Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 or 12 minutes.

Earlier this year I learned about a case of research misconduct that happened at Iowa State University. A team of scientists was working on a vaccine to fight HIV. One of the researchers, Dr. Han, committed fraud to make it appear as though the vaccine for HIV was working. He purposely spiked the testing samples so it looked as if the vaccines actually fought HIV. Dr. Han's fraud helped his team get $16 million in national grant money from the National Institutes of Health or around here we refer to that as the NIH. NIH is part of the Department of Health and Human Services or what we refer to as HHS.

HHS gives out billions of dollars in research grants every year. In 2013 NIH gave out over $20 billion in research grants. Obviously that is a huge amount of money by any standard.

The government has a responsibility to make sure this money is well spent. Unfortunately, it looks as if the government is relying on the grant recipients to do oversight instead of the government seeing that the money is well spent.

In this case officials at Iowa State University were unaware of the fraud until another team of scientists couldn't duplicate the results. Iowa State University took the problem very seriously and notified Health and Human Services. I compliment them for that. But if it weren't for Iowa State University's actions, I doubt the Government ever would have found out about this tremendous amount of fraud.

The Office of Research Integrity at Health and Human Services was created for the specific purpose to prevent and investigate research misconduct. The Office of Research Integrity investigated the allegations of misconduct at Iowa State University and in fact confirmed that Dr. Han knowingly committed fraud. Dr. Han even admitted to the fraud. The Office of Research Integrity imposed only a 3-year ban on Dr. Han from receiving any more Federal grant money.

That is basically a slap on the wrist from the Office of Research Integrity. It makes absolutely no sense that someone who admitted to that level of fraud could be eligible for another Federal grant in just 3 years.

I asked the Office of Research Integrity why the penalty for Dr. Han was so light and if it would try to recover any of the $19 million in research grants. The taxpayers subsidized what was supposed to be promising HIV research, but it was based on Dr. Han's fraud. His phony results were the basis for those grant applications. The Office of Research Integrity says it considers a 3-year ban a very strict penalty. To Iowans, that doesn't sound like a very commonsense penalty.

In fact, the Office of Research Integrity says that 3 years is the maximum penalty it can give unless there are aggravating circumstances. That 3-year limit is set by the White House Office of Management and Budget. So the Office of Research Integrity claims that somehow its hands are tied. But in this case the Office of Research Integrity did not even try to demonstrate aggravating circumstances to enforce a longer debarment than 3 years against Dr. Han.

The Office of Research Integrity admitted that there is nothing to keep Dr. Han from conducting research again funded by American taxpayers after those 3 years. The Office of Research Integrity claims it does not have the authority to recover funds in case of research conduct.

Now, think about that for a minute. This Office of Research Integrity, with the responsibility to make sure money is wisely used and research is honest, says it does not have the authority to recover funds obtained by fraud.

The Office of Research Integrity--we are talking about research integrity--says it is the responsibility of the agency that issued the research grant to recover money obtained by fraud.

So I asked the National Institutes of Health about its involvement in this case. The National Institutes of Health first said that only $500,000 of the $19 million in research grants would be recovered. The National Institutes of Health also claimed it was not responsible for recovering the fraudulent grant money. According to the National Institutes of Health, oversight is the responsibility of the educational institution receiving the money. NIH said:

ISU as grantee is legally responsible and accountable for

the use of funds provided for the performance of grant-

supported project or activity.

It looks as if each office I asked just simply passes the buck along to somebody else. But a pass-the-buck attitude doesn't work when it comes to government oversight.

I also asked Health and Human Services about the case. Health and Human Services said that:

Grant recipients have the primary obligation to conduct

investigations of their own researchers.

Universities need to be responsible and accountable with Federal research grants. By taking action when it learned of the fraud, Iowa State University did that in this case. But that does not give the government an excuse not to do oversight. And if the government is relying on universities to report fraud instead of doing the oversight, there are probably other cases of fraud that are never caught.

If someone writes a taxpayer-funded check, they should be responsible for making sure the money is being well spent. The funding agency, and Health and Human Services as a whole, should do more to protect taxpayers' dollars, especially when many are calling for even more taxpayer funding for the National Institutes of Health.

The Office of Research Integrity has a clear mission to prevent and investigate cases of research misconduct.

But I am concerned not only about this case but allegations about the Office of Research Integrity made by its former director, Dr. David Wright. Dr. Wright resigned only days after I started my investigation.

In his resignation letter, Dr. Wright said that bureaucratic red tape was keeping him--Dr. Wright--from doing his job. He said up to 65 percent of his time was spent ``navigating the remarkably dysfunctional HHS bureaucracy to secure resources and . . . get permission for ORI to serve the research community.''

We ought to take his allegations very seriously, and HHS should do so as well. When researchers abuse the public's trust, the Office of Research Integrity should use all the powers at its disposal to resolve the problem.

I recently learned that Dr. Han has been indicted for four felony counts of making false statements. Regardless of the outcome of this indictment, it is encouraging to see an effort to increase accountability for spending of taxpayers' money.

Also earlier this week the National Institutes of Health confirmed for the Des Moines Register that it would stop the final grant payment. That of course will save taxpayers $1.4 million.

So it is good news that the National Institutes of Health is taking action to recover taxpayers' money in this fraud case. But this is only one case, and the National Institutes of Health's actions came after months of public attention and my investigating. I worry that more cases may go unnoticed and even unaddressed if there isn't a public outcry. We can't afford that. We can't afford to have cases like this go unnoticed and unaddressed.

Federal oversight of research funds is far too weak. The government is doing far too little to recover money lost to fraud. We can't afford a ``fund it and forget it'' attitude. Fraudsters need to be held accountable, and people handing out taxpayers' money need to know that if they are careless with that money, Uncle Sam will come knocking at the door for a refund.

Although Secretary Sebelius recently left Health and Human Services, I expect the new Secretary Sylvia Mathews

Burwell to take this issue very seriously. Ultimately, the Secretary of HHS has the responsibility to ensure that health research grants are not abused. She needs to ensure that agencies within HHS have all the tools they need to recover money lost to fraud and to prevent it from happening in the first place. Secretary Burwell should investigate Dr. Wright's allegations about the Office of Research Integrity and fix the problems that Dr. Wright outlined before his resignation.

Oversight is an extremely important part of the government's role. Unfortunately, it is often ignored and taxpayers' dollars are abused. When researchers abuse the public's trust, Health and Human Services and its components should use all the power they have to investigate, resolve the problem, and get the money back. They owe it to the American taxpayers.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, for many years I have been an advocate for reforming the foster care system and making sure the government is doing the best it can to protect and care for those who are abused, neglected, and particularly when they are removed from their families. That is why Senator Landrieu of Louisiana and I started the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth. We wanted a forum to discuss policies and practices and to learn more about the challenges foster young people face. We want to make a

difference in the lives of vulnerable young people who don't have a permanent place to call home.

The caucus cannot function without the input and the insight from foster young people. These young people are the experts on the foster care system. They have been through it. They know the challenges. They tell us in this caucus what works and what needs to change. They share the experiences and provide us with real-world stories about how our policies truly affect them.

I wish to highlight the story of one particular person whom I have had the privilege of getting to know. Amnoni Myers is an intern in my office this summer. She is participating in the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute's Foster Youth Internship Program. I wish to tell her story because it is important not to forget there are young people in this country such as Amnoni who don't have a permanent family or a place to call home. Despite her circumstances, Amnoni has risen up and made a better life for herself. So allow me to share her story.

Amnoni Myers, a native of Boston, became a ward of the State on the day she was born. She was abandoned at birth. When she was 6 months old, Amnoni's great aunt learned of Amnoni and her two other siblings and decided to take care of them by taking them into her home. She lived in her great aunt's care for 10 years. Even though she had a better family environment, life still presented her with many challenges. Amnoni struggled with rejection and trauma at a very young age, resulting from different types of abuse.

At the age of 10, Amnoni was reunited with her biological mother because the State granted her temporary custody. Amnoni thought her life was finally secure. Wouldn't we think so, being at home with our birth mother? Her mother promised to care for her and never give her up again. Unfortunately, after 2 short years, Amnoni's mother voluntarily returned her and her siblings back to the State.

So at the age of 12, Amnoni was separated from her siblings and placed with foster families until the age of 18. Although Amnoni and her brother were placed together for a short period of time, they were later separated as Amnoni moved around in the system. During her time in foster care, she was moved several times, never experiencing permanency or stability. That is one of the things I learned through the work of this caucus; that when we talk to people who are in foster care, what do they want? They want permanency. They want a real mom and dad, and they would like to have a place to call home.

