Floor Statements

Madam President, the Chinese New Year began, as you probably know, just a couple days ago. I do not know a lot of words in Chinese, but among the words I have learned is how to say ``Happy New Year.'' It is a new year in China. It is a new year for Chinese Americans in this country as well. I think the way we say ``Happy New Year'' is ``Gong Xi Fa Cai.'' So I say that to my friend.

When word came out that Max had been nominated by the President for this role, I say to our friend from Utah, I ran into Max. He was about to go into an elevator, I think in the Hart Building, and I said: I know the President has nominated you for this, but you can't leave. We need your leadership on tax reform. We need your leadership on an SGR fix and doctors and all these other issues--trade policy. You can't leave now.

He said: Well, the President has nominated me.

I said: Well, I am going to put a hold on your nomination.

He was about to get in the elevator and go away, and he put his head back out and said: Oh no, you are not.

I was tempted. I was tempted because there is a lot he leaves. Actually, I think he leaves at a time when this place is working better. I am encouraged by that. Frankly, I am encouraged by the relationship the Senator has kindled with Senator Hatch. I am encouraged by the relationship the Senator has kindled with our friend Dave Camp from Michigan over in the House as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Max has set an example for the rest of us.

It is ironic the chairman of the committee and the ranking member are sitting here across the aisle from each other, but the two of them, in terms of providing personal examples--the kind of leadership we need; do as I do, not as I say--both of them are terrific at reaching across the aisle, doing what the people sent us to do: find principled compromises, get things done.

I wish to mention--let me just ask, and he can maybe nod his head--my recollection is, when we took up the issue of whether there should be a Medicare prescription drug program that was supported initially by Senator Kennedy and by President George W. Bush, I think in the end the version that prevailed was the version preferred by President Bush.

My recollection is that Senator Baucus may have gone across the aisle and supported that version of the bill and took me and probably another 10 or so Democrats with him--not an easy thing to do.

I remember going back to Delaware--I have told him this story before--I went back to Delaware and held a number of townhall meetings, if you will, on that issue and got excoriated, eviscerated by mostly Democrats. They would come and say: How could you do this? How could you support that prescription drug program, the Medicare Part D Program.

I explained I thought it was a principled compromise. I thought it would work. A year later, it has an 85-percent approval rating by the people who use it. For 6 or 7 straight years--it still has an 85- percent approval rating, a little higher than ours. If you look at how we are doing in terms of anticipated costs, it is 7 years under budget--under budget.

When the time came to try to find a compromise on comprehensive health care reform, I remember the Senator did not just work with 3 or 4 Republican colleagues on the Finance Committee--Senator Grassley, Senator Snowe, Senator Enzi. The Senator did not work with them for a couple of days to try a find a principled compromise, Senator Baucus worked with them for weeks--I think months--to try to do that. Ultimately, the Senator was unsuccessful. But the Senator led us through a difficult mark-up in committee and on the floor. I know there are reservations in that law that we should tweak and change and make it better. But I think in the end, the Senator's leadership will be vindicated by a lot of Americans, just like we did with the Medicare prescription drug program. Obviously, that was the right thing to do. Thank you for the leadership you provided.

On a personal level, I would say, as Senator Hatch has said, this is a personal loss to me, and I know to many Democrats and Republicans. But the Senator leaves behind a wonderful legacy. You leave behind a whole lot of people, and they all have their resumes--no, not really. One or two of them may have. But you have a reputation as surrounding yourself with really good people. I sought to do that. I kind of learned from you and Senator Hatch, but I have always sought to surround myself by people smarter than me. My wife always says that it is not hard to find them.

You have done a great job surrounding yourself with terrific people. They are here today sitting behind you, over in the Republican side, up in the galleries--a lot of love here. I hope you feel it from all of us.

In the Navy when people pull up their anchor and prepare to sail off into the sunset or the sunrise, whatever the case may be, we always like to say: Fair winds and a following sea. Fair winds and a following sea. That is what I wish to you and to Mel. We are going to miss you here, but we are really going to miss her. We hope we will have an opportunity to see you again and to work with you again.

We hope the same, that we will have an opportunity to see Mel. We think the world of her. Good luck to both of you. May God bless you.

Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise to honor the exemplary service of Liz Ryan, a Delawarean and founder, president and CEO of the Campaign for Youth Justice. Liz's love of helping others was inspired at a young age by her family's participation in a host program called the Ulster Project. The Ulster Project is designed to bring young Catholic and protestant youth from Northern Ireland to Wilmington, DE, where they live with Delaware families. The program allows these young potential leaders to build bridges in a safe environment and then return, hopefully to develop and maintain those bridges in their native Northern Ireland. Hopefully, they learn skills and attitudes that are needed to unite people when differences divide them. This program inspired Liz to work with children at risk both overseas and here in the United States. Bridging differences has become the hallmark signature of Liz's work.

I came to know Liz when she joined my congressional staff as a legislative aide in the late 1980s, and she eventually rose to the position of legislative director. After I was elected Governor of Delaware in 1992, Liz worked on my transition team and then took on the assignment of setting up Delaware's first staffed Washington, DC, office. In addition to her work for our State, she also worked closely with the National Governors Association, where she was a respected contributor to the development and growth of that organization.

After establishing the Delaware office, which has continued to make valuable contributions to the administrations of the governors who followed me, Liz returned to Delaware as my Deputy Chief of Staff, where she focused her attention on the Cabinet Family Services Council. She worked to develop programs for special needs and at-risk children.

Liz's commitment and energy needed a bigger stage. She left Washington to become a VISTA volunteer, but eventually returned to continue her work advocating for children at the Children's Defense Fund, Juvenile Court Centennial Initiative, and the Youth Law Center before founding the Campaign for Youth Justice in 2005. The campaign under Liz's dynamic leadership focused on changing both state and federal laws and policies impacting on youth caught up in the adult criminal justice system. As a result, today there are several thousand fewer kids in the adult system, giving them a better prospect for a successful transition to adulthood. Through many years of work, she has become one of the most influential people in the field of juvenile justice today.

It is clear that children in Delaware and across the country have benefitted from Liz's steadfast work on their behalf. Even though she will be missed as she steps down from the Campaign for Youth Justice, she leaves beyond a strong and vibrant organization that will continue her valuable work. I am proud of the work Liz accomplished during her time on my staff and for her work for our nation's youth. I know Liz is not done, and I can't wait to see what comes next. Today I say thank you, Liz, and good luck in all that lies ahead.

Madam President, I had not anticipated coming to the floor tonight to talk about health care in this country, but I feel compelled to do so after listening to a number of our colleagues share with us letters and messages from folks whose lives have been adversely affected apparently because of changes made in the coverage of their health care through the Affordable Care Act.

I regret any of the consequences that have been shared with us here this evening. My hope is that we will find ways over the next coming weeks and months to address the kinds of concerns that have been raised.

I just wish I heard some of that concern in past years as we prepared to take up the Affordable Care Act. As a member of the Finance Committee, I wish I heard those kinds of concerns about the tens of millions of people in this country who really don't have any health care coverage tonight--some 40 million. For a lot of them, this health care is a chance for them to go to the emergency room of a hospital. When they get really sick, they can be admitted to the hospital and get the care they need. Without health care coverage, it is hugely expensive ultimately for the rest of us because we pay for it. Where is the outcry on behalf of those tens of millions of people?

Where was the outcry 4 years ago when we had several million people who signed up for the Medicare prescription drug program and found that when their purchases of prescription medicines reached a certain level--$3,000 or $4,000 a year--instead of Medicare paying 75 percent of the cost for their medicines beyond that in a year, Medicare paid nothing, which is known as the doughnut hole? A lot of people fell into it--a lot of older people fell into it--and they could not afford the medicines they needed to stay well or stay out of the hospital. Where was the outcry on behalf of fixing that problem?

Where was the outcry on behalf of the millions of young people who were dropped off of their parents' health insurance plans when they aged out at 22? Where was the outcry in those cases?

We have had Republican and Democratic Presidents who have had a chance for years--for decades to do something about the fact that we spend twice as much money for health care as the rest of the world but don't necessarily get better results and don't cover everybody. Frankly, I didn't hear a lot of outcry from our friends on the other side of the aisle during all those years.

As much as we feel for the people whose stories they shared with us here tonight, I wish that same sympathy and empathy had been extended to some of the people who now don't fall into that doughnut hole when their

prescription drugs exceed a certain amount during a year.

Now we have people who are 22, 23, 24, 25 years old who don't age off of their parents' health care coverage. They are covered until their 26th birthday.

We will add to the number of people who have health care coverage. Somewhere between 5 and 10 million people will have health care coverage either because they are able to qualify under the Medicaid Program or because they will get coverage through one of our State exchanges across this Nation.

Is the Affordable Care Act perfect? No. Are there problems with it? Sure. Anything that is this big and this difficult to do, there will be problems. I think the implementation of the startup in October and November was totally unacceptable. We are trying to work our way through it and provide the kind of access and explanation for this coverage that people deserve, and eventually we will get this right.

The outcry we now hear attributed to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act reminds me a lot of the outcry we heard--I want to say 2006 and 2007--when we were beginning to implement the Medicare prescription drug program. To put it bluntly, it was a mess. People were confused by it. The information technology didn't work. The headlines in the newspaper looked a lot like the headlines in October and November and even now. But a year or two later, guess what. We fixed the program with everything but the doughnut hole. And now we fixed the doughnut hole--it started about 4 years ago--through the Affordable Care Act. People don't fall off that cliff anymore the way they used to.

So rather than simply criticizing the provisions of the Affordable Care Act that are troublesome or problematic, why don't we fix them? That is what we did with the prescription drug program, Part D under Medicare, and that is what we should do here.

I did not come here tonight to respond to our colleagues. I just felt somebody needed to say something, and I am pleased I had that opportunity.

Mayorkas Nomination

Madam President, I rise tonight to speak again in strong support of the nomination of Alejandro Mayorkas to serve as the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. I spoke yesterday about Director Mayorkas' impeccable credentials and experience that has prepared him for this important position. My colleague from Louisiana Senator Landrieu did the same yesterday.

Today I would like to address some of the concerns about Director Mayorkas that have been raised by our friends on the other side of the aisle and seek to set the record straight.

I understand that some of our Republican colleagues believe we cannot move forward with consideration of Director Mayorkas' nomination until the Office of Inspector General finishes its investigation that it began--get this--in September of 2012. There was an investigation as to his management of the complex EB-5 program some 15 months ago.

Well, I must say I disagree with my Republican colleagues. I think we have waited long enough, and let me explain why.

As I said before, the Department of Homeland Security has been without a Deputy Secretary since April of this year--8 full months--and 6 months have passed since Director Mayorkas was nominated. For many of those months, we did not have a Senate-confirmed Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

Three days before Mr. Mayorkas' confirmation hearing in July, information about the OIG investigation was leaked to Congress and the media in a highly irregular manner. The information that was leaked indicated that in September of 2012, the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security had received allegations about conflicts of interest, misuse of position, and an appearance of impropriety by Director Mayorkas and other agency officials. We also now know that the OIG did not actually begin investigating these allegations for almost 1 year after receiving them.

Importantly, the OIG confirmed that this was not in any way a criminal investigation. Let me say that again because some of our friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be confused about this. The OIG confirmed in July of this year and reconfirmed in December of this year, earlier this month, that this is not and never has been a criminal investigation.

To my amazement, Director Mayorkas has never been contacted nor interviewed by the OIG about this investigation. There was no phone call, no letter, no email. There was nothing in 15 months. Director Mayorkas only learned of this investigation after its existence had been leaked to the Congress in July, just days before our committee hearing on his nomination. Even then, Director Mayorkas ably and vigorously disputed the allegations in his interviews with committee members who would meet with him and staff who would meet with him as well at his confirmation meeting in July.

Unfortunately, rather than question the nominee about this matter and give him a chance to refute these anonymous allegations, Republican members of our committee boycotted his confirmation hearing and have refused to meet with Director Mayorkas to give him an opportunity to respond to these allegations from people whose names and faces we don't even know.

Senator Grassley said this week that Director Mayorkas has been given a chance to defend himself and has ``utterly failed'' to respond to Senator Grassley's letters. On the contrary. Director Mayorkas did, in fact, respond to Senator Grassley's letters this past August 20. In fact, he would have gladly spoken with Senator Grassley or any other Senator, Democratic or Republican, about the allegations face to face. That is the way we do things in Delaware. I can't imagine it is not the way we do things in other States.

I am perplexed that an even better option--speaking to Director Mayorkas himself--was not taken advantage of by Senator Grassley. In fact, I offered to fly to Iowa with Director Mayorkas in August to meet with Senator Grassley face to face so that Senator Grassley could have his questions answered face to face, but, sadly, Senator Grassley declined.

So I think the record shows that Director Mayorkas has been eager to meet with Senators on both sides of the aisle to answer their questions--not to duck them but to answer them. But our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been unwilling to give him what seems to me should be a common courtesy.

Again, we are not talking about a criminal investigation. We are talking about the mismanagement of a program and allegations brought by people whom, again, my staff has never been able to interview.

Getting back to the OIG investigation, of course, in a perfect world, I would prefer that it be completed before moving forward. At one point, I thought it would be.

First, let me make it clear to all that there is nothing improper about the chairman of a committee asking for an update on the status of a pending investigation. There is nothing improper about that. Accordingly, in July Dr. Coburn joined me in inquiring about the status of this investigation. I was told it would be completed in October. Again, this investigation started a year earlier--in September of 2012.

In October of this year, I inquired again about the status and was told it would be completed in December.

On December 2 a bipartisan group of committee staff participated in a telephone call with the head of investigations at the Office of Inspector General at the Department of Homeland Security to receive a status update. They were told it would likely take 2 or 3 more months to complete the investigation. In fact, every time we have spoken with the IG staff, we have been told they are just 2 or 3 months away from completing an investigation that began some 15 months ago.

I respect that the OIG must do its job, but we have to do our job too, and the President has to do his job. We cannot wait another 2 months--every other month--especially for a position as critical as this one.

Lest we forget, the Department of Homeland Security is charged with helping to protect our Nation and its citizens from all kinds of attacks, foreign and domestic--terrorists from abroad, homegrown terrorists from within--securing our borders, our aircraft, you name it. They respond to all kinds of natural disasters whether they

happen to be hurricanes or tornadoes. There is a lot going on. It is a busy and tough neighborhood to run and manage, and we need confirmed leadership.

I thank our Democrat and Republican colleagues for their vote earlier this week on behalf of Jeh Johnson to become Secretary of the Department. He needs a team, and he needs a team that includes Alejandro Mayorkas.

During the call I mentioned a little bit ago with the bipartisan committee staff in December of this month and trying to find out the status of the investigation, the OIG confirmed that to date they found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by anybody at DHS, including Director Mayorkas. That is right, no evidence, none, nada.

Given that the investigation appears to be months away from conclusion and that its completion date has already slipped several times and given the confirmation by the OIG that there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, I believe it is time to move forward. In fact, it is past time to move forward.

The allegations that have been made public cluster around Director Mayorkas' administration of the EB-5 visa program. It is an extremely complicated program that provides foreign investors an opportunity to immigrate to the United States in exchange for significant investments in job-creating enterprises right here in America. The Department of Homeland Security OIG just completed an audit of this program, as a matter of fact, but I will get to that in a little bit.

The primary complaint about Director Mayorkas concerns an EB-5 related application by Gulf Coast Funds Management, the regional center which has ties to Virginia Governor-elect Terry McAuliffe.

Anonymous sources have reportedly alleged that Director Mayorkas improperly intervened to help change a draft legal decision so it would come out in favor of Chairman McAuliffe's former company, Greentech Automotive.

First of all, I think it is important for everybody to understand upfront that Greentech Automotive did not get what they wanted. Let me say that again. The final decision in this case did not come out in Greentech Automotive's favor, from the agency run by Director Mayorkas.

Second, it is important to note that the author of the Greentech decision, the former head of the Administrative Appeals Office at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Mr. Perry Rhew, told my staff last week that he strongly disputed the allegation that Director Mayorkas had inappropriately influenced his decision.

Many of the other allegations that have been made public about the Director's management of the EB-5 program contend that applications appear to have been processed without regard to security concerns. However, in reviewing the leaked emails that were attached to these accusations, Director Mayorkas actually says the exact opposite.

I found this disconnect between the allegations and the emails presented as evidence so striking that I am going to read exactly--I want my colleagues to hear exactly what Director Mayorkas said in this email to support his contention on January 30 of this year concerning his application for a regional center in Las Vegas. This is what he said:

We will take the time needed to resolve the security issue

and we will not act until we have achieved resolution. I

agree that we need to run enhanced security and integrity

checks.

This email directly refutes the claim that Director Mayorkas was pushing to expedite applications despite the security concerns raised by his subordinates.

In another email attached to one of the letters making accusations against Director Mayorkas, he forwards a question about Mr. McAuliffe's company to subordinates and he notes--this is how he does it: He says-- Mr. Mayorkas' words:

I want to make sure that we are providing customer service

consistent with our standards, but that we are not providing

any preferential treatment.

I would ask: Are these the actions of someone who is trying to exert improper influence or subvert security checks? I think any fair-minded person would agree the answer is no. No. Even our committee's ranking member, my friend, Dr. Coburn, indicated that the allegations against Mr. Mayorkas, although serious, are most likely not grounded in reality. I don't want to mince his words, so I will quote him directly. In reference to the allegations against Mr. Mayorkas, Dr. Coburn said in a committee meeting--again, this is a quote: ``I doubt they are true, but we do not have the facts.''

I agree with Dr. Coburn. We don't have any facts pointing to any sort of wrongdoing by Director Mayorkas at all, as best I can tell. None of the anonymous sources or so-called whistleblowers have presented information to the majority regarding their concerns, something I think is unprecedented in these types of circumstances for our committee. We have been unable to question those bringing these anonymous concerns on the majority side, and our Republican friends on the committee--and maybe largely in the Senate--have refused to talk to the accused, and he has not been accused of any criminal wrongdoing. That doesn't add up to me. Maybe it does to some people. That just doesn't add up. We don't get to talk to the people who raised these concerns and our Republican friends won't talk to the accused who has not been accused of any criminal wrongdoing.

