[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18909-18925]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  NOMINATION OF VIVEK HALLEGERE MURTHY TO BE MEDICAL DIRECTOR IN THE 
 REGULAR CORPS OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, SUBJECT TO QUALIFICATIONS 
THEREFOR AS PROVIDED BY LAW AND REGULATIONS, AND TO BE SURGEON GENERAL 
                      OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF DANIEL J. SANTOS TO BE A MEMBER OF THE DEFENSE NUCLEAR 
                        FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

                                 ______
                                 

   NOMINATION OF FRANK A. ROSE TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE 
                     (VERIFICATION AND COMPLIANCE)

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF SARAH R. SALDANA TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF HOMELAND 
                                SECURITY

                                 ______
                                 

      NOMINATION OF ANTONY BLINKEN TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following 
nominations, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nominations of Vivek Hallegere Murthy, 
of Massachusetts, to be Medical Director in the Regular Corps of the 
Public Health Service, subject to qualifications therefor as provided 
by law and regulations, and to be Surgeon General of the Public Health 
Service; Daniel J. Santos, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Defense 
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board; Frank A. Rose, of Massachusetts, to be 
an Assistant Secretary of State (Verification and Compliance); Sarah R. 
Saldana, of Texas, to be an Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security; 
and Antony Blinken, of New York, to be Deputy Secretary of State.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Murthy Nomination

  Mr. BARRASSO. I rise today to oppose the nomination of Dr. Vivek 
Murthy to be Surgeon General of the United States. The Surgeon General 
is known as America's doctor. Americans have great respect for this 
important position. They expect their Surgeon General to be someone who 
has substantial experience in helping patients, in helping improve 
their health, and in helping them reduce their risk of illness and 
injury.
  This important position has been vacant since July of 2013, about a 
year and a half. It is far too long, and it has been completely 
avoidable. We have seen how the Obama administration has struggled in 
response to important health issues such as the Ebola crisis. America 
should have had a Surgeon General in the job to lead in the fight 
against Ebola and to take on other serious health challenges as well.
  Dr. Murthy is a smart man who is very well educated. He has an 
undergraduate degree from Harvard, an MBA from Yale, and an M.D. from 
the Yale School of Medicine. These are impressive academic credentials, 
and I am sure he will be a fine doctor, but they are simply not 
sufficient qualifications for this important job.
  Is Dr. Murthy a renowned expert in treating patients or researching 
diseases? No, not at all. Has he actually built a career teaching 
medicine or leading major public health organizations? No, not yet. In 
fact, Dr. Murthy only completed his residency in 2006--just 8 years 
ago. I speak as someone who has actually practiced medicine for 25 
years, has been an instructor of surgery at Yale Medical School, which 
Dr. Murthy attended, and I saw that being a doctor is about much more 
than going to school. Doctors learn more and more as they progress 
through their careers and spend more time with their patients, 
listening to patients and the patients' families. Dr. Murthy has not 
had the time to develop these kinds of skills.
  So what qualifies him to be Surgeon General of the United States? 
Well, in 2008, just 2 years out of his residency, he founded a group 
called Doctors for Obama; the purpose: to elect a President. The 
majority of his career has been spent not as a doctor treating patients 
but as an activist--an activist focused on gun control and political 
campaigns.
  Even former Surgeon General Richard Carmona has said Dr. Murthy 
doesn't have the medical experience to serve in such an important 
position. Let me point out that Dr. Carmona is a Democrat. He wrote an 
article for the Huffington Post on December 4. It was entitled ``In 
Search of a Surgeon General.'' I will read a little bit of what he 
wrote. He said:

       We don't appoint doctors early in their career to be a 
     university Dean or Chairman. Graduate business students at 
     the top of their class don't become instant CEOs. Top law 
     graduates of elite law schools don't get nominated to be U.S. 
     Attorney General or a Supreme Court Justice. Why would the 
     U.S. Surgeon General be any different?

  He concludes by asking:

       Is the health, safety, and security of the Nation any less 
     important?

  Is the health, safety, and security of the Nation any less important? 
Well, no, the health, safety, and security of the Nation are not less 
important, and the job of Surgeon General is not less important.
  Americans want the same thing from a Surgeon General as they want 
from their own doctors. People want honest and straightforward advice 
about medical dangers, such as cancer, heart attacks, and stroke. They 
don't want an inexperienced, unqualified political appointee. Patients 
don't want a doctor who might let political ideology get in the way of 
treatment and their best interest. Americans don't want a Surgeon 
General who might use this position of trust to promote his own 
personal campaign against the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
  This is just another example of President Obama giving someone an 
important job based solely on their support of the President's 
political career--just like his nomination of a soap opera producer to 
be Ambassador to Hungary or the President's nomination of a man to be 
Ambassador to Norway when the person didn't know the first thing about 
the country. Of course, both those nominations to be Ambassadors had 
funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to the President's campaigns. 
Well, those nominations were embarrassing, and so is this nomination to 
be Surgeon General.
  This office of Surgeon General is not just an honorary title. It is 
not just a figurehead position. The Surgeon General commands the entire 
Commissioned Corps of the uniformed public health officers. There are 
6,700 people whom the Surgeon General commands. It is one of the key 
positions leading America's public health efforts.
  America has a long history of qualified and talented people filling 
this job. When President Bill Clinton nominated David Satcher in 1998, 
Dr. Satcher had already served as president of a medical school and as 
Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. C. Everett 
Koop spent 35 years as a leading world-renowned pediatric surgeon. They 
were substantial candidates who brought serious experience to the job. 
The responsibilities of being America's Surgeon General require a 
strong, professional leader, and the American people deserve a 
qualified nominee. There is a long list of capable doctors who could 
meet those requirements. The President should pick one of them.
  Over the years, we have seen that when the President has nominated 
qualified people for this position, the Senate has approved their 
nominations on overwhelmingly bipartisan votes. When President Obama 
nominated Regina Benjamin to be Surgeon General,

[[Page 18910]]

she was confirmed unanimously, as was Richard Carmona when President 
Bush nominated him. Today, even Democrats have objected to the 
nomination of Dr. Murthy.
  So why are we wasting the Senate's time talking about this now? Well, 
if President Obama thinks Dr. Murthy is qualified, why haven't we 
already voted on him? He was nominated more than a year ago--more than 
a year ago. We had the Ebola crisis and no Surgeon General. He was 
nominated more than a year ago. His confirmation hearing in the 
committee was last February. The majority leader could have brought 
this up for a vote at any time in the past 9 months, but he didn't do 
it. Why? Because he knew this nominee--this unqualified, partisan 
nominee--didn't have the votes. He could not get the votes on the 
Democratic side of the aisle. The nomination would have been an 
embarrassment before the election.
  Now is not the right time for this nomination, and this is not the 
right job for Dr. Murthy. The Ebola problem and the other health crises 
facing our Nation are enormous challenges that require skills and 
talents that this nominee has simply not had time to develop and which 
he has so far not demonstrated in his career.
  I wish to close by quoting from a letter former Surgeon General 
Carmona sent to all of the Members of the Senate earlier this month. He 
sent it to each and every one of us. I ask unanimous consent that the 
letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 December 1, 2014.
       Dear Senator, I am writing to express my concern over the 
     present nominee for U.S. Surgeon General whose name may be 
     submitted to you for confirmation during the remaining Senate 
     session. The U.S. Surgeon General is the doctor of the nation 
     and the commander of the U.S. Public Health Service 
     Commissioned Corps, one of the seven uniformed services of 
     the United States. The nominee, Dr. Vivek Murthy is a 
     physician very early in his career with great promise but no 
     formal public health education, training, leadership or 
     management experience.
       However, he was the founder of Doctors for Obama, a 
     partisan organization supporting the election and policies of 
     President Obama. His partisanship and lack of qualifications 
     for the job of Surgeon General give this nomination the scent 
     of political patronage. In addition, the position of Surgeon 
     General is a uniformed services position with the rank of 
     Vice Admiral. The nominee has no uniformed service 
     experience, does not merit this rank and his confirmation 
     would undermine the credibility and authenticity of the 
     Office of the Surgeon General while demeaning the selfless 
     service of qualified career uniformed officers who merit 
     consideration.
       The public we have the privilege to serve deserves and 
     expects a Surgeon General who, through extensive education, 
     experience, training and service, merits the position of 
     Surgeon General of the United States.
       For these reasons, I respectfully request that if this 
     nomination comes before you that you reject it in favor of a 
     qualified career USPHSCC officer who merits your 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
     Richard H. Carmona, MD, MPH, FACS.

  Mr. BARRASSO. Dr. Carmona writes:

       His partisanship and lack of qualifications for the job of 
     Surgeon General gives this nomination the scent of political 
     patronage.

  That is from a Democrat who actually served as Surgeon General and 
knows what it takes to do the job well.
  Dr. Carmona added in his letter to all of the Members of the Senate:

       His confirmation would undermine the credibility and 
     authenticity of the Office of Surgeon General, while 
     demeaning the selfless service of qualified career uniformed 
     officers who merit consideration.