To Amnoni, foster parents seemed more interested in cash benefits for parenting rather than human investment. She experienced emotional and verbal abuse in places she stayed. She didn't know unconditional love. Her foster families didn't take the time to manage her trauma but instead added to it.

One of the most difficult experiences Amnoni faced was aging out of the foster care system, and aging out issues with these young people is exactly why Senator Landrieu and I established the caucus I have already spoken about.

During the summer, while still in care, Amnoni entered an intense college preparation program that would determine if she was adequately prepared to enroll in a postsecondary institution. Already anxious about the future of her success and if she would be able to handle the workload of the program, she received a phone call from her social worker that afternoon. The bad news came that she was aging out. She was told that her foster mother was no longer being paid for Amnoni's bed. Because the money was running out for her foster parents, Amnoni was forced to leave the home immediately.

The shock and devastation of those words crushed Amnoni. She lived in that home with that family for 3 years. She considered it a long-term living situation. Amnoni returned to find her belongings packed in garbage bags waiting for her at the door. That is a story our caucus often hears.

Amnoni aged out of the system in a way no person should have to experience. She left a place she considered home, not knowing what her future would hold. She was on her own, shoved into independence with no family, support or a place to call home.

Amnoni's aging-out experience left her feeling shattered and confused. She felt betrayed by both her foster mother, who claimed to love her, and the child welfare system--in other words, the State she lived in--that claimed to protect her. While this experience quickly taught Amnoni the value of independence, she would have preferred to have a smoother transition into that independence.

When Amnoni left her so-called home at age 18, she was taken in by a former mentor and her family. She resided there for 5 years. Living there was a reminder that love, family, and support do exist.

In 2008 Amnoni learned she had post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety. These diagnoses led her to take a break from school to gain control over these disruptions. Amnoni entered into a Christian residential program, Mercy Ministries, where she was able to gain a better understanding of herself. This experience motivated her to attend Gordon College, a Christian institution outside of Boston.

Today she is working in my office, sitting in this Chamber with me, learning how government works. She is becoming an advocate for foster youth who face the same experiences she faced.

Despite the challenges, Amnoni feels very fortunate. She has been able to attend college, graduate this year, and hopes to pursue a meaningful career. Knowing that many children and youth do not have adequate support systems in their life to help them along their life journey, Amnoni pursued an education in social work and sociology.

Many people who have gone through similar experiences resort to other paths because of the lack of support and services. Many foster children age out of the system without supportive services in place to ensure healthier lives. Thankfully, Amnoni has had a network of support to guide and direct her through difficult times.

Amnoni's experience has fueled her passion to advocate for those who do not have a voice to fight for themselves. As Amnoni looks back on her life, she realizes her past does not have to determine her future. She is on her way to becoming a monumental figure for those who have suffered, giving youth across the country a voice and making a difference in this world.

I appreciate her willingness to let me share her story. It is so typical of so much that we hear in the caucus that Senator Landrieu and I formed. This young girl is a very brave woman. She knows we can learn from her. We will learn from her. We must do right by her and others in the foster care system.

I hope my colleagues have a chance to say hello to Amnoni while she is here in Washington, DC, and take a minute to commend her for being an advocate for other youth.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to praise the Supreme Court's decision to strike down President Obama's illegal recess appointments. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution provides for only two ways in which Presidents may appoint certain officers:

First, it provides that the President nominates and, by and with the advice of the Senate, appoints various officers.

Second, it permits the President to make temporary appointments when a vacancy in one of those offices happens when the Senate is in recess.

On January 4, 2012, the President made four appointments. They were purportedly based on the recess appointments clause. He took this action even though they were not made, in the words of the Constitution, ``during the recess of the Senate.'' These appointments were blatantly unconstitutional. They were not made with the advice and consent of the Senate, and they were not made ``during the recess of the Senate.'' In December and January of 2011 and 2012, the Senate held sessions every 3 days. It did so precisely to prevent the President from making recess appointments. It followed the very same procedure as it had during the term of President Bush, and that was done at the insistence of Majority Leader Reid. President Bush then declined to make recess appointments during these periods, thus respecting the desire of the Senate and the Constitution that we were in session. But President Obama chose to attempt to make recess appointments despite the existence of the Senate being in session.

The Supreme Court said today:

[F]or purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the

Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under

its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate

business.

That is a quote from the decision.

No President in history had ever attempted to make recess appointments when the Senate said it was in session. And I am a little surprised, since President Obama had served in the Senate, that he would not know how this had been respected in the past by Presidents.

President Obama failed to act ``consistent with the Constitution's broad delegation of authority to the Senate to `determine the Rules of its Proceedings,' '' as the Constitution states.

These illegal appointments represent just one of the many important areas where President Obama has disregarded the laws with his philosophy of the ends justify the means.

We should all be thankful the Supreme Court has reined in this kind of lawlessness on the part of this administration, and it should also bring some confidence that at least from time to time--maybe not as often as our constituents think--the checks and balances of government do work.

The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether President Obama could make recess appointments even when the Senate was in pro forma session. Fortunately for the sake of the Constitution and the protection of individual liberty, the Supreme Court said he could not. This is a very significant decision. It is the Supreme Court's biggest rebuke of any President--because this was a unanimous decision--since 1974 when it ordered President Nixon to produce the Watergate tapes. The unanimous decision included both Justices whom even this President appointed to the Supreme Court.

That shows the disregard in which the President held this body and the Constitution when he made these appointments. Remember, as I just said, I am a little surprised because at one time he was Senator Barack Obama.

Thanks to the Supreme Court, the use of recess appointments will now be made only in accordance with the views of the writers of the Constitution, our Founding Fathers.

It is worth keeping in mind what the President, the Justice Department, and the Senate said at the time of these appointments. The President said his nominees were pending and he would not wait for the Senate to take action if that meant important business would be done. So the President stated in another way that ``I have a pen and a phone, and if Congress won't, I will.'' But the Supreme Court has made clear that failure to confirm does not create Presidential appointment power.

The appointments were so blatantly unconstitutional that originally there was speculation that the Justice Department had not approved their legality. But, in fact, the Department's Office of Legal Counsel had provided a legal opinion that claimed to justify the appointments-- in other words, justify the unconstitutional action of the President. The Department's Office of Legal Counsel's reasoning was preposterous, and this unanimous decision backs that up. That office defined the same word--``recess''--that appears in the Constitution in two different places differently and without justification. It claimed that the Senate was not available to do business, so that it was in recess when the President signed legislation that the Congress passed during those pro forma sessions. The Department allowed the President, rather than the Congress, to decide whether the Senate was in session.

As today's Supreme Court unanimous decision makes clear, the Office of Legal Counsel opinion was an embarrassment, reflecting very poorly on its author. She had told us in her confirmation hearing that she would not let her loyalty to the President overcome her loyalty to the law. This Office of Legal Counsel opinion proved otherwise. It said the President had a power he did not have. He did not have that power, as expressed today by that unanimous decision of the Supreme Court.

Those partisans in that office who defended that opinion and its author should be humbled and should take back their misplaced praise-- not that I expect them to do so.

The Office of Legal Counsel opinion furthered a trend for that office from one which gave the President objective advice about his authority to one which provided legal justification for whatever action he had already decided he wanted to take. Perhaps now that the office has been so thoroughly humiliated, it will hopefully conclude that the Department and the President will be better served by returning to the former role of that office as a servant of the law and not a servant of the President.

The other statements to keep in mind were from Senators. No Senator of the President's party criticized President Obama for making these clearly unconstitutional appointments, even though they felt we ought to protect against President Bush doing that. Rather than protect the constitutional powers of the Senate and the separation of powers, they protected their party's President.

Those were not the Senate's best moments. This underscores again the need to change the operation of the Senate. Appointment powers and the separation of powers are not simply constitutional concepts, they are the rule for how the American people are protected from abuse by government officials. They exist not so much to protect the branches of government but to safeguard individual liberty.

I often quote from Federalist Papers, this time from 51. Madison wrote that the ``separate and distinct exercise of different powers of government'' is ``essential to the preservation of liberty.''

President Obama's unconstitutional recess appointments are part of a pattern in which he thinks that if he cannot otherwise advance his agenda, he can unilaterally thwart the law. That is a pretty authoritarian approach to governing. Whether it is with respect to drugs, immigration, recess appointments, health care, and a number of other areas, President Obama has concluded he can take unilateral action regardless of the law. And, of course, as

we see in the case of these appointments, the Justice Department has aided and abetted him.

Praise today to the Supreme Court for forcing the President to confront the errors of his ways, for enforcing the constitutional structure that protects our freedom, and maybe cause him to modify that statement he made earlier this year that:

``When Congress won't, I will, because I've got a pen . . . and I've got a telephone . . . ''

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, today, I would like to discuss the nomination of Leon Rodriguez to be the Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. Mr. Rodriguez was appointed on December 19 and approved by the Judiciary Committee on April 3rd by a vote of 11-7.