On the one hand, we have over 30 people from both sides of the aisle who are well-known and hugely respected citizens who have gone on the record with glowing support for Director Mayorkas. On the other hand, not one person--not one--has stepped forward publicly opposing Director Mayorkas.

Some of the people who have written in strong support of Director Mayorkas include the last Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Jane Holl Lute; the last Senate-confirmed inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security, Richard Skinner, who is a Bush appointee; and the three most senior border security officials in the George W. Bush administration, Robert Bonner, Al Ralph Basham, and Jason Ayhern.

The fact is that Director Mayorkas has been proactively addressing national security and fraud concerns in the EB-5 program for years. Soon after being confirmed, he took a number of administrative and operational steps to address national security concerns. Where he lacked the administrative authority to improve the EB-5 program, he repeatedly appealed to Congress for the legislative authority he needed.

Unfortunately, Congress dealt Director Mayorkas and his entire agency a bad hand when we authorized the EB-5 program in 2012. We failed--we failed--to give the agency any of the legal authorities that Director Mayorkas and his team at CIS had specifically requested in order to enable them--and they just requested in 2012, made a request--in order to enable them to address the national security and fraud vulnerabilities they could not address on their own. It said: Congress, we would like to do this. We need the authority; please give it to us. They started asking for that in June of 2012.

Earlier this year, during the Judiciary Committee's debate on S. 744, the immigration reform bill, Senator Leahy introduced an amendment that made virtually all the national security fixes that Director Mayorkas had requested. While the comprehensive immigration reform bill passed the Senate with strong bipartisan support, it is unfortunately stalled in the House.

Fortunately, Senate Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy is working on a stand-alone bill to address these national security and fraud concerns, much of what Director Mayorkas and his team asked for in June a year ago. I urge all of my colleagues concerned about security issues in the program to join me as a cosponsor of that bill.

It strikes me as grossly unfair to punish Director Mayorkas for the inability of Congress to address the vulnerabilities in the EB-5 program that Director Mayorkas and his team brought to our attention and asked us to fix over a year and a half ago. In essence, those of us in Congress failed to do our job. Yet Director Mayorkas is taking the fall for our failure. How is that fair? I will tell my colleagues: It is not.

I mentioned previously that the OIG completed an EB-5 audit, and although that report has not been publicly released yet, some of my colleagues have

been discussing the OIG's findings earlier today. In light of that, I think this is a good time to get some facts straight because this audit, remarkably, misses some key facts.

First of all, the report says the EB-5 program is vulnerable to fraud and national security risks and that the legislation that created the program makes it difficult to fully address those risks. That is something that has been well-known by Congress and the administration long before this report and long before Director Mayorkas took over the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in August of 2009. The emails I just discussed demonstrate that Director Mayorkas did not take national security and fraud matters lightly. In fact, a review of the legislative history of the last year and a half might suggest that we take them lightly.

Despite the widespread knowledge about the national security and fraud vulnerabilities in the EB-5 program--and all visa programs, for that matter--CIS did not and does not have the authority that it asked Congress for in order to adequately police regional centers and the EB- 5 program. I find it incredible that the OIG audit report makes no mention of Director Mayorkas' efforts to get Congress to pass legislation to address this problem since June of 2012.

In the absence of being granted those authorities by Congress, Director Mayorkas took it on himself to implement other reforms. Yet many of these reforms took place before or during this audit--and yet, incredibly, those reforms are not even mentioned in the audit report.

One of his first actions as the Director was to elevate the Fraud Detection and National Security Office to a director reporting directly to Mr. Mayorkas. This ensured that national security professionals had a seat at the management table and a voice in all major decisions.

He expanded reporting requirements and security checks for regional centers, which led CIS to increase the number of national security investigations in the EB-5 program by more than 50 percent in the last 4 years.

He increased EB-5 staffing from 9 people in 2009 to more than 80 today, and hired senior economists and national security officers to work side by side with immigration specialists.

He positively engaged other agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the FBI, and the Treasury Department to help police the program. In fact, Senator Grassley himself noted this week that Director Mayorkas convened a national security staff working group to examine the problem last year.

The actions I have described are not the actions taken by someone who does not care about national security.

The audit report says the EB-5 adjudication process is ambiguous. CIS has recognized there was a need for a consolidated adjudication manual and they published one in May of this year--one more fact that was not even mentioned in the audit report.

The audit report says the program is fraught with the perception of outside influence. There is no denying the fact that this program gets a lot of attention, including from us--from Congress. In fact, the USCIS receives 1,500 queries about the EB-5 program each year from Congress, from Senators, from U.S. Representatives--1,500. As it turns out, almost half of our Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle have inquired about the EB-5 program since 2009. That is an enormous amount of interest from Congress in this one program. In many cases-- most cases--that interest was provided or demonstrated to CIS on behalf of our constituents, from States from one corner of America to the other.

But let me be clear: The fact that this program garners a lot of attention from a lot of Members of Congress and a number of high-level officials from all parties about the frequency and status of pending applications does not mean that the Citizenship and Immigration Services adjudicators are swayed by the attention. Perception is not always reality. Contrary to what some have suggested or assumed, the OIG reported that all the files they reviewed in their audit--including the ones associated with Terry McAuliffe's company--appear to support the final decision.

Let me say that again. The OIG audit concluded that the evidence it reviewed in these cases supported the final decision.

Based on the evidence we have before us, I believe it is clear that Director Mayorkas has taken strong steps to improve the EB-5 program. These are the actions of a dedicated, thoughtful, and committed public servant. They are the actions of a leader who is willing to make tough but necessary decisions in order to shake things up and improve a program that needed improving. That is exactly the kind of leadership we need at the Department of Homeland Security. I think we need it across the Federal Government.

I also believe we need leaders who are committed to doing what they believe in their heart is the right thing to do. At his confirmation hearing in July, I specifically asked Director Mayorkas about the allegations raised by some of these anonymous sources. Director Mayorkas testified before this committee under oath that he has never put his finger on the scale of justice, and I have seen no evidence since then that would lead me to question his veracity.

I do not believe that we can allow rumors spread by anonymous sources to rule the day.

Some of our colleagues have been very critical of DHS shortcomings and they are quick to point out its failures. However, one of the major reasons the Department fails to live up to expectations more than they and the rest of us might like is because their top leadership ranks have been riddled with vacancies for much of this year, and the same is true of many other agencies. Again, it is not fair to criticize the agency on the one hand and yet seem content on the other to leave them without Senate-confirmed leadership for months on end. We can't have it both ways. We have some responsibility here as well.

It is time to stop playing political games. It is time to vote to confirm Ali Mayorkas for the Deputy Secretary position at DHS.

There is something else that came to my attention today that I thought was interesting. It is not from an anonymous source. It is not rumor or innuendo. It is actually a report from the Partnership for Public Service. One of the things they do at the partnership is issue, I think maybe on an annual basis, the rankings of the best places to work in the Federal Government in 2013 and, as it turns out, also maybe the worst, because they do a ranking from top to bottom.

I was dismayed to find out this week that the Department of Homeland Security ranked last--ranked last--on their list of Cabinet Departments in terms of employee morale--last. It is not the first year. It has happened for a number of years in a row. However, although the Department ranked last among all the Departments, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, led by Director Mayorkas, was one of the highest ranked components within DHS, coming in at, I think out of 300 Federal agencies, No. 76, which, if my math is good, that puts them in maybe the top 25 percent of all agencies.

After Mr. Mayorkas took over in 2009, employee satisfaction with senior leadership there increased by over 20 percent. It has increased by over 20 percent since he took over in 2009.

Every now and then, in driving on my way to the train station in Wilmington to catch a train to come down here to start our day, I listen to the news. Usually I arrive at 7 o'clock. About a year ago I heard a report on NPR of an international study that was done involving thousands of people across the country. In the international study, they asked the same question of thousands of people from all walks of life with different kinds of jobs in different locations. The question that was asked of each of those thousands of people was, what is it about your job that you like? What is it about your job that you like the most? Not surprisingly, those people who were asked the question had different responses. Some people said they liked getting paid. Some people said they liked getting a pension. Some people said they liked having a vacation or having health care. Some people said they liked the environment in which they worked. Some people said they liked the folks they work with. But do you know what most people said? Most people said the thing they like most about their job is they

felt the work they were doing was important and they felt they were making progress. Think about that. The reason most people cite for liking their job, the work they do, is because they know it is important and they feel they are making progress.

It is ironic to me--if you rely on the anonymous sources the majority side has not been permitted to talk with, it is ironic to me that in a department where morale has been low and a problem and a concern for years, at this agency that Mr. Mayorkas has led now for 4 years, employee morale is, by comparison, fairly high. He does not get any credit for that. But if employees really do care that the work they are doing is important and they are making progress, maybe that belief is reflected in these numbers. Maybe that is reflected in these numbers on behalf of the leadership that Mr. Mayorkas has provided for Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Let me close, if I could. My friend from Kansas has arrived.

There are a couple things I want us to keep in mind. This is one that is hard for me to understand. People whom we do not know, whom we on the majority side have not talked to and have not had an opportunity to hear from to hear their story--it is maybe unprecedented for that opportunity to be denied the majority or for the majority to deny that to the minority in a case like this. We have been denied that opportunity.

I think the person who is maybe best able to provide or to rebut or to respond to concerns that have been raised by these anonymous folks whom we have not been able to talk to is Mr. Mayorkas himself, but our Republican colleagues have refused to talk to him. Even though there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, they refuse to talk to him to give him a chance to rebut or to respond to the accusations from anonymous sources we have never heard from. That one just blows my mind.

If the shoe were on the other foot, if Democrats were in the minority and Republicans were in the majority, if I were the ranking member on the minority side and we had a Republican President who nominated somebody for office and the chairman of our committee asked me as the ranking minority member to meet with someone whom the Republican President had nominated, I would meet with them in a heartbeat. I would want to hear that person's story. That is what I would want to hear.

If the anonymous sources were talking just to us, I would encourage them to talk to the other side as well.

By the way, the one person we did talk to--and we got this person, Mr. Rhew--I think we got his name out of a statement given by Senator Grassley on the floor. We talked to him. He set the record straight. He set the record straight. I have already cited that in my comments. But we have never had the chance to talk to any other, I think, half a dozen or so sources.

The other thing I would say is that there is nothing inappropriate about the staff of a committee chairman inquiring of an OIG about the pace and the resources provided to conduct an investigation. This is just not any Department that has lacked Senate-confirmed leadership from us; this is the Department of Homeland Security. Americans have a lot riding on that Department doing their job well. They need senior leadership, and they have not had the kind they need.

But despite the repeated efforts to get the OIG to expedite their efforts, begun in September 2012--a joint letter from Dr. Coburn and me to the OIG in July of this year; 2 months later, get a response that, oh, maybe we will have something in October. Two months later, it is December, and bipartisan staff--Democratic, Republican; majority, minority--have a chance to be briefed by the OIG, and rather than say, well, this investigation we started 15 months ago is done, is ready to wrap up, they say, a couple more months, maybe 2 or 3 more months.

Are we supposed to continue to wait? We have the leadership we need at the Department of Homeland Security. At some point you just say: Enough already.

What we have learned is that in terms of full-time people working on this--I think there are about 650 full-time equivalent people at the Office of Inspector General at DHS, about 650, and as I understand it, 3 full-time people--1 investigator and 2 research assistants--have been devoted to this investigation. No wonder it is taking 15 months.

I would ask us to keep in mind our failure--our failure--to act on the recommendations made to Congress for reforms in the EB-5 program to address national security concerns and to address concerns about fraud.

Mr. Mayorkas did the right thing. He and his staff pulled together a long list of changes they need, legislative changes they need so they would be authorized to address his concern. We dropped the ball. We did not include those changes when we reauthorized the EB-5 program for 3 more years--a straight reauthorization. We did not make any reforms. We did not make any changes despite the fact that he had suggested them months before we acted.

Finally, those changes ended up in the immigration bill. We passed it here. Most Democrats voted for it, some Republicans. It is over in the House. It is languishing and not moving. If we are really concerned about giving this agency, CIS, the tools they need, the authority they need to address these security concerns, fraud concerns, why don't we join Senator Leahy in the legislation he is going to introduce that largely is taken from the immigration reform bill? When he introduces it, let's cosponsor that bill.

Finally, if we are going to accept as gospel criticism about the way a person has run a particular agency--and not of a criminal nature but criticisms about the way it has been run--why not give that person a chance to defend himself? Why not give him a chance to say: Well, there is another side to this story or maybe there is not, but at least give him that opportunity.

Lastly, the morale at the Department of Homeland Security--they do some great work, important work, the Department of Homeland Security. And they do a lot better work. I will mention a couple things, if I can.

Remember the response of FEMA, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security? Remember their response to Katrina? It was deplorable. How about the response of FEMA to Hurricane Sandy? All around--for the most part, all around kudos were won.

How about TSA? TSA has been a whipping boy for a lot of folks. All of us who have the opportunity to fly commercially, we have seen TSA make changes. They have taken criticism they have taken to heart. Among other things, they have created the Trusted Traveler Program so a lot of people do not have to take off their shoes or their belts or do all kinds of things to get through a security check. The TSA has done a number of things. Some of the technology they are using is not intrusive, as it was before. Security is actually strong.

For 10 years, our friends at GAO, the Government Accountability Office, have, every 2 years, on their high-risk list at the beginning of every Congress, cited that the Department of Homeland Security needs to be able to earn a clean financial audit of its books. They said: 10 years; that is enough time.

Well, it turns out the Department of Defense, which has been around for, gosh, about 70 years--over 60 years--is still not auditable. The Department of Defense is not auditable, much less to have a clean audit.

Last week the Department of Homeland Security, for the first time in their existence, received a clean financial audit. They did it in 10 years. DOD, also a big operation--it is 60 years and counting, and they are not even audited yet.

So for those who want to constantly criticize the Department of Homeland Security, I would just say that the people who work there work hard. They have tough jobs. They need our help. One of the things they need our help in doing is securing the kind of leadership they have not had, and that is Senate-confirmed leadership.

We have had some very good people who have been acting as the Secretary, acting as the Deputy Secretary, but, friends, it is not the same. They need leadership that is going to be there with not just the blessing of the President but the blessing of this body and that is going to be there today, tomorrow, next month, next year, and provide the leadership that is needed.

The most important element I have ever seen in my time in the Navy-- 23 years Active and Reserve--my time as Governor, my time here in the Senate, the most important element I have ever seen in any organization to determine whether it is going to be successful is leadership. Show me a school with a great principal, I will show you a school that is on the way up. I do not care how ineffective the teachers might be, I will show you a school that is on its way up. Show me a business with a strong leader, and the same thing is true. Show me a body like this or a military unit, leadership is always the key. And it is the key at the Department of Homeland Security.

If the improvement that I have noted, that I mentioned here just a minute ago, is to continue and actually be strengthened, they need Senate-confirmed leadership. We will have the opportunity in a couple of hours to give Jeh Johnson, the newly confirmed Secretary of Homeland Security, a key player in the leadership team that he is trying to build at that Department. He deserves our support, and so do the people at that Department. And if they get it, they will provide the support we need in this country to be safer in the days ahead.

With that, Madam President, I thank you for allowing me to give this statement.

I see my friend from Kansas on the floor. I thank him for his patience, and I am happy to yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to speak tonight on two subjects. The first is the budget resolution, the bipartisan, bicameral budget resolution conference report we approved today. This is the first time in a number of years we have actually been able to debate and find some consensus on a bipartisan blueprint for spending for the balance of this fiscal year. I commend Senator Murray and Congressman Ryan for their work and for their leadership and their willingness to find the middle.

My wife and I celebrate our 28th anniversary in about 2 weeks. Actually, it is a few minutes after midnight on New Year's Day. One of the things I love to do when I talk to people who have been married a lot longer than we have is to ask them the secret for being married a long time. I have heard all kinds of answers--hilarious answers, some very poignant answers. The best answer I ever heard is the answer of the two Cs. The first time someone said that to me I said: What are they? They said: Communicate and compromise. Communicate and compromise. As it turns out, that is not just the secret for a long marriage between two people, but it is also the secret for a vibrant democracy. If we are to continue to thrive as a nation and to meet our responsibilities, it will be by doing what our leaders on the Budget Committees have done; that is, communicated at great length with one another, developed a sense of trust with one another, an understanding of the other's views, and being willing to compromise and find their way to the middle.

Everyone here could fault some aspect of the agreement that was struck. I can, and I know others can. But I wish to commend them and thank them for the effort that went into getting this one.

The Presiding Officer has heard me say once or twice in the last year or so that there are three key ingredients to making real progress, major progress, on deficit reduction, and one of those is entitlement reform which saves the programs for future generations, saves money, and does not savage old people or poor people. The second is tax reform, which helps us lower some of the corporate rates a bit as well as generates revenues for deficit reduction. The third element is the notion of looking at everything we do in Federal Government--everything we do--and answer this question: How can we get a better result for less money or the same amount of money?

As we approach the next budget resolution next spring and the next opportunity to revisit these issues of spending, including domestic spending, defense spending, entitlement spending, and revenues, my hope is that we will be able to make even greater progress by focusing also on those three critical elements. So that is one of the things I wanted to speak about.

Mayorkas Nomination

The other issue I wish to speak about actually is a person; that is, a fellow named Alejandro Mayorkas. He has been nominated by the President to serve as the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. He was nominated some 8 months ago.

