operational capacity? it's going to cost a lot more money, potentially many more lives, and in the process, significant terrorist attacks and terrorist risks if we deal with it later. it will cost less, be less dangerous if we deal with it now. that must be our goal here. not to allow this group, isis, to establish a safe haven of operation in iraq or in syria, for that matter. and then give the people of iraq the opportunity to decide a future for themselves and that is important, which can is why this issue of iran is important. i've been asked by reporters and others, should we be working with iran, my opinion based on all that i have learned regarding the situation and based on factors that are obvious for anyone to see, is

that we do not share the same goal that iran does. we don't have the same goals here. iran's goal is not simply to defeat isis. iran's goal is to establish a shia government that oppresses sunnis and is responsive to them. that is their goal. what they want to set up in iraq is a puppet government under the control of iran. that is not our goal. that should not be our goal. it never has been our goal. our goal is to ensure that a terrorist organization cannot establish a safe haven and our hope is that the iraqi people can create for themselves a government and a country where both shia and sunni can live in peace and harmony among each other but that's up to them. we can help them do that but we can't make them do that. but what we can do is do everything we can to ensure this terrorist group doesn't take root. i think our goals is are completely incompatible with iran's. the other thing i would say is we should not do anything to

legitimize that regime. that regime is the world's greatest state sponsor of terrorism. and virtually every continent on this planet, iran has a hand in sponsoring terrorism. so i'm not sure how we could possibly work side by side to wipe out terrorism with a government that sponsors terrorism more than any other government on the planet. and i caution against that approach as well. so to close the loop here today i hope we will amend spepped most of our time focused on what we need to do now and in the future. we have forever to debate about who was right or wrong in 2003 or the surge in 2011. number two, i hope the announcement the president made today was the first step in a multistep process that will allow us to prevent ice ill from establish -- isil from establishing the kingdom, the caliphate they speak seek, i hope we make clear to what the american people what the stakes

are for us, the reasons why we care about what's happening in iraq is not because we want a nation built or to force any government on the people of iraq. it is because we cannot allow a terrorist group that has the stated goal and increasing capacity of attacking the united states from establishing an operational space like afghanistan was for al qaeda before 9/11. and i hope that we'll continue to play the important role the senate plays in speaking out and in hoping to give guidance and advice to the commander in chief. as i said yesterday, ult mayly, the role -- ultimately, the role of leading on this matter correspondence to the president. only the president of the united states can come up with a plan that hopefully all of us can unite behind because it's that important for our country and for our future and for our security. madam president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. cruz: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: i ask unanimous consent to set aside the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: madam president, i rise today to discuss the deteriorating situation in iraq. there has been considerable debate in recent days about what we want to achieve in that country and the importance of achieving so-called political reconciliation in baghdad. i would like to propose three simple principles that should guide any action we take in iraq. number one, we should do everything possible to secure our people. number two, we should defend our national security interests.

and, number three, we should not partner with the islamic republic of iran. first and foremost, madam president, we need to be certain that we are doing everything humanly possible to secure the americans who are still in iraq. the instability of the situation in the north of that country could quickly devolve into nationwide chaos, and it requires our immediate attenti attention. we need to be developing and implementing an immediate plan to get out all nonessential american personnel, to get them to safety now. i am deeply concerned, as all of us should be, that our people on the ground will become pawns in a sectarian conflict that we cannot control. i am concerned that the up to

275 marines who may be deployed to assist in embassy security, along with the 300 additional military advisors that president obama announced today, will also become targets, isolated in baghdad. it is not at all reassuring to have the security in baghdad provided by either shia militias loosely controlled by the al-maliki government, or by the iranian quds, forces themselves or their agents. if we have to rely on either to keep our people safe, we should not be there. let me repeat that. if we have to rely on either to keep our people safe, we should not be there.