  That is whom the President of the United States has chosen to 
nominate--someone who would undermine the credibility and authenticity 
of the Office of Surgeon General, while demeaning the selfless service 
of qualified career uniformed officers who merit consideration.
  Americans deserve a Surgeon General who has substantial experience in 
managing complex crises and delivering patient care. The American 
people deserve a Surgeon General who has proven throughout his or her 
career that their main focus is a commitment to patients, not a 
commitment to politics.
  Dr. Murthy has time to learn, time to gain experience, and that may 
make him a fine Surgeon General someday, but that day is not today. I 
call on the Senate to defeat the nomination of Dr. Murthy for Surgeon 
General of the United States.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I see my friend from Wyoming, who spoke 
on the floor earlier and is in the Chamber, and I wish to publicly 
acknowledge--and I hope he will too--that we are friends, but we 
disagree on the nomination of Dr. Murthy to be the next Surgeon 
General. I will speak for a few moments about why I support him, and I 
hope a majority of Members will join me in supporting his nomination.
  This is an indication of what can go wrong in the Senate. We received 
this nomination from the President of the United States to fill the 
post of Surgeon General, which was reported from the committee in 
February of this year. Obviously we are in December. It has been 
sitting here since February. In fact, the post of Surgeon General has 
been vacant since July of 2013.
  The Surgeon General is supposed to be one of the leaders in America 
speaking to issues on public health. Can anyone think of a public 
health issue we have had to face since February when Dr. Murthy was 
reported to the floor of the Senate? Perhaps one of the deadliest 
diseases that has ever been recorded is being fought in west Africa, 
and we are being asked on a regular basis how we will respond in the 
United States. The Centers for Disease Control plays a major role in it 
but, historically, Surgeons General have played a major role when we 
faced similar public health challenges.
  I can remember coming to the U.S. House of Representatives years ago 
when President Reagan had been elected, and he had chosen C. Everett 
Koop to be his Surgeon General. C. Everett Koop was a controversial 
choice by President Reagan because he had been outspoken on some major 
political issues. He personally had strong feelings against abortion 
and had said as much before his nomination, and some other issues. It 
led many people to believe he was too political for the job and that 
President Reagan had made the wrong choice. But Koop was chosen. 
Despite the fact that he had been at least engaged as a medical doctor 
in discussing political issues, he was chosen. I wasn't in the Senate 
at the time; I didn't have a vote when it came to his choice, but I 
will tell my colleagues this: When Dr. Koop took over as Surgeon 
General, he made it clear he understood his obligation was to be the 
Nation's doctor, not the Nation's leading medical politician. He did 
some extraordinary things. I don't know what America would have been 
like if it were not for Dr. Koop's presence, pushing back on a lot of 
political spin when it came to public health issues--issues involving 
AIDS, for example.
  It is no secret--it is well known--that many politicians--in both 
parties, for that matter--were reluctant to go into the whole issue of 
the AIDS crisis in America for a variety of reasons. But if my 
colleagues will remember, history shows that under Dr. Koop, we ended 
up mailing every household in America to let them know about the danger 
of the AIDS epidemic. That was an extraordinary act of public 
leadership when it came to public health, and Dr. Koop was Surgeon 
General when that occurred. So those who worried that C. Everett Koop 
was too political for the job were disabused of that notion as we 
watched his service to our country.
  I make that point because I don't want the same mistake to be made in 
criticizing Dr. Vivek Murthy whom we are going to vote on later today 
to be our next Surgeon General. It is true that he has engaged in 
political activity, as any American citizen is entitled to. I hope that 
will not disqualify him. When I read in a few moments the

[[Page 18911]]

groups that are supporting him, people will understand he isn't in this 
position of being nominated simply because of his political activity. 
He has extraordinary backing of individuals in the medical profession.
  Now we need him more than ever. We need to fill the post of Surgeon 
General of the United States of America. We hope we can see an end to 
the Ebola epidemic, but we are not quite there. But we ought to have a 
Surgeon General in the United States of America. To think we have 
waited since February while this doctor's name has been on our 
calendar, and we had to use some extraordinary parliamentary moves to 
even bring his name up for a vote. I think it is time for us to vote 
and it is time for us to confirm the nomination of Vivek Murthy as our 
next Surgeon General.
  This past year, Americans have battled public health crises on all 
fronts. Here at home, parents watched while a severe strain of 
enterovirus spread from State to State, threatening young children. My 
home State of Illinois was one of the hardest hit. I heard from doctors 
across the State that the minute they discharged one child with 
respiratory symptoms from the emergency room, another came in.
  Abroad, we still face the worst Ebola epidemic in history. With over 
6,300 deaths and many more diagnosed with this devastating disease, now 
more than ever America needs to fill the spot of top doctor. It has 
been vacant since July--since July of last year. Dr. Murthy is that 
doctor, and I am proud to vote for him as the next U.S. Surgeon 
General. I am hoping my colleagues will join me.
  Let me tell my colleagues a little bit about his background. Dr. 
Murthy is an attending physician at Brigham and Women's Hospital and an 
instructor at the Harvard Medical School. Part of what is extraordinary 
about him is that as well as treating his patients individually, he 
also thinks about the systemic issues affecting the health of patients 
and tackles those as well. He is a leading voice in public health, 
publishing his research on the participation of women and minorities in 
cancer clinical trials and top journals, including Science, Journal of 
the American Medical Association, and Journal of the National Cancer 
Institute.
  Critics of Dr. Murthy who say he is not up to the job should look at 
the literature. He has published in medical research areas of great 
importance. He also cofounded and chairs the Trial Networks, a software 
company that helps clinical researchers collaborate more effectively 
and efficiently with drug developers to speed up drug discovery.
  In 2011, Dr. Murthy was appointed to the Advisory Group on 
Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health. Over 
100 national, State, and local public health organizations have 
endorsed his nomination. They describe him as ``a well-qualified, 
forward-thinking, innovative leader with a strong commitment to public 
health.''
  Does that sound like a political hack when 100 organizations say that 
about this doctor?
  The organizations that support Dr. Murthy include the American 
College of Physicians, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the 
American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, 
the American Hospital Association, the American Cancer Society, the 
American Heart Association, the American Diabetes Association, and the 
list goes on from there.
  In his confirmation hearing before the Senate HELP Committee last 
February, Dr. Murthy stated that, if confirmed, he would prioritize his 
efforts on obesity and tobacco-related disease and ``make prevention 
and health promotion the backbone of our communities.''
  This is a priority I share with Dr. Murthy. For the past 30 years, 
serving in the House and Senate, I have worked on the issue of tobacco 
and public policy. I have worked to reduce youth smoking, implement 
programs to help people quit, and rein in the most insidious practices 
of the tobacco industry. Moreover, as a cochair of the Senate Hunger 
Caucus, I have become familiar with the complex and arguably unjust way 
food is distributed and consumed in America, leaving communities--
including many in Illinois--simultaneously facing high levels of food 
insecurity and high rates of obesity.
  Obesity and tobacco-related diseases are part of a growing trend of 
chronic disease that account for 7 out of the top 10 causes of death in 
America and make up 84 percent of America's health care costs. Dr. 
Murthy says these are his priorities. They should be. These statistics 
are unacceptable.
  I believe Dr. Murthy understands the importance of the national 
crises before him. I feel confident that his experience, his training, 
and his tenacity have proved that he has the qualifications needed to 
tackle these issues.
  Not only is Dr. Murthy an outstanding doctor and public health 
expert, he also remains closely connected to his community and family.
  Dr. Murthy was born to parents who originally were from the southern 
part of India. He came to the United States at the age of 3 and grew up 
in Miami, FL. He did very well in school. He was valedictorian of his 
high school, graduated magna cum laude from Harvard in just 3 years, 
and then got a combined medical and business degree from Yale.
  So Senators come to the floor and question this man's resume, his 
ability? For goodness sakes. He has an extraordinary background and 
that is why the President nominated him.
  From a very early age, Dr. Murthy did not set out to make money, he 
set out to make a difference. In 1995 he cofounded Visions Worldwide, a 
nonprofit organization that conducts and supports HIV/AIDS education 
and empowerment programs in India. Until 2003, he served as the 
president of that organization and then board chair. He is a dedicated 
uncle and friend, consistently described by those who know him as 
humble, soft-spoken, and tireless. I know the Indian-American community 
across this Nation is so proud of Dr. Murthy's accomplishments, as all 
of us should be.
  Many years ago I worked for a State Senator in Illinois named Cecil 
Partee. Cecil Partee used to say, For every political controversy, when 
you listen to the arguments, understand there is a good reason and a 
real reason.
  What is the real reason for the opposition to Dr. Murthy? It may have 
come down to just one thing he said. It was alluded to by the Senator 
from Wyoming earlier. In an online post, he said he believed gun 
violence was a public health issue. Gun violence, a public health 
issue. For making that statement, he has been pilloried and excoriated 
by the gun lobby, and that may be a major reason why his nomination is 
controversial.
  I am proud to represent the city of Chicago and the State of 
Illinois. Gun violence is a public health problem. Go into the 
emergency rooms--and I can give the names of the list of hospitals in 
Chicago to start with. Go to the emergency room on Friday or Saturday 
night and you tell me that gun violence isn't a public health issue. In 
those emergency rooms we see the victims of gun violence, many of them 
fighting for their lives. If we go to Mount Sinai Hospital in the 
Englewood section of Chicago, we can look across the street to a rehab 
institute. Those who have survived gun violence at Mount Sinai go 
across the street to the Schwab Rehabilitation Hospital and learn how 
to live a life as a paraplegic or a quadriplegic. Does that have 
anything to do with public health? It certainly does. Gun violence is a 
public health issue, no apology necessary.
  I think Dr. Murthy, as has Dr. Koop, has made it clear they are not 
aspiring to be the leading doctor in America to engage in a political 
debate, but rather to engage in public health debates about obesity and 
tobacco and things that make a dramatic difference to the lives of so 
many people who live in this country.
  I am supporting Dr. Murthy. I think he will be an extraordinary 
Surgeon General. I am sorry he and America have had to wait so long for 
this vote. I hope the majority of my colleagues will step up and 
support his nomination as well. At this time of challenge

