Floor Statements

Mr. President, I move to proceed to H.R. 240.

Mr. President, later today the Senate will consider the nomination of Ash Carter to be the next Secretary of Defense.

If I could place one demand on him, it would be to leave our Armed Forces in a better position to deal with global threats than they are today. As I have noted in the past, the overall consequence of many of the President's policies have been to weaken our ability to confront Al Qaeda and its affiliates, the Taliban, and associated groups.

The President's inflexible commitment to campaign promises made in 2008 has led to artificial deadlines for withdrawal from Afghanistan, a rushed withdrawal from Iraq, and Executive orders to close Guantanamo and send detainees back home to places such as Yemen and Afghanistan. It has also led essentially to end America's ability to capture, detain, and interrogate terrorists--whether or not we are still at war with Al Qaeda.

The truth is Al Qaeda was at war with us before we went to war with them, and today we face a diffuse and versatile threat from terrorists, with ISIL intent on striking America and its allies.

The next Secretary of Defense needs to explain to the President that drawing down in Afghanistan--based on an artificial deadline--risks the gains we have made there. He needs to explain that the Haqqani network and the Taliban continue to threaten our allies.

The next Secretary of Defense must do all he can to make a declaratory policy of pivoting to Asia a real one. Past drawdowns of conventional power and failure to modernize the American force have encouraged foes and unsettled friends. So it is time to invest in the platforms and the capabilities needed to address effectively China's military buildup, and the next Secretary must also support the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when he provides his best military advice to the President, especially when that advice is ignored in the White House.

In the Senate I will do all I can to support the next Secretary. That starts today. I intend to support Ash Carter's nomination, but my support is conditioned on this request: The incoming Secretary needs to have the courage to speak truth to power--to Congress, yes, but also to his Commander in Chief.

I yield the floor.

Recognition of the Acting Minority Leader

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I wish to say a word about a remarkable woman in the Senate we will soon be losing.

Kathie Alvarez, the Senate's legislative clerk, is a bit of a celebrity. Every C-SPAN aficionado knows her voice. All she has to say is ``Mr. Alexander, Ms. Ayotte . . .'' and it is instantly recognizable.

Kathie has been calling the roll around here for quite a while. In 1991, she became the first woman to ever call the roll in the Senate. In 1999, with Senator Collins in the chair, Kathie became a member of the first all-female team to preside over this body, and in 2009 she became the Senate's first female legislative clerk.

So Kathie Alvarez has been making a lot of history since she first arrived here in 1984.

And you will notice, Madam President, that every female floor staffer is paying tribute to her today. They are each wearing something with Kathie's favorite design--animal print.

Along with the love of Cajun food, sartorial distinction is one thing this Louisianan has become known for, a passion for perfection is another.

Kathie has maintained a laser-like focus for three decades. That is good news for the Senate because we rely on her--and the American people rely on her--to ensure that every bill, every amendment, and every message from the House is processed perfectly. That is a lot of pressure.

So we can't blame Kathie for wanting to retire. I know she is looking forward to spending more time with her husband John, and I know Kathie wants to see more of her daughter Georgia.

It will not be as though Kathie is leaving us entirely. We will still be able to hear her voice on the film every tourist watches when they come to visit the Capitol.

So the Senate thanks Kathie Alvarez, its history-making celebrity, for her many years of service, and we wish the very best to her deputy, John Merlino, as he steps into Kathie's role as the Senate's new legislative clerk.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. President, for 2 weeks now Democrats have continued to filibuster funding for the Department of Homeland Security.

They are filibustering Homeland Security for one reason, and that is to defend actions President Obama himself referred to as ``unwise and unfair'' and ``ignoring the law.''

For 2 full weeks, Democrats have prevented the Senate from even considering legislation to fund the Department of Homeland Security. Democrats won't allow the Senate to even debate this funding. Democrats won't allow the Senate to even consider amendments to this funding.

Democrats appear willing to do anything and everything they can to prevent the Senate from taking any action to fund Homeland Security, and all to defend ``unwise and unfair''--the President's words, not mine--overreach.

This includes Democrats who claim to be against overreach and who claim to be for funding the Department of Homeland Security. Yet these Democrats continue to filibuster things they claim to want.

Listen to the things Democrats have been saying too. We have heard a claim

from them the Democratic filibuster wasn't actually a filibuster. We heard a call from them for the Senate to start with funding legislation of its own. Of course, the Democratic leader has been clear in the past that the Senate can do no such thing.