I want to explain my opposition.

First and foremost, Mr. Rodriguez lacks adequate immigration experience to lead this agency. I only say that because his nomination comes on the heels of potentially sweeping immigration reform legislation. When we read his responses to my questions, it becomes clear that he has little appreciation for what this job as director entails. He basically says that he has a lot of studying to do. I think, with the situation of immigration in this country--the need for immigration reform--that we need to do better than have a director of the agency who says he has a lot of studying to do.

Second, his previous experience with Casa de Maryland is a concern as well. He was a member of the board of directors there from 2005 to 2007. The mission of Casa de Maryland is to help improve quality of life and fight for equal treatment for low-income Latinos. There is surely nothing wrong with that. That is a very noble cause. But if we peel back their mission statement, we will see that the activities they are involved in are a lot greater than just improving the quality of life for low-income people. They aid people here illegally in finding employment and gaining legal status in this country. They provide legal services to do so, and they fund day labor centers that focus on ensuring undocumented workers can find work on a daily basis. And, of course, that entails the use of taxpayers' money to accomplish that goal.

Their efforts are in direct conflict with the mission of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. That agency has to ensure the integrity of immigration programs and benefits. Casa de Maryland believes that anyone, even those who are here in contravention of our law, should be eligible for benefits. The organization has pushed for driver's licenses for people here unlawfully. They have worked to undermine REAL ID, a Federal law that needs to be fully implemented by the States. They have organized rallies that promote legal status for people who have broken the law. They have trained undocumented workers to understand their rights and published a cartoon pamphlet advising people not to speak to law enforcement when approached. They go so far as to encourage them not to even provide their names.

Mr. Rodriguez claimed that he had no knowledge of this pamphlet put out by Casa de Maryland. Yet, he was on the board at the time the pamphlet was published and disseminated.

Mr. Rodriguez doesn't disavow their work or their contempt for law enforcement. In fact, he stated in one response that he was ``supportive of the use of local tax measures to support the day labor centers'' that Casa de Maryland established.

So it is concerning that he could bring this same philosophy to an agency whose mission is to oversee legal immigration in the United States. And we all know that we are a welcoming Nation of immigrants because about a million people come here every year legally, and they are welcomed, and our laws allow that.

Now, a third reason to oppose him is my concern about Mr. Rodriguez's commitment to responding to congressional oversight, and my colleagues know how strongly I feel about Congress's doing its constitutional job of oversight; in other words, to be a check on the executive branch of government, to make sure that the laws are faithfully executed. Despite assurances given during his hearing, Mr. Rodriguez repeatedly failed to provide responsive answers to many of my questions. Mr. Rodriguez was not responsive to the questions I posed even in writing. While he repeatedly stated he would review the programs and policies if confirmed, Mr. Rodriguez claims not to be privy--that is his word--to internal functions or have knowledge of how the agency works. He refused to provide his opinions on very critical matters facing the agency, and I will give my colleagues examples.

In his initial responses he stated the following response not once, not twice,

but 17 times: ``If confirmed, I will certainly commit to a careful study of this program to determine any additional appropriate steps forward, including any possible changes to address this matter.''

We are talking about a person who gives that response, and he is directing an agency of 18,000 people. He is not going to be ready to go to work on day one, and they need somebody who is ready to go to work yesterday.

The second time around asking questions, he responded a bit differently in each question, but always alluded to the fact that he was ``not privy to the internal factors upon which USCIS and its leadership base its decisions.''

I wish to give my colleagues one example. I asked about whether drunk drivers or sex offenders should be eligible for legal status and immigration benefits. He responded in both instances saying, ``In most cases, individuals who have been found guilty of a serious crime should not receive immigration benefits.''

Well, that is a big question mark. What does he mean by ``in most cases''? I would read that this way: So when should these individuals be allowed to receive benefits and legal status? That is the question that is unanswered by his response.

By not answering the questions about felons, drunk drivers, or even gang members, he is essentially toeing Casa de Maryland's line that no one should be deported.

He could not offer an opinion of his own or elaborate when such people should get benefits. He said he would be forthcoming with Congress, but his repetitive answers show, No. 1, he is avoiding the questions, and No. 2, he has a lot of studying to do before he takes this job.

A fourth reason: He wasn't forthcoming with his views on what we call around here DACA, the Deferred Action for Child Arrivals program that grants work authorizations and stays of deportation for anyone under the age of 31.

One of the most pressing items on the agency's plate right now is whether we are going to renew the President's DACA directive. In his hearing and twice afterwards in questions for the record, I asked Mr. Rodriguez about his plans with DACA and whether he would expand the program. I couldn't get a straightforward answer from him. I asked if he had any discussions about the program, and he stated that he was only ``generally aware'' of the renewal process. He clearly knew the agency published a renewal form for public comment, yet he claimed to have little knowledge or opinion on the matter.

What is more, I am told by employees within the agency that he has a person at the table who is reporting to him directly on the agency's decisions. I am told he has a conduit during discussions on the deferred action program. It is not clear how much he is driving the policies, but it concerns me that he claims no knowledge of this matter.

Had Mr. Rodriguez been more forthcoming, we would also know what is in store for the President's directive. Will he simply renew it, or will he expand it, as many believe is the plan? Congress should know this man's views on those very important matters.

In connection to DACA, I asked about information sharing with USCIS and other Federal entities. My colleagues know I rely on whistleblowers for a lot of information. Just recently, a whistleblower brought me a case in which the FBI asked for information on a DACA applicant. The FBI agent, in an email, said this:

I am checking to see if there was any information available

regarding fugitive ``john smith''? We would love to get him

in custody. I was interested in knowing where he submitted

his fingerprints and if he left a home address.

Now, that is the Federal Bureau of Investigation doing its work. Here is what the USCIS provided in response to the FBI:

We cannot confirm that a DACA request has been filed

without reason to believe that the requestor would represent

an enforcement priority. However, according to your email,

the agent can see what form was filed. As such, you could

also direct him to our website for additional publicly

available information regarding immigration forms.

The USCIS's response to the FBI was essentially this: Sorry. We can't help you. We must protect the confidentiality of the applicant. That is not quoting anybody; that is the hypothetical answer I think our immigration agency gave to the FBI.

But this isn't the only case we have like this. I have been informed about the lack of information sharing by the USCIS since DACA began in 2012. I asked Mr. Rodriguez about his commitment to provide law enforcement with information on people who apply for immigration benefits. Now, I didn't ask about the statutory or regulatory hurdles in information sharing, but he refused to answer. I asked about his commitment to making sure people who defraud the government--or who are lawfully denied benefits--are turned over to law enforcement for removal. In one instance, he said it depended on the person's circumstances.

The immigration agency is part of the Department of Homeland Security. Its core mission is, as we would expect, to protect the homeland. Yet, this agency has a culture that I call ``getting to yes.'' In other words, cut a whole bunch of red tape and don't worry about what the law says. Just get people approved to be in this country.

Mr. Rodriguez's nonresponsive answer on this matter of ``getting to yes'' concerns me, because it is not consistent with the mission of the department. I wanted a firm commitment he would change that culture, and I couldn't get that from him.

Let me also address his connection to Mr. Perez, former head of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, now the Secretary of Labor. Mr. Perez, of course, was involved in the Department's decision to decline the prosecution of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case.

During his hearing, Mr. Rodriguez admitted he was aware of emails between political employees and career prosecutors discussing the decision to decline to prosecute that case. At that time, Mr. Rodriguez was serving as Mr. Perez's chief of staff and personally assisted in preparing Mr. Perez for his testimony before Congress. Yet, after Mr. Perez testified that the political appointees were not involved in the decision when Mr. Rodriguez said that they were involved in that decision, Mr. Rodriguez made no effort to correct the testimony after the fact.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service can be a very powerful agency. They grant benefits to foreign nationals and are implementing the President's weak prosecutorial discretion initiatives. This agency will have a lot of responsibility if an immigration reform bill is passed by Congress. We are talking about 12 to 30 million undocumented people applying for benefits if this legislation is passed. They will carry out an administrative amnesty if a bill is not passed.

Under President Obama, this agency has implemented very controversial policies and practices. Many of the policies this agency has undertaken were included in the July 2010 internal memo I obtained entitled ``Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform.'' That sounds a little bit like ``I have got a pen and a phone, and if Congress won't, I will.'' The purpose of the memo was to ``promote family unity, foster economic growth, achieve significant process improvements and reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization.'' The memo highlighted creative ways to achieve ``meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action.''

Remember when the President said: I have got a pen and a phone, and if Congress won't, I will.

That is a perfect example of it.