As the Presiding Officer may recall, I have the privilege of chairing the committee of jurisdiction over Homeland Security, the Committee on Homeland and Government Affairs, and we are responsible for working with the administration. We are also responsible, as are a lot of other folks in this country and outside of it, to help protect our Nation's security both at home and abroad. At the same time we strive on our committee to make sure Federal agencies work better, work smarter, and more efficiently with the resources we entrust to them. We are an oversight committee.

During my years in public service, I have learned that the most important ingredient in enabling organizations to work well is leadership. That is the case both in government and in the private sector, in organizations large and small. Part of our shared responsibility is ensuring that we have effective leaders in place across our Federal Government. It is every Senator's constitutional role to provide advice and consent on the President's nominees in a thorough and timely manner as part of the Senate's confirmation process. While we in Congress hope to soon wrap up our 2013 session, it is going to be with far less to show than many of us would have liked, but at least the Senate will have had an opportunity to fill some key leadership positions across the Federal Government and to confirm a number of judges in many courts where they need a judge or two.

One of the roles that needs to be filled, again, is that of Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. This Department, as we know, plays a critical role in protecting our Nation and its citizens from harm. Whether the threat relates to terrorism from abroad, to homegrown extremists, to cyber attacks or natural disaster, this Department and the folks who work there are on the frontline for us.

Because of the Department's significant role in the security of our country, I have been very concerned--very concerned--for many months about the high number of senior level vacancies at the Department of Homeland Security. In fact, the Department has been without a Senate- confirmed Deputy Secretary since April and without a Senate-confirmed Secretary since I think late last summer.

Earlier this week, we took an important step to address this problem by voting to confirm Jeh Johnson, a good man, as the next Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. I wish to thank our Republican colleagues for joining us in that vote. That is good news. But we should not stop there. We need to ensure that Secretary Johnson has a Senate-confirmed leadership team in place and that certainly includes Alejandro Mayorkas as his Deputy.

I wish to take a few minutes, if I could, to speak in strong support of the nomination of Director Mayorkas' nomination and explain why I am convinced he is one of the leaders we urgently need at the Department of Homeland Security. As of this week, more than 8 months have passed since former Deputy Secretary Jane Holl Lute stepped down from her post at DHS, and nearly 6 months have passed since the President has nominated this man, currently the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, for that post. It is time to put in place Senate- confirmed leadership in this very important Deputy Secretary position.

The former Deputy Secretary--the last Senate-confirmed Deputy Secretary for this Department--was a woman named Jane Holl Lute, a very impressive leader in her own right and widely respected not just by members of the committee but by many of our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, in the Senate for her leadership, management skills, expertise, and for her candor. She helped DHS make strides in many areas; for example, in narrowing the operational and management issues identified as high risk by the Government Accountability Office. Ever since the Department of Homeland Security was created, it has been on the high-risk list every other year by GAO. They put it out at the beginning of every Congress, and one of the leaders, if you will, in terms of getting a lot of mentions on the high-risk list, is the Department of Homeland Security.

One of the criticisms of the Department for the last 10 years is they never passed a financial audit. They are supposed to, under a law passed roughly 20 years ago, and little by little every Federal agency, except the Department of Defense, has become auditable and then finally achieved a clean audit. Last week we learned the Department of Homeland Security, within 10 years or so, finally has achieved that goal.

Why is that important? Because what we cannot measure, we cannot manage. This is a big Department, spread out across the country. There are 22 disparate agencies, with hundreds of thousands of employees, and they need to be well managed.

One of Jane Holl Lute's accomplishments, along with Janet Napolitano, the former Secretary, was to make them auditable and to get them a clean audit. I think it is safe to say that the Department needs somebody with the same kind of commitment and willingness to tackle problems head-on that Jane Holl Lute brought to the job.

Similarly, Director Mayorkas understands and is well prepared to tackle these management challenges and is committed to continuing these reform efforts needed to move the Department forward.

Director Mayorkas has a distinguished record of leadership in public service. In fact, he has been confirmed by the Senate not once but twice--first as the U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, the youngest U.S. attorney in the country at the time, and again in his current capacity as the leader of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. He has also served as a partner in a major U.S. law firm, O'Melveny & Myers.

Director Mayorkas has a long and distinguished record in law enforcement. As an assistant U.S. attorney, he aggressively prosecuted drug traffickers, human smugglers, and violent criminals. As U.S. attorney, Mr. Mayorkas led the largest Federal judicial system in the United States and was appointed by then-U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno to serve on her advisory committee on ethics and government. Moreover, while a partner at O'Melveny & Myers, he served as chair of the firm's Values Committee and he was a recipient of the firm's annual Values Award.

Since his confirmation by voice vote by the Senate in 2009, Director Mayorkas has served as Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. He has skillfully led the largest immigration system in the world. In this capacity, Director Mayorkas has been responsible for an 18,000-member workforce that maintains more than 200 offices worldwide and is supported by a $3 billion budget.

Director Mayorkas has led the effort to turn around an agency that was widely considered to be foundering. He has helped to put it on the path to professionalism and competence. His first action after being confirmed several years ago was to order a top-to-bottom review of the agency to identify its strengths and to identify its weaknesses.

When the review concluded, Director Mayorkas became concerned that Citizenship and Immigration Services was prioritizing speed over security when it came to processing visa applications. In order to make sure that national security concerns were getting the proper attention, he created an entirely new directorate responsible for policing visa issuance, reporting directly to him. This ensured that national security professionals would have a seat at the management table and a voice in all major decisions.

Director Mayorkas has proven that he is an exceptional manager during his time at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Let me give a couple concrete examples of how he has made the agency more effective.

He dramatically improved what I believe is one of the most important programs in all of DHS; that is, E-Verify. This is a voluntary program that allows employers to check whether prospective employees are eligible to work in the United States. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that under Director Mayorkas' leadership, the number of employers using E-Verify tripled--from 156,000 employers in 2009 to almost half a million today. The number of people processed by E-Verify also increased from nearly 9 million to over 20 million people. That is remarkable improvement in this important program.

His implementation last year of the President's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program--a hugely complicated and challenging undertaking that brought hundreds of thousands of people out of the shadows--has also been widely praised.

Within 60 days, Director Mayorkas managed to implement a program that processed hundreds of thousands of people while ensuring that the appropriate security checks were performed. I think it is a stunning achievement.

Here is something else I found interesting. Just yesterday, the Partnership for Public Service issued its rankings of the best places to work in the Federal Government in 2013--just yesterday. On the one hand, I was dismayed to find out that the Department of Homeland Security ranked last on their list of Cabinet Departments. However, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, led by Ali Mayorkas, was one of the highest ranked components within the Department of Homeland Security, coming in, I think, at 76 out of some 300 Federal agencies. And after Alejandro Mayorkas took over in 2009, employee satisfaction with senior leadership did not drop; it increased by over 20 percent. We need more of that kind of proven and committed leadership at DHS.

Everything I have learned about Director Mayorkas over the past year--and I have learned a lot--has led me to conclude that he is an exceptional candidate to be the next Deputy Secretary at this Department.

But don't just take my word for it. Director Mayorkas has received glowing accolades from a number of our colleagues who have worked closely with him.

I might also say that he has been strongly endorsed by every single former Secretary of this Department, every one of them, two appointed by George W. Bush and one by our current President. They have all endorsed him.

He has also been endorsed by a number of our colleagues--Mary Landrieu, who knows him well, who is a valued member of our committee; Dianne Feinstein from California, who recommended Director Mayorkas for his positions--both as U.S. attorney out there to President Clinton and to President Obama for his current leadership position.

We have also received dozens of letters from a distinguished, bipartisan group of individuals and organizations asking us to move forward with this nomination. I want to take a minute or two, if I could, right now to share with our colleagues what some of these distinguished people have been saying about Director Alejandro Mayorkas.

Among those writing on his behalf are many individuals whom a lot of us deeply respect. I mentioned Jane Holl Lute, the previous Deputy Secretary; and Richard Skinner, the last Senate-confirmed Department of Homeland Security inspector general, who was nominated by former President George W. Bush.

I particularly value what Jane Holl Lute has to say given that she has an unparalleled perspective on what it takes to be an effective Deputy Secretary. She was one herself, and she was terrific. Here is what she said about Director Mayorkas:

As I have come to know Ali, I can tell you that he asks no

more of others than he does of himself, and, in leading by

example, sets a standard of excellence for all who consider

themselves committed to public service. In my view, Homeland

Security could be in no better hands.

That is Jane Holl Lute.

In one of two support letters--not one but two support letters-- Richard Skinner, the last Senate-confirmed inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security--again, a Bush appointee--he sent two letters to our committee, including one earlier this month, and in it he said this of Ali Mayorkas:

During my tenure as Inspector General, Mr. Mayorkas

demonstrated that he possessed the intellectual wherewithal

to make objective and often times very tough decisions on

complex, multifaceted issues, and a genuine commitment to the

mission, vision, and core values of the U.S. Department of

Homeland Security. He is a strong leader who will be able to

bring together diverse interests in collaborative efforts.

That is the last Senate-confirmed inspector general for this Department.

The list of supporters for Director Mayorkas also includes other senior officials in the George W. Bush administration, such as Kenneth Wainstein,

who was President Bush's Homeland Security Advisor. Here is what Mr. Wainstein had to say:

Ali has consistently shown an exceptional ability to

mobilize, manage, and lead people and organizations . . . as

USCIS Director, he has effectively led a large and complex

organization during a time of continuing change and

challenge. His marked success in that difficult role is a

strong predictor of his performance in the Deputy Secretary

position.

Again, that is what Mr. Wainstein had to say. I could not agree more.

Those from the law enforcement community also laud Director Mayorkas. For example, we received strong letters of support from the people charged with securing our borders during the George W. Bush administration: Robert Bonner, Ralph Basham, and Jason Ahern--all of whom served as Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection within the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. Bonner wrote:

It is not merely his willingness to serve the public good

that impels me to write this letter of support for his

nomination, it is rather my firm belief that Ali has the

experience, skills, talents, and plain old good judgment to

be an effective Deputy Secretary, perhaps the best DHS has

ever had.

Having succeeded Jane Holl Lute, that is saying a mouthful.

Mr. Basham also wrote:

Mr. Mayorkas has already served the Department well and

honorably in the role of Director of U.S. Citizenship and

Immigration Services. I also believe Mr. Mayorkas to be a

public servant of integrity with a clear and distinguished

track record of leadership.

Mr. Ahern, also one of the past Commissioners of this Department, said these words:

It is my strong opinion that Director Mayorkas' experience

and leadership will be invaluable as DHS continues the work

of protecting the homeland against threats of all kinds. As

the Department of Homeland Security continues to mature,

Alejandro Mayorkas is the right leader to continue that

development and also meet the many critical mission

challenges faced every day.

Think about it. The three most senior border security officials who served under George W. Bush all agree that Director Ali Mayorkas would make an outstanding Deputy Secretary. They have worked with him in many cases. They know him. They have seen him up close and in person. They have watched him lead.

But it is not only former DHS officials who feel that way. Chuck Canterbury, the national president of the Fraternal Order of Police, said that Director Mayorkas' ``professionalism, leadership skills and integrity make him an ideal candidate for this post.''

All of these individuals who have worked closely with Director Mayorkas have spoken highly of him. They cite his integrity, his commitment to excellence, and his tenacity.

I will close with this. At his confirmation hearing Director Mayorkas said that his goal in life has always been to bring honor to his parents. His parents brought him to this country as a refugee from Cuba when he was 1 year old, he and his brothers. They worked hard every day to give him and his brothers the opportunity to go to school and make a better life for themselves. Like his parents, Alejandro Mayorkas has worked hard all of his life. He has worked hard and he has worked hard in part to make them proud.

I believe he has brought great honor to them and to this country and, if confirmed, would continue to do so as Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

I urge all of my colleagues to support his nomination.

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

I am proud to rise to speak in strong support of the nomination of Jeh Johnson to serve as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. As my colleagues know, I have been concerned for many months about the high number of senior-level vacancies that exist at the Department. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has been without a Senate-confirmed Deputy Secretary since April and without a Senate-confirmed Secretary since early September. That is simply too long for such critical positions to be vacant, especially since the Department of Homeland Security has been without Senate- confirmed leadership in a number of other senior leadership positions too.

That list of vacancies includes the position of Deputy Secretary, as well as the heads of Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Inspector General.

Working with the President, we need to do something about it. Today we can. It is my hope and expectation that we will vote to confirm a new Secretary to lead the Department within the next few hours, allowing Jeh Johnson to be sworn in and start work later this week.

Getting a Secretary of Homeland Security quickly confirmed is essential to help effectively run this Department and protect the safety of our citizens. This Department is a large and complex entity with a diverse set of missions and challenges.

It is composed of 22 distinct agencies spread across various locations throughout the country. In the 10 years after its creation, the Department of Homeland Security still lacks a strong sense of cohesion.

Moreover, given the Nation's fiscal challenges, the Department, as many Federal agencies, is being asked to do more and get even better results with fewer Federal dollars.

That being said, over its 10 years, the Department has celebrated a number of important milestones. In fact, only last week, for the first time ever, the Department of Homeland Security received a clean financial audit.

There is one outlier among the major departments of our government that hasn't received that clean financial audit, and that is the Department of Defense, which has been around for approximately 70 years.

The Department of Homeland Security took 10 years and has been on the GAO high-risk list for all of those 10 years. I was delighted when I received word last week that this goal had been achieved. It is a major accomplishment and one for which I heartily congratulate the Department.

There is an old saying that goes something such as this: You can't manage what you can't measure.

Now the Department of Homeland Security achieved a clean financial audit. It is my hope that its financial management practices will continue to improve. In order to build upon this and other successes, I believe the Department needs Senate-confirmed leadership.

There is no doubt that even on a good day, serving as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is a very hard job. Jeh Johnson, however, is no doubt up to this enormous task. Again, I strongly support his nomination.

Mr. Johnson is a seasoned national security expert who is eminently qualified to take the reins to run the challenging Department of Homeland Security. After graduating from Morehouse College and then Columbia Law School, Jeh Johnson started his career in private practice. Later he became an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, where he prosecuted public corruption cases. He then returned to the private sector where he became a partner with the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.

While working with this law firm, Mr. Johnson again answered the call to public service, first as the Air Force's top lawyer during the second term of the Clinton administration and, more recently, in the first term of the Obama administration, as the top lawyer for the entire Department of Defense. In both positions he was confirmed by the Senate with strong bipartisan support.

Having served in such important positions at the Department of Defense has no doubt helped him develop a number of outstanding skills that will enable him to lead this Department effectively.

There are few better places to learn how to manage a complex national security bureaucracy than at the Department of Defense. For example, for 4 years he was a partner and a part of the senior leadership team that ran the Defense Department. He played a critical role in overseeing more than 3 million military and civilian personnel scattered around the country and across the world, including having direct responsibility for nearly 10,000 attorneys.

He provided key advice to two exceptional Defense Secretaries--Bob Gates and Leon Panetta--and was an important member of their management teams. To me, this is an invaluable experience for the huge task to which he has been nominated.

He also participated in almost every discussion of consequence for the Department, helping to shape the policies that directly impacted the lives of our brave men and women in uniform and their families.

In fact, during his time at the Pentagon, Mr. Johnson developed a reputation for tackling some of the toughest issues in the Department of Defense and finding a way to build consensus and develop thoughtful and effective policy. For example, he won praise from both sides of the aisle for his work on the issue of don't ask, don't tell and on the military commission system.

Additionally, Mr. Johnson was an influential member of the President's national security team and helped design and implement many of the country's policies to fight terrorism and dismantle the core of Al Qaeda. Because of his experience in these positions and in other commanding roles, Mr. Johnson is well prepared to face the challenges that will await him if he is confirmed by the Senate today.

People don't have to take my word for it. Mr. Johnson has received high praise from many distinguished former government officials from both sides of the aisle.

In a letter to our Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, for example, every single former Secretary of that Department--Tom Ridge, Michael Chertoff, and Janet Napolitano--lauded Mr. Johnson as an ``eminently qualified nominee.''

They went on further to state, and I paraphrase: Jeh Johnson's service at the highest levels of the Department of Defense--the largest government agency in the world--provided him a keen understanding of how to successfully execute large-scale operational missions of varying complexity and purpose.

This is what former Defense Secretary Bob Gates, a highly regarded and much-admired manager himself, said about Jeh Johnson and his time at the Department of Defense:

Take my word for it: [Jeh Johnson] has successfully managed

an array of major initiatives across the biggest bureaucracy

in the government--and, in so doing, won the esteem of

virtually everyone with whom he worked.

Similarly, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said this about Jeh Johnson:

Jeh has proven himself to be a talented, capable,

bipartisan, and trusted public servant. I give my strongest

recommendation and full support to his confirmation as the

Nation's next Secretary of Homeland Security.

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, who stepped down in late 2011, has also expressed his deep confidence in the nominee, stating:

Jeh Johnson is as fine a person and professional as I have

ever met.

I wish to state that again. Admiral Mike Mullen states:

Jeh Johnson is as fine a person and professional as I have

ever met. I am confident in his choice and that he will

succeed in leading this most complex organization at a

critical time in our country.

Mr. Johnson has also received encouraging words and praise from a number of law enforcement groups, including the Major Cities Chiefs Association and the national Fraternal Order of Police.

I would also add that at Mr. Johnson's confirmation hearing, our ranking member, Dr. Coburn, made known his support for Jeh Johnson and even went so far as to ask him to consider staying on as Secretary after the 2016 election, a high compliment indeed. I might add as an aside, Mr. Johnson's wife was sitting immediately behind him, and when Dr. Coburn asked for that assurance from the nominee, I wasn't sure if she was going to come out of her seat--and it wasn't in support of the idea.

Mr. Johnson is undoubtedly a highly skilled leader. He is just the type of person that we need for this extremely important and challenging position.

Mr. Johnson, of course, will not be alone in the task of leading the Department of Homeland Security. It is critically important that Mr. Johnson be allowed to surround himself with a capable leadership team. We can help. Indeed, we must help.