Well, here is some good news. There is already a funding bill before us. It has already passed the House. It would fund the Department of Homeland Security fully, and we can consider it today, right now. All Democrats have to do is stop blocking the Senate from even debating it. If our Democratic colleagues don't like provisions of the bill the House has passed, the Senate has a process for modifying bills. It is called amending them. But the Senate can only consider amendments to a bill if it is not being filibustered.

This strained logic of our Democratic friends is very hard to swallow. We understand Democrats might be having a tough time kicking this years-long gridlock habit of theirs, but it is about time they did.

I have already offered a fair and open debate to them several times now. It is a debate that would allow amendments from both parties--that means amendments from our Democratic friends as well. If you want to make changes to the bill, colleagues, that is the way to do it. But to do so you first need to end the weeks-long Democratic filibuster of Homeland Security funding.

Why don't we get serious instead and let the Senate fund the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to proceed to H.R. 240 be agreed to, and that it be made in order for the managers or their designees to offer amendments in an alternating fashion, with the majority manager or his designee being recognized to offer the first amendment.

Mr. President, I object.

What is the pending business?

I send a cloture motion to the desk.

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

Mr. President, today I would like to pay tribute to two of the hardest working staffers in the Senate: John Ashbrook and Russell Coleman.

Russell Coleman

First, there is Russell, a dyed-in-the-wool Kentuckian. He is a huge Wildcats fan. The only words one associates with Russell more often than ``affable'' are these two: ``persuasive'' and ``determined.'' When Russell sets his mind to something, there is not much you can do to stop him--not that you would want to because he is one of the friendliest guys you will ever meet. More than a few times, you will see a group entering a meeting with Russell, spoiling for a fight. Then the door opens, and they are his best friends. It is quite a skill. It is nearly as impressive as this one: Russell Coleman knows just about everybody in Kentucky. His Rolodex is something to behold.

He has done a lot of great work here in the Senate. This one-time FBI agent is passionate about law-enforcement issues. This one-time intern is passionate about mentoring others, letting those around him know, no matter how junior, that their contributions do matter.

Russell is also a great fighter. That tough will has helped Russell push through adversity with grace and with grit. Faith is a big part of Russell's life too. It is something he shares with Chaplain Black every Friday in Bible study.

Russell is ready to share more of himself, too, with his family, his wife Ashley and his children, Annie and Clay. They are all making the move back to Louisville. They will have a lot more time together, and I know they and Russell couldn't be happier.

So congratulations, Russell, and thanks for your service.

John Ashbrook

Let me tell you about John Ashbrook. John has been with me since I first became Republican leader. He was a fresh-faced kid back then, a young guy from Cincinnati who wanted nothing more than to work in the White House. I am grateful he chose to work for me instead. I am grateful John was willing to transfer his allegiance across the Ohio River for the past 8 years because John Ashbrook is easy-mannered, matched with unbending will. You don't see that very often. He has been an important player on our staff not only for his professionalism but for his character too.

John is known around the Capitol as a founding member of the Senate Republican Communications Center. With John's help, it has been a real success.

The Capitol is going to be a different place without John's laughter echoing in the corridors. Every reporter knows his name. Every member of my staff knows his smile. It is pretty hard to miss.

John, muffin in hand, is usually the first guy in every morning. Many hours later, he is often the last one out. I appreciate it deeply.

I know John's wife Kate takes a somewhat different view. I can't blame her. Kate is ready for dinners without John's Blackberry at the table, and John is ready to spend more time with his three beautiful daughters--Margaret, Abigail, and Charlotte, all born during his service here. John's daughters and Kate mean everything to him, and I couldn't be happier that John will be seeing more of all of them very soon.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to H.R. 240.

Mr. President, last night I joined Members of both parties to recognize the latest bipartisan achievement for the American people.

The Clay Hunt SAV Act, which will provide important support to our Nation's veterans, passed the House and Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support. It is on its way to President Obama's desk, and I am confident he will sign it.

Keystone Bill

Mr. President, today the House of Representatives is expected to pass yet another bipartisan bill for him to sign, the Keystone jobs bill. It is just common sense. That is why this bipartisan legislation already passed the Senate with support from both parties. That is why labor unions support it, and that is why the American people support it. Americans know construction of this infrastructure project would pump billions into the economy and support thousands of good jobs. They also know America could achieve this with, as the President's own State Department has indicated, minimal environmental impact.

Americans are urging President Obama not to interfere in the review process for political reasons any longer. Americans are urging the President to finally heed scientific conclusions his own State Department already reached. Let American workers build this infrastructure project. Sign this jobs and infrastructure bill.

Powerful special interests may be demanding that the President veto Keystone jobs, but we hope he will not. If the President does ultimately bow to these special interest demands, that is a discussion we can have then. But either way Americans should know this: The new Congress will not stop pursuing good ideas.