[[Page 18912]]

when it comes to public health issues, we need his leadership. We need 
his expertise. We need a person of this quality as Surgeon General of 
the United States.
  I yield the floor and 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. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Tribute to Kay Hagan

  Mr. REID. Madam President, North Carolina's official motto is a Latin 
phrase which means, simply translated, ``To be, rather than to seem.'' 
``To be, rather than to seem'' means don't talk about being a hard 
worker--be a hard worker. Don't just pretend to be honest--be honest. 
If you talk about being sincere, be genuine about it. Senator Kay 
Hagan, a native of Shelby, NC, embodies her State's motto. She is as 
genuine and honest as anyone could be. It is no wonder that in 2008, 
when the country was seeking change, the people of North Carolina 
elected Kay Hagan to the Senate. From the moment she arrived, she got 
to work. The very first piece of legislation she cosponsored was the 
Lilly Ledbetter Act. Having worked as a corporate executive, Kay is 
aware of the difficulties working women face. This legislation was 
personal to Kay, and she saw it through until completion. The daughter 
of a veteran, Kay spent her time in the Senate creating sound policies 
to protect and benefit members of the U.S. armed services and their 
families. She has done this by virtue of her position, not only as a 
Senator but on that important Armed Services Committee.
  As a former executive of North Carolina National Bank, Kay knows all 
of the challenges facing businesses in her State and how women have a 
little different view of how difficult it is to work their way through 
the corporate world. She has fought tirelessly to create a better 
climate for small businesses to create jobs and grow. On any given 
issue, at any given time, Kay Hagan has advocated her position and has 
done it well. She refused to give up until meaningful solutions were 
discovered.
  While I am sure Senator Hagan will take some well-deserved time off 
to think about her future, I am convinced that her service on behalf of 
the people of North Carolina and the American people is not going to 
end.
  Senator Hagan has a lovely family. We all like Chip very much. He is 
a Navy Vietnam veteran. She has three children--Tilden, Jeanette, and 
Carrie. I wish her family the very best as they transition into a new 
chapter of their lives.
  On a personal basis, no one has impressed me more as being a hard 
worker. We are so disappointed that she is now going to have to find 
different public service. I have no inside information, but she could 
be back in this body. I have no doubt the people of North Carolina are 
going to miss her dearly.
  I applaud Kay Hagan for serving the American people with conviction, 
and I look forward to the great things she will accomplish for North 
Carolina and our country in the future.
  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.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President,
  I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


             National Women's History Museum Commission Act

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, last week the Senate passed the 
National Women's History Museum Commission Act, a bill that I authored 
with the dean of the Democratic women Senators, Senator Mikulski of 
Maryland. It passed finally as part of the National Defense 
Authorization Act.
  Our legislation will create a commission to evaluate and plan the 
establishment of a museum dedicated to women's history right here in 
our Nation's Capital. I know the Presiding Officer shares my view that 
this is long overdue.
  I am in fact pleased to have had all of the women Senators as 
cosponsors of this bill, and I am thankful for the support of many of 
our other colleagues as well. Senator Mikulski has been a terrific co-
leader, and I thank her for her leadership.
  A women's history museum is long overdue in Washington, DC. Think of 
it. We actually have a museum dedicated to honoring buildings. We have 
museums along the mall that commemorate various aspects of our history. 
We have the Air and Space Museum. There is a privately run Spy Museum. 
There is the Newseum, which honors journalism. There is a museum that 
honors Native Americans. Americans from all over this country can come 
to Washington and learn about our history and the contributions of the 
people who have made our Nation the greatest country in the world. 
Despite the plethora of museums, however, there has been no museum 
dedicated to the women who have helped to shape our Nation's history.
  The legislation that was finally approved last week calls for a 
commission to fund its own costs, and it would be paid for entirely 
with private funds at no cost to American taxpayers.
  This commission would put forth a plan for establishing a museum on 
women's history so that people who are coming to Washington can learn 
about the enormous contributions of women to our Nation's history.
  Indeed, American women have made invaluable contributions to our 
country across such diverse fields as government, business, medicine, 
law, literature, sports, entertainment, the arts, and the military. A 
museum dedicated to women's history will help ensure that future 
generations understand what it is we owe to the many American women who 
have helped to build, sustain, and advance our society.
  Such a museum will share the stories of pioneering women such as 
abolitionist Harriet Tubman, the founder of the Girl Scouts, Juliette 
Gordon Low, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, astronaut Sally 
Ride, and my personal inspiration, Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith.
  I first introduced legislation to establish a museum for women's 
history in 2003. Early the following year, the Senate unanimously 
approved my bill. Unfortunately, that legislation was not taken up by 
the House and died.
  In 2005, the Senate again approved the legislation, but it too 
stalled in the House. With the passage finally of this commission bill, 
the effort to establish a museum for women's history in our Nation's 
Capital takes a positive step forward.
  This bill will convene a talented, diverse, and skilled panel of 
historians, educators, museum administrators, and other experts with 
experience in women's history to make recommendations for the creation 
and the sustainment of such a museum.
  It is important to emphasize that this museum will portray all 
aspects of women's contributions to our history, without partisanship 
or bias. The only political statement we will be making is to correct 
the longstanding omission of the role of women in America's history.
  I also recognize and thank Chairwoman Landrieu and Ranking Member 
Murkowski for their careful consideration of our bill by the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee, which unanimously approved it last month.
  Telling the history of the contributions of American women matters, 
and this bill takes a long overdue first step toward recognizing and 
honoring those who have shaped our shared American heritage. I look 
forward to the day when young girls and young boys visiting Washington 
will be able to visit a women's history museum to learn more about the 
remarkable contributions of American women to our Nation.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page 18913]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Tribute to Saxby Chambliss

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, it is a great pleasure but a 
bittersweet moment for me to rise on the Senate floor to pay tribute to 
a dear friend and an esteemed colleague, Senator Saxby Chambliss.
  After 20 years in Congress--8 in the House and 12 here in the 
Senate--Senator Chambliss retires from this phase of service to Georgia 
and to our Nation with a well-deserved reputation as a true statesman.
  At a time when the coarsening political discourse across our Nation 
and here in Congress is a growing concern, Senator Chambliss is a 
shining example of expertise and ability combined with civility and 
respect. He leaves Congress not only with many friends on both sides of 
the aisle, but also with many accomplishments to his credit.
  His leadership in national security and intelligence in both Chambers 
has been a great asset to our Nation. From agriculture to armed 
services, Senator Chambliss has been an informed and effective advocate 
for his constituents and for the American people.
  The golfers here might consider the hole-in-one he famously scored in 
a foursome with President Obama last year to be worthy of mention. 
Personally, as the founder and cochair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, I 
would consider his dedication to the cause of juvenile diabetes to be a 
true highlight.
  I have also had the great pleasure of serving with Senator Chambliss 
both on the Intelligence Committee, where he is the vice chairman, and 
previously on the Senate Armed Services Committee. I saw firsthand his 
extraordinary grasp of complicated issues that are so critical to the 
security of our Nation. I also witnessed how he would listen carefully 
to the views of others, whether on the Republican side of the aisle or 
from the Democratic Members on both committees.
  But if there is one shining moment that stands out for me, it would 
be Senator Chambliss's leadership in the Gang of 6 during the 2011 debt 
ceiling crisis. At a time when it was far easier to stand back, point 
fingers, and fix blame, Senator Chambliss, along with Senator Mark 
Warner, led the way in producing a framework to provide a bipartisan, 
comprehensive, and balanced way to put our Nation on a stable fiscal 
path. The fact that our national debt has grown from $16 trillion to 
$18 trillion since then makes it all the more imperative that we 
continue the effort, with the leadership that was shown by Senator 
Chambliss and that he so courageously helped to start.
  The fact that this dedicated and wise leader cited Washington 
gridlock and partisan posturing as the driving force in his decision to 
retire from the Senate should give us all cause to reflect.
  Senator Saxby Chambliss has always been a voice of reason. No matter 
how bitter the debate, he has always engaged in thoughtful discussions 
that result in solutions. As he returns to private life, his advice 
will continue to be sought after and I hope heeded. His knowledge and 
insight will still be valued, and the example of decency and civility 
he has set should guide us all. I know his beloved wife, his children, 
and his grandchildren will be happy to have more of Senator Chambliss's 
time, but for those of us who have been privileged to serve with him in 
the Senate, his decision to retire is a great loss.
  The people of Georgia, the people of America, and those of us who 
have been privileged to serve as Saxby Chambliss's colleagues are 
grateful for his service. I wish him all the best in the years to come, 
both on and off the golf course.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Tributes To Departing Senators