At the Department of Homeland Security alone, there are 14 Presidentially appointed positions that are without a permanent replacement. Of these, 10 require Senate confirmation. This is an edition of what I call executive branch Swiss cheese.

As we consider Mr. Johnson's nomination, we must remember that protecting the homeland is a team sport, and those of us in the legislative branch are critical members of this important team. If Mr. Johnson is confirmed, we must do our part to expeditiously, but thoroughly, vet and confirm his leadership team as well.

We need to put aside our partisan differences, work together, and give the President and the Department the entire team it needs to better protect our homeland. That includes confirming Ali Mayorkas for Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security.

Today the question before us is Mr. Johnson's nomination. For my colleagues still on the fence about Mr. Johnson's nomination, I leave us with a few thoughts on his character and his integrity. I have gotten to know Jeh Johnson very well over the last couple of months. I have been impressed by his forthrightness, his thoughtfulness, his core values, and his impeccable moral character, as well as his deep commitment to public service and serving our Nation. He treasures his family, and he strives to honor the legacy through his work.

I had the privilege of meeting several members of his family at the confirmation hearing last month. His wife is an accomplished professional in her own right. In fact, Jeh met his wife when she was practicing dentistry--and I think he might have been the patient.

Together they are the proud parents of two young adults that any parent would be proud to call their own. He is also a devoted son and brother. Although they could not attend his confirmation hearing, I know his parents are deeply proud of the son that they raised.

I noticed in his confirmation hearing that Jeh proudly wore a pin that was his grandfather's. His great grandfather worked as a Pullman train car porter in the early 20th century. I think that quiet statement says a lot about the importance of family to Jeh and how the values and character his family instilled in him are always with him.

It is clear he is a student of history and draws inspiration from the civil rights movement. One of Jeh Johnson's guiding principles is a lesson he learned from Dr. Benjamin ``Bennie'' Mays, the former president of Morehouse College and a mentor to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who said, ``You earn a living by what you get; you earn a life by what you give.'' Think about that for a second. ``You earn a living by what you get; you earn a life by what you give.'' Think about that and think about all the times Jeh Johnson has left the comforts of the private sector--three times before--so that he could give back and serve the people of our country as a leader in our government. With that in mind, I think we know what kind of leader we are getting in Jeh Johnson and what he will bring to the Department of Homeland Security.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting today for Jeh Johnson.

I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, my wife ran into one of our old colleagues the other day, a guy named Ted Kaufman. He was the interim Senator who succeeded Joe Biden and held down that slot for 2 years until Senator Chris Coons was elected on his own, not that long ago. One of the things I loved about Ted was, every month he would come to the floor and he would talk about a different Federal employee. Sometimes I heard our colleagues or would hear other people talk about Federal employees or State or local employees as nameless, faceless bureaucrats in a derisive way, uncomplimentary and, I expect, dispiriting.

The folks who serve in the Federal Government or State and local government do so usually not because it pays a lot of money or because they get huge bouquets and a lot of credit but because they want to do something constructive with their lives.

Ted used to do that every month when he would come to the floor. This is like a shout-out to him because I heard about a fellow in Delaware who decided to step down after a great career of public service and I want to take a few minutes, if I could, to talk about him. The person I have in mind today is the fellow who is stepping down as the director of our Delaware Division of Parks and Recreation. His name is Charles A. Salkin. We call him Chazz. He was appointed the director of the division a couple of months before I became Governor. He was appointed on June 1, 1992. He continued to serve

with distinction in that capacity, leading the Division of Parks and Recreation for the 8 years I served as Governor, and then he went on to serve for two more Governors after me. He served Republican Governor Mike Castle before me, and a Democratic administration, for a total of four Governors.

That doesn't happen everyday in every State. When you get those kinds of opportunities it must mean you are pretty good. In his case he was very good.

He is now retiring from the post after more than 35 years of service to the people of our State. For over three decades he has been a tremendous leader and real advocate for the educational, for the mental, for the physical benefits of State parks.

He is also a devoted husband to his wife of 40 years, a woman named Sue, who is very accomplished in her own right. She recently retired as deputy director of the Delaware Division of the Arts. They have a daughter Emily, who I believe is now grown.

It is kind of interesting to see where they pull up their anchors and sail off into the sunrise. But, Chazz and Sue, we thank them for the great service to the people of our State and wish them and Emily well. Their hard work and creativity and dedication will be missed a whole lot. We will remember for many years the tremendous contributions they have made.

Since 1978, Chazz has played an active role in the expansion of Delaware's open space areas and in the development of programs that introduce Delawareans and visitors of all ages to the historical and recreational benefits of our State parks. As he steps down from the position as director of the Delaware Division of Parks and Recreation, we give him our sincere thanks and thank his staff too for their diligent and longstanding efforts to maintain Delaware's reputation as having one of the most dynamic and innovative park systems in the Nation.

Throughout his career, Chazz has been a visionary whose creativity and forward thinking has changed the very nature our State park system. From the institution of zip lines to kayak rentals, Chazz has done a tremendous job of inspiring the love of nature in just about all Delawareans. He has played an important role in securing Delaware's footprint in the national park system with the recent naming of the First State national monument.

Delaware was the first State to ratify the Constitution. William Penn came to America through Delaware. One of the oldest houses in all of North America is in Lewes, DE, apparently a Dutch settlement some 275 years ago. We were the first State to ratify the Constitution. We have done a lot of ``firsts'' for a little State.

We do not have a national park. We have been working on it for a number of years with Chazz, and now Chris Coons and John Carney have taken up the mantle.

We have a First State national monument. We are thankful for that. Thank you, Vice President Biden.

We have been knocking on the door for a national park. Chazz and his people have been great laborers with us in that effort.

Chazz's research, his professional leadership, and personal membership in all kinds of organizations such as the National Association of State Park Directors and the National Association of State Outdoor Recreation Liaison Officers, have also supported Delaware's natural resources and emphasized our State parks' value to Delaware's financial success.

In places such as Oregon, Senator Merkley, the Presiding Officer from Ohio, Senator Collins, who is still on the floor--their States have wonderful national parks. As it turns out, the top destination, tourist destination for people who come to the United States from other countries is our national parks. We don't have one in Delaware. We want one. In the meantime our State parks have sort of filled the gap. We have some State parks of which we are real proud. One of the guys who worked very hard to make them something we can be proud of is Chazz Salkin.

He has undoubtedly left a legacy of achievement, persistence, and passion with the members of the Parks and Recreation team that included hundreds of people over the past 35 years. We in the State of Delaware are truly grateful for everything Chazz has done to protect our State's beauty and history.

On behalf of Senator Chris Coons, our colleague here in the Senate, on behalf of John Carney, our lone Congressman over in the House, we wholeheartedly thank Chazz for 35 years of service to the State of Delaware. His model leadership and dedication have improved the quality of life for visitors and residents who come to our State from all over the world. We offer our sincere congratulations on a job well done and wish him and Sue and their family many happy and successful years to come.

We struggle at the Federal Government to pay for things. We struggle at the State level to have the revenues to pay for the kinds of services our citizens want. One of the things I especially admired in the work done by Chazz Salkin is a growing reliance, over time, on inviting people--could be young people, could be older people, could be retired, maybe not, could be students, could be senior citizens, but people who would like to volunteer some of their time to help in our national parks. It will be interesting to be able to look at the number of volunteer hours that have been amassed over the years in service to our national parks and compare that on a per-capita-basis to the rest of the country. I think we stack up pretty well.

One of the things we have done in our State, in no small part because of Chazz's leadership, is to invite volunteers to come in to help out, to make our parks better than they ever were before and to benefit from that by feeling they helped us to accomplish something really good for now and for a long time in the future.

I will be happy to yield.

Mr. President, my thanks to the majority leader this morning. Before I say a few words about Rev. Gregory Knox Jones, I want to go back in time for a couple of minutes. I was talking to the pages out in the hall behind the leader about how when our country was first settled folks came here from all over the world. They came here in part in pursuit of religious freedom. They were people of different faiths. They wanted to be able to worship God as they saw fit.

When it got really tough in Philadelphia at the Constitutional Convention--trying to wrestle with issues such as slavery, rights of women, whether there should be little States, big States, how we were going to be represented here--many times the Founding Fathers hit the pause button and they called in a person of faith to pray, to help them to find a way to progress, and they did again and again.

When George Washington was inaugurated--not here but in New York City--at the end of the day they did not go off and have big parties; they actually went to church. In the early days of our country, worship services were actually held here, as some of us know. We start every day here in the Senate with a prayer, oftentimes delivered by retired Navy ADM Barry C. Black, our Chaplain, and today with a special guest, my pastor, Gregory Knox Jones from Westminster Presbyterian Church.

Our leader Harry Reid has run a number of marathons. As it happens, so has our guest. He is a long-distance

runner, literally and figuratively. He just ran his 10th marathon. He ran the New York Marathon on Sunday--I might say in good time. He won in the category of White men over 50 who pastor large Presbyterian churches on the east coast and who were former team captains from the Kansas State University football team. That category he won hands down. I congratulate him, and I am sure my colleagues do as well.

He reminds us every Sunday of the idea that we have a moral imperative to look out for the least of those in our society, people who are hungry and need to be fed, people who have no health care. We have an obligation to look after them. He reminds us every Sunday that we have an obligation to look out for not only those who are in our community in Wilmington, DE, but way beyond our borders, such as those in Guatemala and also those who live in Israel and the West Bank of Jordan, to make sure justice is done in those places as well.

He reminds us every Sunday of the Golden Rule for our neighbor: Treat others the way we want to be treated. We have to focus on the poor, widows and the orphans, and those who are in need. He reminds us to not just talk a good game but to actually deliver on our words. What does it say in James 2? You show me your faith by your words, I will show you my faith by my deeds. He reminds us of that every Sunday.

To my colleagues, he reminds us we are servants. There is a great sermon in Mark chapter 10. The words are, as I recall--I will paraphrase him--for those who want to be a leader, you have to be a slave to all. For those who want to become first, you must become last.

We thank you for those remembrances.

Every week I go to a Bible study led by our Chaplain. On Sundays I try to show up in our own church. It reminds me of a double shot. You and I, Mr. President, are about the same age. We remember the days of Motown, the great song called ``Double Shot of My Baby's Love.'' Every week I get a double shot of God's love from these two, my pastor and our Chaplain.

To his life partner Camilla and three children and six grandchildren, we are honored you are here.

I want to close with the way he closes our sermons every Sunday, colleagues. He does it with these words. I hope I have them right. It goes something like this. When he lets us go and dismisses his flock he says these words: May the love of God, the grace of Christ, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit bless you, those you love, and the ones that no one loves.

And the ones that no one loves. He sends us on our way. Those are great words for us today as well. We welcome him.

I thank the leader for allowing me to say these words this morning.

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

As many of us recall, on October 29, 2012, Superstorm Sandy made landfall in my part of the United States. Its impacts up and down the east coast were devastating and heartbreaking. New York, New Jersey, and parts of New England were hit particularly hard. In Delaware we did not experience the level of devastation that was inflicted on our neighbors to the north and to the east, but our State did receive significant damage. In total there were over 200 deaths attributed to Superstorm Sandy. Today we remember the lives lost and those forever impacted by this storm.

As I traveled through Delaware during and after the storm, I saw some of the massive impacts of that storm firsthand, but I saw something else as well. I saw people from all walks of life pulling together, helping one another, and taking care of their neighbors. The impacts of that superstorm are still fresh in my mind today as we continue to rebuild in Delaware, New Jersey, in New York, and in other places up the East Coast.

But not only are the impacts of the superstorm still fresh in my mind, something else is as well, and that is this: the extraordinary efforts of ordinary people who left the comfort of their own homes in Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and in other States as well to help people they had never met and will probably never see again. They did so not because they were paid to do it, not because someone told them to do it, but because they wanted to do it.

This morning I met a handful of Delawareans who were called to action by the Red Cross to volunteer in the shelters and communities in Delaware and New Jersey and New York. Those volunteers included Charlotte and Richard Duffy, Joe Miller, and Glenn Sholley, who are joining us today in the Senate, and we welcome them. In the days and weeks following Sandy, they stopped their lives to help others, and for that we are truly grateful. I thank you all for your extraordinary service.

As our rebuilding efforts continue, I am so thankful for the first responders, for the volunteers, and for the Good Samaritans who pulled together not only in Delaware but in our States to the north to ensure the safety and health of our neighbors.

A few minutes ago I told the folks who gathered in my office for some light refreshments before we came over here--the same group that is joining us here today--that last night I had heard a speech from Paul Begala, who our Presiding Officer will remember was a key member of President Clinton's team during his Presidency. He was on television a million times and widely known for his wit. We saw another side of Paul Begala last night. We saw his wit as well, but we also heard from him a recounting or retelling of the story of the Old Testament and of the question that was asked in the Bible. He asked the audience: Who asked the first question? Nobody knew. He said, actually, the first question was asked by Abel, who had slain his brother Cain. The Heavenly Father, of course, knew what had happened. He tracked down Abel and said: Where's Cain? And Cain said: Am I my brother's keeper? Am I my brother's keeper?

That story is retold in the Bible in a number of places as the Golden Rule, to look out and help other people the way we would like to be helped, treat other people the way we would want to be treated. Not only does that show up in the Old and New Testaments, including in the parable of the Good Samaritan, but it shows up in the sacred scriptures whether you happen to be Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu. It shows up in the scriptures of virtually every major religion on Earth--the idea that we have an obligation to

help our neighbors, whoever they may be.

In the parable in the New Testament, Jesus is asked by some of the Pharisees: Who is my neighbor? And that is when he tells the story of the Good Samaritan, who ultimately was helped not by someone from his community, not by a clergyman who walked by, but he was helped by somebody from another part of that country who didn't care at all for the fellow who was beaten and left for dead.

The financial costs of Superstorm Sandy were also severe and estimated to be in not just the hundreds of millions of dollars but billions of dollars. It will take years to recover from devastation such as this. As my colleagues and I know, it is important we get that recovery right.

I want to take a look at a few pictures of Seaside Heights, NJ, before Sandy and after. Before I turn to the photographs on my left here, I would just say to the Presiding Officer that a lot of people who might be watching this across the country on C-SPAN may wonder where Seaside Heights, NJ, is. I wondered that myself, and I am from Delaware, less than 100 miles away. A lot of people have heard of Asbury Park, where Bruce Springsteen is from. Asbury Park is just a little bit north of Seaside Heights, NJ. About 50 miles south of Seaside Heights is a place called Atlantic City that a lot of us have heard of.

This is a shot taken in May of 2009 in Seaside Heights, NJ. This is a before shot. This is a little more than 3 years before the hurricane. There are a couple of buildings here where we have these yellow arrows. They are there for a purpose--so that when we look at the after shot we can figure out what happened to those structures. Here is a red arrow on this building.

This is about 3\1/2\ years later when Sandy came a-calling. Here we go. These buildings aren't in the same place. They do not look the same. What looked to have been a pier along through here is gone. There used to be roads through here and now there are what appear to be sandy trails. Virtually every house here is badly damaged, many of them absolutely totally destroyed.

We have another shot here, same town, Seaside Heights. This is obviously the beach, the boardwalk, and this is an amusement park. A lot of people went there over the years, for decades, and had a great time with their families. They had a roller coaster here. There were a lot of rides here. I must admit I like rides. My wife says: Are you ever going to grow up? I say: I hope not, because this stuff is still fun to me. But here is the roller coaster. Again, this is taken in late May 2009. There is the roller coaster.

Let's see what it looks like after Hurricane Sandy. Here is the roller coaster. Here is the roller coaster. It is in the ocean. And here is what is left of the pier and of the amusement park.

The power of that storm is demonstrated graphically by these photos, which I said earlier destroyed not just this amusement park, the beaches and the homes in this community, but wreaked havoc throughout the mid-Atlantic and northeastern seaboard and took the lives of over 200 people.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we saw many problems during the recovery phase that held communities back and created great suffering, and not only great suffering, also a lot of anger in terms of the inadequate response, the untimely response, the inept response. Money was not always well spent, the efforts were not well coordinated, and the recovery moved slowly as a result.

Thanks in part to the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, which was shepherded through the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and through Congress by Senators Susan Collins and Joe Lieberman, many of the problems we saw during Katrina's recovery efforts have been fixed, and we have seen a great deal of improvement in the emergency response efforts as a result.

I have a friend who, when you ask him ``How are you doing?'' he always says, ``Compared to what?'' So when speaking of how are we doing with respect to the recovery after Superstorm Sandy, I say: Well, compared to what? Compared to Katrina, we are doing great. Can we do better? You bet we can. We have learned a lot, and 7 years later you can tell we have learned not all our lessons but certainly a number of them.

That act that was passed about a half dozen years ago required FEMA to bolster their regional offices in order to build strong relationships with State, local, and tribal governments. As an old recovering Governor--and the Presiding Officer is a recovering Lieutenant Governor--we know the Federal Government can't do everything, particularly in responding to emergencies. It is the relationships with the State and the local folks, in some cases with tribal units, with the emergency responders, with the National Guard, and all of the above, that is critical. Those strong relationships not only improve the ability of the Federal Government to respond to disasters, but they also enhance FEMA's capability to support State, local, and tribal governments as they rebuild.

That law also required FEMA to coordinate with other Federal departments to write a national disaster recovery strategy. This eventually lead to the National Disaster Recovery Framework, which has helped to organize and coordinate recovery efforts to Hurricane Sandy.

A key question we need to ask, however, after a storm such as this, is whether it was an aberration or a harbinger of things to come. I would like to think it was an aberration. There is a good chance it was not. Just a few short years ago, hurricanes hitting the areas along the northeastern half of the East Coast were relatively uncommon. Hurricane Sandy is actually the third major hurricane to threaten or strike the northeastern coast of our country in the last 3 years. Fortunately, we are almost through this hurricane season--knock on wood--without a major storm hitting our coast. Unfortunately, the Northeast, mid- Atlantic, and other vulnerable areas are expected to see more frequent and larger storms such as Sandy in the future.