This new majority is committed to refocusing Washington on the concerns of the middle class, and the passage of bipartisan bills such as Keystone, Clay Hunt, and Keystone jobs shows we are doing just that.

Department of Homeland Security Funding

Mr. President, on a different matter, Democrats are blocking Homeland Security funding in order to defend Executive overreach the President has said himself, on many different occasions, he didn't have. As I indicated yesterday, this is the reason the Senate can't move forward, so it needs to come to an end. This is the simplest and most obvious way it can.

Many Democrats previously indicated opposition to the kinds of overreach described by President Obama himself as unwise and unfair. So all they have to do is back up those words with some action. If Democrats claim to be against overreach and claim to be for funding the critical activities of the Department of Homeland Security, then there is no reason for them to continue their party's filibuster.

So vote with us to allow the Senate to actually debate Homeland Security funding instead. We have already offered a fair and open debate that would allow for amendments from both parties. If the bill needs to be amended, that is when it could be, when we actually get on the bill and offer amendments.

This is about Democrats being confronted with a choice: filibuster funding for Homeland Security to protect overreach of President Obama himself, referred to as ``ignoring the law'' or allow the Senate to debate, vote, and amend the very funding they claim to want.

AUMF Funding

Mr. President, one final and critically important matter. This morning we received the President's proposed authorization for the use of military

force against ISIL and its affiliates. It was clear from the outset that a successful military campaign to defeat ISIL would require a multiyear effort, so it is certainly in order for Congress to debate an authorization such as this.

Because Congress must meet its responsibility to decide whether our military should use force, the Senate will review the President's request thoughtfully. Individual Senators and committees of jurisdiction will review it carefully, and they will listen carefully to the advice of military commanders as they consider the best strategy for defeating ISIL. Because this decision demands such serious consideration, I want our Members to have an early opportunity to discuss the President's request. That is why later today our conference, the Republican conference, will meet for a discussion led by Senators Corker and McCain.

I yield the floor.

Recognition of the Acting Minority Leader

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 295; that there be up to 1 hour equally divided in the usual form; that following the use or yielding back of that time, the Hatch technical amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to vote on the bill with no intervening action or debate.

Following disposition of the bill, the Senate will resume the motion to proceed to H.R. 240, the DHS appropriations bill.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to H.R. 240.

Mr. President, many Americans have already started the process of filling out their tax returns. It is a stressful time of year, but thanks to ObamaCare many are sure to find it even more stressful. Part of this is because of ObamaCare's $1 trillion-plus in tax increases.

If you have health insurance ObamaCare has a tax for that. If you don't have health insurance, ObamaCare has a tax for that too. Whether government bureaucrats deem your coverage generous or not generous enough, ObamaCare has a tax for you.

Some of these taxes are paid by consumers directly. Others are passed along in the form of higher premiums, increased costs, and lost opportunities, but many fall on the shoulders of the middle class.

There is more to the issue, too, because ObamaCare has done what many thought impossible, it has made a mind-numbingly complex Tax Code even more so.

For the first time, the government will be asking on our tax returns if we had health insurance for every month of last year. If someone didn't--well, you guessed it--ObamaCare has a tax for that, too, but this is only a portion of the cost and complexity ObamaCare threatens to impose on millions this tax season.

This is how one health law expert put it:

It will be very easy to find people who are unhappy with

[ObamaCare's] . . . new tax obligations--people who have to

pay a penalty, who have to wait forever to get through to

somebody at the I.R.S. or have to pay back a lot of money

because of overpayments of premium tax credits.

This is from an expert who supports ObamaCare.

The truth is ObamaCare is a law that just keeps on giving, giving headaches to the middle class. It meant millions of cancellation notices, it meant higher costs for many, and now this.

Remember, too, the IRS, the same agency charged with processing our tax returns, is now in charge of implementing vast sections of ObamaCare. The same agency that spent so much time trying to silence free speech--the same agency that awarded bonuses to employees who owed back taxes--is an agency charged with enforcing ObamaCare's web of complexity.

Americans are right to question the IRS's competence to handle so much sensitive information. We just received another reminder of that recently.

One of the Obama administration's own inspectors general released a damning report of this troubled agency. The report found that the IRS recently rehired hundreds of individuals who had left the agency under clouds of misconduct.

It took back individuals who had engaged in sexual harassment, criminal misconduct, and fraud and on at least one occasion ignored case file notes that warned ``Do not rehire.''

The tax collector for America even rehired people who willfully failed to file their tax returns.

