[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 17682-17696]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROTECTING VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS AND EMERGENCY RESPONDERS ACT OF 
                            2014--Continued

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                    Executive Action on Immigration

  Mr. LEE. As we all know, President Obama recently announced Executive 
action on immigration, what he refers to as deferred action, for 
millions of aliens who are here illegally but who have children who 
were born in the United States and by virtue of their birth in the 
United States are U.S. citizens.
  Now the President has repeatedly assured the American people that he 
is not creating a pathway to citizenship for those individuals, but 
that isn't true. He and his administration have cleared the pathway to 
citizenship for millions of people who have crossed into our borders 
illegally. They know that is what they have done, and it is illegal. 
Immigration law is quite complicated, but here is the bottom line on 
this issue: If you are the parent of a U.S. citizen, when that child 
reaches the age of 21, assuming you haven't committed certain crimes or 
done other things that might exclude you from what the law generally 
allows, you can get a green card and eventually you can get 
citizenship. But there is a catch. If you are in an illegal status 
inside the United States because you crossed into our borders illegally

[[Page 17683]]

and that is how you became an illegal alien--that is, you entered 
without inspection, as that term is known in immigration circles--then 
in order to get back on the path to citizenship you are first required 
under existing law to leave the country and then to come back across 
the border into the country legally. Because you broke immigration laws 
before you came into the country, the law says you have to wait either 
3 years or 10 years to return, depending on how long you were inside 
the country illegally before you left.
  When we talk about clearing the path to citizenship for this set of 
immigrants--that is those who are close relatives of U.S. citizens--
that is what we are talking about: getting around the rule that those 
who cross our border in secret must leave the country, wait a period of 
years outside the country because they broke our laws, and then return.
  So when the President says he isn't clearing such a path to 
citizenship, that is Washington shorthand for, don't worry, I am not 
circumventing the law.
  What stands between these people and citizenship is the need to enter 
the country lawfully, which they cannot do until they leave, wait a 
period of time that Congress has set by law, and then and only then 
come back. The President claims he is not touching this rule, but that 
is exactly what he is doing and exactly what he has done, and he is 
doing it through a program called advance parole. Advance parole is 
essentially a form of permission for an undocumented immigrant to 
travel outside the country and then return. When he gets back to the 
country and approaches the border, he presents an advance travel 
document to border officials and they will parole him into the country.
  What is more, the President has announced if you leave the country 
under a grant of advance parole, the administration will treat you as 
though you never left at all, waiving the 3-year to 10-year wait 
mandated by Congress for people who have come here unlawfully and then 
left the country.
  When that is done, as it turns out, the illegal immigrant will become 
eligible to take advantage of a different way to become a citizen: 
getting what is known as adjustment of status. Adjustment of status, 
which gives you a green card without having to leave the country, is 
available to parents of U.S. citizens so long as they crossed our 
border lawfully, which advanced parole lets them do.
  So how hard will it be to get advance parole, which leads to a green 
card, which in turn leads to citizenship? Well, it is supposed to be 
very hard. Parole is kind of a temporary emergency pass that lets 
someone into the country for an extremely urgent reason, even though 
the law says that an immigrant in that circumstance cannot be admitted 
for one reason or another.
  In fact, there is a Federal statute passed by Congress that restricts 
the power of the executive branch of the Federal Government to use 
parole to a very narrow, very confined set of circumstances. That law, 
INA section 212(d)(5)(a), says that the executive branch may parole 
individuals into the United States ``only on a case-by-case basis for 
urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.''
  That term ``urgent humanitarian reasons'' means conditions such as 
getting medical treatment or perhaps attending a funeral of a close 
family member. ``Significant public benefit'' usually means 
circumstances such as one being a witness in a crime and as such 
needing to come into the country to testify at trial.
  To be clear, it is illegal--illegal--to parole people into the 
country who don't meet that standard. But for deferred action 
recipients, here is the standard the President is using: A person 
warranting advance parole, which again also eventually leads to 
citizenship, must file a form I-131 with USCIS. The instructions for 
this form explain that deferred action recipients can get parole for 
``educational purposes, employment purposes or humanitarian purposes . 
. . ''
  I continue:

       Educational purposes include but are not limited to 
     semester abroad programs or academic research;
       Employment purposes include but are not limited to overseas 
     assignments, interviews, conferences, training or meetings 
     with clients. . . .
  In no universe is a meeting with a client or a conference an urgent 
humanitarian reason. Nowhere in the universe are those circumstances 
for a significant benefit to the American public.
  Imagine this scenario. Imagine that a foreign national approaches our 
border. The border officials ask the individual for a visa, and he 
says, oh, I don't have a visa, but I do have a business meeting in 
Denver. Can I come in, even though I don't have a visa? There is no 
doubt he would be turned away promptly. But for the new deferred action 
recipients under the President's Executive action plan, so long as you 
have a business meeting in Toronto or an overseas assignment in Buenos 
Aires, you can get permission to leave and be paroled back into the 
country immediately upon your return, along with the government's 
promise to ignore the 3-year or 10-year bar that is supposed to keep 
you out of the country. And once you do that, you can adjust your 
status and get a green card and eventually citizenship.
  How do I know this? Well, in 2010 the American Spectator published a 
leaked Department of Homeland Security memo, a version of which 
purportedly reached the Secretary of Homeland Security--then-Secretary 
Janet Napolitano--exploring the administration's options on 
immigration. That memo explicitly contemplated using parole as a way to 
sidestep Congress and give citizenship to illegal immigrants who are 
relatives to U.S. citizens.
  It says ``individuals could . . . be paroled into the U.S. for 
purposes of applying for adjustment of status to render immediate 
relatives of U.S. citizens eligible for parole, DHS could issue 
guidance establishing that family reunification constitutes a 
significant public benefit.''
  So let me be clear. Advance parole leads to citizenship for parents 
of U.S. citizens. The administration knows that, and they are giving 
advance parole for reasons such as client meetings that clearly violate 
Federal law.
  This is the danger of unilateral Executive action, drafted in secret 
and announced to the American people as a fait accompli. In our system, 
policies are debated in the legislature and their consequences need to 
be explored through debate. Here, the President's action has avoided 
that constitutional lawmaking process, but it has also broken existing 
laws passed by Congress.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                    Serving as President Pro Tempore

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have been in the Senate just a few 
weeks shy of 40 years. For the past 2 years I have had the distinct 
honor of serving this Chamber as the President pro tempore. Just four 
Senators from Vermont have held this title. I am the first in more than 
a century.
  It has been among my greatest privileges to represent Vermont in the 
U.S. Senate, something I dreamed about as a child, and it has been day 
after day after day a privilege to represent my very special State of 
Vermont in this body.
  It has also been an honor and privilege to serve as the President pro 
tempore in this institution, the U.S. Senate. This is an institution 
for which I will always have the greatest respect and affection.
  When I assumed the position of President pro tempore, something I had 
not realized would happen, Marcelle and I welcomed into our family over 
time nearly 20 invaluable members of the U.S. Capitol Police. As 
President pro tempore and third in the line of succession, the office 
comes with a security detail. It is not something I had asked for. In 
fact, I said, well, I don't really need that, and they said: You don't 
get any choice in the matter.
  I got to know them well. I had a background in law enforcement before 
I came to the Senate, but I have never served with such professionals 
as those who comprise this team. They sacrifice time at home. They 
sacrifice time with their families and weekends and holidays. I could 
not be more grateful for their dedication to public service and

[[Page 17684]]

for their professionalism and good nature. They are an example of what 
the best in law enforcement should be.
  The U.S. Capitol should be very proud of our U.S. Capitol Police and 
especially of those who are in this unique dignitary protection 
division. Those who serve on such details are trained to blend into the 
background. You might forget they are there, but they are, and they 
miss nothing. When I try to give them credit for the work they do, they 
say: Well, that is just our job. It is a lot more than their job. It is 
true professionalism and it is something that makes everybody in law 
enforcement and should make everybody in the U.S. Senate proud.
  I want to recognize their commitment and acknowledge their service. 
The members of this detail include Sergeant David Rib, Thomas Andriko, 
Henry Smith, Shane Powell, Eric Boggs, Robert Schultz, Antonio 
Carofano, Amy McDaniel, John Jastrzebski, Ryan Rayball, Ryan Andrews, 
Jay Schmid, Austin Reinshuttle, Sean Keating, Anthony Ravenel, Gideon 
Maran, John Brito, Luis Pimentel, Jose Ramirez, Jr., Robert Leh, James 
Melenson, Edward Wojciechowski, and Marc DeJames, who recently retired.
  Next year when Congress reconvenes, we will elect a new President pro 
tempore, my friend Senator Orrin Hatch. I will continue as dean of the 
Senate, and a future President pro tempore emeritus. I wish Orrin Hatch 
the best, and I know he is going to be in safe hands with the dedicated 
members of the President pro tempore's security detail.
  Again, having served in law enforcement, having considered that a 
very significant part of my career, I have never seen more professional 
police officers than these men and women. Every one of us as Senators 
should be glad they are there.
  Madam President, on another matter, after 9 months of hearings and 
briefings, many long days and nights of negotiations, this past weekend 
the Appropriations Committee completed work on the fiscal year 2015 
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act.
  Earlier this year many of us came to the floor and praised Chairwoman 
Mikulski for her heroic efforts to pass the fiscal year 2014 omnibus. 
While many in Washington thought that feat could not be repeated 2 
years in a row, as the most senior Member of the Appropriations 
Committee I knew she would prove them wrong, and she did. Chairwoman 
Mikulski rallied her 12 subcommittees and reached across the aisle to 
negotiate this omnibus and avoid another shutdown. Without her, this 
would not have been possible.
  Similar to Chairwoman Mikulski, my friend Senator Shelby from 
Alabama, the committee's vice chairman, also deserves a great deal of 
praise for the role he played. Without Senator Shelby's recognition of 
the importance of passing appropriations bills rather than continuing 
to fund the government on autopilot, we would not have reached this 
point.
  As chairman of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and 
Related Programs Subcommittee, I also wish to thank the ranking member, 
Lindsey Graham, chairwoman Kay Granger, and ranking member Nita Lowey 
in the other body. They were always able partners, whose wealth of 
experience--I will emphasize that--wealth of experience is invaluable 
to the subcommittee's work, and it is reflected throughout the final 
agreement.
  I look forward to working with the incoming subcommittee chairman 
Lindsey Graham next year to continue to fund the diplomacy and foreign 
aid programs that are essential to protecting U.S. interests around the 
world in a manner that reflects American values.
  The State, Foreign Operations portion of this omnibus was negotiated 
with the full participation of representatives of both parties in both 
Houses of Congress as a balanced, bipartisan bill. Every word was 
discussed and agreed to by Republicans and Democrats, and our 
respective subcommittee bills have been publicly available since they 
were reported out of committee in June.
  My Democratic clerk of the subcommittee, Tim Rieser, made sure 
everybody in both parties were kept apprised of everything we did. I 
want to thank him, Janet Stormes and Alex Carnes of the Democratic 
staff, as well as Paul Grove, the Republican clerk, and Adam Yezerski 
of the Republican staff. They all played an essential role.
  Others who were indispensable and deserve our thanks are Valerie 
Hutton, Celina Inman, Elmer Barnes, and Penny Myles of the editorial 
and printing office, who worked long hours to produce draft after draft 
of the bill. They do an outstanding job.
  Division J of this omnibus for the Department of State and Foreign 
Operations provides a total of $51.8 billion in discretionary budget 
authority to protect U.S. security, humanitarian, and economic 
interests around the world.
  Anybody who doubts that these funds are important should think about 
the devastation being wrought by ISIL in Syria and Iraq and its impact 
on neighboring Lebanon and Jordan, in addition to what is happening in 
the Central African Republic, South Sudan, and other areas where 
hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced by ethnic and 
tribal violence. Part of this funding will support aid for refugees and 
other victims of disasters, and we provide $1.5 billion above the 
budget request. The bill also includes additional funds to help Ukraine 
and other former Soviet republics counter Russian aggression.
  It provides $2.5 billion in emergency funding to respond to the Ebola 
epidemic, which reminds us all that a deadly virus is often only one 
airplane trip away from our shores.
  The bill includes full funding for diplomatic security, which 
unfortunately we need today.
  As far as U.N. peacekeeping, the bill provides funding and 
authorities to fully meet our commitments.
  It includes an increase above the budget request for PEPFAR and other 
global health programs, which I was very pleased about considering that 
those increases did not require cuts to other critical programs.
  The bill includes additional funding for educational and cultural 
exchanges. It provides funding to address the gang violence and poverty 
that contribute to the migration of unaccompanied children from Central 
America. That problem ebbs and flows but cannot be ignored. We have 
seen the flood of young children across our southern border, risking 
their lives rather than staying and being attacked and raped in their 
own country, or forced into gangs and made to shoot and kill and rob.
  I am very pleased we were able to include the amounts requested for 
programs to protect biodiversity and tropical forests, support clean 
energy and reduce global warming, combat wildlife poaching and 
trafficking. These are important national security issues.
  I am also pleased that provisions relating to our commitments to the 
international financial institutions, particularly relating to 
evaluations, beneficial ownership, human rights, industrial-scale 
logging, and financing for large dams, were included. I look forward to 
discussing them with the Treasury Department, State, and USAID.
  The provisions relating to a Small Grants Program to provide small, 
multi-year USAID grants to small entities, timely feedback from 
beneficiaries of humanitarian assistance, and reforms to provide 
incentives for Foreign Service Officers to support sustainable, 
locally-driven development, are also important.
  There is a lot more in this bill to support friends and allies so 
they can combat disease, hunger, poverty, strengthen the rule of law, 
and protect human rights. These are all programs that are directly 
linked to our national security. They fulfill our moral obligation as 
Americans, as members of the wealthiest, most powerful Nation on Earth.
  There are some things that I wish were not included, particularly a 
House provision carried from last year that would weaken limits on 
carbon emissions from projects financed by the Export-Import Bank and 
Overseas Private Investment Corporation. Our European