Earlier this year, the Government Accountability Office, affectionately known as GAO, added a new area to its recently updated High Risk List--the impact of climate change on the Federal Government and on our country. GAO explained that, among other things, climate change ``could threaten coastal areas with rising sea levels, alter agricultural productivity, and increase the intensity and frequency of severe weather events.''

The GAO also argued the Federal Government is not prepared to deal with the impacts of climate change. I might add State governments and local governments as well are not prepared to deal with the impacts of climate change. They recommended we take a strategic look at them and start to prepare accordingly.

The costs associated with responding to and recovering from a hurricane such as Sandy, both in human and financial costs, are so severe we simply cannot afford to face this devastation over and over again.

It might have been Einstein who defined the definition of sanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. We can't do the same thing over and over. It is a different world in which we live, and we have to respond to those changes.

Fortunately, we have seen States take promising steps toward addressing some of the issues GAO has identified. In particular, the States of New York and New Jersey have begun to plan to mitigate against future disasters. We know all too well that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

In fact, a few years ago the National Institute of Building Sciences issued a report that concluded that for every $1 we spend on various mitigation measures we can save $4 in response and recovery costs. For $1 of investment we end up saving $4. Through mitigation, then, we can get better results--save money and, most importantly, we can save lives.

We must ensure that sound and effective mitigation policies are thoroughly incorporated into this recovery effort. This is especially important as climate change drives the sea level to rise and increases the severity and frequency of coastal storms. By working together, we can rebuild and become stronger by better protecting ourselves from future storms. But in doing so, we can't ignore what I and many experts believe may be the underlying cause of storms such as Hurricane Sandy. It is not

enough to just address the symptom--that is the storm, the wind, the sea level rise, the surge--we need to address the underlying cause or causes.

As we recover from Sandy and put in place the protections, we need to reduce the impact of the next big one. We would make a mistake if we didn't think about what we need to do to address not just the symptoms of climate change but the underlying cause itself.

We have been joined on the floor by my colleague Senator Menendez from New Jersey. Through the Presiding Officer, let me just say to my colleague, we have some folks here today from Delaware who ended up, as I said earlier, in New Jersey, and I think in New York. Our State was hit, but nothing like the Senator's State. These folks, serving in the spirit of the Good Samaritan, with the encouragement and actually the organizational skills of the Red Cross, came to his State, across the Delaware River, in order to lend a hand to people they didn't know, had never met, and will probably never see again.

Someday the tables will be turned, someday it will be our State, someday it will be Delmarva that is reeling from the impact of such a storm. We know when that happens, the Senator will be there for us as well.

I am pleased to yield the floor for my friend from New Jersey.

Mr. President, while Senator Chiesa is still on the floor, I want to take a moment to say to him how much we have enjoyed getting to know him, work with him, and come away with a wonderful--not just a first impression but a lasting impression. Governor Christie did the State of New Jersey well by appointing Senator Chiesa to serve as the interim Senator.

We had a similar experience with losing an elected Senator when Joe Biden was elected as Vice President and to the Senate at the same time. He had to choose between being the Senator from Delaware or Vice President. I don't know if he ever regrets it, but he made the choice to be our Vice President, as we know. The Governor of our State appointed Ted Kaufman to serve as the interim Senator for 2 years, and he was subsequently succeeded by Chris Coons when Chris was elected a couple of years ago.

We have a tradition of folks who are appointed as interim Senators who turn out to do an extraordinary job. Sometimes I wonder--with tongue in cheek--if maybe that is not a better approach, in some cases, for populating this place with men and women from across the country.

The Senator from New Jersey has been here for 5 tumultuous months, and he has seen the good, the bad, and the ugly--in some cases the very ugly. If we had more people who would bring Senator Chiesa's values and commitment to comity--not comedy with a ``d,'' but comity with a ``t''--communicating, and his willingness to compromise, not on principles but on policy, this would be a better place and a better country.

As the chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, I say on behalf of Tom Coburn, ranking Republican--and on behalf of those of us who have the privilege to serve on that committee--what a privilege it has been for the Senator from New Jersey to be one of our members.

We are joined on the floor by Senator Barrasso, and it has been my privilege to serve on the Environment and Public Works Committee with him. As Senator Barrasso knows, Jeff Chiesa came early and stayed late. He asked great questions and brought forth good issues--including the issue of human trafficking, which has reminded us in extraordinary ways of the terrible situation that is faced by millions of women and children in this country and around the world. That is a gift the Senator from New Jersey has brought to this body, and I think ultimately to our country.

Senator Chiesa is going to leave us now and sail off into the sunrise, and we look forward to having our paths cross many times in the future--maybe even in Delaware on a summer vacation. My friend can bring his wife Jenny and his two kids. He is always welcomed in the first State.

Good luck, God bless, and Godspeed. I thank my friend for serving our country and his State so well.

Mr. President, I say to the Presiding Officer, former Governor Manchin, I wish to follow on the comments we just heard from Senator Portman, who, as he said, served in two administrations--in one of them as OMB Director, in the other as Trade Representative. Before that he had a distinguished career in the House of Representatives. He is someone I am fortunate to serve with on the Finance Committee. I have a lot of respect for his intellect and for his intellectual honesty.

Before I talk about the real reason I came to the floor, I feel compelled to say something. As former Governors, the Presiding Officer and I have made tough decisions on spending, we have made tough decisions on revenues, and they are not always well received by people. They are not always well received by people in our own party.

I like to say there are three or four things we need to do on this issue to make sure our deficits continue to head in the right direction. I do not worship at the altar of a balanced budget every single year. But what I do believe is that when the economy is strengthened and growing stronger, we ought to be having the deficit heading down, and when we are in a war or when we are in an economic doldrum, then I think it is appropriate to, in some cases, deficit spend.

Four things we need to do if we are serious about deficit reduction: No. 1, we need, in the President's words, entitlement reform that saves money, saves these programs for our children and our grandchildren, and does not savage old people or poor people. That is No. 1.

No. 2, we need, in my view, tax reform that brings down the top corporate rates--something more closely aligned with every other developed nation in the world. At the same time we are doing that, we need to generate some revenues for deficit reduction to match what we are doing on the spending side.

If you think about it, the Senator from Ohio knows and the Senator from West Virginia knows about tax expenditures: Tax breaks, tax credits, tax deductions, tax loopholes, tax gaps, add up over the next 10 years anywhere from $12 trillion to $15 trillion. We are going to spend more money out of the Treasury for tax expenditures than we are going to spend on all of our appropriations bills combined. If we could somehow capture 5 percent of $12 trillion over the next 10 years for deficit reduction, that is $600 billion. If we can match that in a Bowles-Simpson number, such as $2 of deficit reduction on the expenditure side and $1 on the revenue side, we could do about another $2 trillion on deficit reduction on top of what we have already done. Is that a grand compromise that I want and I think the Senator from Ohio wants, I know the Senator from West Virginia wants?

It is not a grand compromise, but I would call it a baby grand. A baby grand is certainly better than kicking that can down the road. The last time we kicked the can down the road at the beginning of this year, I remember saying on this floor: We kicked a rather large can down the road not very far. I am tired of doing that. I do not want us to do that.

We have maybe our last best chance here in this budget conference in order to do the kinds of things I talked about. Democrats do not want to give on entitlements. I am willing to do that. But I am only willing to do that if Republicans will give on tax reform that generates some revenues.

I mentioned there are three things to do. The third thing is to look in every nook and cranny of the Federal Government--everything we do. The Senator from Ohio is a member of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. He knows that we focus--we have large, broad investigative powers, oversight powers, authority over the whole Federal Government. There are all kinds of ways to save money, all kinds of ways to save money in this government of ours, just as there are all kinds in big corporations, big businesses. What we need to do is, in everything we do, look at that and say: How do we get a better result for less money in everything we do?

I do not know if my friends from Ohio and West Virginia hear this from their constituents, but I hear from Delaware constituents and folks outside of my State these words: I do not mind paying more taxes, I just do not want you to waste my money or I do not want to pay more taxes, but if I do, I do not want you to waste my money. I do not want to waste your money or mine.

The fourth thing we need to do to be serious about moving the economy and getting out of this kind of rut we are in right now is to be able to make sure we have some money around that we can invest in the things we know will strengthen our economy. Foremost among those is a strong workforce, capable workforce. The second thing is infrastructure, broadly defined, not just transportation: roads, highways, bridges; not just ports, not just airports, not just railroads, but broadband, all kinds of infrastructure-related items.

The third thing is R&D, research and development that will lead to technologies that can be commercialized, turned into products, goods, and services we can sell all over the world.

The fourth thing we need to do is to do an even better job--and Senator Portman was the leader as our trade ambassador. He knows what it is all about in terms of knocking down trade barriers. But while we do entitlement reform, we do tax reform, while we look in every nook and cranny of the Federal Government, investing in the three areas I mentioned, we have got to make sure when we develop these new products and services that we can sell them around the world without impediment, we can knock down trade barriers. The Senator has done a lot of work in that regard as well.

As the Senator leaves the floor, I will say there are many things for us to work on. I hope we will.

May I ask unanimous consent that the doctor be afforded another 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry, if I may.

I have no objection; I can stay 10 minutes, 20 minutes. I would like for the Senator from Oklahoma Dr. Coburn to have a chance to explain what he wanted to say. I don't mean to interrupt.

Mr. President, Dr. Coburn is a tough act to follow, and I am not going to try to do that. But I am happy to serve with him. We come from different parts of the country, different kinds of training, upbringing, and careers, but we have ended up here together in the Senate for the last 9 years and have had an opportunity to lead, first, the subcommittee on Federal financial management--it is a subcommittee of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee--and this year to be the Democratic and Republican leaders of the committee. I enjoy working with him. I find that we have the opportunity to do some really good for our country, and I thank him for letting me be his wingman.

I want to just follow on with what Dr. Coburn has said, by asking us to think of how we spend money and what we spend it for in this government of ours. Then I actually have an op-ed that I read recently in our local paper in Delaware that I would like to read into the Record from Dr. Bob Laskowski, who is the CEO and the president of Christiana Care Health System, one of the largest hospital systems not just in our State but one of the largest in our part of the country.

Before I do that, I want to follow on to some of Dr. Coburn's comments by talking about our spending in the Federal Government. I would like to think of it as a pie. It is a big pie. A little more than half of the spending pie goes for something we call entitlements-- things we are entitled to by virtue of our age, our station in life, or we might

be entitled to Medicare if we are 65 or older, or Medicare if we are disabled and unable to work, or we may be entitled to early Social Security benefits at age 62, full retirement Medicare benefits 5 or so years after that. We may be entitled to benefits because we served in the military or we are a veteran or somebody with a disability. Those are all programs that are called entitlement programs. A lot of people say they are uncontrollable, we cannot do anything to control them, and they have grown like Topsy.

Today, if you think of the spending pie, over half of it is for entitlement. Roughly, closer to another 5 to 10 percent of spending today is for interest on the debt. If interest rates were not so low, it would be a lot more than 5 or 10 percent. Fortunately, we are blessed to have very low interest rates, but still our interest as a percentage of that pie is somewhere, I think, between 5 and 10 percent.

The whole rest of the Federal government is called discretionary spending, which means we actually have some discretion on how that money is spent. It is not an entitlement program, but we actually have to pass spending bills. We call them, usually, appropriations bills. There are about a dozen of them that cover everything from agriculture to defense, to housing, to the environment, to education, to transportation--you name it. That part of the budget--roughly, close to 40 percent, 35 to 40 percent--is called discretionary spending. More than half of that discretionary spending is for defense--I would say roughly 20 percent of the whole pie, maybe a little more than 20 percent. About 15 percent of the whole pie--a little less than half of the discretionary spending--is for nondefense matters.

So if you think about it, it goes something like this: For the spending pie, over half of it is entitlements. Allegedly, those are things we cannot reduce, control. I do not agree with that. Another 5 or 10 percent is for interest. Then we have roughly 40 percent for discretionary spending, the lion's share of which is for defense, and a little less than half of it is for nondefense spending. Think about that--entitlements, interest, defense spending. You set that aside, and for the whole rest of the government you have about 15 percent. That is domestic or nondefense discretionary spending.

We could actually eliminate domestic discretionary spending in its entirety--get rid of everything, everything we do in government other than entitlement programs, interest, and defense--and we would still have a deficit.

For people who say we can only focus on domestic discretionary spending or squeeze that to reduce the deficit further, the deficit is down from about $1.4 trillion about 4 years ago to about half that today. So we have made progress. It is still way too big, but we cannot get from here to where we want to go in terms of a balanced budget by just focusing on domestic discretionary spending.

I would like to say there are three things we need to do. Dr. Coburn has heard me say this more times than he wants to remember. The Presiding Officer has heard me say it a time or two as well.

There are three things we need to do if we are serious about deficit reduction, facing the reality of today.

No. 1, entitlement reform. These are the President's words: entitlement reform that saves money, entitlement reform that saves these programs for our kids and our grandchildren, and entitlement reform--these are my words--entitlement reform that does not savage old people or poor people, but it is sensitive to the least of these in our society.

The second thing we need to do is to focus on revenues. We need some more revenues. If you look at our country last year, when our deficit was about $700 billion--the year we just finished--as I recall, revenue as a percentage of gross domestic product was somewhere in the area of 17 percent, maybe 18 percent--revenue as a percentage of GDP. Spending as a percentage of GDP was over 20 percent, maybe around 21, 22, 23 percent.

The difference between revenues as a percentage of GDP down here at 17, 18, 19 percent of GDP and spending at 21, 22, or 23 percent, that difference right there is about a $700 billion deficit from the last year.

At the end of the day we need to make the revenues come closer to, actually, the spending. I suggest that we need to take a page out of the book they did in the second term of President Bill Clinton when we had run chronic deficits since 1968. President Clinton asked Erskine Bowles, who was then his Chief of Staff, to work with a Republican Senate and Republican House--a Republican Congress--to see if we could come up with a budget plan that included revenues, included spending, to actually balance the budget.

As we all know the story, famously it worked. A Democratic President, working with a Republican House and Senate, with the help of Erskine Bowles and Sylvia Mathews--now Sylvia Mathews Burwell, who was Erskine's Deputy Chief of Staff, later Deputy OMB Director--they got the job done. They reached across the aisle and worked it out. The deficit reduction plan was a 50-50 deal--50 percent on the revenue side and 50 percent on the spending side. They grew the heck out of the economy. As a result, we had four balanced budgets in a row--I think 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.

Harry Truman used to say: The only thing that is new in the world is the history we forgot and never learned. I think as we try to figure out what to do with today's deficits and how to get on an even more fiscally responsible track, it would be smart to look back about 15 years and see how it worked then.

For folks who might be watching this around the country, we actually have a budget law. I think our budget law was adopted in 1974. There is an expectation in our Nation's budget law for the President to present us in the Congress with a budget--one budget, not a capital budget and an operating budget but one budget. It is different from the States. It is different from my State, where I was Governor of Delaware for 8 years, where we have a capital budget and an operating budget. But we have one budget.

The President usually submits a budget in January, maybe February. This year it was a little late. The expectation here in the Congress, under the law, is that by, say, the end of April--a couple months later--the House and the Senate would have passed something called a budget resolution.

A budget resolution--what is that? It is not a budget. A budget resolution is a framework for a budget. It includes not nitty-gritty line-item spending plans for everything--defense and nondefense--but it says, roughly, we will spend this much in these programs, and generally, we will raise this much money in these ways from these revenue sources. It is not very specific, but it is a framework for the budget. I like to think of it as the skeleton, and later on, when we pass appropriations bills, when we pass revenue measures, we put the meat on the bones. That is where the real specificity comes along.

For a number of years we have not been able to pass in the Senate, in the House, a budget resolution--they are usually different--and then go to conference, create a conference committee to create a compromise. We have found it difficult to actually come up with a compromise budget resolution--a compromise, a spending plan, a framework for the appropriations bills and revenue measures.

This year started more promising because in the Senate here, in April, under the leadership of our Senate Budget Committee chairman Patty Murray of Washington, we actually passed a budget resolution-- sadly, without Republican support. We passed one, and it was one of those like the Clinton years, a 50-50 deficit reduction deal. It did not eliminate the deficit, but it kept it going in the right track. Half of the deficit reduction was on the spending side, half on the revenue side.

Over in the House, they passed a different kind of budget resolution. The budget resolution they passed did a little entitlement reform. But that 15 percent of the spending pie I was talking about--the 15 percent that is domestic discretionary spending--was reduced, as I recall, from 15 percent to like 5 percent. Think about that. We would be talking about--aside from entitlement spending, interest on the debt, and defense spending--having about the whole rest of the government be like 5 percent of our spending. That is not my vision of what our government

should be about. That is not my vision. And I do not think that is the vision of a lot of people in this body and in this country.

So the three things we need to do: No. 1, entitlement reform. It saves money, saves the programs. It does not savage old people, poor people. The second thing, we need some additional revenues.

I remember Kent Conrad, when he was our Budget Committee chairman, gave a presentation at a meeting a year or so ago. He talked about revenues. He talked about tax expenditures. As to the tax expenditures that he talked about, he said over the next 10 years we will see about $12 to $15 trillion go out of the Treasury because of tax breaks--tax credits, tax deductions, tax loopholes, the tax gap--$12 to $15 trillion go out of the Treasury for those tax expenditures. He said more money will come out of the Treasury for those tax expenditures-- tax breaks, tax credits, tax deductions, tax loopholes--than all the appropriations bills we are going to pass. Think about that.

He said we have a new way to appropriate money, we just do it through the Tax Code. I would say to our Republican and Democratic friends, this is where I think Senator Conrad was coming from. If we cannot figure out how out of $12 or $15 trillion of tax expenditures a year, maybe 5 percent of those that could be reduced or could be eliminated because they serve no useful purpose, something is wrong with us. If we can do 5 percent of, say, just $12 trillion in those tax expenditures, 5 percent would be about $600 billion over the next 10 years. Match that with entitlement spending reductions, that is about $1.2 trillion. That is a pretty good next step to take in narrowing our deficit on top of what we have already done.