I know the chairman of the Finance Committee plans to dig into issues such as these. He wants answers. We all do. The American people deserve them. They are tired of seeing a government that has lost focus on them, and they are tired of enduring ObamaCare's growing list of failed promises.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, February 11; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following leader remarks, the Senate will be in a period of morning business for up to 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the majority controlling the first half and the Democrats controlling the final half.

So, Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks from Senators Moran, Cardin, and Stabenow.

Madam President, Senator Alexander and Senator Enzi are here on the floor. I want to briefly address the nominee we will be voting on this afternoon and then turn to the matter the three of us wish to address.

Today the Senate is going to vote on the nomination of Michael Botticelli to be the next Director of National Drug Control Policy. I look forward to working with our Nation's next drug czar just as I have with previous drug czars.

Drug abuse is a serious problem in my home State. Kentucky is the fifth highest prescribing State when it comes to pain killers, and we have the Nation's third highest drug overdose mortality rate, with many deaths driven by prescription pain killers.

Heroin abuse is also a problem in the Bluegrass State. Heroin deaths accounted for 32 percent of the drug overdoses back in 2013, and they continue to climb. The epicenter of the heroin problem is located in the northern region across the river from Cincinnati, although I am hearing more and more from constituents that drug abuse is rising in other parts of the Commonwealth as well.

All told, the Kentucky Office of Drug Control Policy reports that about 1,000 Kentuckians lose their lives overdosing on drugs every year, which is more than we lose in fatal car crashes.

There is another reason I am pleased to welcome prior drug czar Gil Kerlikowski to tour Kentucky. We had him there a couple of years ago to take a closeup look at the problems we face. He visited Louisville, Lexington, London, and Pikeville--four communities, both urban and rural, across the State. He met with Kentuckians who worked to tackle this issue from every single angle--public health officials, medical professionals, law enforcement officials, drug courts, members of the business community, and Kentuckians involved with prevention. The drug czar's visit helped focus more Federal attention and Federal resources on this issue, and in a time of strained budgets, the extra attention and those extra resources are particularly important.

I am also pleased to report that Mr. Botticelli plans to visit Eastern Kentucky soon. He also plans, at my invitation, to visit Northern Kentucky this spring. Visits such as these help ensure continued Federal focus on Kentucky's drug problem, and I look forward to working with the next drug czar to move closer to the day when drug abuse is no longer ravaging our families and our communities.

(The remarks of Mr. McConnell, Mr. Alexander, and Mr. Enzi pertaining to the introduction of S.J. Res. 8 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, recently the Senate has had a lot of discussion about partisan overreach. We have talked about an administration that seems to view democracy as what it can get away with, not what it can work cooperatively to achieve. It is worrying for our country, and we keep seeing more examples of it.

Consider the administration's effort to weaken workers' rights. This administration's appointees on the National Labor Relations Board released their so-called ambush rule back in December. It is designed with one purpose in mind: to fatten the wallets of powerful political bosses by weakening the rights of middle-class workers.

Republicans believe a worker has a right to make her own informed choices about joining a union. We don't think powerful political bosses should attempt to make that decision for her, but that is just what this rule aims to achieve. These bosses think they can enrich their own coffers if they can deny workers real opportunities to

weigh the pros and cons of joining a union. For instance, in an era of stagnant wages, does a worker want to see her paycheck shrink so a political boss can attend more campaign fundraisers? Republicans think that is a choice for the worker to make. Does a worker want to give up her right to demand better pay or a promotion that she deserves and cede those decisions to a distant political organization?

Republicans think she has a right to make those choices for herself and she has a right to make them in an informed way, but the administration's ambush rule would dramatically weaken her ability to do so. In many cases it wouldn't even allow her more than a handful of days to weigh the pros and cons of such a costly and important decision. It is really not fair. And it is not just me saying that; consider the words of John F. Kennedy. Here is what he had to say about it. ``There should be at least a 30-day interval'' for union elections, he said. He noted that these 30 days represent a safeguard against ``rushing employees into an election where they are unfamiliar with the issues.'' Kennedy was right.

There is another important issue at stake here too. Just as Republicans think a worker has a right to make her own informed choices, Republicans also think her personal information is none of the business of powerful political bosses. But the administration's ambush rule would allow those bosses to access things such as her email address and cell number without--without--her permission. It also would allow those bosses to track her, to know exactly when and where she is working--again, without her permission. She can't opt out and she can't unsubscribe. This is really chilling. This is really extreme.