While the administration suggested this memo was only an internal deliberative document concocted by some bored bureaucrats, the Department has already undertaken many of these proposals. They will do even more under the new Director's leadership if the President decides to act unilaterally regarding immigration.

Remember the President who said: I have a pen and a phone, and if Congress won't, I will.

The agency's culture of ``getting to yes'' must change before any legalization program is carried out. The Homeland Security inspector general has reported on this culture. Their own internal watchdog, the IG, admonished the leadership for appearing to pressure line adjudicators to ``get to yes.'' Their report clearly shows that the immigration service has a lot of work to do to

get rid of the ``get to yes'' culture that has pervaded this agency in recent years.

The fact that one-quarter of the immigration service officers felt pressured to approve questionable applications and 90 percent of the respondents felt they did not have sufficient time to complete interviews of those who seek benefits certainly warrants significant changes be made immediately. It does not appear Mr. Rodriguez is inclined to do that.

This culture stems from the leadership suggesting that line adjudicators lean toward approval and focus on eligibility and less on fraud. Unfortunately, I did not get any sense from Mr. Rodriguez that he was committed to changing the culture.

Mr. Rodriguez's appointment to this agency concerns me a great deal. I hope my colleagues, before voting this afternoon, will have that same concern. I question his experience and his managerial judgment to lead an agency of 18,000 Federal employees. Unfortunately, I doubt his sincerity in working with Congress on oversight requests. I wish he had been more forthcoming.

For these reasons and others, I oppose the nomination.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I have the sad task of paying tribute to a fellow Iowan who has given his life in service to his country. LCpl Adam Wolff was killed while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. He was 25 years old. Adam was a native of Eldon, IA, and lived in Cedar Rapids. Eldon is home to the house depicted in Grant Wood's famous painting ``American Gothic,'' which has come to symbolize a certain indomitable American spirit. Certainly there can be no greater representation of the spirit of self-sacrifice that has preserved American liberty through the generations than patriots like Lance Corporal Wolff. We can never repay him for his sacrifice, but we as a country must remember him and all those who have given their lives in defense of freedom. My thoughts and prayers go out to his family and friends who are feeling his loss very deeply, particularly his father Nicholas, his mother Deborah, and his siblings. We cannot begin to comprehend their loss, but they should know that Adam's service and sacrifice have earned the gratitude of an entire nation.

Chief Warrant Officer Two Randy L. Billings

For the third time in a couple weeks, I want to speak about one of the nominees we are going to be voting on today. That nominee is Peter Kadzik. He has been nominated to the Department of Justice's Office of

Legislative Affairs. He would have the position of Assistant Attorney General. Today I would like to make a few concluding comments about this nominee's record as well as this administration's record, more broadly speaking, with respect to congressional oversight.

It is hard for me to imagine a nominee who is less suited to head the Office of Legislative Affairs than Mr. Kadzik. It is not a mystery how the nominee will run that office if he is confirmed, and we know that because he has been Acting Assistant Attorney General for well over a year, and he has a long and well-established history of contempt for congressional oversight authority. It is clear to me that when it comes to this nominee, past practice will be an accurate predictor of future performance. Unfortunately, there is a lot of evidence that justifies my conclusion. I will start with the nominee's record of contempt for congressional oversight even before he joined the Justice Department.

When he was a private attorney back in 2001, the House ordered the nominee to testify as part of the Congress's investigation into the eleventh-hour pardon of billionaire tax fugitive Marc Rich. The nominee represented Rich. Not only did the nominee refuse to appear voluntarily, but he got on a plane to California the day before he was scheduled to testify before the House committee. In order to get him to testify before the House, the House had to send the U.S. Marshals to personally serve him with a subpoena in California. Isn't that a cute way to act when Congress is trying to speak to him? When he returned to Washington, he actually claimed that his lawyers had never bothered to mention the subpoena to him before he left on that plane trip to California. We know that claim isn't true because of handwritten notes that are now part of the record of this nominee's confirmation hearing.

Unfortunately, things haven't improved much since then. The nominee's record as Acting Assistant Attorney General has been completely unacceptable. Senators' letters and questions go unanswered for many months before the nominee provides--most often--a largely nonresponsive reply. So, as I said last week, this administration is sending a message by nominating Mr. Kadzik to the Office of Legislative Affairs. That message is this: You can expect more of the same.

I want to ask my colleagues this: How much more abuse of this body's prerogative by this White House are we willing to accept? How much more stonewalling of our legitimate, reasonable requests for information are we prepared to tolerate as we try to carry out our constitutional responsibility of oversight? How many more times do you intend to look the other way as this administration flaunts the law through illegal and unilateral executive action?

In recent weeks the administration has raised the stakes. Two weeks ago the President approved the release of the Taliban five from Guantanamo without so much as a phone call to the chair or vice chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Disposition of the detainees at Guantanamo is one of the most important issues related to the war on terror, and Congress has a well-defined role under the law when it comes to releasing dangerous terrorists. But the administration doesn't care about the role Congress has assumed for itself under the Constitution and under the laws we write. This administration has shown total contempt for its obligations under the law--a law they took an oath to uphold. I guess the President's view is that it is better to ask forgiveness after the fact than it is to abide by his constitutional obligation to follow the law and take care that law is faithfully executed.

That is one reason why this nomination is so important. It is a perfect example of this administration's contempt for oversight and contempt for the law.

This Senator believes Congress is entitled to learn why the administration thinks it is free to ignore the law. That is why I asked the Attorney General to provide the legal rationale for the President's unilateral executive actions that the Office of Legal Counsel gave to the administration that they could ignore the law that said they had to notify Congress 30 days ahead of time when they were going to release Guantanamo prisoners. But back in May the nominee refused to disclose the Office of Legal Counsel materials.

Given the administration's flagrant disregard for the law governing the release of the Taliban fighters, I think my request to the Attorney General is all the more important right now. So I renew my request that the administration provide us with whatever advice it received from the Office of Legal Counsel before it decided to violate the National Defense Authorization Act and go forward with the stealth release of the Taliban prisoners.

On June 5 I asked the Attorney General to provide the Justice Department's legal rationale by June 19, which happens to be just 2 days from now. At the very least Senators should wait for a vote on this nomination until then so we can determine whether the Justice Department intends to comply with our request for the legal justification as to why the President could ignore the law when these prisoners were released. That would be a modest first step the administration could take to demonstrate it is serious about respecting oversight authority and the constitutional responsibility of the Congress to do that oversight and whether or not they respect the separation of powers under the Constitution.

I will conclude. My colleagues know this nominee embodies the administration's disregard for oversight authority and its dismissive approach to its legal obligations.

That much is clear. But my colleagues also need to remember this: If they vote for this nominee, they are voting to diminish congressional authority. If they vote for this nominee, they are voting to give the President more of a free pass than he already assumes--and specifically in this case on the unlawful release of Taliban fighters. They are voting also to empower unlawful execution of executive actions by this and future administrations. They are voting to chip away at the network of checks and balances that undergirds the relationship between the executive and the legislative branches--the very signal the Constitution writers sent to the Colonies that they didn't want one person making decisions in our government; they wanted that to be divided authority.

Also remember that one day the shoe may be on the other foot. One day there may be a Republican administration that is just as cavalier about its legal obligations. If that administration ignores our oversight request, any Senator who voted for these people will have no right to complain.

I urge Senators to stand up for the Senate's constitutional responsibilities of oversight and stand up to this administration and vote no.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Just last week the majority leader gave his view that tax extenders as an issue is dead in the Senate until the lameduck session. I presume that means we will have a lameduck session. The majority leader blames this on Republicans, the minority in the Senate, but as you all know, the majority leader is uniquely situated under our Senate rules to determine what legislation will be considered on the Senate floor.

The majority leader's excuse that was given for not proceeding to extenders before a lameduck session is that we Republicans are seeking to offer amendments unrelated to tax extenders. Of course, this excuse simply does not fly. Even an introductory report on Senate procedure from the Congressional Research Service will tell all Senators that there is no ``standing rule or general requirement that the amendments offered by Senators on the floor must be germane or relevant to the bill being considered.''

The CRS report states:

The right to offer non-germane amendments is

extraordinarily important because it permits Senators to

present issues to the Senate for debate and decision without

regard to the judgments of the Senate's committees or the

scheduling decisions and preferences of its majority leader.

The majority leader has sought to circumvent the open amendment process by blocking amendments by filling the amendment tree. This allows the majority leader to effectively decide what, if any, amendments ought to receive consideration here on the Senate floor. Essentially, this allows the majority leader to impose his own will at the expense of the will of the Senate as a whole. Another way to say it: The majority leader decides what 99 other Senators can offer as amendments.