The third piece, in addition to entitlement reform that saves money, saves the programs for the long haul, and does not savage old people or poor people, some additional revenue, generally from eliminating or reducing tax expenditures, the third piece--and Dr. Coburn was talking a little bit about this. He was talking about the way we spend money. We have a culture in the Federal Government. We have had it for a long time. Big companies have this culture too, and some States as well as counties and cities. I call it a culture of spend thrifts as opposed to a culture of thrift. What Dr. Coburn and I attempt to do with the folks on our committee is look at everything we do in the Federal Government to the extent that one committee can. We like to work with the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, with the General Accountability Office, GAO, the Office of Personnel Management, with the General Services Administration, all of the inspector generals across the agencies, throughout the Federal Government. We like to work with nonprofit groups such as Citizens Against Government Waste and others.

We do this in order to figure out what we are doing. How are we spending the taxpayers' money? Are there ways we can do those things, realize the goals we are trying to achieve, by spending less money or getting better results for the same amount of money? We need to do that in everything.

One of my colleagues said to me, when I said I was coming over to speak tonight: What are you going to talk about?

I said I think I will talk about regular order. We talk a fair amount about regular order around this place. We do not always follow it. Regular order, for the people watching who are tuned in wondering what is regular order, means following the rules. In this case, we have a Budget Act that says the President submits a budget the early part of the calendar year. Congress adopts a budget resolution. We do that about the beginning of May. Then we do our work on preparing appropriations bills and revenue measures. In order to go to a conference on a budget resolution, we have to get agreement. The majority leader will come or the Budget Committee chair will come to the floor and say: I ask unanimous consent to go to conference with the House and to name conferees and begin working out a compromise between the House and the Senate.

For many years it was perfunctory. The unanimous consent request was made. We would go to conference with the House. We would go to work on a budget resolution between the two bodies. This year, every time that request has been made--and it has been made dozens of times by Democrats and by at least one Republican--dozens of times--there has always been an objection to keep us from going to conference to work out this compromise.

As much as anything, we need to create an environment where we can focus on doing the three things I talked about: entitlement reform, tax reform that raises some revenues through deficit reduction, and try to focus on everything we do and say how do we get a better result, how do we get a better result for less money or the same amount of money.

I would say to my Republican colleagues who continue to object: Stop. Please stop. Let us actually have a chance to gather in a room in this building and see what we can hammer out to address, not a short-term continuing resolution but actually a thoughtful, comprehensive spending plan as we did 15, 16 years ago when the Republicans were in the majority here, House and Senate, and we had a Democratic President. We got the job done and helped to continue the longest running economic expansion in the history of this country.

I mentioned Bob Laskowski, president and CEO of Christiana Care Health System, a large regional health care system. He did a great job. We are very proud of him in our State. They provide care to a lot of people. He is a doctor and a health system leader. I thought his perspectives on health care reform and the Affordable Care Act were important enough to share on the floor.

This comes from an op-ed that appeared in one of our local statewide papers called the News Journal, a Gannett publication. His op-ed was in the News Journal this past week. I am going to read it. It is not that long. It goes like this:

With some in Washington promising to speak out against

implementation of the Affordable Care Act until they ``can no

longer stand,'' it might be a useful reality check to visit

an emergency room in any town or city across America.

He goes on to say:

There you will find thousands of Americans each day that

really cannot stand. It is not just because an injury,

illness or disease has put them on their backs.

Too often, it is because an eminently treatable ailment has

been allowed to turn into something much worse--for the

simple reason that the patient doesn't have health insurance

and couldn't afford to see a doctor until things became so

bad that the emergency room was their only option.

In the continuing cacophony of criticism around so-called

ObamaCare, this crucial fact keeps being lost: Our health

care system remains badly broken--and in the absence of

reform, it will continue to get a lot worse.

I see this--as a physician and as a health care executive;

but more importantly, I experience this as the friend of too

many neighbors with no health insurance.

He goes on to say:

I think that might be the reason why 3 in 4 Americans

surveyed in a recent Pew Research poll say they oppose

efforts to sabotage the law: because they know that the

people threatening to derail and defund the Affordable Care

Act are not offering a better solution.

Ironically, the part of the Affordable Care Act that we are attempting to implement and stand up across the country right now, the health exchanges or marketplaces, is a Republican idea. It was first offered as an alternative to HillaryCare back in the first term of President Clinton. It is a Republican idea, a business idea.

But I do not care whether it is a Democratic or Republican idea. It is a smart idea to use large purchasing pools, enable people who otherwise would buy health insurance for one person or five people or for a small business--it is a way for them to bring down the cost of their care, use competition to get better options. It is a smart idea.

The idea of another criticism, the individual mandates, people being individually mandated to get health care and if they did not they would maybe face some kind of fine--modest at first, it grows in time--that is not a Democratic idea. Ironically, that is an idea we got out of Massachusetts. The author, the Governor who signed it into law, was the Republican nominee for President last year, Mitt Romney.

So what we have tried to do is take some Republican ideas and some Democratic ideas and, frankly, some good ideas.

And over half of those who ``oppose'' the law today, say

they want it fixed, not scrapped.

I agree with that--fixed, not scrapped.

They know that in the absence of reform, there are still

too many people who use the emergency room as their only

source of medical care; too many families and businesses who

cannot keep up with the ever-rising cost of health care

premiums; and too many Americans who find nothing but

frustration when navigating our health care system--who still

fill out too many forms, are prescribed too many tests that

do not help them and get passed from office to office without

anyone guiding them overall care.

Beginning [last week], millions of uninsured Americans

began to shop for quality, affordable health care through the

health insurance marketplaces. These marketplaces are a key

element of the Affordable Care Act and represent an important

step toward putting quality health care within reach of all

Americans.

Just as Medicare has enabled seniors to get the care they

need to live longer and healthier lives, increasing access to

health insurance is vital to unlocking a healthier country,

by ensuring something that millions of Americans do not have

today: The opportunity to stay healthy through regular doctor

visits rather than seeking help only when they get sick.

In some cases very sick.

It is worth remembering: Health care reform is not about

special interests. It is about people like us, our families

and our neighbors. It is about fellow parishioners and Little

League coaches. It is about a neighbor who cuts himself

making dinner and a spouse who finds a worrisome lump.

Everyone we know and everyone we love--will need our health

care system at some point. Three years after America debated

the need for health care reform, millions of Americans who

work hard, pay taxes, and raise families still cannot afford

to see a doctor. That is wrong.

And even though the resistance of some states to fully

adopt the Affordable Care Act will tragically still leave

some families in those states in the lurch, we now at long

last have the unprecedented opportunity to create a system

that will work better for us all.

We should also remember: Over time, the Affordable Care Act

promises to improve the system as much for the shrinking

majority of Americans who have health insurance as for those

who do not.

Access is just the first step. The act provides a blueprint

for a new model of care, one that rewards doctors for more

coordinated care. Here at Christiana Care [and throughout

Delaware] we have seen what happens when we provide that kind

of care through reengineered medical practices, known as

``medical homes,'' where doctors are enabled to not only

efficiently meet patients' needs but to anticipate them as

well.

This coordinated approach makes getting care simpler and

makes the lives of those getting care easier. It makes

quality better; and, by making care simpler, better, and more

accessible, it saves money.

No law as big or ambitious as the ACA can possibly get it

all right on the first try. But let us not forget: When

Medicare was signed into law, critics warned seniors would

languish in long lines, and that we would all long for the

good old days before reform took place.

Today, Medicare has helped hundreds of millions of

Americans live longer, healthier lives--while reducing the

poverty rate among seniors by 75 percent.

Dr. Laskowski goes on to write:

I believe if these historic changes are given a chance, we

will collectively create a system that is defined not by

volume, but by value. Over the next several years, I know we

can make health care in America more ``people focused'' and

less transactional by realizing the best way to provide

better outcomes at lower cost is by partnering with patients.

As we in health care listen to our patients, we will learn

what our patients truly value. Then we will be able to free

up resources to help patients get healthy faster and stay

well.

The Affordable Care Act is a map toward that future.

History is being made.

I will close by saying: While many of our colleagues argue that the Affordable Care Act will lead to rising insurance costs and lost jobs, the truth is that in Delaware and throughout the rest of the country, millions of Americans are already learning they will be able to find quality health care, insurance plans for a more affordable price.

In Delaware and much of the country, millions of Americans will be able to find quality insurance plans for less than $100 a month. I have told my constituents and my colleagues since this debate over health care reform began, this law is not written in stone. We want to make the law better wherever we can, just as we have made the Medicare prescription drug program better, which was largely supported by Republicans. But we actually made it better in the Affordable Care Act.

I would urge my Republican colleagues to enable us to reopen our government, to reassure Americans and our creditors in this country and around the world that we will honor our debts. Then let's get to work right away to improve the Affordable Care Act and these insurance marketplaces and come to a consensus on a bipartisan budget resolution that lays out a spending plan that will get us from where we are to where we need to be.

Last word. I spent some time in the Navy, and the Presiding Officer spent some time in the military. One of the Presiding Officer's sons may be on Active Duty today. Some of the time we used to fly in and out of Japan in Navy P-3 airplanes.

I learned not long ago that in Japan they spend about 8 percent of GDP for health care. In this country, we spend about 17 or 18 percent. Think about that. They spend 8 percent of GDP for health care. We spend 17 or 18 percent. They get better results. For the most part they have lower rates of infant mortality and higher rates of life expectancy than we do.

The other thing is they cover everybody. Tonight when folks go to bed in this country, this evening some 40 million will go to bed without health care coverage. The Japanese, smart as they are, cannot be that smart. We cannot be that dumb. We cannot be that dumb.

There are ways to get better results for less money, including in the provision of health care. We can work together. If we work together, we can make that a reality.

The last thing I will say is I think the Presiding Officer has heard me tell how I love to ask people who have been married a long time what the secret is for being married 40, 50, 60, 70 years. People give me very funny answers. Some are actually hysterical. But every now and then some of them are serious, almost poignant. And I will close with one of them tonight.

A couple of years ago I met a couple who had been married over 50 years.

I said to them: What is the secret for being married 55 years?

They said: The two Cs.

The two Cs.

I said: What is that?

They said: Communicate and compromise.

Think about that. Communicate and compromise. I said: That is pretty good advice.

I got to thinking about it later, and I thought that is also some pretty good advice and maybe the secret for a vibrant democracy--to communicate and to compromise. We think we were willing to compromise on the short-term spending resolution that is the continuing resolution by agreeing to the numbers set by the Republican House leaders. They do not regard that as a compromise, but I think it was an attempt to compromise.

We need to find compromises in a conference on the budget resolution. That is where we should put our money, that is where we should put our efforts in the weeks to come.

I would add one more C. Communicate and compromise, as important as they are, maybe a third C would be collaborate. That would be a good one to add. So three Cs: Communicate, compromise and collaborate. It is what the American people sent us here to do.

I know the Presiding Officer feels that way, and so do I, as does Dr. Coburn. There are a bunch of us who feel that way. So let's do that.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I want to thank the Senator from Indiana for invoking the name of one of my favorite actors and directors. I would say to my friend, I didn't think our friend Clint Eastwood's appearance at the Republican National Convention was one of his finest moments, but it is what it is. It is nice to be with my colleague and to follow him on the floor.

Madam President, if it were left up to the Senator from Indiana and this Senator, as well as our colleagues here from North Dakota and Rhode Island, I think we could probably work out a pretty good budget deal in a fairly short period of time that raises some revenues through tax reform to reduce the deficit, reforms to the entitlement programs to save money and save the programs for the long haul, and to make sure we don't savage old people and poor people. And while we are doing that, probably we can change the culture of the Federal Government a little so that we focus even more--not on a culture of spendthrift but on a culture of thrift.

Those are the things we need to do. And I am always happy to be with him and happy to follow him. It is so nice to be with Senator Coats today.

Following up on what Senator Coats has been saying, it reminds me of a phone conversation I had with a Delawarean today. She asked me: Why don't we all just agree to what the Republicans are proposing and adopt a couple of bills or amendments to fund some pieces of the government but not many? And I said: Let's go back a little in time.

What I sought to do in that conversation was to explain, in pretty simple, straightforward terms, how the budget process works here--how the budget process works here--and where it has gone awry. We have had a budget law since about 1974. The expectation of the Budget Act is that the President, usually in January or February of every year, will give a budget address. This is what the President and his or her administration thinks we ought to do in terms of revenues, in terms of spending--what our priorities should be.

The expectation in the law is also that this body, the Senate, and the House down the hall from here, will agree on a budget resolution sometime by, say late April of the year, for a budget starting October 1 of that same year. For a number of years--about 4 years--we didn't do our job in terms of developing a budget resolution. It was difficult in a divided Congress to do that. So for several years we didn't. Republicans criticized us harshly for not having passed a budget. What they were talking about was a budget resolution.

There is a difference between a budget and a budget resolution. In my home State of Delaware, we have three budgets: An operating budget for the State of Delaware, a capital budget for the State of Delaware, and something called grant and aid, which is something the legislature cares a lot about. It is only a couple of percentage points of all our revenue. But there are actually three budgets. Here we have one, and it is a unified budget with capital and operating expenses thrown in together. But there is no real direct corollary between what we do here and what we do in most of our States.

Most States have an operating and a capital budget. Here we have a budget resolution. The budget resolution is not a nitty-gritty line- item budget. What it does is to set a framework for what is to follow-- the appropriations bills, roughly a dozen of them--and what we do on the revenue side through the work of the Finance Committee here and the Ways and Means Committee in the House.

The budget resolution says: This is roughly how much we are going to spend in these general areas, and this is roughly how much revenue we are going to raise from these general sources. That is a budget resolution. It is, if you will, a framework. I call it the skeleton. It is like a skeleton. Later on we have to come along and put the meat on the bones.

The budget resolution is supposed to be adopted here by the end of April. Usually the Senate will adopt one version, our version, and the House will adopt another version. We did that this year, by the end of April, as I recall, and they were different. In our budget resolution we did deficit reduction. We

didn't balance the budget over the next several years, but we continued to reduce the deficit. Remember, 4 years ago, the deficit peaked out at $1.4 trillion--$1.4 trillion. This last year that was just concluded we cut it by more than half, as I understand, and we expect it will be brought down again further this year. Should we do better? Do we need to do better? Sure we do.

The budget resolution we passed here took a 50-50 approach; half the deficit reduction for the next 10 years will be on the spending side and half will be on the revenue side. The budget resolution adopted by the House of Representatives, as I recall, did nothing on the revenue side, nothing on the Defense side, as I recall, and basically took the savings out of, for the most part, domestic discretionary spending. If we set aside entitlement programs--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid--set aside Defense, and set aside interest payments, the whole rest of the budget--everything from agriculture to transportation, everything else--that is where they took the savings. And they reduced that part of the budget from about 15 percent of all Federal spending down to something close to 5 percent. That is not my vision of what government should be about.

Anyway, we came to the end of April, and the Senate and House passed different budget resolutions, and there was an effort here to go to conference--to create a conference committee and for us to send conferees. For people who might be watching and asking: What is he talking about, a conference committee is like a compromise committee-- some Members of the House, some Members of the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, go to this committee we create for just a short period of time to hammer out a compromise. In order to do that, somebody has to come to the floor--usually the leader comes to the floor--to ask unanimous consent that the Senate appoint conferees, Democrats and Republicans, to help create this conference committee and work out a compromise.

That request was rejected. It was objected to. It has been objected to again and again and again, whether the person making the unanimous consent to go to conference to work out this budget compromise--it has been made by Democrats or Republicans, at least one Republican. Senator Murray has made the request--she chairs the Budget Committee--close to 20 times, and John McCain, a Republican, and Presidential candidate a couple years ago, long-time friend and colleague, has made the request close to 10 times. He wants to go to conference. He wants to solve the problems. So do I, and I think most of us do.

The ways to do it are those things I talked about--entitlement reforms that save these programs, that save some money but don't savage old people or poor people; tax reform that generates, among other things, some revenues that can be used for deficit reduction; and then to focus on everything we do. How do we get a better result for less money in everything we do?

Long story short, here we are. It is not the first of May, it is not the first of June, not the first of July, and not the first of August or September. It is the first part of October, and we have yet to be able to get the unanimous consent to form that conference committee to work out a compromise on the budget. That is where we have fallen short. That is where we have fallen short.

We hear a lot about obstruction: The majority leader or the President won't let us work with the Republicans on these piecemeal approaches. For everybody here--and I love Dan Coats--but for everybody here in the Senate, we could all come up with our list of four. We could come up with a list of 14 priorities. If you multiply that by 100, that would be 1,400 priorities that ought to be in all this piece work, these piecemeal changes we are going to make to the spending for the next couple of weeks or next couple of months.

Why don't we just do this. Why don't we agree to what the Speaker of the House agreed to, and that is a spending level for a short period of time--a continuing resolution, a spending plan, for a short period of time--not for the whole year. In this case, we have been talking about a continuing resolution, a short-term spending bill, that runs about 45 days, until maybe the middle of November.

The level of that spending, we can argue about that. But what we ended up doing is, our leader, Harry Reid, talking to John Boehner, Speaker of the House--and he has a tough job. None of these jobs are easy, but they have really tough jobs. But our leader said to the Speaker: What would be a level of spending for those 45 days or 60 days for the short-term spending bill? What level of spending works for you? My understanding is the Speaker vetted that with his folks over there and they came back and said: How about using the level of spending we are at for the last fiscal year, for 2013, and to fund for those 45 or 60 days whatever is covered by the continuing resolution, funded at that level for that period of time?