What about the men and women who rise early every day to fulfill their dreams, the men and women who provide so many opportunities for others to fulfill theirs? This ambush rule is also aimed at preventing someone with a small business of her own from even having a real conversation with her employees about the cost and the benefits of joining a union. The ambush rule would give extraordinary power to political bosses on the outside, while shutting her voice down--the one person who probably knows more about and cares more about her employees than anyone else. After years spent building a dream and caring about the men and women who helped her get there, this rule is an insult--an insult--to entrepreneurs like her.

Moreover, it is not the men and women on the assembly line who are demanding the ambush rule. There is no demand for this coming up with the workforce in America. So who is demanding it? It is the powerful political bosses who worry that more and more workers are making an informed choice not to join a union. Those bosses are worried about what informed choices could mean for them--less money, less power.

So this far-reaching rule--the so-called Mt. Everest of regulations-- is not the result of the administration seeking out the best policy; it is just another example of the administration seeing what it can get away with. It is a brazen attempt to enrich powerful political friends of the White House by weakening workers' rights. It is not fair for workers, and it is not right for our country.

My good friends the Senators from Tennessee and Wyoming are here on the floor to explain what Congress plans to do to stand up for basic fairness in the workplace. They are going to talk about this latest example of partisan executive overreach--the kind of overreach that is coming to define the Obama administration--and what Congress plans to do next.

Madam President, I see the Senator from Tennessee is on his feet, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, recently the Senate has had a lot of discussion about partisan overreach. We have talked about an administration that seems to view democracy as what it can get away with, not what it can work cooperatively to achieve. It is worrying for our country, and we keep seeing more examples of it.

Consider the administration's effort to weaken workers' rights. This administration's appointees on the National Labor Relations Board released their so-called ambush rule back in December. It is designed with one purpose in mind: to fatten the wallets of powerful political bosses by weakening the rights of middle-class workers.

Republicans believe a worker has a right to make her own informed choices about joining a union. We don't think powerful political bosses should attempt to make that decision for her, but that is just what this rule aims to achieve. These bosses think they can enrich their own coffers if they can deny workers real opportunities to

weigh the pros and cons of joining a union. For instance, in an era of stagnant wages, does a worker want to see her paycheck shrink so a political boss can attend more campaign fundraisers? Republicans think that is a choice for the worker to make. Does a worker want to give up her right to demand better pay or a promotion that she deserves and cede those decisions to a distant political organization?

Republicans think she has a right to make those choices for herself and she has a right to make them in an informed way, but the administration's ambush rule would dramatically weaken her ability to do so. In many cases it wouldn't even allow her more than a handful of days to weigh the pros and cons of such a costly and important decision. It is really not fair. And it is not just me saying that; consider the words of John F. Kennedy. Here is what he had to say about it. ``There should be at least a 30-day interval'' for union elections, he said. He noted that these 30 days represent a safeguard against ``rushing employees into an election where they are unfamiliar with the issues.'' Kennedy was right.

There is another important issue at stake here too. Just as Republicans think a worker has a right to make her own informed choices, Republicans also think her personal information is none of the business of powerful political bosses. But the administration's ambush rule would allow those bosses to access things such as her email address and cell number without--without--her permission. It also would allow those bosses to track her, to know exactly when and where she is working--again, without her permission. She can't opt out and she can't unsubscribe. This is really chilling. This is really extreme.

What about the men and women who rise early every day to fulfill their dreams, the men and women who provide so many opportunities for others to fulfill theirs? This ambush rule is also aimed at preventing someone with a small business of her own from even having a real conversation with her employees about the cost and the benefits of joining a union. The ambush rule would give extraordinary power to political bosses on the outside, while shutting her voice down--the one person who probably knows more about and cares more about her employees than anyone else. After years spent building a dream and caring about the men and women who helped her get there, this rule is an insult--an insult--to entrepreneurs like her.

Moreover, it is not the men and women on the assembly line who are demanding the ambush rule. There is no demand for this coming up with the workforce in America. So who is demanding it? It is the powerful political bosses who worry that more and more workers are making an informed choice not to join a union. Those bosses are worried about what informed choices could mean for them--less money, less power.

So this far-reaching rule--the so-called Mt. Everest of regulations-- is not the result of the administration seeking out the best policy; it is just another example of the administration seeing what it can get away with. It is a brazen attempt to enrich powerful political friends of the White House by weakening workers' rights. It is not fair for workers, and it is not right for our country.

My good friends the Senators from Tennessee and Wyoming are here on the floor to explain what Congress plans to do to stand up for basic fairness in the workplace. They are going to talk about this latest example of partisan executive overreach--the kind of overreach that is coming to define the Obama administration--and what Congress plans to do next.

Madam President, I see the Senator from Tennessee is on his feet, and I yield the floor.