[[Page 17685]]

partners are wisely ending public subsidies for coal in favor of 
cleaner, healthier, renewable energy, but the House continues to block 
such progress here.
  I am very disappointed the Senate provision to bring the United 
States into compliance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 
was rejected again this year by the House. The Bush administration 
spoke of the necessity of this, as has the Obama administration.
  Mr. President, no bill is perfect, and this one is no exception. But 
the State, Foreign Operations portion of the omnibus is a whole lot 
better than a continuing resolution that ignores the changing global 
realities and challenges we face.
  It was a collaborative effort from beginning to end with Republicans 
and Democrats alike, and it should be supported overwhelmingly.
  I see my friend, the distinguished senior Senator from Texas on the 
floor seeking recognition, so I will yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. It is good to see the senior Senator from Vermont back 
and in good health. I know he has been struggling a little bit with 
this crazy weather we are having, and we are glad to see him back.
  On November 5, 2009, a radical jihadist, by the name of Nidal Hasan, 
who happened to also be a major in the U.S. Army, opened fire at Fort 
Hood, TX, claiming the lives of 12 U.S. soldiers, one civilian, one 
unborn child, and wounded more than 30 other people. It was a shocking 
tragedy and event.
  Shortly after the attack, it became clear that Hasan was motivated by 
the same poisonous ideology that spurred the attacks on September 11, 
2001; in other words, this was an act of domestic terrorism. Yet due to 
the narrow and outdated definition of ``international terrorism,'' the 
Fort Hood victims have not been awarded the same medals and recognition 
as other military victims of terrorism.
  Furthermore, the Obama administration took the position of claiming 
that the 2009 Fort Hood victims were not eligible for Purple Hearts 
because this was workplace violence--believe it or not. They further 
said they didn't think Hasan was acting under the explicit direction of 
a foreign terrorist group, so they were not qualified for these Purple 
Hearts and this recognition.
  When our men and women in uniform come under hostile fire from a 
terrorist, they and their families should receive the full honors and 
full recognition and benefits that accompany such courageous service. 
That is why I have authored legislation in the Senate making these 
victims of the November 2009 attack at Fort Hood eligible to receive 
the Purple Heart or the civilian equivalent.
  Last week I was pleased that the House of Representatives passed the 
Defense authorization bill, which includes the legislation I authored 
awarding Purple Hearts to victims of this terrorist attack.
  I wish to thank my good friends Congressmen Williams and Carter for 
their steadfast dedication to seeing this to conclusion and to 
fruition.
  While long overdue, this is welcome news to the wounded, the families 
of the fallen, and the entire Fort Hood community, because even after 5 
years, the wounds from this horrific attack are still there, especially 
for the families of people such as Michael Cahill, a civilian 
physician's assistant and retired soldier, and Army CPT John Gaffaney, 
both of whom charged the shooter and sacrificed their lives to save 
others around them.
  The close-knit community at Fort Hood has endured great loss in 
recent years, and I am pleased we are now just one step closer to 
delivering this important piece of justice to the victims and their 
families. It is my hope that once the Defense authorization bill clears 
this Chamber, that the President will act quickly in signing this 
legislation into law because any further delay is a continuing 
injustice to all of the victims from that day and indeed all of the 
good people at Fort Hood.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.


                         Farewell To The Senate

  Mrs. HAGAN. Madam President, it is with great honor and gratitude 
that I rise to reflect on the last 6 years, which have been some of the 
most rewarding and transformative of my life, and to thank the people 
who have been by my side as we worked to make our great State and this 
great country even better.
  First and foremost, I wish to thank the people of North Carolina for 
allowing me to serve them in the Senate. Six years ago you sent me to 
Washington to fight for the priorities that make our State great, and I 
have put North Carolina first every single day. I have been honored to 
stand up for our teachers, our students, to fight for our seniors, to 
help create a business climate that promotes job growth, to build an 
economy that works for everyone, and to make sure we keep our promises 
to our servicemembers and to our veterans.
  I am extremely proud of what we have been able to accomplish, and I 
am forever humbled and grateful for the opportunity to serve.
  I also wish to thank my family; my husband Chip, who is my rock, and 
my three children, Jeanette, Tilden, and Carrie, and my two great sons-
in-law, Will and Martin.
  These past 6 years have been extremely full of exciting milestones 
for the Hagan family. Since my term began, my two daughters have both 
gotten married and they both had babies. I have a 1-year-old grandson 
Harrison and a 1-week-old granddaughter Christine. So when I said 
earlier that these past 6 years have been transformative, I wasn't 
kidding.
  I also wish to thank my dad Joe Ruthven, who is one of my most 
trusted advisers and a constant source of inspiration for me, as is his 
wife Judy, my stepmom, for all of her love and support.
  I wish to thank the Capitol Police here in Washington. I don't think 
we recognize these people enough for the incredible work they do to 
keep us safe.
  And, of course, I wish to thank my unbelievably hard-working staff 
whom I consider to be a part of the official Hagan family. These folks 
are topnotch. Their commitment to our State and the people we serve is 
unmatched. They are passionate and compassionate, and I am so grateful 
to have had them by my side over these last 6 years. I ask unanimous 
consent that a list of their names be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     Staff of Senator Kay R. Hagan

       Michelle Adams, Ayo Adeyeye, Tyler Aiken, Natalia Aldana, 
     Stephanie Allen, Patrick Ayers, Devan Barber, Micah Beasley, 
     Caroline Brantley, Patrick Brennan, Nancy Brenner, Emorie 
     Broemel, Christopher Cannon, Angelo Caravano, Bess Caughran, 
     Marshall Cesena, Justin Clayton, Molly Conti, Carrie Cook, 
     Perrin Cooke, Travis Cooke, Ashley Copeland, Kathryn 
     Davidson, Curtis Davis, Andrew Devlin, Sage Dunston, Ashley 
     Eden, Brittany Ellis, Karen Evans.
       John Fain, Elizabeth Farrar, Sharon Fisher, Colleen 
     Flanagan, Margaret Freshwater, Amanda Gabriel, Tiffany 
     Germain, Jennifer Gradnigo, Mary Hanley, Simone Hardeman-
     Jones, Mike Harney, Freddie Harrill, Jenny Hartsock, David 
     Hartzler, Christopher Hayden, Christina Henderson, David 
     Hoffman, Julie Holzhueter, Cristina Jacome, Jennifer Johnson, 
     Michael Jones, Rosemary Kennedy, Meenal Khajuria, Crystal 
     King, Catherine Kuerbitz.
       John Labban, Tasmaya Lagoo, Stephen Lassiter, Samuel Lau, 
     Margaret Lawrynowicz, Caitlin Legacki, Jason Lindsay, Travis 
     Manigan, Elizabeth Margolis, Shaniqua McClendon, Patrick 
     McHugh, Will Medley, Kathryn Merrill, Forest Michaels, 
     Melissa Midgett, John Minor, Joyce Mitchell, Amber Moon, 
     Christopher Moyer, Sara Mursky-Fuller, Brian Nagle, Adeline 
     Noger, Thomas O'Donnell, Emily Osterhus, Elizabeth Outten, 
     Allison Parker, Tyler Patrick, Joseph Peele, Roger Pena, John 
     Pfeiffer, Benjamin Piven, Stanley Purple.
       Cierra Raleigh, Rikkia Ramsey, Hanna Raskin, Jean Reaves, 
     Ryan Regan, Matthew Rumley, Leo Schmid, Tatyana Semyrog, 
     Christopher Sgro, Lindsay Siler, Valarie Simpson, Leland 
     Slade, Hannah Smith, Tremayne Smith, Aaron Suntag, Joshua 
     Teitelbaum, Clayton Thomas, John Tillman,

[[Page 17686]]

     Karen Wade, Brittany Wakefield, Muthoni Wambu, Brandy 
     Warwick, Timothy Webster, Alissa Sadie Weiner, Mesha White, 
     Andrew Wilkins, Johnnie Williams, Sue Wink, Margaret Winslow, 
     Abigail Youngken, Tracy Zvenyach.