That is not our level. The Democratic level, to be honest, is not $986 billion, which is last year's level for discretionary spending. We were more interested in something like, I would say not $986 billion but about $1.05 trillion, something like that. Something like that, in trillion dollars.

So about another $70 billion--that was our number. The House had their number. We agreed to the House number. We said: OK, we agree on the number. Now let's figure out how long we are going to fund the government at the same level as last year.

Then the ship ran aground.

Our friends over in the House said: That is not enough. We also want to defund Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act.

This is not like a proposed bill, this is a law. I was here in the Finance Committee when we debated it, amended it, argued it, reported it out, and here when we voted on it and then the President signed it. It is law. The President ran for reelection on this and was reelected. We pretend it was a landslide reelection. The electoral vote was fairly big, but it was a reasonably close election. But he won, and he won fair and square. When you look at the Electoral College, he won by quite a bit.

It has been litigated in the courts. The Supreme Court looked at the one area that some people think is unconstitutional; that is, the idea of having a so-called individual mandate. They said it is constitutional. Where did we get the idea? We got it from Massachusetts. And who was the Governor that signed the Massachusetts law into effect? The Republican Presidential nominee, who then turned around and ran away from his own idea in the Presidential election last year. I think there is some irony to that.

Then, on October 1, this week, what happened? I think some good news happened, and the good news is there are 40 million people in our country who didn't have health care who had a chance to sign up for something new and different. It is not socialism, it is not communism, it is not government-run health care. It is a Republican idea called the exchange, the health marketplace. And my understanding is that when HillaryCare was discarded in the early part the Clinton administration, the Republican counterproposal to HillaryCare was something like a large purchasing pool, which in the health care exchange we call the marketplace today.

On October 1, all over this country 40 million people who didn't have health care coverage had a chance to start signing up for health care in a large purchasing pool in their State, with a variety of options, health insurance companies competing with each other, driving down costs--in my State, tens of thousands of people; States like Wisconsin, probably hundreds of thousands of people; other States like North Dakota, tens of thousands of people; but States like New York and California, millions of people who don't have health care coverage have a chance to sign up there and take advantage of

driving down the price--competition among insurers--and also taking advantage of economies of scale, driving down administrative costs as a percentage of premiums.

To buy health insurance in Delaware for families or maybe small businesses with five employees--we would pay a whole lot more money than folks are going to pay on these exchanges, these large purchasing pools. For one thing, the administrative costs are so high when you buy for yourself or a small business; however, when you are buying health insurance for tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions of people, administrative costs are much lower. Competitive forces bring down the prices as well.

Our friends in the other party want to pull the plug on the efforts of 40 million people to find health care coverage for themselves. I think that is wrong. It is the law of the land. It is a done deal. It has been litigated. It is going to be with us. And I think some of our Republican friends are not afraid that it is not going to work; I think maybe they are concerned that it is going to work and it is going to actually meet the needs of people.

Abraham Lincoln, when talking about the role of government, would say: The role of government is to do for people what they cannot do for themselves.

The chamber of commerce in Sussex County in southern Delaware--a rural area--tried to set up a purchasing pool and couldn't do it. They tried it 10 years ago.

Another guy, David Osborne, in the book ``Reinventing Government,'' described the role of government and said the role of government is to steer the boat, not row the boat. And the exchanges are really that. The idea is to create large purchasing pools, a partnership between the State and the Federal Government in many States, Delaware and others, but to then let the private sector do its job. These are great examples of government steering the boat and the private sector and other providers rowing the boat.

I would like to close with this: People say we ought to change ObamaCare, we ought to change the Affordable Care Act, make significant changes to it. I agree. And the President already made one big change 1 month or so ago when he announced that the employer mandate was going to be delayed for a whole year to give us a chance to stand up the exchanges, make sure they are working, and then to revisit this issue of the employer mandate. The coverage, if you have more than 50 employees--a year from now it will be more than 100 employees they have to cover, I think, but at least more than 50.

Some people say we have to change it right now. I want to go back in time 6, 8 years. We debated on this floor the issue of prescription drugs. Should we have a prescription drug program for Medicare? Most people said we should have had it when we created Medicare in 1965. If we could have done as much then with pharmaceuticals as we can do now, it would have been a no-brainer. Prescription drug coverage would have been part of Medicare since its inception. But it wasn't until about 2005 that we actually got to a place where we had some agreement that this is what we ought to do. Ted Kennedy and the Democrats had one idea how to do it, and some of our Republican friends--certainly President Bush--had another one. We ended up with sort of a hybrid--a little more like President George W. Bush's idea--and a lot of our Democrats objected. They didn't say: We are going to shut down the government because we didn't get our way or because we didn't get our specific prescription drug program. They said: Why don't we figure out how to make it better?

Almost everybody has heard of the doughnut hole with respect to the Medicare prescription drug program. The way the original program worked is the first $2,000 of pharmaceuticals for a person in Medicare Part D--Medicare paid about 75 percent of the cost. If they used over $6,000 of prescription medicine a year, Medicare paid about 95 percent of the cost, everything over $6,000. But roughly between $3,000 and $6,000-- when the program was introduced and for its first half dozen or so years, if you were between $3,000 and $6,000 roughly in prescription medicine purchases, you got nothing from Medicare. It was all on you.

When we did the Affordable Care Act, as our friends from Rhode Island and North Dakota know, we started filling the doughnut hole. Now, if you happen to be in that gap between $3,000 and $6,000, Medicare pays over half and will eventually pay 75 percent. That is the way we took a good program--Medicare Part D--and we made it better, and we can do that with the Affordable Care Act, and we will.

For our Republican friends, our friend Winston Churchill once had a great quote. He used to say: You can always count on Americans to do the right thing in the end, after they have tried everything else.

This is a tough time. I feel especially bad for those Federal employees across the country who have been furloughed. We are going to bring you back, I hope, this month. My hope and belief is that we will bring you back and make sure you are made financially whole.

I say to my Republican colleagues, the next time, whether it is John McCain or Patty Murray or somebody else who asks unanimous consent to go to conference and work out a real budget agreement, don't object. Let's accept that and get on with the work that lies ahead.

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

Madam President, I rise in support of the legislation coauthored by Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman, the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act. I wish to take a minute to thank them for their leadership and for their tenacity in getting this bill to the floor, struggling through all of the amendments that are being offered to it, trying to make sure we figure out how we can actually save some energy, save some money, and do some good for our environment.

I thank the Senator from New Hampshire very much. It is always a pleasure to work with a recovering Governor. We will see where this ends. I hope it ends in a good place. As our economy picks up and our Nation's energy needs grow, investing in energy efficiency is a no- brainer.

Energy efficiency investments save money, save money in energy costs,

save energy resources, protect our environment, and create jobs.

Homeowners and businesses are already investing in energy-efficient technologies. As an extra bonus, many of these technologies are developed right here--not here in Washington but right here in America. Earlier this month I visited a company called WhiteOptics, and they are producing advanced light bulb technology. When it is used, it can deliver more light than traditional fluorescent bulbs for half the energy. Think about that, more light for half the energy. The payback for that technology is not just less than a decade, not less than 5 years, it is less than 1 year.

Since the cost of lighting can comprise up to 50 percent of a manufacturer's energy bill, it is a relatively easy and inexpensive way to save money and, as it turns out, a lot of money. Through investments in advanced light bulbs, light technology, and other energy efficiency measures, our country has the potential to save as much as 40 gigawatts of power by 2018.

How much is 40 gigawatts? Think of 80 coal-powered plants, all of them going full blast, is about 40 gigawatts.

Unfortunately, barriers such as upfront costs and inadequate efficiency standards are preventing our country from realizing our energy efficiency potential. The Shaheen-Portman bill breaks down many of these barriers. Again, I think voting for it is a no-brainer.

As an added bonus, the legislation before us will help us rein in Federal spending too, because it includes provisions that will reduce Uncle Sam's energy consumption from across the country and around the world.

To illustrate that point, let me use an example from the world of sports. Similar to a lot of Americans, I spent some time the past two weekends watching some terrific football games. But on Labor Day I took the 12-year-old boy I mentor and his twin sister to see the final game of the season of the Wilmington Blue Rocks, a Single-A team, Minor League team that played in the Carolina League.

It turned out to be a very good game. One of the highlights again-- the Presiding Officer is from Massachusetts and the prime sponsor of the bill is from New Hampshire. My guess is they are Red Sox fans, and we used to be a farm club for the Red Sox. Now we have a farm club of the Royals, but the minor league game we went to was terrific.

One of the highlights occurred when the Blue Rocks came close to pulling off a triple play. You don't see that very much. It is very rarely seen and done in the majors, much less in the minors.

While our Blue Rocks came close to pulling off a triple play that day, our Federal Government can actually pull one off, at least figuratively speaking, by reducing the amount of energy we consume every year in the Federal Government.

Here is how we do it. First, you cut down on the carbon and the air pollution that is going into the air and we thus improve American's health.

Second, we cut down on Federal spending. The deficit is down--what did we hear at lunch today--about $1.4 trillion 4 years ago. We are down to something under $700 billion now.

It is still too much, but we have seen the deficit come down by over half, and this can help bring it down a bit further.

The third point is we can cut down unemployment by creating good American jobs to produce, install, and to maintain the energy that is needed for energy efficiency technology, a lot of which I said earlier is made right here in the USA. We are not talking minor leagues here either, at least in terms of savings. This is big league stuff.

The annual energy bill for the Federal Government is around $25 billion. I think the Federal Government is the largest consumer of electricity in the country. Of that, some $7 billion alone is spent on energy to operate Federal buildings, $7 billion just for the buildings alone.

Last Congress, my colleague from Delaware, Senator Chris Coons, and our colleague Sheldon Whitehouse--from another small State--and I tried to pull off a triple play of our own. We produced a bill that was called the Reducing Federal Energy Dollars Act. It focused like a laser on greening down Federal energy costs.

Today we are happy to see that many of its provisions have been incorporated in the Shaheen-Portman bill. If we pass it, we could pull off that triple play after all.

One of those provisions takes what works and seeks to ensure we do more. Here is just one example. Not too long ago the Veterans Affairs Department, which runs the VA for us, mandated that employees turn off their computers at the end of the workday. This is not the whole Federal Government. This is one department of the Federal Government, the VA.

The agency also began acquiring more energy-efficient computers and software. Combined, the Department plans to save about $32 million over the next 5 years--$32 million. This is not too shabby. Again, that is just one Federal department. The bill before us calls on all agencies to adopt these kinds of energy and cost-saving techniques.

Another provision included in the Shaheen-Portman legislation adopted from our earlier legislation ensures that we build Federal buildings with some of the most energy-efficient technology that is available. These are buildings that will be with us for not just a couple of years, maybe not just for a couple of decades, they could be here a whole lot longer.

They could be around when all of these pages down here are dead and gone. We still have these Federal buildings. They can still be energy efficient, but if we build them wrong, they will never be energy efficient. Maybe so. This is a chance to get it right from the start.

Overall, the Shaheen-Portman bill makes major strides in promoting Federal energy efficiency. I wish to applaud its authors, both of whom I have huge respect, love and affection for, especially my former colleague in the National Governors Association.

However, there is a small provision in the bill that was overlooked and one that, if added, could make possible even greater gains. I will talk about that for a minute.

Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress overlooked geothermal as a renewable for the purposes of Federal energy requirements. Renewable thermal energy is clean, it is efficient, and it is often more cost-effective than electric energy.

This is why I have joined a colleague, Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma, in offering amendment No. 1851--if you are keeping score--which allows geothermal to be considered a renewable energy for Federal requirements. Our amendment gives Federal agencies another valuable option as they consider the most cost-effective way to meet their energy needs and obligations. It is another option.

I again wish to thank our chair and ranking member of the energy committee, as well as the sponsors of this bill, the authors of this bill, in support of our amendment.

Before I close, there is something I have to get off my chest. This is a bipartisan bill. This is a bill that seeks to do a number of things I said earlier. This is a bill that tries to reduce our energy consumption in this country, especially the energy consumption of the energy consumed in the Federal Government.

This is legislation that tries to do some good things for the environment. This is legislation that helps to further reduce our budget deficits. It helps keep them coming down.

This is a bill that has bipartisan support and does so much good. People offer amendments to this bill, hopefully, that are germane amendments. Let's debate them and have a chance to vote on them, up or down, but let's do it and let's move on. Let's not be dilatory. Let's not just offer amendments that have nothing to do with this legislation. Let's address some real problems--not just address them, but let's solve them. Let's solve them. And we can do that.

We have plenty of work to do on this front. I wish to see us do it. We will be a lot more successful in this regard if we work together to foster what I call a culture of thrift.

We need to look at everything we do in this government that has discretion and will probably get a better result for less money. One of the ways is how do we provide energy for Federal buildings and for Federal employees to use in the work we do for our taxpayers--

how do we get a better result for less money or the same amount of money.

Almost everything needs to be on the table if we are to continue to whittle down the size of our Federal budget and restore our Nation's fiscal challenge for my children, for our children, and for our grandchildren. I think if we accomplish this while at the same time creating some well-paying jobs at home and save energy, we will come close to completing that triple play that the Wilmington Blue Rocks came very close to pulling off a couple of weekends ago.

In doing so, we will give something for our fans--there are not a lot of them these days--to talk about for seasons to come.

The last thing I wish to say is this. One of the amendments that is offered, maybe a couple of the amendments offered to this bill have to do with health care.

I serve on the Finance Committee and worked a fair amount on the Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare. The heart and soul of the Affordable Care Act, as far as I am concerned, is the creation of the health exchanges, Federal exchanges, or they call them marketplaces. The idea is to let everybody in this country--not everybody but a lot of people in this country who don't have health care coverage or who have paid an arm and a leg for it--have the opportunity to participate in a large purchasing pool in their own State.

We have something such as the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan that all Federal employees, Federal retirees, including legislators, Members of the legislative branch, judges, folks throughout the country, Federal retirees, their dependents, postal employees, postal retirees, their dependents, everybody who wants to purchase their health insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan can do that. It is up to about 7 million or so people. We don't have that many Federal employees, but there are a lot of people who use that plan to buy their health insurance. It is not free. It is not cheap.

One of the things that helped drive down the cost is every health insurance company worth their salt in this country wants to sell through this large purchasing pool, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan purchasing pool. Because of the large size, the economies of scale, the administrative costs to those who get their insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, the administrative costs are not 30 percent of premiums, they are not 20 percent of premiums, they are not 10 percent of premiums--they are 3 percent of premiums.

What we do with the Affordable Care Act is we allow every State to set up a health care exchange, a large purchasing pool, also called health insurance marketplaces. If you are an individual, if you have a family, a small- or medium-sized business up to 50 employees, you can buy your health insurance through the exchange in the health insurance marketplace in your State.

One of the stipulations--I am not sure who authored it, but I am pretty sure it is a Republican member of the Senate Finance Committee. It may have been Senator Grassley. Somebody authored an amendment that required and said if these exchanges are such a great idea, why don't we require us, Members of Congress, and our staffs to buy our health insurance through the exchanges? If that is such a great idea, why don't we too? That is what the legislation says.

We don't get our health insurance free. Members, our staff, folks who work for the Federal Government, we don't get it free. We have to pay a percentage of our premiums.

Most large employers pay something. The employer contribution, the average is about 70 percent. The Federal Government pays about 70 percent of our health insurance premiums. We have to pay the rest.

I think for us to set an example, I think the kind of example we should set would be if we set up these health insurance exchanges, why don't we participate in them. We are going to.

Some people think we get free health care. Some people think we get a pension after 2, 4 or 6 years. People see this stuff on the Internet and they believe it. It is not true.

We say in the Navy if you want to find out the truth, ask for the straight skinny. That is what you call it in the Navy, the straight skinny. Tell me the straight skinny. Give it to me straight.

The great skinny is these health exchanges are a very important component of the Affordable Care Act. Every State will have an opportunity to set them up. Individuals, families, small- and middle- sized businesses will have an opportunity to participate. They will get better options to choose from. In the end, I think we will get better prices and they will be better off. Small businesses that participate, small- and middle-sized businesses will be better off as well.

The last word, speaking of the truth, the words of Thomas Jefferson come to mind. Thomas Jefferson said a lot of great things, but one of my favorite things he said was if the people know the truth, they will not make a mistake. If the American people know the truth, they will not make a mistake.

Our job is to make sure they know the truth about the Affordable Care Act, the kinds of options and opportunity they can find through these exchanges and through these health marketplaces across the country. Let's stick to the truth.

In closing, the truth is this bill that is before us shouldn't be a vehicle for health care reform, getting rid of it or expanding health care reform; this should be a roadmap to help us save money, clean our environment, preserve energy, reduce energy, and foster American technology. That is great. That is not a triple play. If they had four outs in an inning, there would be four of them.

Senator Shaheen--Senator Portman is not with us--my hat is off to both of them. Thank you for leading the way. We are happy to be, as we say in NASCAR, drafting on you, and hopefully we will draft right across that finish line with you.

Thank you very much.

Reclaiming my time for a moment--and I note Senator Angus King is patiently sitting over there waiting to speak--I said earlier the cleanest, most affordable form of energy is the energy we never use. The cleanest, most affordable form of energy is the energy we never use. Whoever said that first was a wise man or woman. That is the case here, and so I

thank Senator Shaheen for leading us toward that goal.

Madam President, most of our colleagues have finished, a lot of them packed up and are heading back to their home States to begin the August recess. I wish them all well, especially the one who just preceded me on the floor tonight.

I stand between the staff here and the pages who are wrapping up their summer with us--at least a month with us. They will be heading back to their home States across America. We had one of our pages--a page, actually, in the last group, at the beginning of the summer--from Delaware, and we are very proud of her and all the ones who have been here. I have told them they are among the best group we have ever had-- even that guy from Arkansas, whose mom used to sit right down here in the row next to Mark Pryor and me.

I thank the staff for their hard work throughout the course of this year. I think we are in a good place, and the Senate is starting to act more like the Senate of old. We are beginning to govern a little more from the center, and Democrats and Republicans are looking to find new ways to work together on a wide range of issues.