The real reason the majority leader does not want to bring extenders back is that he is concerned that Members of his party might have to take tough votes in an election year. Of course, in a parliamentary system, this is a poor excuse for putting off considering legislation that has broad bipartisan support, and this extenders bill does have broad bipartisan support. This approach puts politics before constituents.

Delaying tax extenders legislation until the lameduck session has real consequences for our constituents. We know from previous years what has happened when tax legislation is not passed in a satisfactory amount of time. Late action on tax extenders poses significant tax administration burdens that cause headaches and hardships for millions of taxpayers. When we fail to act in a timely manner, tax forms are not ready and refunds are delayed. We owe it to our constituents to see to it that these added complications are not a factor this year. Tax season is already unpleasant enough without our adding to it by failing to do our job in a timely fashion.

While many view tax extenders as benefiting businesses, the truth is the delay of widely used individual tax provisions will impact millions of taxpayers. I will give a few examples.

Three of the most widely used tax provisions are the State and local sales tax deduction, claimed by over 11 million returns in the latest year for which we have statistics--2011; the above-the-line deduction for teachers' expenses, claimed on over 3.8 million tax returns in that year, 2011; and the college tuition deduction, which was claimed on about 2 million tax returns. These 3 provisions alone give us over 16 million reasons--because of 16 million taxpayers being affected--to act now to ensure that we don't subject these taxpayers to needless delays and complications this coming filing season.

These 16 million tax filers should provide more than enough reason for not putting off tax extender legislation until the lameduck, but if you are in need of another reason, think of the small businesses that are anxiously looking on and wondering what we are going to do about the expiration of the enhanced expensing rules under section 179. I am sure I am not the only one hearing from small business owners and from farmers who are putting off purchasing that new truck or tractor because they do not know the fate of this provision. This is bad for economic growth, bad for jobs.

Then there is the lapse in the renewable energy incentives that support millions of jobs not only in my State of Iowa but in many other States across our country. The expiration of these provisions has already hampered the strides made toward a viable, self-sustainable renewable energy and fuel sector. Delaying extension of these important provisions is hurting the economy and costing jobs.

A biofuels organization found that nearly 80 percent of the U.S. biodiesel producers have scaled back production this year. Sixty-six percent of the biodiesel producers have reduced their workforce and anticipate cutting jobs. This is a direct result of the policy uncertainties here in Washington, DC, including the expiration of the biodiesel tax incentive.

The only thing standing in the way of passing the extenders package here in the Senate is decisions made by the majority leader and getting an agreement on a handful of reasonable amendments.

The delay in passing the extenders package is harming a whole range of renewable energy efforts. A letter delivered to every Senator from about 200 clean energy businesses urged quick passage of the bill.

The letter stated:

The lack of timely action to extend these provisions

injects instability and uncertainty into the economy and

weakens confidence in the employment marketplace. Moreover,

the extension of the expired provisions should not be delayed

until the end of the year since companies are making

decisions right now related to taxes that will have an

immediate impact on the economy.

I would encourage all of those who support this bill to urge the majority leader to bring it back and allow for a fair amendment process. Could the Senate majority leader possibly argue that it is more important to protect Senators from tough votes than to move forward on clean energy and job creation? For such an important piece of legislation, there is no legitimate reason for the majority leader to refuse to bring extenders to the floor for an open and honest debate.

It has been quite a while since we have had a relatively open amendment process on major tax legislation. Because of this, many Senators view this bill as their one shot at getting tax priorities they have considered on the floor. There is no reason that an agreement cannot be reached that will provide opportunities to Members on both sides of the aisle to offer those amendments. As a former chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, this Senator knows this can be difficult, but it is more than doable.

I remember when Senator Baucus and I regularly worked out an amendment process on tax bills. Usually this would consist of alternating votes on a block of 10 or so Democratic and Republican amendments so each side was treated fairly. A tax bill that comes to my mind as an illustration of this process is a bill entitled Jumpstart Our Business Strength Act or, as we use the acronym, JOBS.

Like the extenders package, the JOBS Act had broad bipartisan support and ultimately passed the Senate 92 to 5. Though it had bipartisan support, there was no shortage of Members from the other side seeking to offer their amendments. Many of these amendments were in no way related to tax, although the JOBS Act was a tax bill.

As the bill's chief sponsor and floor manager, I had hoped to keep amendments somewhat relevant--at least related to tax. However, the then Democratic minority pushed for votes on everything from overtime laws to trade

adjustment assistance to unemployment insurance.

All of these amendments were political in nature. They were intended to make Republicans take tough votes. At the time, then minority leader--now Majority Leader--Reid vigorously defended the right of the minority to get votes on these and other amendments that were entirely nonrelevant and nongermane. We Republicans took those votes because we wanted to get things done. We wanted to get a very important tax bill passed. That is what the American people need right now--new leaders who want to get things done.

Yet today we were told Republicans are unreasonable for even seeking tax amendments to tax legislation. But it is not just Members of the minority who would like to offer amendments. Members on the other side filed nearly as many amendments as Members of the minority, but under the procedure set by the majority leader, even Members of his own party were not able to offer amendments. We could have been debating amendments to an extender bill this week. Instead, we wasted time on other pieces of legislation that were designed to fail, so the other side could score political points.

We were all sent here by our constituents to represent them in the legislative process. So let's legislate, which means debating and offering amendments. A bipartisan bill, such as the tax extenders bill, would be a perfect opportunity to show our constituents our ability to work together and get things done.

I call upon the leadership of the Senate to bring the tax extenders bill back to the floor and to allow for reasonable amendments that permit individual Senators of both parties to have a say in crafting this legislation.

Kadzik Nomination

Madam President, I wish to speak about an issue I spoke to earlier this week that I feel is so important I want to remind colleagues of its importance to me and what I think is an important issue for the oversight work of the Senate.

On Monday I explained my opposition to the nomination of Peter Kadzik to be the Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs at the Justice Department.

In my view, the nominee's record demonstrates contempt for congressional oversight. He has made a habit of providing evasive, nonresponsive, and plainly insufficient answers to congressional inquiries over the years. That practice alone disqualifies him from heading up the Legislative Affairs Office. That office has had a chronic problem with credibility in recent years--going back and forth with Mr. Kadzik as well.

Specifically, I am referring to the false denials regarding Operation Fast and Furious, which Mr. Kadzik's predecessor made and eventually had to retract. So it is pretty evident to me that this administration is sending a message to all of us in the Senate by nominating an individual with a track record as abysmal as Mr. Kadzik. That message is this: Expect more of the same. That is quite a message from the self-professed most transparent administration in history which, quite frankly, has not turned out to be so transparent.

But there is a lot more at stake regarding Mr. Kadzik's nomination than restoring credibility to the Legislative Affairs Office--a lot more. As we all know, at the beginning of this year the President boasted that he had ``a pen and a phone'' and that he intended to use it. What he meant, of course, was that he would bypass the legislative process and proceed with aggressive and unilateral executive action.

So in January I called on the Attorney General to disclose the opinions and memoranda from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, providing the legal justification for this President's unilateral executive action.

Four months later, Mr. Kadzik replied to me in a 1-page response. He said, in short, he would not disclose those legal opinions. But he said if I had additional questions regarding the legality of the President's actions, I should let him know. That was May 20. Well, 11 days later, on Saturday, March 31, we learned that the President had flouted the congressional notification provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act.

This latest example of the administration's flagrant disregard for its legal obligations to submit to congressional oversight has dominated the headlines. I am referring, of course, to the administration's failure to notify Congress of its plan to release the so-called ``Taliban Dream Team'' from Guantanamo last week.

As every Senator knows, the National Defense Authorization Act--a law this President has signed--required the administration to notify key congressional committees at least 30 days before arranging the release of a prisoner from Guantanamo. The law enumerates exactly what that notification needs to address.

Specifically, the administration was legally required to explain to Congress why the release is in the national security interest of our country. The administration was legally required to explain to Congress what action it had undertaken to mitigate the risk of reengagement of such terrorists by re-releasing the detainees.

The law requires these explanations and other disclosures because the Members of this body have an independent responsibility to ensure the national security of the United States. And, of course, we take this responsibility seriously. Each one of us swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution--the same oath that the President took. Unfortunately, this administration has locked us out of the process that the National Defense Authorization Act requires. I know I need to be more clear for most of you.

The history of section 1035 and the negotiations surrounding it make it plain that Congress included those provisions because it wanted to avoid release of prisoners like this one. So congressional opposition should not exactly come as a surprise to this administration.

This administration broke not only the law but also the promise it made in 2013 when White House Press Secretary Jay Carney promised that the administration ``would not make any decisions about the transfer of any detainees without consulting with Congress and without doing so in accordance with U.S. law.'' The administration knows it broke the law. Certain Senators on our Select Committee on Intelligence have even reportedly received apologies from the administration officials for not notifying them.