                             MARY LANDRIEU

  Mr. REID. Madam President, a noted author and analyst of human 
behavior, Stephen Covey, said, ``Strength lies in differences, not in 
similarities.''
  For the last 18 years, Senate Democrats were stronger because of 
Senator Mary Landrieu. Her ability to shun political labels--instead of 
just going the route with Democrats and Republicans and Independents, 
she went her route. She made the United States a better place. She made 
the Senate a better place.
  She had good training for being a consensus builder and somebody who 
liked compromise. I had the good fortune to serve in the Senate with 
other Louisiana Senators. I served with Bennett Johnston for many years 
on the Appropriations Committee. He was chairman of the Energy and 
Water Subcommittee on Appropriations. He was a good legislator. Not 
only did he help Louisiana a lot, he helped the country. And then there 
was John Breaux. He and I came to the Senate together. He was the 
dealmaker. He could put a deal together when no one thought one could 
be put together. So Mary Landrieu has had good Louisiana genes with 
those two men, and that is one of the reasons she has been as effective 
as she has been.
  As I indicated, Mary came to the Senate with no partisan agenda. She 
was not interested in representing just liberals or just conservatives. 
She worked to represent all of Louisiana, which meant that sometimes 
she and I were not on the same side of an issue, and other times we 
were on the same side of an issue, but one thing was always certain: 
She was always on Louisiana's side.
  The Landrieu family's political legacy runs long and deep in the 
State of Louisiana. She is the oldest of nine children. She is the 
daughter of Moon Landrieu, and her brother Mitch Landrieu is the mayor 
of New Orleans. Moon was a former mayor of New Orleans from 1970 to 
1978, and was Jimmy Carter's Secretary of Housing and Urban 
Development.
  A number of years ago, I toured New Orleans because she asked me to, 
as a member of the Appropriations Committee. I said, OK, I will go, but 
I have to see those pumps--p-u-m-p-s. I watched this show on national 
public broadcasting, and they talked about these old pumps that had 
been there since 1900 that still worked every day pumping the water.
  New Orleans is below sea level and those pumps have to work 24 hours 
a day. I went to see those old, old pumps. They were so clean. That 
place was spotlessly clean using those very old pumps.
  I toured Lake Pontchartrain. I learned so much about it. Most all of 
the highways in New Orleans were built using the seashells from that 
lake. Thousands and thousands of tons of shells have come out of that 
lake. They recently stopped doing that, after so many years, because 
they thought it would be damaging to the environment. But over the last 
50, 60, 100 years, thousands and thousands of tons of shells came out 
of that lake. We all heard about Lake Pontchartrain during that huge 
storm that hit.
  Also, as part of the tour of New Orleans, you had to go to her home, 
that little home where nine children were raised. It is really a 
beautiful little home--but nine children, wow. Her mom and dad were 
there. That was the first time I had been able to meet the famous Moon 
Landrieu.
  When we came there, unannounced, he was making peanut brittle, and I 
got some peanut brittle. On occasion, that good man has sent me some of 
his homemade peanut brittle. So I think the world of Mary and her 
family.
  She was very quick to follow in her father's footsteps. At the age of 
23, she was elected to the State legislature,

[[Page 18914]]

making her the youngest woman to have ever been elected to that body.
  After 8 years in the legislature, she became the State treasurer for 
8 years. In 1996, she was elected to the Senate, becoming the first 
woman in Louisiana ever elected to a full Senate term.
  Since coming to the Senate, Mary has chaired the Senate committee on 
small business, and she was really good there. She is now the chair of 
the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the same full 
committee her predecessor Bennett Johnson chaired.
  On the committee on small business, she reduced heavy Federal 
regulations and created tax relief for small businesses. As chair of 
the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Mary Landrieu 
fought for Louisiana's industry and jobs. Even before she became chair 
of that committee, she did something that was impossible. People had 
been trying to do something like this in Louisiana for 50, 60 years, 70 
years, 80 years, but she did it--she was able to get New Orleans and 
the whole State of Louisiana and the gulf coast some financial benefit 
from the offshore drilling. She did that. That is a legacy she will 
always have.
  She always had Louisiana's interests at heart, and the people of 
Louisiana have been all the better because of it. For example, in the 
aftermath of Katrina, she stood up to the Bush administration and 
demanded more disaster relief for the people in Louisiana. The New York 
Times called her ``the national spokeswoman for victims of the 
hurricane.''
  As her time in the Senate comes to an end, all Louisianans will miss 
having Mary in their corner. I wish Mary Landrieu and her husband Frank 
and their children Connor--who was recently married--and Mary Shannon 
the very best.
  I remember when Mary brought that little baby Mary Shannon to the 
Senate. She was a tiny little baby. Now this beautiful child has grown 
to be an expert horsewoman. She is one of those people who rides horses 
all the time. She has entered her horses in different contests and has 
done very well.
  I have known Connor since he was a little boy. He is married, and 
they have a little baby named Maddox, and Mary is so proud of her 
grandchild. Her husband Frank is a wonderful human being. I think so 
very much of him. I hope we will continue seeing them. Very often Mary 
will bring her family to my office. She takes them out on the balcony 
that overlooks the Mall.
  Mary has touched my heart for a number of things, but the one thing 
she has done, which has been unsurpassed, is her caring for children 
who have no parents--adoptions. She led the Senate in adoptions. Her 
two children were adopted. Connor and Mary Shannon were adopted. She is 
so involved in that program, and I know she will continue to be 
involved.
  Here on the Senate floor we will all miss Mary, her voice of reason 
and moderation. I consider her to be a good friend, and I appreciate 
all she has done for me, the people of Louisiana, and our country.


                               John Walsh

  Mr. REID. Madam President, there is only one combat veteran of the 
Iraq war in the Senate, and that is GEN John Walsh--Senator John Walsh.
  In 2004 General Walsh led the deployment of several hundred National 
Guard men from Montana to Iraq. He did the same thing a year later. It 
was a very difficult time for Americans in Iraq. General Walsh's men 
were in some of the heaviest battles. Many of them were wounded, and a 
number of them gave the ultimate sacrifice.
  He led the largest deployment of Montana soldiers and airmen since 
World War II. For his service, John was awarded the Bronze Star, the 
Legion of Merit Award, and the Combat Infantry Badge. John came to the 
Senate a hero, and he will leave the Senate a hero.
  He treated his time in the Senate like his time in the Army--he 
volunteered for the most difficult assignments here in the Senate. For 
example, Saturday night it was late--we thought we may have to be in 
here all night--and he volunteered to be here all night, not having to 
be relieved. He agreed to be here all night. He said: That is what I am 
here for.
  He served the people of Montana admirably in the Senate. I thank him 
for his service over the past year.
  I thank his family--his wife Janet, his sons Michael and Taylor, and 
granddaughter Kennedy--for their sacrifice in supporting his work here 
in Washington, DC.
  I wish him the very best. He was the lieutenant governor of Montana, 
a job I held in the past, and we talked about that.
  I don't know what the next chapter in his life will be, but knowing 
the courage and integrity of John Walsh, it will be an important 
chapter.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. 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.
  Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, my friend Senator Thune and I are on the 
floor this afternoon to speak together about the Internet Tax Freedom 
Act. Before that, I wish to spend a few minutes discussing Senator 
Rockefeller and his extraordinary accomplishments. I know that Senator 
Thune, after he and I have spoken about the Internet Tax Freedom Act, 
will make some additional remarks. I commend the work of Senator Thune 
on charitable contributions. He and I have led the effort to protect 
charitable donations. Neither of us consider charity efforts as some 
kind of tax loophole. We consider them a lifeline for the American 
people.
  So I look forward to the remarks of the Senator from South Dakota on 
several issues.