I am especially pleased with the progress we made on the Federal student loan program, again trying to make sure the program is available and at a reasonable interest rate cost to help make sure a lot of students, young and old, if they need help, can sign up for student loans late this summer and fall and then go back to school and complete their education.

Senator Enzi used the numbers 80-20. In the time I have known him, he has talked about the 80-20 rule, of which he may be the architect. The 80-20 rule is something like this: Around here, we agree on about 80 percent of the stuff and may disagree on about 20 percent of the stuff. But in the end, why don't we just focus on the 80 percent we agree on and set aside the 20 percent we don't agree on and then take that up another day?

That is the spirit Senator Tom Coburn, who is the ranking Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and I have taken to an issue that needs to be addressed, and that is a path forward in making sure we have a strong postal system in this country, as we have had for over 200 years. We need to have a strong, vibrant, financially strong, and sustainable postal system for a long time, for as long as we are going to be a country.

The nature of our needs and the way we communicate has changed dramatically. I remember finding in my parents' home, oh gosh, about 5 or 6 years ago, when, after my dad had died, my mom was going to move out of her home in Florida up close to my sister in Kentucky, this treasure trove of love letters my parents exchanged during World War II. For others of you whose parents have been in similar situations and whose folks were part of the ``greatest generation,'' you may have uncovered a treasure trove of letters like that as well. They wrote literally every day--just about every day through the war.

I remember that the happiest days I spent in Southeast Asia, in the several tours I served there in the early 1970s, the happiest days for us each week were the days we got the mail. Those were the best days-- letters from home, cards, postcards, newspapers, magazines. Those were great days.

Our troops in Afghanistan still get mail. They still get letters and postcards and birthday cards, Father's Day and Mother's Day cards, but it is different because they have Skype and cell phones and a lot of other ways to communicate.

I asked my staff recently to go back 12 years ago to when I first came here and tell me how many e-mails we got for every letter we sent--tell me how many e-mails we got for every letter we sent and received. It turns out for every 1 e-mail we received, we received 10 or 12 letters. That was just like 10 or 12 years ago. Then I asked them to tell me what it is today, and it has flipped. It is just the opposite. For every letter we get, we receive roughly 10 or 12 e-mails. So the way we communicate in this country has changed, and that is just one clear example of it for us here on Capitol Hill.

The Postal Service has struggled much like the U.S. auto industry did in the last decade or two to try to make a go of it. The auto industry found themselves in a situation where they had more plants than they needed, more suppliers than they needed, they had really in some ways more different models than they needed, and they had, sadly, more employees than they needed given their market share, which was about 85 percent when I was in Southeast Asia, and it dropped to about 45 percent 3 or 4 years ago. Fortunately, the auto industry in this country has revived, is vibrant, and is coming back. They are hiring and building cars--award-winning, highly energy efficient cars.

The auto industry was an industry that had to retool itself and right size itself for the 21st century, and they have done that and done it well. The big three in the United States are back and building some of the best cars in the world. We are proud of the work they do, and they are not only hiring people but are paying bonuses to their people, and it has turned out to be a really great success story. These were companies that were literally going into bankruptcy--GM, Chrysler--not that many years ago. They are back, and we are a better country. Thank God we helped them get back. And Ford builds great vehicles.

What do we do about the Postal Service? The Postal Service has about 7 million people working for it or who have jobs that are related or are connected directly or indirectly to the Postal Service--7 million jobs. What do we do about them?

I think what we need to do and are trying to do is contained in the legislation Dr. Coburn and I are introducing tonight, which we have worked on for the last 6 months. I really thank him and his staff, especially Chris Barkley, who is here on the floor with us, who has worked very closely and hard with John Kilvington, who is a member of the majority staff at the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

We want to thank a lot of people, Democratic and Republican staff, majority and minority staff, for the terrific work they have done to try to find the middle, to focus on that 80 percent we can agree on, and the 20 percent we can't agree on, we will put off until another day.

The legislation we have written, put simply, addresses how we make possible and ensure that this Postal Service--which was literally spelled out and called for in our Constitution all those years ago--is still relevant today; that it is able to be financially viable today and help meet our communication needs today in a different age, in a digital age. They can do this. They can do this. There is a lot in the legislation that will help make that possible.

We have not written a perfect bill. The ones I have ever written or coauthored or authored, believe it or not, are not perfect. We do our best, and then we introduce the legislation and ask other people who have similar or different views to tell us what they like about our legislation and what they do not like.

In introducing this legislation, we would invite folks from around the country, whether they happen to be residents, consumers, people living in homes, families who rely on the mail, whether they happen to be businesses that use the mail broadly or whether they happen to be folks who send out magazines or catalogs or other nonprofit groups or other folks who work for the Postal Service, the employees, those who are retired, the customers of the Postal Service--we welcome their input as they have a chance to look over what we have written. We ask them to see if they can help us make it better.

Over in the House of Representatives, Congressmen Issa and Cummings have been working, along with their colleagues, on legislation. It has been reported out of committee over there, I think on a party-line vote.

One of the things that was important to me was to write a bipartisan bill. Dr. Coburn wanted us to write a bipartisan bill. Neither one of us got everything we wanted. The nature of compromise is there are some things that, frankly, you are not all that enamored with, and that is the case here. Our pledge going forward is to continue to work together, to ask Democrats and Republicans to help us improve on this legislation.

The challenge for us is this: In a digital age where people use Skype and Internet and Twitter and all, how do we enable the Postal Service to use what is truly unique--and it is a unique company, if you will; it is a public-private company, although a big company, the second largest employer in the country, and it is a business that goes to every mailbox in this country 5 to 6 days a week--to make a profit, to be financially sustainable, and to meet our communication needs without a huge ongoing reliance from the taxpayer, from the Treasury, to do that? I think they can do it. I think they can do it. I think the legislation we have written will help make that possible.

I want to say a special thanks to a number of folks. I want to thank the Postal Service, led by Pat Donahoe, the Postmaster General; the Board of Governors there, which is part of the Postal Service: the folks who represent hundreds of thousands of postal workers through the union; the businesses across the country that use and rely on the Postal Service; and a lot of customers--regular people who have given us their ideas and shared their ideas with us from towns large and small, cities and States large and small. We

look forward to their input and their criticism--constructive, we hope--to make this legislation even better.

I would again say to our staffs who worked so hard to get us to this point a very special thank you.

To our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we look forward to working with you to make what we think is a good bill even better. I like to say that everything I do, I know I can do better. If it isn't perfect, make it better. And my last thought on this is that the road to improvement is always under construction.

So we have some more work to do, and we will take what is a good bipartisan bill and hopefully make it a lot better.

Madam President, with that, I will say good night to you. I look forward to seeing you in about 5 or 6 weeks. My best to you and the people you so ably represent in New Hampshire. God bless.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I think what I would like to do is try to set this discussion this afternoon in context if I can. One of the things I focus on a lot--I know the Presiding Officer does as well back in Delaware--is how do we create a nurturing environment for job creation and job preservation. I think that is one of the most important aspects of government. That is not the only one. One of the best things you can do to help people is make sure they have a job.

One of the ways to strengthen our economy is to make sure we are making smart investments with Federal, State, and local moneys as well as public funds. One of the ways we create that nurturing environment is to make sure we have a world-class workforce; that folks coming out of our high schools can read, write, think, do math, have science skills, technology skills, a good work ethic.

Other parts of the nurturing environment include access to capital; that is, to money, commonsense regulations, some certainty with respect to the Tax Code--a Tax Code that makes sense, is not burdensome--access to elected officials, modern infrastructure, broadly defined. Those are some of the elements.

But if we are going to be successful as a country in this century, we need to invest, among other places, in a world-class workforce, those kinds of skill sets. That is not just college, not just in postsecondary, it is almost from the cradle well into their lives.

A second area where it is important for us to invest is infrastructure, broadly defined: roads, highways, bridges, rail, ports, airports, water, wastewater, broadband deployed all across the country--those are the kinds of investments that will pay great dividends in the form of a stronger economy.

A third area we need to invest in is research and development. We were reminded by Dr. Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of Health, of the kind of impact sequestration is having on our abilities to invest in all kinds of health-related areas and pharmaceutical areas, medical areas. They are finding it difficult to make the kind of investments needed to be made. Part of what we need to do is invest in the kind of research that can be commercialized and turned into goods and products we can sell not just in America but all over the world.

That is sort of the context. In my view, in the end this is how we strengthen our economy, how do we grow the economic pie for our country and citizens.

Going back to the first item I mentioned is a world-class workforce. It doesn't start when people graduate from high school and go off to college, whether junior college or whether it is a certificate program. It is what we do before they ever go the to first grade, the kinds of investments that are made before kids ever go into kindergarten, at the age of 5 in most States.

But today's debate is on college loans. I will focus on that. Let me remind us, the investments we do not make in the lives of children when they

are young, before they ever go to kindergarten, can be demonstrated in Head Start. We only fund about half the kids in this country who are eligible for Head Start, only half. We fund roughly half the kids who are eligible for what is called title I, special education programs in our schools to make sure that, if they are way behind, they have a chance to at least catch up a little bit. We fund half the kids eligible.

Some of my colleagues said we should provide free college education for people; that should be our policy. We are not even meeting our obligation to fund Head Start for half the kids in the country, fund special education title I for half the kids in the country who are eligible. We have a $750 billion budget deficit this year. It is down from $1.4 trillion a couple of years ago, but it is large. It is going to come down for a while and then jump back up a number of years down the line.

I think for us the question is how do we get a better result for less money in almost everything we do. In a way college loans are the symptom of the problem but not the underlying problem. The underlying problem is less the Federal student loan program, it is more the cost of education, what we are spending. My wife and I put two boys through college in the last half dozen or so years and we have a pretty good idea of what it costs to go to school these days. They got a good education but, boy, it costs a whole lot. One of the things we need to be focused on when we have this debate is what can we do to make sure our young people get a good education but how do we make sure it is done in a cost-effective way.

There is some interesting work going on in places such as MIT, Harvard, Stanford, that I think is informing us all in that discussion.

Let's talk about the program before us today, the student loan program. For a number of years we set the rate cap at 6.8 percent and then during the great recession we lowered that cap so the top rate students would pay on their student loans, Federal student loans, was 3.4 percent. That period of time expired more than a year ago, June 30 of last year, and so the rate was supposed to pop back up to 6.8 percent where it had been previously as a cap on what could be charged to students.

June 30 a year ago we were not sure what to do and we said let's kick the can down the road and put it off a year, the date of decision, and we will decide by June 30, 2013, what the new policy should be. We got here on June 30, 2013, and some were willing to kick the can down the road for another year and deal with it then.

The President said we cannot do that. We can't keep doing that. The President said we need to put in place a policy, a commonsense policy that is fiscally responsible but also that is morally responsible to the least of these in our society. I think we have both a fiscal imperative here, given the large deficits we face, and we have a moral imperative here to make sure the least of those in our society have a chance to have the ability to go to college and get a college education--be more productive in our society.

A lot is being said about the different rates.

There are two numbers we ought to keep in mind. People have said that in years to come interest rates will go up. I suspect they probably will go up since they are pretty low at this time, but we don't know. We have had Senators come to the floor and say the interest rates will be this amount or that amount. Who knows. We don't know.

What we do know is that under the current law right now and unless we pass something and get bipartisan support as well as the support of the President, the interest rate is going to be 6.8 percent for some time. If we adopt the bipartisan proposal that a number of us are offering-- it is a tripartisan proposal, actually, with the support of the President--the rate for the student loans this year will not be 6.8 percent, it will be 3.86 percent.

If the student takes a loan this year, that rate doesn't go up. Even if interest rates go up, they will owe 3.86 percent on the loan that students take out this year. If they take out another loan in the following school year and the rate is 4.1 percent, or whatever that rate is, that is what they will pay on that second loan for the balance of the loan, whether it is 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, or 20 years.

As interest accrues on these student loans over the next 2, 3, and 4 years while someone is in school, a reasonable question to ask is: Who pays for the accrued interest? If the student is in school, as most of us have been, the interest accrues. In the past, we have had subsidized loans for low-income students and unsubsidized loans for those who have a higher income. For a number of years, the student who had the subsidized loan--the lower income student--would accrue interest on their loan for year 1, year 2, year 3, year 4, and year 5.

As for the subsidized student, the Federal Government has paid the accrued interest. Then when they graduate from school and walk away, they don't owe that interest. It has been paid for--forgiven, if you will.

For the unsubsidized higher income student, the Federal Government defers the interest, but eventually interest--eventually it has to be paid by the higher income student. We don't change that. We leave that in effect.

Who pays the accrued interest for the lower income students? The Federal Government. When they graduate school, then they have an obligation to pay that interest and the principal on their own.

As I have talked to my colleagues, I find that not everybody knows what I just mentioned about the lower rate. As far as the example I just gave, if the rate for the student loan taken out this fall is 3.86 percent and the next year the rate is 5 percent or 6 percent, the House let's the rate go up each year. A permanent, assigned rate would not be in effect when the loan is taken out.

Somebody graduates and they go to work. In this example, they find a job that pays $25,000. That is one person who has no spouse or kids. Let's say that person has $45,000 worth of debt. How much can they be compelled to pay in interest starting the year after they graduate? The answer is not $1,000 a month or $500 a month. The answer is $97 a month, and that is it. There is a mathematical formula where we take their income, less what the poverty level is for that person, multiplied by 0.15 percent. In this case it is $97 a month.

Then we have this example. Let's say Sally gets married, has a child, and has a family of three. Let's say the family of three is making $40,000 a year and they have $45,000 worth of loans. How much can they be compelled to pay in interest? Again, there are three people in the family with $45,000 in loans. How much can they be compelled to pay? It turns out to be about $120 a month. Not many people realize this is the law, and it is going to stay the law under the tripartisan proposal.

How about if somebody goes to work for the Federal Government or State government or local government or they go to work for a nonprofit and they do so at some sacrifice. Maybe they could make more money in the private sector, but they have this urge or compulsion for public service. After 10 years, their loan will be forgiven. If they are current on their loan, their loan will be forgiven after 10 years of public service. That has been the law and that would remain the law.

How about if they don't work in public service? What if they don't work for the State, local or Federal Government? What if they don't work for a nonprofit with a 501(c) designation? Let's say they are current on their loan. After 25 years, their loan is forgiven as well.

We can argue about the rate we use to determine what graduates, undergraduates or families would pay on their loan after the student graduates and whether it makes sense to peg or key that rate off the 10-year Treasury note. I think the 10-year Treasury the President has recommended is a reasonable place to begin.

Some have said we should use the Fed funds rate. What is the Fed funds rate? That is the rate that is charged overnight when one bank loans money to another bank overnight. Some people say that should be the rate. This is not an overnight loan from one financial institution to another, so I don't think the Fed funds rate is appropriate.

Some people said we should use a 90-day T-bill rate. This is not a 9- day loan. A 90-day T-bill rate may make

sense for credit card interest rates, but a 5-year, 10-year, 15-year, 25-year student loan, I don't know that a 90-day T-bill rate makes a lot of sense as the interest rate for us to use.

Some people have said: Why don't we use a rate that might be charged for a 3- or 4-year car loan? This is not a car loan that is collateralized with a car. This is not a 20-, 25-, or 30-year mortgage that is collateralized with a house. This is a long-term loan that is not collateralized.

What the President has said--and I and our bipartisan group agree--is that it makes sense to use a 10-year Treasury note and peg the rate off of that and add to that a modest fee--in this case close to 1.5 points--to make sure the program is soundly run and doesn't make the deficit larger.

We have heard about some large numbers assigned as to what this amounts to in terms of a transfer from students to the Federal Government. The President's original proposal had a very large amount, under his initial proposal, going from students to the Treasury, and he was going to use that money to pay for Pell grants. We would actually cover the cost of the Pell grant increases. We don't do that in our program.

What we tried to do is to take the very large transfer of money in the President's proposal to the Treasury and to change that and scale that down and come as close as we could to eliminating it. This is about a $1.2 trillion college loan program, and that is about as close as we could come to eliminating the transfer, if you will, from students to the government to about $600 million to $700 million. That is a lot of money, but out of $1.2 trillion, somebody told me it works out to $2.50 per student who is getting a loan. If we can bring it down to zero from $600 million or $700 million, that would be great.

Let me conclude with these thoughts: Should we have a Federal student loan program? I am sure some people think we shouldn't, but I think we should. Should it be one where we use the Government's purchasing power to make it possible for people to access credit so they can go to school? I think we should. Should we allow people to use the Federal money the Government borrows--should we let them have that money at below Government cost? When we do that, it makes the deficit go up and it makes us squeeze programs such as Head Start and the Title I Program. It is like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I think this is a good proposal. This proposal will use the Government's borrowing power and will be able to provide a lower-than- market rate for a lot of students. Students will be able to lock in the lower rate. It will then provide some help--with the Federal Government paying for the accrued interest--for the lower income students who have the subsidized loans. During the time they are in school, the Government picks it up, and they don't have to pay it back. It is covered by the Government.

This will make sure that when students graduate and get a job that doesn't pay a lot of money, there are significant limits on how much interest they can be compelled to pay in a year.

If somebody goes to work for the Federal Government, State government, local government, nonprofit or public service, after 10 years--if they are current on their loan--it is forgiven. For a person who doesn't go into public service but is current on their loan and still owes a ton of money after 25 years, their loan is forgiven. That is not heartless or unfair. I think it is pragmatic and reasonable. I think it makes sure we meet our fiscal obligation for the taxpayers. At the same time, we are meeting our moral obligation for those who need to borrow money to go to college.

I think there was a UC request--as I was beginning to speak--from a Senator from a State smaller than Delaware. I believe he had a unanimous consent request to speak immediately following my remarks.

I yield with great pleasure for my Army buddy, the Senator from Rhode Island, Jack Reed.