I don't think apologies are enough, and I don't think this administration takes seriously its legal obligation to consult with us before acting. Take the recent statement made by the Deputy White House Press Secretary on June 9. He said that ``this administration continues to be committed to coordinating with our partners in Congress.'' But the law doesn't require mere ``coordination.'' Coordination under the law is not good enough.

The President is required by law to meet certain obligations, and he recklessly ignores those obligations. The President is required by the Constitution--a document the President claims to know a lot about because he was a constitutional law professor--to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' Yet we all know by now that this President picks and chooses which laws to enforce.

This is not how our constitutional system is designed. The President is not in power to ignore the law. So ``coordination,'' as the Deputy Press Secretary said, is not good enough. We need compliance with the law. This administration needs to commit--on the record--that going forward it intends to comply with the National Defense Authorization Act so that another one of these stealth detainee releases never happens again.

With the exception of the majority leader, this administration has kept every Member of the Senate and the House in the dark about releasing five of the most dangerous terrorists we were holding at Guantanamo. Even the majority leader was not given the 30-day notice the law requires. So it is clear that not a single Senator was notified in compliance with the law prior to the release of the Taliban Five. It is likewise clear that not a single Senator received an explanation regarding national security and risk mitigation that the law requires in advance of releases.

But the failure to notify us in Congress in accordance with the law does

not relieve this administration of its responsibility to justify the releases. There is a lot about this ordeal that is extremely concerning. Part of what is so troublesome is that this administration can't even seem to get its story straight regarding why it ignored the law. The justifications the administration has offered publicly thus far have shifted dramatically from one day to the next day.

I will show how the shift has taken place and the justifications that have been presented to the public.

Shortly, after the release of the Taliban Five on June 1, the administration sent--of all people--National Security Advisor Susan Rice back to the Sunday talk shows--in Benghazi fashion--to explain the administration's rationale.

Adviser Rice told CNN that the ``acute urgency'' of an unspecified ``health condition'' that Sergeant Bergdahl was suffering from had forced the President to act without notifying Congress. We haven't heard much publicly about the acute medical emergency since then. In fact, a number of my colleagues have expressed skepticism at what little information the Pentagon has provided publicly regarding Sergeant Bergdahl's physical condition. But since the administration has said it was an emergency because the terrorists had threatened Bergdahl's life, apparently that was the medical emergency.

But now the story has changed. First, on Monday, following the releases, according to press reports, the White House called the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to apologize for its so- called oversight in failing to consult with Congress. So they meant to inform Congress about the releases but didn't because it was an ``oversight.''

Is that the story now? No. It didn't take long for the story to change. The White House then offered a new explanation.

On Tuesday, the Deputy White House Press Secretary said that the release was ``a secret military mission in which disclosures of the mission could put into jeopardy not just the life of Sergeant Bergdahl but also the lives of the American servicemen who were involved in the mission, so discretion on this matter was important.''

Let's think about the new justification--this one I just quoted-- let's think about it for a moment. The White House is saying essentially that disclosure of the operational details concerning the physical transfer of Sergeant Bergdahl could have jeopardized the mission. But the White House's justification is totally beside the point. To my knowledge, no Senator has claimed that the administration had a legal obligation under section 1035 to disclose the specific operational details of the transfer to our relevant committees. Section 1035 doesn't even require that. On the contrary, the law requires the administration to explain its rationale for the release in terms of national security and risk mitigation, not operational details.

So this particular justification is, of course, a colossal red herring, and it wasn't the last of the shifting justifications this administration has offered. Listen to the next one.

The administration claimed it simply ran out of time to notify us. On Tuesday the administration reportedly claimed that it knew only 1 day in advance that the transfer would take place and only an hour in advance about where it would happen. And then on Wednesday Defense Secretary Hagel told the House Armed Services Committee that the administration had only 96 hours from the time the deal was made to actually release Sergeant Bergdahl.

Again, both of these justifications miss the point. It is clear that the negotiations preceding the deal were in motion for months. According to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the administration reported that it had been engaged in negotiations with the Taliban since January 2014. So the administration had weeks--maybe even months--to communicate to Congress that it was in active negotiations that might result in the exchange deal in the near future. That, of course, never happened.

But even that wasn't the last of the shifting justifications. On Wednesday Defense Secretary Hagel told the House Armed Services Committee that the administration couldn't notify Congress because of the risk of a leak. Secretary Hagel said that the Qatari Government-- which apparently was acting as a middleman in these negotiations with the Taliban--threatened to end all negotiations if details of the deal leaked.

It is pretty obvious that this justification doesn't wash either. Press reports indicate that the administration told Congress that anywhere between 80 to 90 members of the executive branch knew about the release of the Taliban five before it happened. That number includes officials in the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the White House, and the Department of Defense. If that many individuals--80 or 90 people in this town--are in the loop, the administration's stated concern about a leak just doesn't make any sense. The White House could keep all of those officials in the loop, but somehow it couldn't pick up the phone and call the chair and vice chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Frankly, as we have seen over the last few years, when information is leaked to the press, the leak usually originates in the executive branch and more often than not from the White House itself. So it seems pretty clear that the administration is not being candid with us or with the American people about why it broke the law and locked the representatives of the people of the United States out of the process, contrary to what the law says.

So the bottom line is this: The White House ignored a Federal law that the President signed and that the White House Press Secretary promised it would follow. Yet the White House can't even get its story straight regarding why the law was ignored.

It is for these reasons--getting back to the point about the Office of Legal Counsel and Mr. Kadzik's nomination to be head of the Office of Legislative Affairs--it is for these reasons that I wrote to the Attorney General last week and called on the Office of Legal Counsel to release any and all materials concerning the legal justification for the detainees' release that the Department of Justice provided to the administration. It is the Office of Legal Counsel's job to look at every Presidential action and Executive order and decision to see if it complies with the law. And then it is my approach that if some lawyers are telling the President what he can legally do or not do, constitutionally do or not do, according to the Constitution, why shouldn't the American people know about it?

So this all becomes more important with each passing day, as the White House keeps offering new explanations for why it broke the law.

We know the Justice Department provides legal advice on this question to the Defense Department because that is one of the very first things the administration said publicly about the deal. On June 1 Susan Rice told CNN that the Defense Department consulted with the Justice Department before the decision to move forward was made. We need to know about the nature of that consultation. We need to know what legal justification the Department of Justice provided that would permit the administration to ignore its legal duties to notify Congress and to inform us of the reasons for the release. And, importantly, we need to know what specific facts on which the Justice Department based its legal analysis.

In other words, with all of these shifting explanations we have been hearing about the factual basis for the decision, which one of those many was provided to the Justice Department? Did they tell the Justice Department: We don't have time to tell Congress. If so, did they tell them that these negotiations had been ongoing for months, as they appear to have been? Did these executive branch people tell the Justice Department that Sergeant Bergdahl was, as Susan Rice claims, suffering from an acute condition that required the administration to take immediate action? Did the Justice Department take the view that the administration did not have to comply with the law because of the President's powers under article II of the Constitution, notwithstanding the fact that the White House had already promised it would comply or was none of this even considered? Was all of this just an

``oversight,'' as the White House apparently told the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence or was it that they didn't have to comply because they didn't trust the members of the select committee to keep a secret or should we expect that yet another justification will be forthcoming?

The bottom line is that Susan Rice went on CNN and said the Justice Department was consulted. But we don't know whether there was a written opinion provided by the Office of Legal Counsel and, if there was, what it concluded and what facts that conclusion was based on.

The General Counsel of the Defense Department testified yesterday that the administration had received legal advice from the Office of Legal Counsel in the form of an email chain. The administration needs to provide us with whatever written advice it received before it decided to contravene Federal law.

Given their failure to respond to my previous requests and considering Mr. Kadzik's track record in this regard, I am not optimistic. As I have stated previously, Mr. Kadzik's nomination embodies this administration's philosophy that it is OK to ignore its obligations with respect to congressional oversight--a constitutional responsibility of the legislative branch of government, by the way.

Let me conclude by saying that this nominee's record is emblematic of the administration's sorry record in complying with congressional oversight. And, of course, both have been abysmal.

If this administration is serious about honoring its legal obligations, the Attorney General would direct Mr. Kadzik to disclose the Office of Legal Counsel's legal reason for why the administration was entitled to ignore the law's requirement to notify Congress. No Senator should cast a vote on this nomination before Mr. Kadzik provides that legal reasoning to us.

If not now, when are all Senators--Republican and Democrat alike-- going to take a stand against this President's unilateral decision to ignore the Congress and his obligations under law? If not now, when will Members of this body stand together in defense of our legislative prerogatives and assert our rights as part of a coequal branch of government under the Constitution?