                       Tribute To Jay Rockefeller

  With respect to Senator Rockefeller, one of the challenges right now 
for some of us is to get our arms around the idea that Senator 
Rockefeller will no longer be serving in the Senate. This is a 
challenge for me especially because I remember watching Senator 
Rockefeller's work years before I had entered public life.
  Right after I got out of law school, we started the Oregon Gray 
Panthers. I had a full head of hair and rugged good looks. We were 
passing around petitions for the wonderful work Senator Rockefeller was 
doing on behalf of the elderly. He was in the vanguard even then in the 
health care field. I know the Presiding Officer from the State of 
Wisconsin has been very interested in this--in ensuring that there are 
more options for older people, particularly in the long-term care 
setting.
  We were passing petitions around--the Gray Panthers back in those 
days--urging that Americans and the Senate all rally to Senator 
Rockefeller's work to ensure that there were more alternatives to 
nursing home care. It was just the beginning of the effort to create 
more options for home care for seniors. Now it is an idea we pretty 
much accept as gospel. But Senator Rockefeller, as has been the case, 
was way ahead of his time. That is really the time when I began to 
really be a charter member of what I guess I will call the Rockefeller 
grassroots delegation that was sweeping the country for health care 
reform.
  As the Presiding Officer and our colleagues know, Senator 
Rockefeller's accomplishments in a number of fields have been 
exceptional. They span a host of issues, from cyber security to 
reducing violence on television to improving our transportation system 
and, of course, we have all seen his leadership in reining in some of 
the excesses of the CIA. He is a very strong supporter of the rank and 
file--the thousands of individuals who work in the intelligence field 
who are as patriotic as it is possible to be and do wonderful work to 
protect our people. Senator Rockefeller has said that as they do that 
work, they are stronger when there is vigorous congressional oversight, 
and we are very grateful for his

[[Page 18915]]

work. I have sat next to him on the Intelligence Committee for many 
years and have watched his leadership there.
  Today, though, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I wish to 
focus in particular on Senator Rockefeller's work on that committee. I 
will start by noting that his service on the Finance Committee is 
really a family legacy. His great grandfather, Nelson Aldrich, the 
Senator from Rhode Island, not only served on the Finance Committee but 
is often described as one of the committee's most distinguished chairs. 
On the committee Senator Rockefeller has exercised similar influence.
  Jay Rockefeller has served on the Senate Finance Committee for 28 
years--longer than all but 11 other Senators--and his tireless work on 
the committee has had a profound and positive impact. He has been a 
leader on maintaining a strong U.S. trade policy, while thinking 
creatively about Asia long before it became cool. He also has been a 
great advocate for fairness in the tax system--something I know many of 
us consider a special priority at this time.
  Senator Rockefeller has paid special attention to programs such as 
the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, including the health coverage 
tax credit, the earned-income tax credit, and the child tax credit. 
That was drawn from recommendations of the National Commission on 
Children which Senator Rockefeller, as is the case so often, ably 
chaired.
  So I wish to speak about the common denominator in these kinds of 
efforts. It is really pretty direct because it captures Jay 
Rockefeller's approach to public service and to life: Reach out to 
those who don't have power and clout, those who don't have a lot of 
political influence and political action committees, and lend a hand. 
Make the difference. Particularly for millions of Americans to whom Jay 
Rockefeller gave voice, now they have an opportunity--millions of men, 
women, and children--to enjoy better lives and a more secure future 
because of Jay Rockefeller's strong moral compass.
  Now, as I touched on at the beginning of my comments, my first 
experience in watching Jay Rockefeller--I am of the view that health 
care is the area where Senator Rockefeller's legacy is going to be 
especially important. In a sense, Jay Rockefeller always captured the 
notion that if you and your loved ones don't have their health, it is 
pretty hard to do anything else. In other words, if you aren't feeling 
well, if you are facing a chronic illness, how do you jump up and enjoy 
the wonderful outdoors of Oregon, Wisconsin, and West Virginia? So Jay 
Rockefeller always said that health care was a special priority for 
him, and we see it in a whole host of accomplishments.
  Jay Rockefeller has been a leader in the fight against Alzheimer's 
and other neurological conditions. He was a powerful and persistent 
voice, particularly in advocating for low-income Americans in the 
Affordable Care Act. I am especially pleased to note that Senator 
Rockefeller, along with my colleague and partner on the Finance 
Committee Senator Hatch, really played the key role in creating the 
Children's Health Insurance Program. This is a program I hope not only 
will be extended but also strengthened in the next Congress. As many 
Members of this body know, Jay Rockefeller's work to protect and expand 
Medicaid is without equal.
  Over the past half century, we can count on one hand the Senators who 
have done an extraordinary amount to improve the health care of 
America, and when we look at that handful of Senators, Jay Rockefeller 
is right at the top.
  I started with a personal comment about Jay Rockefeller, and I wish 
to end with one. When Chairman Baucus chose to take the Ambassador 
position in China, where he is doing a fine job, Jay Rockefeller was 
next in line to replace Chairman Baucus. Make no mistake about it, Jay 
Rockefeller would have been an outstanding chairman of the Senate 
Finance Committee. But his decision to decline that opportunity and to 
continue his work on the Senate commerce committee allowed me to accept 
the position as the chairman of the Finance Committee and the 
responsibility that has gone along with it. That kind of approach was 
really characteristic of Jay Rockefeller--not wanting to push himself 
out front. As I have indicated, I told him I think he would have been a 
superb chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. But I wish to note on 
the personal side, as I started on the personal side, my thanks to Jay 
Rockefeller.
  So I close simply by saying that now, as the chairman of the Finance 
Committee and in the years ahead, my goal--when we take up issues such 
as health care, tax fairness, and a trade policy that lets us tap 
global markets but works for the middle class worker--and I think it is 
the goal of other members of the Senate Finance Committee--it is our 
goal in the days ahead to live up to the high standard that Senator Jay 
Rockefeller has set.
  With that, I yield the floor on my remarks about Senator Rockefeller.


                        Internet Tax Freedom Act

  Now, for a few minutes, Senator Thune and I are going to talk about 
the Internet Tax Freedom Act and our involvement in it. The story about 
the Internet Tax Freedom Act really starts in the 1990s. This was a 
period when I think policymakers were starting to think about how we 
lay out a framework for addressing the various challenges to ensure 
that the Internet would tap its full potential. We wanted to ensure 
that the Internet would tap its full potential for innovation, for 
commerce, for learning, for health care. I want to make it clear, we 
weren't talking about inventing the Internet. What we were talking 
about was laying out a set of policies to ensure it would be possible 
for our country and for persons all around the world to tap the full 
potential of the Net.
  I got my start with the former Congressman from California, Chris 
Cox, when we were looking at the challenge of what would happen if a 
Web site or a blog was held liable for something that was posted on the 
Web. The two of us, much like Senator Thune and I have done over the 
years on the Internet Tax Freedom Act, tried to really unspool all the 
implications. It became very clear back in the 1990s that if a Web site 
or a blog was held liable for something that was posted on the site, 
nobody would ever go out and invest in what we now know to be the 
social media because the last thing they would do is put their money 
into something where they would be hit and hammered with all kinds of 
litigation and lawsuits. Our former colleague Chris Cox and I wrote the 
laws that ensured that a Web site would not be held secondarily liable. 
In fact, at that time, all this was so new that our approach, which 
relied on voluntary filters and the like to deal with smut, and another 
approach that was more of an old-fashioned censorship approach--both--
went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court upheld our approach 
and struck down the other.
  Today, if you talk to many people in the social media, they cite that 
law as really being the key that unleashed modern investment in the 
social media because if you ran a Web site or a blog, you knew you 
wouldn't be held secondarily liable for something you couldn't control. 
I think it is fair to say that Congressman Cox and I, we were 
intoxicated about the fact that we had written this law, upheld by the 
Supreme Court, and we thought about what ought to go next in terms of 
trying to lay out a framework, as I indicated, to tap the full 
potential of the Net. Early on in our discussions, we came across a 
situation with respect to taxing the Internet that was particularly 
troubling. What we found was that if someone bought a subscription to a 
newspaper and they bought the online edition, they got hit with a big 
tax. But if they bought the offline edition--what we call now the 
snail-mail edition--they didn't get taxed. Congressman Cox and I said 
then that this is not going to help promote innovation. That is not 
going to allow the Internet to grow. It is just plain discrimination. 
It is discriminating against the Internet. It is singling the Internet 
out. You have to pay taxes for the online edition of the publication 
but you don't have to pay a tax if you

[[Page 18916]]