  Mrs. HAGAN. My staff knew how important it was to me that my office 
be as open and as accessible as possible to the people of North 
Carolina, and my team worked every single day to help us reach that 
goal. Over the last 6 years, we held a townhall in every 100 counties 
across North Carolina. In DC, we have held a Carolina Coffee every 
Wednesday and we welcomed thousands of North Carolinians to come visit 
us. We have also resolved more than 36,000 constituent cases for the 
people of North Carolina, from helping veterans access their benefits 
with the VA to helping families struggling with high mortgage rates to 
be able to stay in their homes, to helping small businesses cut through 
the bureaucratic redtape.
  While my North Carolina staff was there for the folks in our State 
day in and day out, my DC team was helping me fight for North 
Carolinians in Washington.
  North Carolina is proud to be the most military-friendly State in the 
Nation. As a member of a military family, it is important to me to work 
every single day to keep our State the most military-friendly State. My 
husband is a Vietnam veteran. My dad and my brother served in the Navy. 
My father-in-law was a major general in the Marine Corps. I have two 
nephews on active duty. One is an F-15 fighter pilot and the other one 
is a Navy SEAL. So when I say one of my top priorities was ensuring 
Federal policies worked for our veterans in active-duty military, they 
are not just words, it is truly a personal obligation.
  That is why nearly 6 years ago, when Jerry Ensminger, a retired 
marine, shared with me the story of his daughter Janey, my heart broke 
for him. Janey died of leukemia at the age of 9 because of contaminated 
water on the base at Camp Lejeune. He dedicated his life to seeking 
justice for his daughter and other Camp Lejeune victims. I found it 
absolutely unconscionable that the Federal Government had denied this 
man, who served our country, the answers he needed after all he had 
been through. I wanted to do whatever I could to help, and it was one 
of the greatest honors of my life to work alongside my North Carolina 
colleague Senator Burr to pass the Janey Ensminger Act, to help Jerry 
and the servicemembers and families affected by water contamination at 
Camp Lejeune and to give them the answers and the health care they 
deserved.
  It was also important to me that all Americans remembered and 
understood the sacrifices made by our military and their families. 
During my time in the Senate, I had the opportunity to speak on this 
very floor about some of the brave servicemembers from North Carolina, 
many of whom made the ultimate sacrifice, and many of whom lost their 
lives while trying to make the world a better place and safer for the 
rest of us. I had the opportunity to speak with many of their families 
and their stories were both moving and heartbreaking.
  I spoke with Terry Marquez, whose son Justin died from small-arms 
fire wounds he received while on foot patrol in the Wardak Province in 
Afghanistan just 1 month after he arrived in theater. He was only 25 
years old when he died.
  According to Justin's mom Terry, as Justin grew up in the Army, he 
was like a fine wine, he just kept getting better with age. He believed 
in protecting others. He believed in making the world a better place. 
He believed in standing up so that others might not have to. Justin 
embodied the selflessness and courage that defines the men and women of 
our armed services.
  Shortly after sharing Justin's story on the Senate floor, I invited 
his mother to be my guest at the State of the Union Address. Her 
presence reminded not just me but so many of the Senators that she met 
that night--and she knew them all--how important it is that we uphold 
our promises to the men and women who put their lives on the line for 
each and every one of us. It has been an honor to help be one of those 
voices for our servicemembers, veterans, and their families in 
Washington.
  As one of 20 women in the Senate, I have also enjoyed being a voice 
for women and children. As women Senators, we bring a unique 
perspective to the policymaking dialog. We understand the issues facing 
women and families because we have been there. Some of us are moms and 
some are grandmoms. We know what it is like to balance that family 
checkbook and simultaneously run the business and a carpool, and to 
want the best possible future not only for our children but for all the 
children throughout the United States.
  More important than that, the women of the Senate know how to bridge 
the partisan divide to get the job done. Together we passed the Lilly 
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the first bill I cosponsored as a U.S. Senator. 
We kept student loan rates from doubling. We pushed for initiatives 
such as my newborn screening bill to ensure that every child has a 
healthy start in life. I am proud of the work we have done together to 
support our families and to set this country on a path to a brighter 
future.
  But the fact is we need a lot more of that in Washington. If we are 
going to address the biggest challenges facing our country, we have to 
break through the political gridlock and confront these issues 
together--head on, united; not as Republicans and Democrats, but 
working together on behalf of the American people. We need to work 
together to tackle the rising cost of college that is putting higher 
education out of reach for too many students and then burdening them 
with unsustainable debt. We need to reform our education system to 
ensure that every child has the tools and the technology we have to 
have today and that we have to understand and be an expert in that 
technology in order to be successful in this competitive environment.
  The economy is improving, but wages are stagnant. We must find ways 
to ensure that Americans working full time are not living in poverty.
  We need to help middle-class families get ahead and ensure that 
working women are receiving the support they need, whether it is fair 
pay, affordable childcare, or time to care for new babies or seriously 
ill family members. There is so much work to be done. It is my hope 
these issues can be addressed in the 114th Congress, but doing so is 
going to take cooperation from all 100 Members of this body.
  The men and women I have worked with during my time are some of the 
most dedicated, passionate people I have ever met. And there are so 
many, I am only going to name a few.
  Barbara Mikulski was my first mentor, the dean of the women. She 
waltzed me down the aisle to get sworn in. She is one of the greatest 
advocates for women and for families. And I know that Patty Murray, the 
mom in tennis shoes, is a dynamite negotiator. Mark Warner, one of my 
2008 classmates, is a leader in seeking bipartisan solutions. Susan 
Collins is a great friend and a proven consensus builder. Chuck Schumer 
is a trusted adviser who embodies what it means to be a fighter.
  There are so many to name, and I love them all. But I know the 
Members of the Senate can make progress on these issues that matter so 
long as we put politics aside and work together.
  One of my guiding principles is ``to whom much is given, much is 
expected.'' Six years ago, North Carolinians gave me an opportunity to 
be a voice in Washington, and I have put North Carolinians first every 
single day. I urge my colleagues to do the same--to remember who they 
are fighting for, not who they are fighting against, to see past the 
deed, to see past the d or the r, to work together in a bipartisan 
fashion as I have tried to do to move this country forward.
  Working with all of my colleagues and serving North Carolina in the 
U.S. Senate is a huge honor.
  God bless you all, and God bless the U.S. Senate. Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  (Applause, Senators rising.)

[[Page 17687]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                          Tribute to Kay Hagan

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, first let me commend my colleague from 
North Carolina, Kay Hagan, who has been an extraordinary asset in the 
U.S. Senate. She has shown political bravery to the highest degree over 
and over again, taking what she knew were the right votes even when 
they were politically tough votes. I just listened to her farewell 
address and I couldn't agree with her more, that she put the people of 
North Carolina ahead of everything else in terms of her service in the 
U.S. Senate. It has been an honor to serve with her, to get to know her 
husband Chip and her family, and I wish her only the best for whatever 
her future undertakings may be.


                     Death in Custody Reporting Act

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, on Tuesday I was pleased to chair an 
important hearing in the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, 
Civil Rights and Human Rights that took a look at the state of civil 
rights in America today.
  We heard compelling testimony from our colleagues, including Senator 
Cory Booker of New Jersey, Congressman Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, and 
Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota. We also heard from civil rights 
leaders Wade Henderson and Laura Murphy, and from Dr. Cedric Alexander 
of the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives.
  It was a powerful hearing. We talked about Michael Brown of Ferguson 
Missouri, Eric Garner of Staten Island, and the growing sentiment 
across our Nation that the criminal justice system needs to be 
improved.
  In particular, we talked about challenges that our Nation faces when 
it comes to restoring the trust of the minority communities in our 
government. Every witness, every Senator at the hearing agreed. We need 
to do more--not just wring our hands but to hold hands together and 
find solutions.
  One issue we discussed at the hearing was the need for law 
enforcement to be more transparent. We discussed important 
legislation--called the Death in Custody Reporting Act--that would mark 
a significant step forward when it comes to transparency. The Death in 
Custody Reporting Act would take the simple step of requiring States 
and Federal law enforcement agencies to report to the Department of 
Justice basic statistical information regarding deaths that occur in 
law enforcement custody. This would include information about the name 
of the deceased, when the death occurred, how it occurred, and which 
agency was involved. It would apply when a person is being arrested or 
detained by local, State, or Federal law enforcement and when a person 
is incarcerated. The bill also directs the Attorney General to study 
this information and provide recommendations on how these deaths can be 
reduced.
  It seems like such a simple matter to require accurate information to 
be collected. In fact, Congress used to require that information, but 
it expired in 2006. As a result, we have not had accurate national 
statistics regarding deaths in incarceration and custody.
  Last week the Wall Street Journal reported that it surveyed police 
departments about deaths that occurred in police custody between 2007 
and 2012 and found that more than 550 deaths occurred during that time 
and were not included in national statistics.
  As we engage in a national conversation about reforming police 
tactics, we need accurate data in order to make the right reforms. At 
our hearing, our witnesses from the civil rights and law enforcement 
community agreed it was time to start gathering this information.
  I am pleased that last night at the end of the session, the Senate 
passed the Death in Custody Reporting Act by unanimous consent. It is 
an important step forward toward transparency, accountability, and 
restoring confidence.
  Let me give credit where it is due. For years this legislation has 
been championed by my friend Congressman Bobby Scott of Virginia. I 
commend him for his dedicated efforts. I also commend my colleague 
Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, who has strongly advocated 
for this bill in the Senate, including in our hearing on Tuesday.
  Let me also give thanks to Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, and House Judiciary Committee ranking member John 
Conyers for their support of this legislation.
  This is not a partisan bill. It passed the House last year by a voice 
vote. Now it has cleared the Senate and is on its way to the President. 
The passage of this legislation shows that we can work together across 
the aisle and make progress. Make no mistake--we have a lot of work to 
do to improve the state of civil rights in America. There are many more 
steps we must take to restore the confidence of all Americans in our 
criminal justice system. The passage of this legislation by Congress is 
an important step in the right direction.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNET. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Tributes to Mark Udall

  Mr. BENNET. Madam President, I wish to take a moment today to speak 
about my friend Mark Udall, who is soon going to be finishing his term. 
Mark's sister Doty describes him as an OK politician but an 
extraordinary public servant. I think it is fair to say that Mark could 
never reduce his role as a representative of the people of Colorado to 
just politics. It is not in his DNA.
  It is with a very heavy heart that I see him leave the Senate, 
because he is my friend. But it is especially sad at a time when Mark's 
kind of leadership and constructive engagement is exactly what this 
place needs.
  ``Udall'' is a name that is synonymous with the West, and Mark and 
the collective service of the Udall family have come to represent the 
very best of our western way of life. They have embodied that 
pioneering and entrepreneurial spirit dating back to the days when 
Americans were building entirely new lives on the frontier. They have a 
historic love for the beauty and majesty of the West. They have spent 
lifetimes protecting it.
  Mo and Stu Udall, Mark's uncle and father, both served our country 
during World War II. Stu was elected to serve the Second District of 
Arizona. When President Kennedy asked Stu to serve as the Secretary of 
Interior, Mo won Stu's seat in Congress.
  Unlike his son Mark, Mo never ran for the Senate. He explained why. 
He said:

       I told the Arizona Press Club with [Barry] Goldwater 
     present that there were three reasons I was not running for 
     the Senate: 1. I love the House. 2. My wife and family are 
     against it. And 3, I have taken a poll and you are going to 
     beat the hell out of me.

  Although, he did run for President. The New Republic reported on 
that:

       The Arizona Congressman, Morris Udall liked to tell a story 
     about a response he got at a barber shop in Maine: He looked 
     in at the door and, meaning to introduce himself, said ``Mo 
     Udall, running for president.'' ``Yeah,'' the barber said, 
     ``we were just laughing about it this morning.''

  It is not hard to know where Mark acquired his self-deprecating 
approach to the world, just as it not hard to know where he inherited 
his commitment to civil rights, to conservation, and to good 
government.
  Mark has said it was during this time that his political views were 
formed. He himself went on to seek office.
  In 2008, when Mark was elected to represent Colorado in the Senate, 
his cousin Tom--Stu's son--was elected to serve the State of New Mexico 
and is one of our colleagues today.
  Mark Udall's connection to the West and to public service comes from 
both sides of his family. Mo Udall, a man of many talents, met Patricia 
Emory, Mark's mother, while playing baseball in Colorado. Patricia or 
``Sam'' Udall was a sharpshooter, pilot, Peace Corps volunteer at the 
age of 56. She was a native Coloradan and the