In this Senator's view, a vote for this nominee is a vote endorsing this administration's contempt for our oversight authority and will lend support to the deal that released the Taliban five without adhering to the law. As my colleagues know, I will vote against this nominee. I encourage my colleagues to vote against this nominee as well.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

May I ask the Senator a question.

How much time is the colloquy going to take?

Mr. President, I come to the floor to address two issues, a shorter issue on immigration and a longer issue on the student loan program, particularly in reference to legislation offered earlier this morning.

On immigration, this morning, Secretary Johnson appeared before the Judiciary Committee. We had a chance to ask a number of questions related to the administration's release of 36,000 criminal aliens, for what reasons the Department voluntarily did release them--especially convicted murderers--and what they are doing to track down and keep track of where these people are. I didn't get answers, but the Secretary committed to respond in writing about the matter, and I thank him ahead of time for doing that.

I also asked about data on countries that refuse to cooperate in taking back their nationals. Today I am introducing a bill with Senator Inhofe to fix this situation and allow the government to detain foreign nationals who pose a threat to our homeland. I have a longer statement on that issue.

Finally, I mention that the Secretary of Homeland Security answered a lot of questions related to unaccompanied children coming to the United States, mostly from Central America, and entering our southern border.

I agree we do have a humanitarian problem. These are vulnerable children whose lives are on the line. They are escorted by strangers for the most part, away from their families in some cases, and each of these young people probably not understanding what lies ahead.

When in custody, our government makes an attempt to reunite them with their families. However, sometimes the government is handing them over to nonrelatives, which concerns me because of the potential of placing them in the hands of pimps and traffickers.

As I said this morning in the committee, these children are being lured into these dire circumstances by false promises. That is evident from the interviews being done with the children.

Already, border agents and intelligence analysts have been interviewing the youth to understand why they are migrating at this particular time. Today I received a document that summarizes the findings of these interviewers. The document, while it does not have any author or official seal, was apparently done to summarize the interviews of individuals crossing the border along the McAllen, Rio Grande City, and Weslaco stations.

Two hundred thirty subjects were interviewed from several countries. An overwhelming majority said they were coming to the United States to take advantage of the new U.S. law that grants a free pass to unaccompanied children and female adults traveling with minors. That so-called free pass refers to a Notice to Appear document issued and then saying they are released on their own recognizance pending a hearing.

There is no new law. There is a new bill that passed the Senate 1 year ago but not through the House of Representatives, and it may never be. So there is no new law granting a free pass to unaccompanied children and female adults traveling with minors.

Specifically, this report states:

A high percentage of the subjects interviewed stated their

family members in the U.S. urged them to travel immediately,

because the United States Government was only issuing

immigration [free passes] until the end of June 2014.

The report states that:

The issue of free passes was the main reason provided by 95

percent, plus or minus, of the interviewed subjects.

So while I understand there are a lot of factors involved, we cannot ignore the fact that these children are coming or are being forced here because of a belief on their part that they will never be deported.

We can say that is thanks to the Obama administration because this administration has refused to be serious about immigration enforcement. The President needs to send a signal right away, if he wants to stop this catastrophe from happening, that the laws will be enforced.

Instead of reviewing deportation policies and suggesting ways to remove fewer people, the President should task Secretary Johnson with finding ways to actually enforce the laws we have on the books.

We must send a very strong signal that there is no benefit and no avenue

for them to remain in the United States. We must do this so the children are not lured into dire situations in the future. Even before they cross the border into the United States, they are probably already in circumstances we would consider a dire situation.

In fiscal year 2014, the U.S. Department of Education will make about $112 billion in Federal direct loans to students. The Federal Government already holds more than $1 trillion in student loan debt. So that makes the U.S. Department of Education one of the country's largest lenders. Total student loan debt in the United States is now second only to mortgage debt, and about 90 percent of all student loans happen to be issued by the Federal Government.

When elected officials say we have a student loan crisis because too many students owe more than they can afford to repay, we have to keep in mind who it was and is that made those loans to students in the first place.

It was, in fact, Uncle Sam.

What is one of the first things a Federal regulator looks at when a private bank issues a loan? They look at whether the bank has confirmed the ability of the borrower to repay. Federal student loans are given out without a credit check or any analysis of the student's ability to repay the loans in the first place.

The fastest growing category of student loans is Federal unsubsidized student loans, which are given out regardless of need. That means that students across this country get an award letter from their college saying they are eligible for thousands of dollars in Federal loans, even though in many cases they may not need all of those loans to cover their tuition and other costs. Colleges are required to offer the full amount of Federal student loans for which the student is eligible even if a financial aid counselor at that university knows that a student is borrowing more than the student needs and even if that counselor realizes they will have trouble repaying. If a private bank followed these same tactics and gave out loans on these terms, that bank would be accused of predatory lending. These easy-money policies may even be helping fuel tuition increases, which then obviously makes the problem even worse. A Federal government trying to help a student and at the same time maybe giving incentives to increase tuition actually is not helping that student in the long run.

Between Federal student loan policies that effectively encourage over-borrowing and the lack of good jobs for college graduates in this current economy, it is no wonder that so many college graduates find themselves in over their heads with student loan debt.

Unfortunately, for all the concerns we have heard expressed on the Senate floor about excessive student loan debt, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle decided to play election-year politics with this issue rather than tackle any of the root causes of the problem. In fact, when it comes to economic growth and job creation, the first rule ought to be do no harm. By including yet another massive tax increase, the bill the Senate declined to take up would have only added to the list of tax and regulatory burdens currently choking our economy.

We should be intensely focused on removing burdens to economic growth and as a result have some job creation. Instead, the policies we see from the other side of the aisle seem to be based on the old European model of accepting anemic economic growth and trying to make up for it with debt-financed government handouts for as long as possible.

I just referred to an old European model because many countries in Europe have already rejected this failed approach and instead have sought to reform entitlements, cut spending, and reduce taxes--measures we ought to be taking right here in the United States. Our goal should be to expand opportunities for young people and the middle class and not add them to the welfare state.

Incidentally, the President's recent so-called Executive action on student loans shows that he shares the same outlook of assuming a stagnant economy for the foreseeable future. He is talking about making people who graduated years ago retroactively eligible for programs enacted in 2010 that allow students to lower their monthly payments if they have a lower income. First of all, that happens to be a very transparent admission that many students who graduated near the beginning of President Obama's first term in office still don't have good-paying jobs halfway through the second term. What he doesn't tell you is that when you lower your student loan payments, you will pay off your loan more slowly and obviously accumulate more interest. In other words, you will eventually end up paying a lot more to Uncle Sam than you otherwise would have. When banks were offering adjustable-rate or interest-only mortgages, they were criticized for taking advantage of borrowers who would be faced with bigger payments down the road.

The pay-as-you-earn program may be useful tools short term for those in distress, but it will cost every one of them in the long term; that is, assuming you ever get a job that pays well. However, the second part of the program says that if you still haven't found a job that pays well enough to pay off your loan after 10 years, your loan will be forgiven if you work for the government or a nonprofit or after 20 years if you work in the private sector, which apparently is considered less worthwhile. And who foots the bill when these people get their loans forgiven? The American taxpayer will pay for those people's college loans.

Creighton University Professor Ernie Goss has analyzed the President's plan and thinks it is a poor use of taxpayer funds. This is what he said:

A lot of these men and women that are out there working

don't have kids in college, won't have kids in college, and

it's a big transfer of income to those of us who have

university educations or particularly those of us who are in

university education.

So increasing Federal subsidies for colleges at the expense of the American taxpayers who work hard to pay for their own bills just encourages colleges to keep increasing tuition.

Furthermore, expanding a program designed to help student loan borrowers who still cannot afford their student loan payments 10 or 20 years after graduation looks a lot like planning for further economic stagnation typical of the last 4 or 5 years rather than focusing on improving economic growth and resultant job creation.

The political messaging bill the Senate declined to take up today would also do nothing to address the problems of students borrowing more than they will be able to afford to repay in the first place. I have a bill that will help with that problem.

The Higher Education Act already contains a requirement for colleges to provide counseling to new borrowers of Federal student loans; however, the current disclosures in the law do not do enough to ensure that students understand what kind of debt they will face after graduation. My bill, which I have entitled ``Know Before You Owe Federal Student Loan Act,'' strengthens the current student loan counseling requirements by making the counseling an annual requirement before new loans are disbursed rather than just for first-time borrowers.

My bill adds several key components to the information institutions of higher education are required to share with students as part of loan counseling. Perhaps most significantly, colleges would have to provide an estimate of a student's loan debt-to-income ratio upon graduation. This would be based on the starting wages for that student's program of study and the estimated student loan debt the student will likely take out to complete the program. That way, students will have a very real picture of the student loan payments they will face and whether they will be able to afford those payments with their likely future income.