buy the snail-mail edition. We wrote the Internet Tax Freedom Act to 
protect the openness and viability of the Net for the platform for 
commerce speech and the exchange of ideas.
  As both Senator Thune and I have seen over our years of working 
together on this, this has become important to the millions of American 
citizens and businesses who depend on the Net. I think it would be fair 
to say--Senator Thune and I discussed this--it is likely the Internet 
would be subject to the same level of punitive taxation that is 
currently inflicted on wireless services without the legislation we 
wrote. Without the Internet Tax Freedom Act, access to information in 
America would no longer be tax-free--access to online communication 
would no longer be tax-free. Access to the global marketplace so 
crucial to America's economic future would no longer be tax-free. The 
cost to consumers could be hundreds of dollar a year per household, 
which certainly is a burden to many working-class families who right 
now are walking on an economic tightrope trying to balance the food 
against the fuel and the fuel against the college costs and all of the 
challenges we know for working-class families in Wisconsin, Oregon, and 
across the country.
  Senator Thune and I have been working together on this issue for a 
number of years. I want to thank him for our partnership over the 
years. Now we have gotten a bit of seniority. We chaired a subcommittee 
on the Finance Committee, and we really see these issues as central to 
economic competitiveness.
  This is what we need to grow and prosper with more good-paying, high-
skill and high-wage jobs for middle-class people. That is why we have 
introduced together legislation that would really set our tax policy in 
this part of the economy into the 21st century. That is the Digital 
Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act. This legislation ensures the 
digital goods will continue to be treated fairly, consistently, and 
predictably across State lines, just as their nondigital competitors. 
Because the Internet Tax Freedom Act has been temporary, Senator Thune 
and I authored new legislation to make the Net tax-free permanently. 
Our bill is cosponsored by more than half of our Senate colleagues.
  Most importantly--and this is why I think we are on the ascent in 
terms of support for our cause--the House passed a permanent bill in 
July putting the ball in the Chamber's court here. This body could take 
up and pass our permanent legislation--the permanent legislation 
Senator Thune and I have authored--on a permanent basis if it chose to 
do so. But because the Congress has become too reliant--we certainly 
have seen this in a number of areas on stop-and-go government--it was 
necessary to once again pass a yearlong extension as part of a larger 
bill. The extension, in my view, is certainly a positive step. But in 
my view, it is clearly time. In fact, it is long overdue to enact a 
permanent law, to guarantee the certainty and predictability to all who 
are seeking to innovate online, to the people in a garage, whether it 
is in Wisconsin, Oregon or anywhere else, and to have some sense of 
what the ground rules are going to be.
  That is what I sought to be a part of in the 1990s. That is why I am 
so grateful for Senator Thune's leadership, because he has been a 
partner in this cause now for many years on the Finance Committee. Our 
view is that a permanent law in this area would be hugely valuable to 
innovation, to the small businesses, and to the people who have a good 
idea, because it would provide them a new measure of certainty and 
predictability when they are looking at what is coming out of 
Washington, DC.
  We have temporary measures, and we have measures that last a few 
weeks. Senator Thune and I want to get away from that.
  I am very hopeful that next year a permanent version of the Internet 
Tax Freedom Act will be enacted. Senator Thune and I are going to 
continue to work together on a bipartisan basis until that is done.
  With that, I yield the floor for my partner from South Dakota and 
thank him for all his leadership.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                       Tribute To Jay Rockefeller

  Mr. THUNE. I thank my colleague from Oregon Senator Wyden for his 
continued leadership on this issue. I want to echo what he said about 
Senator Rockefeller.
  I had the opportunity to serve as his ranking Republican on the 
Senate commerce committee and really enjoyed serving with him during 
his chairmanship and learned a lot. He is someone who has great 
experience here--36 years in the Senate. I have been here now for 10. 
So I have a lot to learn from people like Senator Rockefeller.
  We did some good things together. We just recently got through the 
Senate the cyber security bill that the commerce committee passed 
earlier this year and the satellite television reauthorization this 
year, which ended up being--it is always somewhat controversial to move 
that legislation, but we were successful in getting that ultimately 
enacted this year. We moved the STB reauthorization bill, Surface 
Transportation Board, which had rail reforms in it, out of the commerce 
committee. Unfortunately, they didn't get it considered on the floor of 
the Senate but had hearings on numerous issues that are under the 
jurisdiction of the commerce committee. I appreciate so much Chairman 
Rockefeller's leadership and his service here. Like him, I come from a 
small State. We share a lot of things in common. We came from small 
communities and represent people who work hard and just want a fair 
break and want to make sure that the people they elect to represent 
them in Washington, DC, are staying focused on the issues that are 
important to their livelihood. I appreciate his leadership on those 
issues.
  I have to say that he stands tall among our colleagues. I think he 
probably has the distinction of being the tallest Senator. The Senator 
from Oregon, Senator Wyden, and I are not far behind. But if Senator 
Rockefeller ever stood up all the way, I think he would have us by 
several inches. The tall-guy caucus here in the Senate will be less 
represented when Senator Rockefeller departs. I have always enjoyed his 
sense of humor and the way in which he approaches the job and the 
passion he feels for public service. We wish him well in his retirement 
and thank him for a long and distinguished career here in the Senate.


                        Internet Tax Freedom Act

  I wish to say to my colleague from Oregon--he mentioned earlier that 
he was the pioneer on this issue, going back to 1998 when he worked 
with former Congressman Chris Cox. That was the original Internet Tax 
Freedom Act. I am hopeful that both our permanent bill, which Senator 
Wyden mentioned, the ITFA bill, and our Digital Goods and Services Tax 
Fairness Act can be considered as early as possible in the next 
Congress.
  The Senator from Oregon, Senator Wyden, is the chairman of the Senate 
Finance Committee--a very powerful committee here in the Congress--and 
will continue his leadership in the next session of Congress as the 
ranking Democrat on that committee. He will be a very influential voice 
on all of these issues--tax matters, trade matters, health care 
matters. The Finance Committee has a very broad jurisdiction. It is 
really important that we get this part right.
  If you look at what most Americans have dealt with when it comes to 
Internet service, they have not been taxed on Internet access for 16 
years due to the Internet Tax Freedom Act moratorium that Senator Wyden 
and Senator Cox were able to get instituted back in 1998. That 
moratorium has been extended three times. It has been critical to the 
rapid growth of the Internet. All of this would change if we allowed 
the Internet Tax Freedom Act to expire.
  We were able to get through the end of this next fiscal year--which 
will be September 30 of next year--an extension of the moratorium. But 
the fact of the matter is, as Senator Wyden mentioned, we need 
permanency with regard to this tax policy. We need certainty. We need 
predictability. We need

[[Page 18917]]

people in this country to know--American families to know--they are not 
going to be hit with substantial taxes as a result of the lapse of this 
particular legislation.
  You look at what it could do to the average American family. The 
average State telecommunications tax rate is roughly 12 percent. 
Imagine a married couple with two children where everyone in the family 
has a phone with a $50 data plan. Currently, the Internet Tax Freedom 
Act prevents taxes on the data plan in States that didn't have these 
taxes prior to the law's enactment, which is a large majority of the 
States. If this law expires, this family of four would be likely to see 
at least a $20 increase in their monthly phone bill, meaning a tax 
increase of more than $200 a year. For families struggling to make ends 
meet, as Senator Wyden pointed out, this is real money.
  This tax increase would not just be bad for American families and 
American consumers, it would also be bad for American economic 
competitiveness because we know that higher costs for the deployment of 
high-speed Internet will mean a slower rollout of this technology.
  This is especially the case in rural America, where the cost of 
exploring high-speed Internet is often higher than urban or suburban 
areas. By keeping the cost of Internet access as low as possible, we 
help to encourage the continued use of the Internet as a source of 
economic growth, creativity, and entrepreneurship.
  As the incoming chairman of the Senate commerce committee, I am 
committed to increasing Internet connectivity in this country. Whether 
it is through the Universal Service Fund, by getting additional 
spectrum into the hands of the private sector, or by providing 
regulatory certainty to encourage broadband buildout, our committee is 
going to be looking at all available options to make sure more 
Americans have access to high-quality Internet.
  Unfortunately, if the Federal Government allows new taxes to be 
levied on Internet access, we risk canceling out our other efforts to 
get more Americans online. This does not make any sense. We all need to 
be rolling in the same direction if our country is going to be 
connected and engaged in this expanding Internet ecosystem.
  Earlier this year the House of Representatives, as Senator Wyden 
pointed out, by voice vote passed a bill to make the Internet Tax 
Freedom Act permanent, which is a very positive step forward. I am 
hopeful that next year we will move on a much longer term extension of 
ITFA as well as other measures that promote the digital economy, such 
as the Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act that I mentioned 
earlier.
  As incoming chairman of the commerce committee and as a member of the 
tax-writing Finance Committee, I am looking forward to a new agenda 
next Congress, one that is optimistic and forward-leaning, an agenda 
that recognizes that the dynamism in our economy today should not be a 
source of concern but, rather, a source of opportunity for jobs, 
growth, and economic freedom. This agenda begins with support for the 
Internet Tax Freedom Act. That is why I am pleased the bill we passed 
Saturday evening extends the Internet Tax Freedom Act through September 
2015 so that we can have a debate next year about how we promote the 
Internet economy with all of its benefits on a much more permanent 
basis.
  I look forward to working with my colleague from Oregon, Senator 
Wyden, and Senators on both sides who I think care deeply about this 
critical issue moving forward early in the next Congress. As the 
Senator from Oregon mentioned, I think half of the Members of the 
Senate are cosponsors of this bill. That suggests to me that obviously 
there is broad, bipartisan support for what we are talking about here.
  I also look forward to working with Senator Wyden on other issues 
that are important to the digital economy. Digital trade is something 
he and I have partnered on in the past as well. As we look at the trade 
agreements that are currently being negotiated--the TPP as well as the 
TTIP trade agreements with Europe--all need to include important 
protections for the digital economy.
  This is one of the areas in our economy where we actually have a 
trade surplus. Because of American ingenuity, know-how, creativity, and 
innovation, we continue to lead the world in this area. We need to make 
sure that we not only are putting in place the important safeguards 
here in this country against taxing these services but also ensuring 
that we have access to other markets around the world where we know 
American know-how and American ingenuity and creativity can lead the 
way.
  I very much look forward in the next Congress to continuing to work 
with my colleague from Oregon on these important matters so that we can 
continue to see middle-income families in this country benefit from the 
gains in productivity that come, hopefully a higher standard of living, 
higher take-home pay, better wages, and better job opportunities that 
come with a robust, vibrant digital economy that enables our broader 
economy to continue to make great gains.
  I thank the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, for his leadership on 
this issue both past and present. I look forward to working with him as 
we try in the future to make sure that those gains are protected and 
that we move even further in the direction of economic freedom when it 
comes to the Internet.