[[Page 17688]]

person Mark credits most for his passion for the outdoors, for 
backpacking and climbing.
  Today in the 21st century we face a profound set of challenges and a 
dramatic test of our democratic institution. Can what Mark Udall often 
calls this glorious experiment in self-government continue to thrive 
into the next century and beyond?
  Mark has carried the tradition of his family by serving as a moral 
forward-pointing compass. Throughout his career he has defended 
personal freedom and liberty, and he has built a legacy of conservation 
and preservation. As a member of the Colorado General Assembly 
representing Longmont and parts of Boulder County, Mark toughened the 
laws against poaching big game as trophy animals. As a Member of the 
House of Representatives, he worked across the aisle to establish the 
Rocky Flats Wildlife Refuge, cleaning up the former nuclear site and 
preserving 4,000 acres of wild land near Denver. He established the 
James Peak Wilderness Area, protecting 14,000 acres of some of our most 
scenic land in Gilpin and Grand Counties. He passed the Rocky Mountain 
National Park Wilderness Act to designate nearly 250,000 acres within 
the park as wilderness, including Longs Peak, which is actually a 14er 
that I have climbed. Mark Udall has climbed all of them in Colorado, 
every single 14er we have, because they are included in the tallest 100 
mountains that we have, each one of which has been summited by Mark 
Udall. These are lands that will be protected long after any of our 
political careers are over and long after they remember who it was who 
protected those lands to begin with. But if anybody cares to check, 
they are going to know that it was Mark Udall.
  Mark has been vocal, active, and effective in his fight against 
climate change and in his promotion of renewable energy. He was the 
statewide cochair of the successful 2004 campaign to pass Colorado's 
amendment 37. This measure required Colorado's power companies to 
generate most of their electricity from renewable sources. Colorado was 
the first State in the Union to take the issue to the voters. Amendment 
37 passed. Mark Udall was the driving force behind that effort. After 
his victory in the State, Mark took this issue to the House of 
Representatives. The House has twice passed the national renewable 
electricity standard championed by Mark.
  During his time in the Senate, he has continued to push for a 
national policy, and his doggedness in standing up for Colorado's wind 
energy production saved thousands of good-paying jobs across the State 
and ensured that we will continue to lead the Nation in developing our 
clean energy economy.
  The same is true for our ski areas, which have expanded recreation 
activities and summertime job opportunities thanks to a law Mark passed 
in this Senate.
  Colorado's aerospace industry is thriving in part thanks to Mark 
Udall. His work on space policy also dates back to his time in the 
House of Representatives as ranking member on the Space Subcommittee. 
Mark helped revitalize aeronautics and aviation research and 
development at NASA and ensure that the Hubble space telescope received 
service and funding.
  In the Senate, Mark helped lead the Colorado delegation opposition to 
a proposal that would have canceled the Orion Program, costing the 
State 1,000 jobs. The administration backed off. Last week, with a 
shuttle and rocket--both built by companies based in Colorado--NASA 
launched a successful test flight of the Orion vehicle. We will again 
carry astronauts into space, traveling deeper than ever before and 
eventually maybe even visit Mars.
  As everybody in this Chamber knows, Mark has been a staunch defender 
of the rights and freedoms we cherish as westerners. As a member of the 
Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, Mark fought every 
single day he was here to protect the security of the American people 
and the Bill of Rights. He has taken on NSA and CIA when they violated 
our constitutional values.
  In 2011 he worked on a classified level to pressure intelligence 
officials to dismantle a massive email collection program that affected 
American privacy. Administration officials were unable to provide 
evidence that the program was effective. It was shut down. It only 
became public information when the New York Times reported on it in 
July of 2013.
  Well before Edward Snowden made headlines in 2013, Mark warned of the 
NSA's overreach. In 2012, on this Senate floor, he warned the American 
people that they would be shocked to learn about what the NSA was doing 
in secret. He introduced landmark, bipartisan surveillance reform 
legislation with Senators Ron Wyden, Richard Blumenthal, and Rand Paul. 
It became the basis for the USA FREEDOM Act, which received 58 votes 
just a few weeks ago. There was a time, before the relentless use of 
the filibuster, when a majority of votes in the Senate would have been 
enough to ensure passage of that bill.
  Earlier this week the Intelligence Committee released the executive 
summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee's study of the CIA's 
detention and interrogation program. Nobody in this place fought harder 
than Mark Udall to shed light on these tactics. His goal from day one 
has been holding the CIA accountable, shedding light on this dark 
chapter of our history, and ensuring that the neither the CIA nor any 
other agency or future administration would make the grievous mistakes 
that were made here. He accomplished his goals with respect to the 
process without leaking classified information but by applying pressure 
both politically and privately until the report was finally released. 
He has been effective because he has stood on consistent principle on 
every issue we have faced.
  He voted against the PATRIOT Act. He opposed the war in Iraq. He 
helped lead the fight to end don't ask, don't tell.
  Mark truly is the very best of what it means to be a public servant: 
independent, responsible, tough, focused on the future, and possessing 
an abiding can-do spirit. His calm presence, his unassuming nature, and 
his ability to see pure good in those around him are exactly what we so 
desperately need in our process today.
  Simply put, Mark Udall has fought for Colorado families in the most 
constructive way possible--by pushing thoughtful commonsense 
solutions--but has never ever fought to achieve a partisan political 
fleece.
  When Colorado was struck with a series of natural disasters, from 
wildfires to floods, Mark was at his very best, standing up for our 
State and our families to lead the efforts to ensure that our 
communities had the support they needed to recover and better prepare 
for the threats we faced next. He has strengthened the way we respond 
to the growing threat of wildfire by emphasizing preservation efforts 
that will save lives, property, and tax dollars. We would expect 
nothing else from a man who has dedicated himself and his career to 
standing up for Colorado families, the middle class, and the values of 
the American West.
  As a Senator, a Representative, a State legislator, director of the 
Colorado Outward Bound school, Mark has been a model public servant. He 
has lived up to and exceeded the high standards his family has set for 
more than a century. Throughout all of his work, Mark has always fought 
against the dysfunction that persists in Washington.
  It is true, however, that Mark cannot take full credit for the work. 
His wife and partner Maggie Fox shares his commitment to leaving more 
opportunity for the next generation. She has worked as a teacher and 
community organizer on the Navajo and Hopi reservations of Arizona, New 
Mexico, and for the Colorado, North Carolina, and Northwest Outward 
Bound schools. She has become a leading voice in many efforts to 
protect our land, our air, and our water. Their partnership is a 
genuine one. It has made Mark's work possible.
  Mark's staff has been among the finest, most professional, and most 
effective in the Senate. It has been a pleasure for me and for my staff 
to work alongside them on behalf of the people of Colorado.

[[Page 17689]]

  Over the past few years I have learned that really there are two 
broad categories of people in Washington: There are those who embrace 
and add to the dysfunction because it serves their ideological 
convictions or gives them an opportunity to star on the cable news or 
both. Then there are the people who are actually trying to save the 
place. They are looking for areas of compromise to break the gridlock 
and to move us forward.
  Mark is one of the good ones, and I have no doubt he will continue to 
make profound contributions to Colorado and to our Nation in a variety 
of ways, but we are diminished by his loss. Every one of us, for the 
sake of this institution, would do well to live up to the example Mark 
Udall has set.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I thank Senator Grassley 
for allowing me this time to talk about my cousin, Mark Udall. First, 
let me say to Senator Bennet, I know that Mark feels he could not have 
had a better partner, a better friend, and someone to work with on 
Colorado issues and the great national issues than Senator Bennet.
  Senator Bennet spoke eloquently of Mark's incredible record in public 
service. Two years in the Colorado legislature, 10 years in the House 
of Representatives, and 6 years here in the U.S. Senate. I served with 
Mark in the House, and here in the Senate. He is not only my cousin. He 
is not only an extraordinary public servant. He has been a great ally, 
as we have worked on the issues together.
  Mark has been--and will continue to be--a champion, for the 
environment, for civil liberties, and for a government that is as open 
and good as the people we are privileged to represent.
  Mark has been a courageous and outspoken leader in the fight against 
climate change. He knows that global warming is not just a threat to 
our environment, but to our national security and our economy. He and I 
have worked on this issue throughout our time in public service, 
pushing to expand clean energy production and for common sense steps to 
reduce pollution. He and I introduced, and got passed, a renewable 
electricity standard when we were both in the House to increase the use 
of renewable energy and create jobs across the country. When the Senate 
passes a similar RES, which I believe it eventually will, Mark you will 
share in that victory, for all your determination and hard work to make 
it happen.
  Our dads loved the land. They taught us to love it as well. Mark 
doesn't just climb mountains. He protects them, so that generations to 
come will enjoy this legacy of natural treasures. Together we have 
fought for full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and 
for wilderness preservation. He has accomplished so much that will live 
on, long after we all are gone.
  Mark has also been a true leader on the Senate Intelligence Committee 
and the Armed Services Committee. He is absolutely fearless, and 
undaunted, in defense of our Nation, and in defense of our liberties. 
We both opposed the original Patriot Act, as well as its re-
authorization. Mark has been eloquent and tenacious in warning of over-
reaching surveillance, and secret interrogations. The Intelligence 
Committee released its study of the CIA's secret program this week. No 
one fought harder to hold our government to account, in insisting that 
we must not only be secure, but we must honor the values that define 
us. We can and must do both. History will remember his invaluable role 
in making it possible for the American people to have this great and 
necessary debate.
  Madam President, my dad once said that, in the end, it is not the 
awards you receive, it is not the trophies in the garage, or the honors 
on the shelf, it is what the people who know you best really think of 
you. To those of us who know Mark--in our family, here in Washington, 
and in his beloved State of Colorado--he is the real deal.
  I remember when Mark's dad, Mo, ran for President in 1976. Mo lost 
the nomination to Jimmy Carter. In his concession speech, he recalled 
the words of Will Rogers, ``Live your life so that whenever you lose, 
you are ahead.'' Mo went on to say:

       And I am ahead. I'm ahead in staff people who love me and 
     believed in me. And I'm ahead because I have love, respect 
     and admiration for all of you in this room.

  That was true of Mo. It is equally true of Mark. In his years of 
public service, and in the years to come, that will always be said of 
Mark. Whatever the task, whatever the challenge, he meets it head on. 
In the Congress, and in his day to day life, he is practical, 
independent, and always generous of himself.
  Mark, wherever you go, wherever you are, win or lose, you are ahead--
and we all are ahead whenever you are in the room. Or I might say 
whenever you are on the trail, or the mountainside. We find you out on 
the trail as likely as anywhere else.
  But, then, that has always been the case with Mark, and with all our 
family. If you are a Udall, you spend a lot of time outdoors, and 
gladly so. And we never know when we will run into each other. A number 
of years ago, I was hiking up a mountain in Argentina. All of a sudden, 
there on the trail at 16,000 feet, was Mark, coming back from the 
summit. So, I never know when I'm going to run into him, but Madam 
President, let me say, I am always glad when I do.
  Mark, for me, you have always set an example. You have always been 
true to the legacy of our family. I know that will never change, 
whatever your endeavors. So, to you, and Maggie, and Jed and Tess, Jill 
and I wish you all the best, in this new chapter in your lives.
  I thank Senator Grassley for allowing me this courtesy. It is always 
wonderful to work with Chuck. He is a first-class Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                            Greenhouse Gases

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I have said before on the Senate floor 
that the proposed Environmental Protection Agency regulations to limit 
carbon dioxide are an example among far too many of Executive overreach 
by this administration.
  Anyone who knows the history of the Clean Air Act--and I was here for 
the last major revision in 1990--or who has read the text of that law 
knows it was never intended to address greenhouse gases or climate 
change.
  The Clean Air Act is designed to address traditional pollutants that 
have a direct impact on human health and the environment. However, when 
Congress declined to pass legislation supported by President Obama that 
would have created a cap-and-trade system targeted at greenhouse gases, 
the President gave a speech saying he would act on his own. In trying 
to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, which was not 
designed for that purpose, the EPA had to fit a square peg in a round 
hole.
  As a result, when a number of key provisions in the Clean Air Act 
didn't say what the EPA would like them to say, the EPA simply 
reinterpreted those provisions to say something different or ignored 
them. In effect, the EPA was unconstitutionally rewriting a law passed 
by the Congress.
  We all know what article I, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution says: 
``All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress 
of the United States . . . ''
  Regardless of where you stand on climate change, we ought to be able 
to agree that it is not appropriate for the EPA or, for that matter, 
any administrative agency to twist the law passed by Congress to mean 
something other than what it says. This isn't a partisan position, and 
you don't have to take my word for it. Just listen to what President 
Obama's Harvard professor, renowned liberal constitutional scholar 
Lawrence Tribe, has written:

       The defects in the Proposed Rule transcend political 
     affiliation and policy positions and cut across partisan 
     lines . . .

  Continuing:

       The central principle at stake is a rule of law--the basic 
     premise that EPA must comply with fundamental statutory and 
     constitutional requirements in carrying out its mission.