second, we need to define and then to defend the national security interests of the united states in iraq. there has been extensive discussion of -- quote -- "political reconciliation in iraq." and of making any american military action contingent on achieving that ephemeral objective. this makes no sense. although a political solution to iraq's troubles might have been an appropriate goal in 2005 or 2011, it simply may not be feasible in 2014. the time for this sort of argument would have been three years ago, when america was the most influential voice in baghdad and we were completing our largest embassy on the planet on the banks of the tigris river. but we chose to relinquish that

influence when we did not successfully negotiate a status-of-forces agreement with the iraqis. much of the blame for that diplomatic impasse lies with the al-maliki government. but the obama administration bears considerable responsibility as well. the president campaigned on -- quote -- "ending the war in iraq," which he defined by removing all of our forces, not winning. so immediate troop withdrawal -- not negotiating a proper status-of-forces agreement -- was the priority. in the words of secretary clinton on cnn on tuesday, quote, "we did not get it done." and the result is that today we have little or no influence in

baghdad. madam president, it is not my purpose today to re-litigate the history of u.s. involvement in iraq but, rather, to propose what we can do with the circumstances in which we find ourselves right now. given our current circumstances, any attempt to reconcile a sunni-should shiite religious ct that has waged for more than 1,500 years seems either the height of hubris or naivete -- or both. rather than prioritizing an unachievable political solution that we have no power to effect, it seems much more practical to focus on what is in the actual

national security interests of the united states of america. the most acute security threat to the united states in iraq is the aggressive movement of the islamic state of iraq in syria, isis forces, out of syria and into iraq over the last six months. these vicious sunni fanatics may be relatively small in number, but they make up for it in sheer brutality. although president obama dismissed their aggression into fallujah in january of this year, as the terrorist equivalent of the -- quote -- "junior varsity" recent events suggest that they are of a much higher capability. indeed, an obvious question that the administration should answer is, has the obama administration ever armed isis? has the administration given

lethal weapons to isis? we are doing so to rebels who are fighting alongside isis in syria, and it is an obvious question to ask whether we have in fact armed these radical islamic terrorists as well. isis is much more than a local or even a regional threat. they are among the worst of the radical jihadis who attacked us on september 11, 2001 and again on september 11, 2012. they are so bad, in fact, that the -- quote -- "core al qaeda," as president obama likes to call the terrorist cells in pakistan and afghanistan, have renounced them. their goal is to establish a new islamic caliphate in the middle east and northern africa from syria to iraq, and they have

publicly announced that when they achieve their ambitions in syria and iraq, their goal is to move on to jordan, to israel, and to the united states of america. because of their actions and their stated intent, it would seem that a targeted mission to seriously degrade the lethality of isis ka wel could well be ine national security interest of the united states. such an action would not require the commitment of american combat forces, but it would require a commitment from the commander in chief that this action would not be merely a symbolic message or an effort simply to perpetuate the al-maliki government in baghdad. instead, it would need to be an

expeditious and emphatic demonstration of america's ability to strike at the terrorists at the time and means of our choosing. if the president needs to respond to an imminent threat to the national security interests of the united states or to act to an imminent threat to the lives of americans in iraq, he has the constitutional authority to do so. however, congress has the constitutional authority to declare war. so if the president is planning on launching a concerted offensive attack that is not constrained by the exigency of the circumstances, he should come to congress first to seek and to receive authorization for the use of military force. a precondition for any such mission in iraq should be the

utter rejection of any partnership with the islamic republic of iran, on which the al-maliki government is increasingly dependent. iran has been the implacable enemy of the united states since 1979, when revolutionaries took 54 american citizens hostage for 444 days, some of the darkest days of our history. earlier this year, iran demonstrated that this rabid anti-american hostility is alive and well by trying to receive a u.s. visa for one of these hostage takers to serve as their ambassador to the united nations, to live in manhattan with diplomatic immunity. madam president, it was one of my proudest days in the u.s. senate to introduce the legislation countering this action that passed unanimously

through both houses of congress and that was signed in to law by president obama stopping known terrorists from entering the united states. when push comes to shove, the american people understand that iran is our enemy. we need to bring that same clarity, that same bipartisan unity to current circumstances in iraq. just because iran fears the isis jihadists, it does not follow that we should partner with them in this fight. the enemy of our enemy in this instance is not our friend. if we cannot secure our people absent iranian involvement, we need to get them out. if we cannot strike isis in