Students will also be provided with information about the higher risk of default if they have a projected loan debt-to-income ratio greater than 12 percent. They will be told that they should borrow only the minimum amount necessary to cover expenses and that they do not have to accept the full amount of the loans offered.

Students will also be given options for reducing borrowing through scholarships, reduced expenses, work-study or other work opportunities.

Because adding an extra year of study can significantly increase student loan debt, an explanation will be

provided about the importance of graduating on time to avoid additional borrowing and the impact of adding an additional year of study to the total indebtedness.

Finally, the bill requires that a student manually enter either in writing or through electronic means the exact dollar amount of the Federal direct loan funding the student desires to borrow. The current process almost makes borrowing the maximum amount the default option. If you want to borrow less than you need to borrow, you have to ask for less. Students may wrongly assume that the Federal Government has determined this is the appropriate amount for them to borrow when in fact the government doesn't know anything about that student's situation. Surely the Federal Government would not lend them more than they can afford to repay, right? No, that is wrong. This provision will ensure that students make a conscious decision about how much they borrow rather than simply accepting the total amount of Federal student loans for which they are eligible.

I should add that good college financial aid counselors can and do advise students not to borrow more than they need, but the process itself needs to be reformed to give them the proper tools.

In fact, the reforms I have outlined were inspired by efforts already underway in my home State of Iowa. Grand View University in Des Moines, IA, has a financial empowerment plan where students and families construct a comprehensive 4-year financing plan. Under this plan, borrowing is based on the student's future earning potential in the student's field of study. The 4-year plan also helps ensure students graduate on time, and tuition is capped at 2 percent a year over those 4 years.

Iowa Student Loan--our State-based nonprofit lender--also has a program called Student Loan Game Plan, which is an online, interactive resource that calculates a student's likely debt-to-income ratio. It walks students through how their borrowing will affect their lifestyle in the future and what actions they can take now to reduce their borrowing. As a result, in the past year over 15 percent of the students who participated decreased the amount they had planned to borrow by an average of $2,536, saving Iowa students over $1 million in additional loan debt.

Finally, my own alma mater, the University of Northern Iowa, has a program called the Live Like a Student Program. This involves a number of resources to help students learn to manage their finances better, including 3-week courses, one-on-one counseling, and workshops.

We often tell prospective college students that they will earn on average $1 million more during a lifetime. It is true that college generally is a good investment; however, when a student's academic dreams become a nightmare--and usually upon graduation that happens because they borrowed more from the Federal Government than they can afford to repay on their starting salary--they understandably feel that they have been had. And by whom? Their own government.

The Federal Government, as the lender making these loans, has a responsibility to at least ensure that students know what they are getting themselves into before they get in over their heads. This legislation I described that will be introduced will do that.

I would urge my colleagues to take a look at that piece of legislation. I would ask them to support it and join as a cosponsor so collectively we can help prevent more students from drowning in Federal student loan debt.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in the last few weeks, startling data from the Obama Administration has revealed that the Department of Homeland Security has released over 36,000 aliens with criminal convictions into the United States.

According to responses to some Members of Congress, Secretary Johnson has acknowledged that 36,007 convicted criminal aliens were released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody in fiscal year 2013. Many of these aliens had multiple convictions. In fact, among the 36,007 aliens released, they had nearly 88,000 convictions.

Data prepared by ICE, and reported by the Center for Immigration Studies, shows that among the criminally convicted aliens released into American communities were: 193 homicide convictions, including one willful killing of a public official with a gun, 426 sexual assault convictions, 303 kidnapping convictions, 1,075 aggravated assault convictions, 1,160 stolen vehicle convictions, 9,187 dangerous drug convictions, and 16,070 drunk or drugged driving convictions.

I have repeatedly said that this administration has failed the American public by refusing to enforce the laws on the books. This administration has turned a blind eye to those who have broken the law and have irresponsibly exercised their executive authority to find a way to allow people here unlawfully to remain in the country.

In failing to enforce the immigration laws, the administration has betrayed its responsibility to protect the public safety of the American people.

President Obama's administration has continually stated that they are focused on enforcement against the worst of the worst convicted criminals. Yet they are releasing thousands of aliens every year with serious and, in many cases, violent criminal convictions.

ICE has responded to criticism by declaring that many of the individuals released were under supervisory restrictions. These restrictions range from bond to ankle bracelets to a periodic telephone call to a designated ICE phone line. Some individuals, however, are issued an order of recognizance and therefore are under no supervision at all.

Is the American public supposed to feel safer because the same administration that released violent criminals into our communities claims to be monitoring them? Is the American public supposed to trust these aliens convicted of crimes and are here unlawfully to follow the terms of their release?

Despite requests, ICE has failed to specify the nature of the release conditions placed upon these violent criminal aliens. In the interest of public safety, we should all demand to know the release conditions of those aliens released who have been convicted of violent crimes.

The administration is also claiming that many of the individuals they released in 2013 were due to the 2001 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Zadvydas v. Davis. This decision limited the Federal Government's ability to detain aliens who have been ordered removed.

This case sets the pitiful precedent that aliens subject to final orders of removal, including ones convicted of a crime, cannot be held longer than 6 months and will be released in the United States if their home country refuses to take them back or their home country simply delays the U.S. government's request for a travel document. Other countries know that--because of the ruling in Zadvydas--they can simply run out the clock on issuing travel documents for the criminally convicted individual. Therefore, we have aliens, with no legal right to be in the United States, unwanted by their own country, being released into the country by our own administration.

This Supreme Court decision has had a detrimental effect on our ability to obtain travel documents from foreign countries and effectuate removal orders. Many countries refuse to take back their criminal aliens, leaving us no choice but to release them into our own communities.

This precedent needs to be corrected. The administration has relied upon the ruling in Zadvydas to release thousands of criminally convicted aliens. However, they have refused to help fix it. In fact, the Senate immigration reform bill that they supported does not include a fix to the 2001 Supreme Court decision. They have not asked Congress to extend the length of time they are allowed to detain foreign nationals with final orders of removal.

That is why I am cosponsoring the ``Keeping Our Communities Safe Act'' being introduced today by the Senator from Oklahoma. His bill would close the legal loophole that requires ICE to release dangerous criminals onto the streets of America. It would allow ICE to detain non-removable immigrants beyond six months if the alien is a national security threat or is a threat to the safety of the community and has a past violent crime conviction.

In addition to hiding behind the Supreme Court decision, the administration has refused to use the tools at its disposal to get countries to cooperate. Federal law allows the Secretary of State to discontinue granting visas to all residents of a country that refuses or unreasonably delays taking back its aliens facing deportation from the United States.

Secretary Johnson, at a House Judiciary 2 weeks ago, acknowledged that in his capacity as Secretary, his department has never asked the Department of State to use this authority. This visa sanction authority has only been invoked one time, in 2011 against Guayana, within 2 months Guayana issued travel documents for 112 of 113 aliens ordered removed from the United States to Guayana. This tactic has been proven effective and Secretary Johnson should be employing this measure.

Of the 36,000 persons released in 2013, ICE claims that 3,652 were due to the 2001 Supreme Court decision. So, only a small portion of those released were mandatorily released under Zadvydas.

While thousands of criminally convicted aliens have been released into the United States, both at ICE's discretion and due to bad Supreme Court precedent, President Obama has called for a reduction of immigration detention capacity by 10 percent.

The simplicity of this idea seriously calls into question this administration's management capabilities. The fact that thousands of people are being released from detention clearly suggests that ICE needs more beds, not less, in order to avoid releasing more criminally convicted aliens into America.

This administration is knowingly putting the safety of the American people at risk. Releasing violent criminals into the American population should cause great doubt about this administration's ability to enforce current immigration laws.

ICE needs to provide the American people with more information about the criminal aliens it releases. ICE needs to tell the American people what terms of release are given to what criminal offenses. ICE needs to tell the American people what types of criminal offenses it deems appropriate to release at their own discretion.

ICE needs to tell the American people how many of these criminally convicted aliens comply with the terms of their release. ICE needs to tell the American people how many of these criminally convicted aliens commit further crimes after being released. ICE needs to tell the American people how many of these criminally convicted aliens who are released become fugitives.

This administration tells us to trust them. They say they are removing more people than ever before. They claim the immigration bill passed by this body will solve our problems. Yet they have failed us and the American people. They continue to turn a blind eye to lawbreakers and refuse to take this matter seriously.

There should be more outrage about the news coming from this administration. Releasing 36,000 criminal aliens is a serious matter and one that better be fixed soon for the sake of the American public.