[[Page 17690]]

       The Proposed Rule should be withdrawn. It is a remarkable 
     example of executive overreach and an administrative agency's 
     assertion of power beyond its statutory authority.
       Indeed, the Proposed Rule raises serious constitutional 
     questions.

  In addition to his reputation as one of the country's most prominent 
constitutional scholars, Professor Tribe is also a long-time Democratic 
Party activist. In fact, he served as a judicial adviser to President 
Obama's 2008 Presidential campaign, briefly worked in his 
administration, and has been a very vocal supporter of the President. 
When Professor Tribe says the Obama administration has exceeded its 
authority, you can take it to the bank.
  I should also add, in response to concerns that the EPA regulations 
are not a legitimate or appropriate response to climate change, I often 
hear that at least EPA is doing something. Well, aside from the fact 
that regulatory approach is not legally justified, it is also 
ineffective.
  As Professor Tribe points out on his treatise in this matter:

       The Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Proposed Rule 
     states that the impact of ``reduced climate effects'' has 
     been ``monetized'' but not ``quantified.'' In other words, 
     EPA does not claim that the Proposed Rule would affect the 
     climate. The mismatch and lack of social benefit distinguish 
     the Proposed Rule from other actions by EPA under the Clean 
     Air Act.

  This isn't news. President Obama's first EPA Administrator, Lisa 
Jackson, confirmed in testimony before a Senate committee that: ``U.S. 
action alone will not impact world CO2 levels.''
  So these regulations will have no measurable environmental benefit, 
but will have tremendous costs, particularly for the Midwest, given our 
energy mix.
  The EPA rules are all pain and no gain.
  This is not an argument about environmental policy. I am proud to be 
a leading advocate for renewable energy, and I believe there is room 
for some bipartisan agreement about diversifying our Nation's energy 
sources.
  However, I want you all to know that I agree with Professor Tribe 
that regardless of the underlying policy goals, the rule of law must be 
respected and the proposed rule should be withdrawn. I hope President 
Obama will learn from his former Harvard professor and end with the 
President of the United States doing the right thing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                        Prewar Iraq Intelligence

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I wish to speak for a few moments about 
one of the most significant events in my 36 years as a U.S. Senator, 
the war in Iraq. I want to speak about important historical records 
crucial to our understanding of why we went to war against Iraq in 
2003, I want to enter into the public record recent revelations not yet 
made public, and I make one more public call for a key document to be 
made fully public.
  I will begin by renewing a request to the Director of the Central 
Intelligence Agency, John Brennan. It is a request I have also made to 
his predecessors: I ask Director Brennan to declassify fully a March 
13, 2003 CIA cable debunking the contention that 9/11 hijacker Mohammad 
Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence official named Ahmad 
al-Ani.
  Earlier this year, Director Brennan wrote to me, refusing, as did his 
predecessors, to fully declassify the CIA cable. But in his letter to 
me he makes public for the first time a few lines from that document. 
While this is a significant addition to the public record, and I will 
discuss that in a moment, it is still not the full cable, and I am 
calling on him to declassify and release the full cable.
  In order to understand why I am making that request, we need to 
return to early 2003.
  On March 6, 2003, just two weeks before U.S. troops would cross the 
Iraqi border, President Bush held a prime-time televised press 
conference. In that press conference he mentioned the Sept. 11, 2001, 
terror attacks eight times, often in the same breath as Iraqi dictator 
Saddam Hussein. There was a concerted campaign on the part of the Bush 
administration to connect Iraq in the public mind with the horror of 
the Sept. 11 attacks. That campaign succeeded. According to public 
polls in the week before the Iraq war, half or more of Americans 
believed Saddam was directly involved in the attacks. One poll taken in 
September 2003, 6 months after we invaded Iraq, found that nearly 70 
percent of Americans believed it likely that Saddam Hussein was 
personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. Americans who believed in 
a link between Iraq and 9/11 overwhelmingly supported the idea of 
invading Iraq. Of course, connections between Saddam and 9/11 or al 
Qaeda were fiction.
  America's intelligence community was pressed to participate in the 
administration's media campaign. Just a week after the President's 
prime-time press conference, on March 13, 2003, CIA field staff sent a 
cable to CIA headquarters, responding to a request for information 
about a report that Mohammad Atta, the leader of the Sept. 11 
hijackings, had met in 2001 with an Iraqi intelligence official in the 
Czech capital of Prague. In stark terms, this CIA cable from the field 
warned against U.S. government officials citing the report of the 
alleged Prague meeting.
  Yet the notion of such a meeting was a centerpiece of the 
administration's campaign to create an impression in the public mind 
that Saddam was in league with the al Qaeda terrorists who attacked us 
on 9/11. On multiple occasions, including national television 
appearances, Vice President Dick Cheney cited reports of the meeting, 
at one point calling it ``pretty well confirmed.'' Officials from 
Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon, who set up a sort of rogue intelligence 
analysis operation, briefed senior officials with a presentation citing 
the Prague meeting as a ``known contact'' between Iraq and al Qaida.
  Why am I bringing up a CIA cable from more than a decade ago? Isn't 
this old, well-covered terrain? No, it isn't. This is about giving the 
American people a full account of the march to war as new information 
becomes available. It is about trying to hold leaders who misled the 
public accountable. It is about warning future leaders of this nation 
that they must not commit our sons and daughters to battle on the basis 
of false statements.
  There is no more grave decision for a nation to make than the 
decision to go to war, and there is no more important issue for every 
member of Congress than the decision to authorize the use of military 
force--A decision to authorize force is a decision to unleash the might 
of our Armed Forces, the strongest military on the planet. It commits 
the men and women of our Armed Forces to fight, and perhaps to die, on 
the battlefield. The decision to go to war must be careful, considered, 
and based on the facts.
  Such careful consideration was tragically absent in the march to war 
in Iraq.
  Here is what the Vice President said on December 9, 2001, in an 
interview on ``Meet the Press'': ``It's been pretty well confirmed that 
he [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of 
the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several 
months before the attack.''
  Far from ``pretty well confirmed,'' there was almost no evidence that 
such a meeting took place. Just a single unsubstantiated report, from a 
single source, and a mountain of information indicating there was no 
such meeting, including the fact that travel and other records 
indicated that Atta was almost certainly in the United States at the 
time of the purported meeting in Prague.
  It was highly irresponsible for the Vice President to make that 
claim. Calling a single, unconfirmed report from a single source 
``pretty well confirmed,'' as he did on Dec. 9, 2001, was a reckless 
statement to make on such a grave topic as war, in the face of 
overwhelming doubt that such a meeting occurred.
  Yet Vice President Cheney's reckless statements continued, even as 
evidence mounted that there was no Prague meeting. In September 2002, 
he said Atta ``did apparently travel to Prague

[[Page 17691]]

on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have 
reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence 
official.''
  The Vice President made those statements in the face of a then-
classified June 2002 CIA assessment that said the alleged meeting was 
``not verified,'' called the information about it ``contradictory,'' 
and described assessments of Iraqi cooperation with al Qaida terror 
plots as ``speculative.'' The Vice President made those statements in 
the face of a July 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency analysis, which 
reported that there was no evidence that Atta was in the Czech Republic 
at the time. He made those statements despite a Defense Intelligence 
Agency memorandum in August 2002 rejecting the claims by a rogue 
intelligence analysis shop at the Pentagon that the meeting was an 
example of a ``known contact'' between Iraq and al Qaida.
  That brings us to the March 13, 2003 cable. It is unfortunate that I 
cannot fully lay out the contents of that cable, because much of it 
remains classified. But as the Senate Intelligence Committee's 2006 
``Phase II'' report indicates, it appears that the cable was sent in 
response to a request from headquarters at Langley for comment on the 
claim that Atta and al-Ani had met in Prague because the White House 
was considering a reference to a Prague meeting in a speech. At that 
time, according to then-CIA Director George Tenet's memoir, the CIA had 
been given a draft of a speech by Vice President Cheney containing 
assertions about connections between Iraq and al Qaida. Tenet writes in 
his memoir that he had to object to the President that the speech went 
``way beyond what the intelligence shows. We cannot support the speech 
and it should not be given.''
  The text of this cable and the information surrounding it was almost 
entirely redacted by the CIA from the Intelligence Committee's 2006 
Phase II report. A number of us objected to that redaction at the time 
the report was made public; indeed, the Majority Leader introduced 
legislation which I cosponsored that would have declassified the cable, 
legislation Republicans blocked. At the time of the report's release, I 
joined several members of the Intelligence Committee, including Ranking 
Member Rockefeller, Senators Feinstein, Wyden, Bayh, Mikulski and 
Feingold, in concluding that the administration's decision to keep the 
contents of the cable classified ``represents an improper use of 
classification authority by the intelligence community to shield the 
White House.''
  In the years since I have sought declassification of the March 2003 
CIA cable on numerous occasions. Twice, in 2011 and 2012, I wrote to 
then-CIA Director Petraeus asking him to declassify the cable. Then in 
February 2013, I asked Director Brennan during his confirmation hearing 
whether he would contact the Czech government to ask if they would 
object to declassification of the cable, and he responded, 
``Absolutely, Senator, I will.''
  Despite his commitment, I heard nothing from Director Brennan for 
some time. Finally, in March of this year, more than a year after his 
public commitment to me, I received a letter from Director Brennan.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Director Brennan's 
March 13, 2014, letter to me be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     The Director,


                                  Central Intelligence Agency,

                                    Washingon, DC, March 13, 2014.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: At my confirmation hearing you requested 
     that I pursue declassification of a 2003 communication 
     related to an alleged meeting between Mohammed Atta and an 
     Iraqi intelligence officer, which was referenced in the 
     Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's September 2006 
     report entitled Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs 
     and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare with Prewar 
     Assessments.
       I understand that your principal concern is that the 
     historical record be as complete as possible regarding this 
     period in our history, and on this point we are in agreement. 
     The American people deserve as full an understanding as 
     possible of these historical events, consistent with the 
     national security interests of the United States. 
     Consequently, having worked with our declassification review 
     experts, I can confirm the following information, which 
     describes the substance of what the communication relayed 
     with respect to the meeting at issue, without compromising 
     national security:
       On 13 March 2003, CIA headquarters received a communication 
     from the field responding to a request that the field look 
     into a single-source intelligence report indicating that 
     Muhammed Atta met with former Iraqi intelligence officer al-
     Ani in Prague in April 2001. In that communication, the field 
     expressed significant concern regarding the possibility of an 
     official public statement by the United States Government 
     indicating that such a meeting took place. The communication 
     noted that information received after the single-source 
     report raised serious doubts about that report's accuracy.
       In particular, the field noted that while it remained 
     possible that a meeting between Atta and al-Ani took place, 
     investigative records subsequently placed Atta in the United 
     States just before and just after the date on which the 
     single-source report said the meeting was to have occurred, 
     making it unlikely that Atta was in Prague at the time of the 
     alleged meeting. The field also warned that both FBI and CIA 
     had previously told foreign intelligence officials that they 
     were skeptical that Atta was in Prague. Finally, the field 
     observed that ``identifications'' like the one that was made 
     by the source of the earlier report, during a period of high 
     emotion four months after the September 11 attacks, could be 
     faulty and would require further evidence. The field added 
     that, to its knowledge, ``there is not one USG 
     [counterterrorism] or FBI expert that . . . has said they 
     have evidence or `know' that [Atta] was indeed [in Prague]. 
     In fact, the analysis has been quite the opposite.''
       I hope this letter answers any outstanding questions about 
     the correspondence in question and addresses our shared 
     interest in creating an accurate and complete historical 
     record.
           Sincerely,
                                                  John O. Brennan.