                   Supporting America's Charities Act

  I would like to shift gears and speak, if I might for just a moment, 
about another issue which I think is very important to our overall 
economy and very important to a lot of people across this country, both 
those who give to--empower charitable giving in this country and those 
who benefit from it.
  Last week the House of Representatives voted on a piece of 
legislation that would empower Americans to give more to charity. The 
legislation would accomplish this by making permanent three tax 
incentives for charitable giving that have been in law on a temporary 
basis. All three of these tax provisions have historically enjoyed 
strong bipartisan support.
  First, the bill would make permanent the law allowing individuals 
70\1/2\ years of age and older to donate up to $100,000 of their 
individual retirement account to charity without incurring a tax 
penalty for doing so.
  Second, the bill would make permanent the enhanced deduction for food 
inventories, thus encouraging businesses to donate food that might 
otherwise go to waste to food pantries and other organizations that 
help to feed the hungry.
  Finally, the bill would make permanent certain tax rules that make it 
easier for farmers and other land owners to donate land for 
conservation purposes, thus helping to preserve America's natural 
habitat. This last provision, I might add, is included in President 
Obama's 2015 budget.
  These are commonsense measures that will help to promote what I 
believe is a core element of the American experience; that is, private 
citizens helping friends and neighbors in their time of need. What 
could be more appropriate during this season of giving than the 
government making it a little bit easier for Americans to lend a 
helping hand?
  Unfortunately, this Christmas season the Obama administration has a 
different message for America's charities and the millions of 
individuals they serve. That message is ``bah humbug.'' That is right. 
Instead of working with us to help America's charities, the Obama 
administration promised to veto this bill should it pass the House and 
the Senate. Apparently the President is so opposed to any new tax 
relief, he has decided to oppose a bill with significant bipartisanship 
support.
  Let's be clear that this measure is not some budget-busting bill. In 
fact, this bill would provide about $1 billion per year in tax relief 
to Americans who donate to charity, which would have almost no impact 
on a Federal budget of nearly $4 trillion.
  One measure of the bipartisan nature of this legislation is the fact 
that the Democratic chairman of the tax-writing Finance Committee, 
Senator

[[Page 18918]]

Wyden, who was here briefly a moment ago, supports this measure. In 
fact, Chairman Wyden recently indicated that he hoped we could get this 
measure to the President's desk quickly. He stated:

       My view is we'll pass it as a clean bill and send it on to 
     the President. I really don't see a lot of controversy.

  That was from the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
  Unfortunately for Senator Wyden and me, along with many of our 
colleagues in both parties who see an opportunity to get something 
meaningful enacted before the end of this year, this White House sees 
yet another opportunity for gridlock. So I would say I strongly believe 
promoting charitable giving should be a high priority.
  Earlier this year Senator Wyden and I circulated a letter signed by 
33 of our Senate colleagues to then-Finance Committee Chairman Baucus 
and Ranking Member Hatch urging them not to weaken the charitable tax 
deduction in any tax reform effort.
  As a member of the Finance Committee, I have not signed many letters 
on tax reform, as I generally believe that everything needs to be on 
the table. However, I made an exception when it came to charitable 
giving because I believe so strongly that promoting charity is an 
integral part of who we are as a nation.
  Much like the deduction for charitable contributions, the provisions 
of the Supporting America's Charities Act represent important means by 
which to encourage Americans to give more to charitable organizations. 
Unfortunately, due to opposition from the President, this legislation 
fell a few votes short of passage last week in the House when it was 
considered under suspension of the rules, which is a process that 
requires a two-thirds majority vote.
  That being said, I intend to introduce similar legislation early next 
year, and I strongly urge the President of the United States to 
reconsider what I believe is his misguided opposition to these very 
worthy provisions. I hope the administration will join us in a spirit 
of good will toward all men and women, especially those of our fellow 
citizens most in need of assistance.


                                able act

  I wish to finally speak today regarding a bill that I am very pleased 
has moved through this Congress--I should say will be moving shortly--
and that is the Achieving a Better Life Experience, or ABLE, Act. This 
bill will assist individuals with disabilities by creating a mechanism 
to achieve long-term personal savings--something individuals with 
disabilities are effectively prohibited from doing today under current 
law.
  The ABLE Act would create tax-favored savings accounts for people 
with disabilities that would count toward the $2,000 individual asset 
limits that apply to the Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid 
Programs. The ABLE Act will allow individuals with disabilities and 
their families to save money to pay for qualified disability expenses, 
such as education, a primary residence, transportation, and other 
personal support expenses.
  This legislation helps achieve a world where disabilities are no 
longer viewed as a limiting factor as individuals plan for jobs, for 
school, and for family life. It helps achieve a world where Federal 
policies no longer impede individuals with disabilities from achieving 
their dreams. It helps give parents peace of mind as they think about 
what the future holds for their children.
  I have met with many families on this issue, and one story in 
particular stands out, the story of Tim and Jamie Geels from Dakota 
Dunes. They have three sons, and their middle son, Tyler, is a concrete 
example of a young South Dakotan who will see tangible changes to his 
future as a result of the ABLE Act.
  The ABLE Act is one of the most far-reaching pieces of legislation to 
help individuals with disabilities in nearly 25 years. I am proud to be 
a cosponsor. Long hours and intense effort shaped this legislation into 
a package that helps Americans with disabilities and is fiscally 
responsible as well. I am proud to support the ABLE Act, as modified. I 
look forward to Senate passage of this very worthy legislation later 
this week as part of the tax extenders legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                     Work of the Commerce Committee

  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, before the Senator from South Dakota 
leaves the floor, let this Senator say that I am looking forward to 
working with him since he will be our chairman of the Commerce 
Committee next year. I will have the privilege of being the ranking 
member. We have a fairly full plate of things that must be done: FAA 
reauthorization, telecommunications rewrite. Fortunately, it looks as 
though we have just done a Coast Guard bill, but there can always be 
tweaks to that. There are a host of things. We are way beyond on NASA 
reauthorization. Fortunately, we have been able to build on the NASA 
reauthorization that was done in 2010, but that needs to be updated. 
There are all kinds of consumer legislation as we get into things such 
as this thorny issue of Internet access. It is going to take some real 
bipartisan cooperation.
  In my discussions with the future chairman, Senator Thune, I am 
looking forward to working with him on this very important committee.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I know the Senator from Florida has 
things he wants to talk about, but I do want to take this opportunity 
to mention that I very much look forward to working with him. I think 
we have the potential for a real foundation, hopefully, for 
accomplishment on our committee.
  The Senator from Florida is someone who has an interest in working in 
a bipartisan way to get things done for our country. I know of his 
great interest, being from Florida, in the space program and NASA, in 
oceans. Oceans are not an issue we have to deal with a lot in South 
Dakota; it is an issue our committee deals with. It is an issue that is 
very important to a lot of our colleagues on the committee as well as 
the Senator from Florida. So I welcome the opportunity to work with 
him.
  As he mentioned, these are tough, thorny issues--telecommunications 
issues, transportation issues, the highway bill, FAA authorization, 
perhaps something on rail. There is a whole range of issues falling 
under the jurisdiction of the commerce committee that are going to 
require an extraordinary level not only of support from the members of 
our committee but a willingness on the part of those of us--the Senator 
from Florida and I--to hopefully craft an agenda to get things done for 
this country.
  I appreciate his kind words and would reciprocate by saying how much 
I look forward to working with him and hopefully to have a real record 
of accomplishment as we head into this next year.
  I thank the Senator from Florida for his kind words and wish to let 
him know we will be doubling down next year, working as hard as we can 
to put some points on the scoreboard that are good not only for the 
State of Florida and for the State of South Dakota but for America and 
for our economy, because we have so many things under the jurisdiction 
of the commerce committee that contribute to a stronger and more robust 
economy in this country.