  Mr. LEVIN. The letter contains no indication that he had asked the 
Czech government for its view, as he committed to do. But Director 
Brennan's letter includes, and therefore finally declassifies, this 
very clear statement from the cable: ``[T]here is not one USG 
[counterterrorism] or FBI expert that . . . has said they have evidence 
or `know' that [Atta] was indeed [in Prague]. In fact, the analysis has 
been quite the opposite.''
  Again, that cable was sent to CIA headquarters on March 13, 2003--a 
week before our invasion of Iraq. But the Vice President of the United 
States, Dick Cheney, continued to suggest the meeting may have taken 
place. He said the following about the meeting on ``Meet the Press'' on 
September 14, 2003--6 months after CIA received that cable: ``We've 
never been able to develop any more of that yet either in terms of 
confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know.'' Here is what he 
told the Denver Post newspaper on January 9, 2004: ``We've never been 
able to collect any more information on that. That was the one that 
possibly tied the two together to 9/11.'' Here is what he told CNN on 
June 17, 2004: ``We have never been able to confirm that, nor have we 
been able to knock it down. We just don't know.''
  Mr. President, those statements were simply not true. We did know. We 
did know that there was no evidence that such a meeting had taken 
place. We did know there was ample evidence it did not take place. We 
did know that there was, as the CIA cable says, ``not one'' government 
expert who said there was evidence that Atta met with Iraqi 
intelligence in Prague. The Vice President recklessly disregarded the 
truth, and he did so in a way calculated to maintain support for the 
administration's decision to go to war in Iraq.
  There is a second recent revelation about how the ``Prague meeting'' 
progressed from unsubstantiated report to justification for war. It 
comes from Jiri Ruzek, who headed the Czech counterintelligence service 
on and after
9/11. Mr. Ruzek published a memoir earlier this year, which we have had 
translated from Czech. It recounts the days after the terror attack, 
including how his nation's intelligence services first reported a 
single-source rumor of a Prague meeting between Atta and al-Ani, how 
CIA officials under pressure from CIA headquarters in turn pressured 
him to substantiate the rumor, and how U.S. officials pressured the

[[Page 17692]]

Czech government when Czech intelligence officials failed to produce 
the confirmation that the Bush administration sought.
  Mr. Ruzek writes:

       It was becoming more and more clear that we had not met 
     expectations and did not provide the `right' intelligence 
     output.

  Mr. Ruzek continues:

       The Americans showed me that anything can be violated, 
     including the rules that they themselves taught us. Without 
     any regard to us, they used our intelligence information for 
     propaganda press leaks. They wanted to mine certainty from 
     unconfirmed suspicion and use it as an excuse for military 
     action. We were supposed to play the role of useful idiot 
     thanks to whose initiative a war would be started.

  That is chilling. We have a senior intelligence official of a 
friendly nation describing the pressure that he and other Czech 
officials were under to give the Bush administration material it could 
use to justify a war.
  When it came to the most serious decision a government can make--the 
decision to commit our sons and daughters to battle--the Bush 
administration was playing games with intelligence. The full, still 
classified cable includes critically important, relevant information, 
and it has been redacted and denied to the public in order to protect 
those in the Bush White House who are responsible.
  The March 13, 2003, cable is an invaluable record in helping the 
American people understand how their elected officials conducted 
themselves in going to war. Continuing to cloak this document with a 
veil of secrecy, revealing a few sentences at a time, allows those who 
misled the American people to continue escaping the full verdict of 
history. It deprives the American people of a complete understanding of 
how we came to invade Iraq. In his letter to me, Director Brennan 
writes, ``I understand that your principal concern is that the 
historical record be as complete as possible regarding this period in 
our history, and on this point we are in agreement.'' But Director 
Brennan's apparent refusal to do what he has committed to do--to ask 
the Czech government if it objects to release of the cable--now takes 
on the character of a continuing cover-up.
  I believe decisionmakers should have to face the full, unadulterated, 
unredacted truth about their decisions. The American people should know 
the full story, not just so we can understand the decisions in 2002 and 
2003 that took us to war, but as a warning to future leaders against 
the misuse of intelligence and the abuse of power.
  Very briefly, what I am doing in this statement, which is now in the 
record, is I am asking CIA Director Brennan to fully declassify a March 
13, 2003 cable from CIA field officers to headquarters. This cable 
provides information about the Bush administration's campaign to build 
public support for the Iraq invasion.
  One part of that campaign was the repeated misleading suggestion that 
Mohammed Atta, leader of the 9/11 hijackers, had met with an Iraqi 
intelligence official in Prague.
  I received a letter from Director Brennan making public for the first 
time some of the cable's contents. He quotes the cable as saying:

       There is not one USG [counterterrorism] or FBI expert that 
     . . . has said they have evidence or ``know'' that [Atta] was 
     indeed [in Prague]. In fact, the analysis has been quite the 
     opposite.

  In my statement just entered into the Record, I also discussed recent 
revelations by the former head of the Czech intelligence agency about 
U.S. pressure to confirm the report of that meeting.
  The American people deserve to know the full truth about this episode 
and particularly in light of the new revelations from a top Czech 
official.
  I have renewed my request to Director Brennan to declassify the 
entire cable.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                         Farewell to the Senate

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, it is my pleasure to take a few 
minutes on the floor to give a farewell message, and I thank you for 
your courtesies. I begin with a Scripture, Philippians 4:7, New 
American Standard Bible, that reads: ``And the peace of God, which 
surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in 
Christ Jesus.''
  Truly for the first time in my adult life I have felt that 
extraordinary peace about something that was unexpected, but is 
certainly something that I accept. It has really been amazing as a 
Christian, as an adult, and as a leader to find myself in this place in 
a time that should be a time of sadness, but all I can feel is actual 
joy. It is quite amazing.
  It has never happened to me before, so I thought it would be 
wonderful to share--with so many of my friends, supporters, family, 
staff, and colleagues listening in--for a few minutes to say that it is 
absolutely true, and I am a testimony to this extraordinary peace since 
just a few days before the election and since then. I think it is 
because I feel and know that God has called me to another place.
  Before being a Senator, a wife, and a daughter, I am a Christian, and 
my faith really is central to my life. My parents always taught me to 
put my faith where it belongs--in God himself. So it is really with 
that sense of gratitude and joy that I have been given an opportunity 
to serve my State, my region, and my country for now almost 34 years--
which is quite amazing--having started at a very young age and still 
being relatively young.
  So let me just share some remarks about that time, and particularly 
the time here in the Senate. I want to begin by thanking my family, and 
particularly my extraordinary husband Frank, who has been a partner 
and, as I said on election night, not only an encouraging and 
supportive partner but one who has literally egged me on. When I wanted 
to quit, he would say: No, you have to continue to serve. He is not 
only an accomplished lawyer and professional, but also an elected 
official in his own right, he came from a family that was dedicated to 
public service, having both of his parents being very active in party 
politics--first the Republican Party and then the Democratic Party. But 
that is a whole other story. They are both strong civil rights 
leaders--my husband as well--and always encouraging me and being 
willing to share the burdens of public life as well as sharing in the 
great joy.
  Our son Connor is now 23 years old, and our daughter Mary Shannon is 
now 17. The reason I mention that is because Connor was 5 when we were 
elected to the Senate. Mary Shannon was adopted the first year we were 
here. On election night, she looked at me--and she is just so beautiful 
at 17--and she said: Mom, it is going to be a little strange. I have 
only known you as a Senator. So I warned her that now that I am going 
to be a full-time mom this is going to be a real problem for her. She 
is not looking forward to it.
  To our new daughter-in-law Emily, and especially to our precious 
little Maddox Parker Snellings, who many people saw on election night--
now, Maddox gets the distinction. He is 10 months old, but he gives me 
the most joy, and I used to keep a picture of him during all my 
debates. There were only three, as you all will remember, but I would 
keep a picture of him because my staff kept telling me: You have to 
smile more. I kept saying: But I can't, because I am really aggravated. 
They said: No, you have to smile. So my solution was to put a picture 
of Maddox on my podium and, of course, I then smiled through the whole 
debate. That is a trick for those who will be continuing to debate.
  To my mother and father, who are the light of not only our family but 
the light of our community, the light of the Nation in many ways--they 
had 9 children, 37 grandchildren, and now 6 great grandchildren. They 
are in wonderful health, they are watching right now, and I can only 
say they are two of the most extraordinary individuals I have ever 
known. Our family is truly blessed by their sacrificial leadership.
  Let me also mention my eight siblings--eight brothers and sisters: 
Mark, Melanie, Michelle, Mitchell, Madeleine, Martin, Melinda, and 
Maurice, Jr.--all m's. That is another story. There are all of our 
spouses, my nieces and nephews, who campaigned with me up until

[[Page 17693]]

the last day. My godchild Sasha literally knocked on doors with me. I 
was teaching her how to knock on doors before the campaign was over so 
the tradition could carry on in our own neighborhood where we have 
lived since I was 5 years old--Broadmoor in New Orleans.
  When I first got here 18 years ago, I literally could not find the 
side door. I didn't know anything. I wasn't even expecting to be here. 
It was kind of like a dream that I got here, because I had run for 
Governor, wanted to be the Governor, and served 16 years in my State. I 
knew that was what I was being called to do--and I see Lamar 
Alexander--to change our education system, to do some coastal work, and 
then I landed here. But I literally knew nothing of how to be a 
Senator.
  I stumbled a great deal in my first years. But I want to thank my 
chiefs of staff, Norma Jane Sabiston, Ron Faucheux, Jason Matthews, 
Jane Campbell, and Don Cravins. I had five of the most remarkable 
chiefs of staff, who, with me, learned how to do this job and to do it 
well. We never forget where we came from, and they are still--all of 
them--with me, and all of us are still working to make our State the 
very best that it can be and to make our country the very best that it 
can be.
  To three staffers who have been with me for almost 20 years--Alicia 
Williams is the longest serving office manager, I think, in the Senate. 
She was here when I arrived and stayed with me. She was with Bennett 
Johnston.
T. Bradley Keith has been with me for 22 years as a former staffer in a 
former life, before I was a Senator, and now as my long-time State 
director. And Shannon Langlois has been, I think, with the Senate for 
almost 30 years. She is a caseworker. She was, again, with Bennett 
Johnston and stayed with me. She has literally given her life to 
thousands, hundreds of thousands of cases in Louisiana and trained 
every caseworker that I had for 18 years, and they just did phenomenal 
work.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record my current 
staff, all of whom are here--my personal staff, my energy staff, and my 
homeland security staff.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    Personal Staff of Mary Landrieu

       Alexander Damato, Alex Sewell, Alicia Williams, Alyson 
     Azodeh, Andrew Holleman, Ashley Scott, Christina Jones, 
     Christopher Etienne, DerKirra Wilkerson, Don Cravins, Eva 
     Kemp-Melder, Jaren Hill, James ``Wes'' Kungel, Jim Simpson, 
     Katie Lewallen, Lauren Spangler, Leslie Leavoy, Libby 
     Whitbeck, Matthew Lehner, Marianna Knister, Megan Blanco.
       Rob Sawicki, Ross Nodurft, Will Harris, Whitney Reitz, Zach 
     Butterworth, Zephranie Buetow, Kelsey Teo, Meghann Morin, 
     Shannon Langlois, T. Bradley Keith, Terrence Lockett, Sherae' 
     Hunter, Laverne Saulny, Cathleen Berthelot, Zach Monroe, Tani 
     Bradford, LeNelle Williford, Michael Jackson, Mark Herbert, 
     Darlene Manuel.

                         Energy Committee Staff

       Elizabeth ``Liz'' Craddock, Afton Zaunbrecher, Aisha 
     Johnson, Allen Paul Stayman, Bryan Petit, Caroline Bruckner, 
     Clayton Allen, Dan Adamson, Darla Ripchensky, David Brooks, 
     David Gillers, Dominic Taylor, Elizabeth Weiner, Fayenisha 
     Matthews, Herman Bubba Gesser, III, Jan Brunner, Jonathon 
     Burpee, Kristen Granier, Lindsay McDonough, Mark Tiner, Megan 
     Brewster, Meghan Conklin, Paul Davis, Renae Black, Sallie 
     Derr, Sam Edward Fowler, Sa'Rah Hamm, Will Dempster.

                         Homeland Approps Staff

       Stephanie Gupta, Drenan Dudley, Scott Nance, Chip Walgren, 
     Colin MacDermott, Eric Bader.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I want to thank Don Cravins, again, as 
my chief of staff; Liz Craddock, Staff Director of my energy committee; 
and Stephanie Gupta, head of homeland security. I know I am leaving 
them in good hands with what they are going to be doing in the future 
and with the great leadership that remains here.
  I only have a few minutes, so I will just run through a couple of the 
highlights of some of the accomplishments that I am most proud of and 
really take this opportunity to thank so many who helped, because the 
one thing I have learned that most certainly is true, is that if you 
want to accomplish really big things here--really great things, 
generational things--you most certainly cannot do that alone. So the 
first thing you need to do is look for a really good partner--and I 
mean a partner that will be with you through thick and thin. Sometimes 
you are lucky enough to find those kinds of partners, and I found them 
on both sides of the aisle.
  The first major piece of legislation I introduced was something that 
was in my heart for so long, and that was the Conservation and 
Reinvestment Act. The cosponsors of that bill, amazingly, were Frank 
Murkowski from Alaska, Trent Lott from Mississippi, John Breaux from 
Louisiana, and Senator Dianne Feinstein from California. Chris Dodd 
joined me a few days later after we introduced it--and Ron Wyden, Chris 
Bond, John Warner, and Thad Cochran, just to name a few.
  At the end of this effort--although this particular bill didn't pass; 
we missed it literally by inches, and I will describe what that was in 
a minute--we had 4,500 organizations throughout the country, from the 
Sierra Club to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and everyone in between in 
a broad coalition to fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund--and 
Lamar Alexander knows more about this than I could ever know, and he 
will tell you one day the details about the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund. The Udalls and the Udalls' fathers were very instrumental in the 
creation of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It was a promise made 
but never kept--that this country would set aside about $900 million a 
year to purchase land, to build our parks, and to secure recreational 
opportunities. This country is so blessed--more than any on Earth--with 
the amount of natural resources we have, and we have not lived up to 
that promise.
  So I introduced this bill as a young legislator. John Breaux said you 
don't even know what you are doing; how are you introducing a bill like 
this? I said: I don't know, but I am just going for it because I 
believe in it. So we never passed it, but it has been in part of almost 
every piece of energy legislation--in pieces and parts since that day 
we introduced that. I am very hopeful that war will go on under Senator 
Murkowski, the daughter of Frank Murkowski, and Maria Cantwell, who in 
many ways got to the Senate because she defeated one of the gentlemen 
who opposed us on this bill and used it as a platform to get here. So I 
know she will be committed to finishing the work.
  The bill did three things. It fully funded the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, a trust fund that will go on for generations. It 
would fully fund coastal restoration, which is so important not just to 
Louisiana, because we are literally falling away into the Gulf of 
Mexico, but it will help Sheldon Whitehouse in his work. It will help 
Dick Durbin along the Great Lakes, and it will help Cory Booker in New 
Jersey. If you allocate the funding correctly, it will be grants that 
these coastal communities can use until we figure out how to clean our 
atmosphere and how to stop the tremendous pressures that are coming on 
our coast. Louisiana knows this. We have experienced the worst 
disasters literally in the history of our country, and they are only 
getting worse. I will talk about that more in a minute.
  But it was because we had laid the groundwork for CARA, Pete Domenici 
literally felt so sorry for me--he knew how hard we had worked and the 
coalition was so disappointed when we lost--that he directed, literally 
with the stroke of a pen, $1 billion to the gulf coast in the energy 
bill for 2005. That money was divided 50 percent to Louisiana and 50 
percent to the other States.
  Now, I can promise everyone here that for the $500 million that went 
to Louisiana, we can account for every penny of it. We know exactly 
where it went, and we put that down as a downpayment to restoring our 
coast, which doesn't just belong to us--it belongs to the whole Nation. 
This is the greatest, the seventh largest delta on the planet. It is 
what Thomas Jefferson leveraged the whole entire Treasury of the United 
States to purchase. It is something worth fighting for. We would not

[[Page 17694]]

be a country without the Mississippi Delta, and we could never have 
found our way west if we couldn't have supplied the great center of 
this Nation with the commerce they needed.
  Every State along this river--19 of them--use this river and 
understand what I am talking about. Amy Klobuchar understands this. She 
is at the top of this river, and I am at the bottom, and we have talked 
a lot about how important that corridor is. That needs to continue.
  Then there was the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, which I 
finally passed with Pete Domenici's help, who was my dear friend and 
one of the most wonderful leaders I have ever worked with. He came from 
a family with eight children. We had nine, and we are both Catholic and 
came from the same sort of background. He served with such passion. So 
he joined with me in passing the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, 
which finally secured a permanent stream of revenue for coastal 
restoration and protection.
  But as Lamar Alexander knows, it left out the land and water, and it 
left out wildlife. We just couldn't lift it all, so that needs to be 
corrected.
  Finally, there is the RESTORE Act, which I worked on with my 
colleagues when the BP oil spill killed 11 people in the gulf and 
spilled 5 million barrels of oil in the gulf. Thanks go to Barbara 
Boxer, this extraordinary woman who has been a partner with me. We 
think very differently about the world. We see things very differently. 
California is very different from Louisiana. But I will say one thing 
about Barbara Boxer. If I had to be in a foxhole with someone, I would 
want to be with her because she never stops fighting. She and I are 
very much alike in that regard. Once we set our minds to something 
there is no dividing us.
  People asked why did I send her money for her reelection? Why did I 
raise so much money from Louisiana? I said that I would do it again 
because when no one would stand up--well, not no one, but if she hadn't 
stood up when that BP oil spill went down, and said, I am chair of this 
committee and I believe the gulf coast deserves this funding, we just 
wouldn't have had it. It is as simple as that. People do not know how 
powerful a chairman is here. When a chairman makes up their mind and 
they say this is what we are going to do, the rest of the committee, 
for the most part, goes along. And so Barbara said that.
  With Senator Vitter, of course, who is the ranking member on that 
committee put his shoulder to the wheel, and we were able to get--well, 
it is still in court, but we think--a serious downpayment to recover 
from one of the great ecological disasters of our State, of our 
country, which is the loss of the gulf coast. This just isn't in 
Louisiana. This is Texas and Mississippi, and it is going to affect 
parts of the whole country. But we are on the mend.
  I came here to do that work. I came to find money. I found it, and we 
are going to continue that work. I am thrilled to work with so many of 
you to get that done.
  On education--Lamar has to leave, but I am glad he is here because I 
found a great soulmate in Lamar Alexander--former Secretary of 
Education, former Governor, a Presidential candidate, and absolutely 
extraordinarily committed to finding a better way for our children in 
America to be educated. As proud as we are of the public school system, 
at the turn of the century, when people in the world were wondering how 
to build the middle class in the world and lots of countries were 
struggling with how to do that, America knew. America knew that if you 
educated your citizens--women, boys, and girls; not just boys, which is 
what half the world still does, which is a tragedy--if we open up our 
schools for universal, free education, along with other things, it 
would lift your country to greatness unsurpassed in the history of the 
world.
  What breaks my heart is to walk into schools today--and Mark Warner 
knows this because he was Governor of Virginia--and see children's eyes 
just completely dulled, sitting there completely bored, teachers who 
are just sort of going through the motions. It breaks my heart because 
I know that not only does it limit their lives but it limits the 
potential of our Nation.
  With Lamar Alexander and a handful of Democrats, I was proud to work 
with Presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush to pass a series of laws. 
Evan Bayh comes to mind, Joe Lieberman, John Breaux, and a group of us 
stood up and said: It is time to stop sending money to the States 
without accountability. If we need to send money, we need to hold 
States accountable, and we need to give opportunities for choice to 
parents and public charter schools.
  I am reluctant to go too far on vouchers. You have heard my speech on 
that. You heard Senator Feinstein's speech on that. But both of us have 
agreed to support some kinds of strategic vouchers that help poor kids 
get out of failing schools until we can fix them.
  Most importantly, I support high-performing public charter schools, 
and I will continue to fight that for the rest of my days. I thank all 
of you who helped on that and particularly Tom Carper on the Democratic 
side and Lamar Alexander. Cory Booker has been an amazing leader and 
will hopefully continue on that. I thank Dick Durbin, who is on 
Appropriations. I had to twist his arm a little bit on some of it, but 
he ended up coming around and has been an amazing fighter for the right 
kinds of public schools that serve the children first and the 
bureaucracy and administration second. I respect teachers. I respect 
administrators. But our schools should work for the children and their 
families who so desperately want them to have a great education.
  The third issue I wish to speak about, which is a legacy issue, is 
adoption. I hope I can get through this without tearing up. I don't 
know why I have always had such passion for this issue.
  My mother had nine children without one single problem. As a young 
child, I remember my aunt adopted two children. I think it might have 
been that; I can't remember exactly. I started to think about all the 
children in the world who don't have parents. Maybe I was just always 
so proud when I filled out those forms in Catholic school. I can 
remember sitting there filling them out: Are your parents divorced or 
married? I loved checking ``married.'' How many siblings do you have? I 
loved putting ``eight.'' I was always so proud of my family.
  I thought, what do children without parents do? I just could not 
imagine. So I got very passionate about it. I ended up, of all things, 
marrying an orphan. My husband was adopted out of an orphanage. So I 
thought, yes, this is going in the right direction. I thought I would 
adopt children. I thought he could not say no since he himself was 
adopted, and so this would work out. Sure enough, we ended up adopting 
two children.
  But this was my passion before I met my husband and before I even 
thought about adopting. It was as if God put this in my heart, so I 
have taken it and carried it.
  I thank Dave Camp; Jim Oberstar, who is deceased; Tom Bliley from 
Virginia, who is a great leader among us; Larry Craig, who is no longer 
here, who served as my cochair; and Senator Jesse Helms. Amazingly, I 
didn't know to be afraid of Jesse Helms; I thought he was a really nice 
guy. Later, everybody had to tell me how hard he was to get along with. 
But I went up to him, and I thought he would surely want to help 
because he had adopted a child. I don't think a lot of people realize 
that. Sure enough he did, and we passed a great treaty together that 
serves as the model for international adoption today. Joe Biden was the 
ranking member on the committee. With Jesse Helms's and Joe Biden's 
support, we passed a great treaty years ago, and we are still in the 
process of making that possible and working it through.
  The accomplishments are really quite long, so I am going to submit 
them for the Record. I will only say that the adoption tax credit which 
Bob Casey worked on and took up that cause when he got here--I am 
thrilled and hope we can keep it. I would like to say to Amy Klobuchar 
how much I appreciate her agreeing to step in and

[[Page 17695]]

take over the leadership of the adoption caucus on this side and Roy 
Blunt, who I think will take it up on the Republican side and continue 
this great work.
  There are over 100,000 children who are waiting for families in the 
United States. There are over 500,000 children in foster care. These 
children think it is their fault they are there, and it is not. It is 
not their fault that their family disintegrated around them. It is not 
their fault that they got pregnant at 11 and were kicked out of their 
house. Instead of the family wrapping that child in their arms and 
helping them to grow, they just kicked them out on the street. It is 
not their fault.
  We need to realize that God does not make trash. He never has, and he 
never will. Everybody he has made has a purpose and dignity, and we 
need to honor that and do better work. I have spent a lot of time here 
on it. I am going to continue to do so. I will never stop working on 
it. I am very proud of the work we have done.
  I will put the rest into the Record.
  On energy very quickly and then finally disaster recovery, I couldn't 
have been prouder when I became the chair of this committee. It was 
quite a miracle. I didn't expect it. I never thought I would last long 
enough to become the chair because there were so many people ahead of 
me. It kind of worked out when Max Baucus left to go to China and Tim 
Johnson was retiring that it fell to me. It has been my great joy for 9 
months to serve as chair, with Lisa Murkowski as my ranking member. Of 
course, I worked with her father. I didn't sit next to him because I 
was a junior member, but I worked with him closely, and it has been 
wonderful working with her. I am so proud that Maria Cantwell will step 
up and take that leadership. I know the two of them work beautifully 
together. They do see the world differently, but they are two women who 
know how to compromise and who will be respectful of each other and 
find a way for our country to move forward.
  I can tell you all that in my whole life--which isn't that long, but 
it has been a pretty good run in public office--there has never been a 
time when America has been closer to energy independence. What that 
means to our country is beyond description. We don't have to listen to 
parts of the world that don't hold our values. We can lift up our 
country. We can move forward. And it has to be with a combination of 
fossil fuels, weaning our way to a greener, cleaner environment, and 
manufacturing right here in America.
  I hope you all will put down the swords and pick up the plow and 
really plow together because this is an amazing opportunity for our 
country. I sure hope we don't miss it. It is going to benefit and make 
the whole country, not just our part of the country, more prosperous.
  People desperately want to move up into the middle class and stay 
there and not feel so fragile and feel as if they can have the 
manufacturing jobs and good energy jobs and really eliminate some of 
the geopolitical nightmares we have been in, fighting wars for oil. It 
has to come to an end.
  Finally, I will say a word about disaster recovery. When I got to the 
Senate, my husband and I were looking at each other saying: How did we 
even end up here? We had no idea. When Katrina hit, it became very 
clear that this is why I needed to be here.
  I had been an appropriator since I was 23 years old. I knew a little 
bit about budgets. I knew a little bit about how the system worked. I 
knew how the State and local governments depended on the Federal 
Government so much funding. I understood the power of HUD and the power 
of housing and the power of building schools and levees and the Corps 
of Engineers. So I was perfectly positioned to be able to lead the 
effort for my State, and they desperately needed a leader. I wasn't 
perfect. I made lots of mistakes. But I wasn't afraid to try because 
that is all you can do.
  The devastation was so great and it was so unbelievable. Eighty 
percent of the east bank of the city and much of Jefferson Parish--not 
quite as bad as New Orleans--and all of St. Bernard--67,000 people in 
St. Bernard lost everything. Everyone in the Lower Ninth Ward lost 
everything, which is like a small city unto itself. In New Orleans 
east, which is like a small city unto itself, 60,000 people lost every 
school, every house. It was unbelievable.
  I say to my colleagues: Thank you for being there for us. I know I 
aggravated you to death. I know I never stopped asking. But you were 
the only hope because there was just no way these communities could 
recover. New Orleans has been there for 300 years. You have heard me 
say this: We didn't move down there recently to go sunbathing or to 
build condos; we have been down there for 300 years. The city is going 
to stay there. The region is going to stay there. And had this 
government just invested a little bit of the money back that we have 
given it over time--from our energy resources, from our manufacturing, 
from the wealth we have created along that great mouth of the river--if 
the country had just given us a little bit of money--$500 million here, 
$500 million there--and built levees that wouldn't have broken in 52 
places, we wouldn't have had $140 billion in damage.
  So when I came to Robert Byrd because President Bush was not that 
forward-leaning--I will just leave it at that. There will be a lot more 
in my book about it, but I will just leave it at that, not very 
forward-leaning. The person I went to was Robert Byrd. In his old age, 
he was so wise. He just looked at me. He didn't say much at that time, 
but he just took my hand and he said: I will be there with you.
  He was the chair of the Appropriations Committee, so that meant 
something. Boy, he was. He helped me write things in a bill that could 
probably never be possible today. That was when chairmen understood the 
power to help people to heal wounds and to bring hope and to be 
compassionate. That is what government is there to do. If government is 
not there when you have lost everything, then what in the heck is the 
use of having it?
  So we hope we will be able to repay this country for the investments 
that have been made, and we will. We will do our best. With all of the 
people who come to New Orleans and all the conventions that come--and 
we hope we bring joy and happiness when people come--we hope to pay our 
way and to pay this back over time for what you have done to help us. 
We are doing a good job of helping ourselves by planning better, doing 
more smart-growth, sustainable development, building our levees to the 
point where they won't break again, and we will continue to do that.
  So those are some of the legacy pieces I have worked on. It is kind 
of amazing that these were the things that were in my heart when I was 
a little girl. I didn't learn this when I was a Senator. I can remember 
taking a bus when I was in the eighth grade down to the coast and 
looking at LaFourche Parish for the first time, and for a girl from the 
poor part of uptown, I kept looking at the nuns who took me, and I 
said: What world is this? I had no idea about Bayou LaFourche.
  When I got to be a Senator, I remembered LaFourche, the bayou, and I 
remembered how fragile it looked to me even as a child, and I thought, 
if I can do anything to save this place, I will. I have spent a lot of 
my time saving it, and it is stronger now. It is still not completely 
safe, but it is much stronger now.
  I tutored in public school. My passion started when the nuns of 
Ursuline sent me to tutor in a public school, and the little girl whom 
I tutored, who was my age, couldn't read. I can remember going home to 
my mother and saying: This is the strangest thing. I just met a little 
girl. She is my age, and she can't read. Mama, is that possible, that 
children don't know how to read?
  I can remember her sitting me down and explaining to me why some 
children couldn't read, and I said: That doesn't seem right to me. I 
made up my mind then that I would work.
  The reason I say this is because there are a lot of young people 
listening to this, and I just want you to know, just listen to your 
heart because God puts these things in your heart at very

[[Page 17696]]

young ages. If you don't block it out, if you are not cynical and if 
you hope and live openly, those dreams can come true. Then you can make 
a profound difference in rebuilding a school system, which I am 
continuing to work on, or make sure every orphan in the world knows 
that they are loved and that we are going to work hard to find them a 
family; to build this great gulf coast, where I spent my life growing 
up as a child and knowing that it is worth saving. It may not be as 
sexy as the west coast or as prosperous as the east coast, but the gulf 
coast is really worth fighting for. It is a very special place in our 
country. I learned to love it as a child, and I will fight for it as an 
adult.
  Finally, let me just say a few thank-yous in closing. A thank-you to 
my mentor Lindy Boggs, who coached me every step of the way; to my 
mentor John Breaux, who got me into this gig in the first place.
  I thank Bennett Johnston, who taught me about being a proud member of 
the Energy Committee; Senator Tom Daschle, who saved my skin more times 
than I can tell you; Kent Conrad, who taught me about the budget; Chris 
John and Jim McCrery and Richard Baker in my delegation, who were 
Democrats and Republicans--we worked together to do amazing things. I 
also thank Cedric Richmond, who still works closely with me, and 
Charles Boustany, whom I admire a lot. I thank other Members who are no 
longer here: Olympia Snowe--we were the first two women to chair a 
major committee--well, actually a minor committee, the small business 
committee; and Lisa and I were the first to chair and be a ranking 
member of a major committee. I couldn't have worked with two more 
remarkable women. I thank Senator Joe Lieberman, who was a leader of 
the DLC and a great mentor of mine on foreign policy issues; Senator 
Ted Stevens, who was as grumpy as could be but really did take me under 
his wing and teach me a lot; Senator Danny Inouye; Senator Robert Byrd. 
And I am going to put others into the Record: Senators Mikulski, 
Carper, Heitkamp, Manchin, Cantwell, Begich, Pryor, and Hagan.
  I want to say a special word to the Black Caucus. I represent 30 
percent African Americans in my State. You know, all groups of people 
are hard to represent, and my State is so diverse, and I have tried so 
hard to be respectful of all the different groups in my State.
  I thank the Black Caucus--both the local elected officials and the 
National Black Caucus--for being such a great partner with me and 
helping me to understand about compassion, forgiveness, faithfulness, 
and for trust. Their spiritual strength is so amazing. I thank them 
very much for coming down to help me.
  I thank labor, who brought me here. They encouraged me to run when I 
was 23 years old, and I tried to never leave them. Only 8 percent of my 
State is now organized. I have never left them. I think you should 
leave with the people who brought you to the dance, and they most 
certainly did.
  I thank Harry Reid, who has been an amazing friend to me and who, 
most importantly, has been a great friend to my family. He has honored 
us in so many small ways, and I just love him for his tenacity and his 
leadership.
  I thank you all. I hope I didn't leave anyone out. It has been a joy, 
but I know God is calling me to a different place. I am not the least 
bit sad and I am not the least bit afraid because it has been a 
remarkable opportunity to serve with all of you, and I thank you very 
much.
  (Applause, Senators rising.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Walsh). The Senator from Louisiana.


                        Tribute to Mary Landrieu

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to thank Senator Landrieu for her 
tireless service in the U.S. Senate to our State and to the country. I 
have had the pleasure of knowing Mary for a long time. She was in her 
second year of service in the Senate when I first came to Washington to 
the U.S. House, but it is far longer than that, probably longer than 
anyone in this Chamber realizes. Both sets of my grandparents live all 
of 3 blocks from where Mary grew up, and I grew up all of 10 blocks 
from there. Mary and my brother Jeff were grammar school classmates 
starting at kindergarten.
  Of course, here in the Senate I had the honor of working with Mary on 
so many important issues and challenges. From the moment we worked 
together on key Louisiana issues, we determined on those issues to put 
aside any partisan concerns when those crucial priorities were at 
stake.
  As she alluded to, the most challenging and trying time in all of 
that experience was just a few months after I first came to the Senate 
when Hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck. Neither of us could have ever 
imagined facing the challenges our State and Mississippi and others 
faced and facing the challenges we faced in the Senate trying to 
respond in a robust and full and responsible way. I am sure it was the 
most trying work for both of us in our careers.
  Louisiana faced unprecedented disaster and desperation, and that 
brought us together all the more to work for those crucial Louisiana 
needs and priorities. We traveled together, of course, to see the 
damage and meet with our neighbors and local leaders all around the 
State. Her staff and mine worked directly together around-the-clock, 
really, for months, sometimes in my office, sometimes in hers, always 
with the same goal of doing everything possible to help our neighbors 
and Louisiana citizens get through that disaster and get through to a 
full recovery.
  Those trials, of course, didn't end with Katrina and Rita. There were 
other similar challenges which brought us together and on which Mary 
was a distinguished leader. She was always a champion for domestic 
energy production, and Louisiana will enjoy a far fairer share of oil 
and gas revenue under the legislation commonly referred to as Domenici-
Landrieu.
  After the infamous BP oilspill in 2010, Mary pushed for the RESTORE 
Act legislation to dedicate revenue from the fines to oilspill recovery 
in the affected areas.
  As Louisiana fights continually against the loss of coastal wetlands, 
major restoration work is moving forward because of Mary's years of 
hard work directly related to that.
  Due to Mary's strong support of our Nation's military, our fighting 
men and women are better off. The bases in Louisiana, which are 
important to our communities and to the Nation's defense, continue to 
have what they need for their vital mission. Our veterans face 
challenges and most recently faced the crying need for new health care 
clinics in Louisiana, and Mary helped make those finally happen, 
finally move forward, including pushing the case fervently and directly 
to administration officials.
  In a very personal and dramatic way, Mary is enthusiastic in 
promoting children's welfare and supporting adoption. Her dedication 
internationally was recognized when Russia banned her travel after her 
direct and well-founded criticism of Russia's action to curb adoption 
by Americans.
  In all of this work, one thing is always crystal clear--certainly 
crystal clear to me--with Senator Landrieu: Louisiana has always been 
first in her heart and her top motivation, and she has had a 
distinguished career of service in the Senate on all of those issues I 
mentioned and many more. All of us in Louisiana gives her our sincere 
thanks for that.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  With Senator Mary Landrieu's permission, I want to do a quick 
interlude to send a bill over to the House.

                          ____________________