                             Tax Extenders

  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I wish to speak about a tax bill that is 
coming up that is fairly necessary for the country. The Senator from 
South Dakota and I have the privilege also of serving on the Finance 
Committee, and there is an example where we just haven't been able to 
get a lot done. Now, here we are at the eleventh hour and fifty-ninth 
minute with a whole bunch of provisions about to expire that are 
extremely important to American taxpayers, such as the research and 
development tax credit.
  American businesses and American taxpayers would like to have some 
certainty of knowing, as they are doing their planning for the year, 
that they can plan on this or that deduction or tax credit. In 
Congress, for the entire past year, we have not had etched into law, 
because it has expired, a number

[[Page 18919]]

of these tax deductions and credits that I am going to go through. But 
the R&D tax credit is only one example.
  So how in the world can American business and the American taxpayers 
plan? Take, for example, the Senator has a State where agriculture is 
predominant. So does this Senator.
  There are a number of ranchers in the State of Florida who want to 
donate a conservation easement on their property to keep that property, 
in this case of ranching families, that they have been ranching for 
centuries. They want that way of life to continue.
  There is an interest in environmental restoration; for example, the 
Everglades restoration, that the headwaters that ultimately flow to the 
Everglades be preserved from being developed. So there is an interest 
in the environment to obtain the development rights or a conservation 
easement.
  It is clearly in the interests of the taxpayer, likewise, to have 
observed that conservation easement because that is the easiest way of 
cleaning up the water that ultimately flows into the Everglades. So the 
conservation easement is a win-win-win. It is a win for the rancher, it 
is a win for the taxpayer, and it is a win for the environment.
  But the poor ranchers, because we have not passed the tax extenders 
bill, here they are at the end of the year and they would like to make 
the donation of the conservation easement. How are they going to get it 
done in the next couple of weeks if we don't pass it until almost the 
midnight hour?
  It is just another example, and I look forward to working with the 
Senator from South Dakota. I hope we can pass it this week so at least 
some of it can be salvaged before the end of this tax year.
  I have given two examples and I will give another: the wind energy 
production tax credit. It provides a credit for electricity produced by 
the wind.
  There is a lot of wind out in the middle of this country. It is a 
good way to produce electricity. It is called renewable electricity. It 
has brought our electricity sector into the 21st century. It has 
reduced our dependence on carbon-based electricity.
  It makes sense. If someone visits a country such as Denmark, look how 
many windmills there are. I still call them windmills, but they are 
wind turbines. They are highly sophisticated, finely tuned machines, 
blades that will take the least bit of wind and turn that big blade 
that is hundreds of feet long. As it turns, it is generating 
electricity.
  Yet for the entire past year people who want to establish these wind 
farms don't have any certainty that they will be able to get this wind 
energy production tax credit.
  The purpose for the tax credit is to give the businesses an incentive 
to establish wind farms which, No. 1, becomes a win for the 
environment; No. 2, becomes a win for the business that is in the 
business of wind energy production; and, No. 3, becomes a win for the 
consumers because it is weaning us from producing electricity only from 
a carbon-based fuel that ultimately sends CO2 into the 
atmosphere. We know what is happening with a lot of CO2 up 
there, it creates the greenhouse effect.
  As the Sun's rays come in and bounce off the surface of the Earth and 
reflect or radiate back out into space, suddenly the glass ceiling--the 
greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases--traps 
that heat. What happens? The increasing temperature of the planet, 90 
percent of that heat is absorbed into the oceans and, as a result, we 
are seeing the sea level rise.
  For a State such as mine, the State of Florida, NASA has measured 
over the past 50 years--not drafts, not projections, measurements--5 to 
8 inches in South Florida of sea level rise in Florida.
  By the way, check the papers. Yesterday the pumps didn't work. Alton 
Road in Miami Beach was flooded. The mayor of Miami Beach, when he was 
campaigning 1 year ago, went in a kayak down Alton Road as a 
demonstration of how the sea level rise at high tide is flooding 
streets of Miami Beach. It brings me back to this extenders tax bill we 
need to pass this week: the wind energy production tax credit.
  Another example is the work opportunity tax credit, which encourages 
people who work to hire disadvantaged people. It provides a tax credit 
for businesses that hire people who have a difficult time getting a 
job. It encourages the private sector to help these folks get out of a 
difficult spot in their lives, because they have disadvantages, to 
become independent, to stand on their own two feet because they can go 
to work. That is the purpose of a tax credit for work opportunity, but 
that hasn't been in effect all this year, 2014.
  We pass this tax extenders bill and it will retroactively take it 
back to the 1st of the year and make this tax credit--and these others 
I have mentioned--available as people are calculating their Federal 
income tax for the calendar year 2014.
  Another is rollover IRAs to charities. It is when you get to a 
certain age--and I believe the age is 70--and you have an IRA. By law, 
setting up the IRAs which are nontaxable--recall all the years you put 
money in those IRAs, you put that money into the IRA before you paid 
tax on it.
  When you bring money out of the IRAs that you have had all of your 
life, you are going to pay the tax, and that more than likely is going 
to be during your retirement years. That is what an IRA is for. It is 
called an Individual Retirement Account.
  By law, under the IRA law, when someone gets to be 70, they have to 
start taking out a certain amount of that IRA.
  We have had a provision in the Tax Code that is an incentive to give 
that money that people have to take out to charity. Therefore, it 
provides an easier way for people who have to take the money out of 
their retirement accounts to give that money to charity because, when 
they take it out, it doesn't become taxable before they give it to the 
charity.
  In other words, it is a transfer of the tax-free dollars in the IRA 
directly over to charity. It is a win for the taxpayer, and it is a win 
for the charitable organizations because there is an incentive there to 
give that money to charitable organizations.
  If we don't pass this tax extenders bill, that is not available for 
all of this year of 2014. Think what that is going to do to some 
charities and what it is going to be doing to taxpayers who have been 
planning on that deduction and suddenly find it is not available.
  Another example is there are a few States--maybe half a dozen--that 
do not have a State income tax, but often the State government is in 
fact funded by the State sales tax. My State of Florida is one of those 
States. The State of Washington is another, and the State of Texas is 
another. There are about three others.
  Therefore, if someone is in a State that has a State income tax, and 
they are calculating their Federal income tax, they can deduct the 
State income tax in the deduction of the Federal income tax.
  What about the poor people in the States that don't have the income 
tax? They should be able to deduct the similar tax that we pay in our 
States, the State sales tax, and that provision has been there in the 
Tax Code, but it is not in there for 2014 because it lapsed, and we 
need to reenact it.
  This is not a way to run a railroad and tax policy, but 
unfortunately, because it seems to have the word ``tax'' to it, it 
seems to be radioactive and, as a result, we have to wait until the 
eleventh hour and the fifty-ninth minute to pass it.
  I certainly hope we will pass it this week.
  Let me give you another example--the deduction for mortgage insurance 
premiums. When you want to buy a home, the bank negotiates and sets up 
a mortgage so you can buy the home. Most banks will require you to take 
out an insurance policy should you fail to pay on that mortgage. We 
have always had the deductibility of that insurance premium in 
calculating Federal income taxes, and it particularly helps low- and 
middle-income people deduct the amount they pay for private mortgage 
insurance. So, therefore, what does that do? That helps those

[[Page 18920]]

low- and middle-income folks buy a home.
  Isn't home ownership something that is desirable in America? I think 
so. Well, we better pass this tax extenders bill.
  I will give another example--excluding forgiven mortgage debt from 
income. It allows people to exclude forgiven mortgage debt from their 
income. Why am I raising this? Well, haven't we just gone through the 
worst recession since the Great Depression? Didn't some people get so 
upside down in their mortgage--with their mortgage being at this level, 
but the value of their home dropping to this level--so that they owed a 
much greater amount on their mortgage than the value of their home? 
What they tried to do was work with the purchaser and the bank that 
holds the mortgage. That is called a short sale. The bank forgives part 
of that debt--the difference between the mortgage amount and the value 
of the home.
  The poor taxpayer, the homeowner, instead of treating what they have 
been forgiven as income--they have just had to take a shellacking 
because of the value of their home dropping below the value of the 
mortgage. Lo and behold, when they get a break and sell in a short 
sale, they end up having to pay income tax on that amount of debt that 
was forgiven.
  I don't think we want to do that. That is why we have this provision 
to exclude that debt forgiveness from the income tax. But for all of 
the last 12 months it is not going to be forgiven if we can't pass this 
tax extenders bill. I think we better get serious about it. We are 
talking about looking at this as the last piece of legislation this 
week to pass before we leave. We better get serious about it.
  And lastly, let me say that every one of us wants to treat teachers 
the right way. Teachers haven't been treated the right way. As a matter 
of fact, a lot of teachers are pulling money out of their own pockets 
because their school districts are not providing enough money for 
school supplies for those little children. Those unselfish teachers are 
going into their own pockets to bring out money to provide the supplies 
so the kids can learn. Now if a courageous and unselfish teacher does 
that, should we not at least give them a deduction of that amount they 
paid for those school supplies for their children? Shouldn't we let 
them deduct that in calculating their income tax?
  We have in the past. But we haven't for calendar year 2014--this 
present year. And that is another one of the deductions that I hope the 
Congress will pass this week in order to take care of our people.
  But as we go through this in the future, why do we have to keep 
waiting until the last minute so people can't plan, so people get 
nervous, so people don't know what to do, so people don't know how to 
invest, so people don't know how to preserve their land, their 
business, and the future for their families? This is no way to run a 
railroad.
  Let us at least salvage some kind of victory from the jaws of defeat. 
I hope we will pass this bill in short order.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Walsh). The Senator from Vermont.


                            Social Security

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, it is no secret to anyone in America that 
the middle class of our country today is struggling; that while 
millions of American workers are now working longer hours for lower 
wages than they did in some cases 30 or 40 years ago--we are looking at 
a 40-year decline of the middle class--that almost all of the new 
income being generated today is going to the top 1 percent. Tragically, 
the United States has the most unequal distribution of income and 
wealth of any major country on Earth.
  But the issue is not just for the middle class right now or for 
working families. The issue of the economic crisis we are in 
significantly impacts senior citizens and children, the most vulnerable 
people in this country. My hope always has been that as a great nation 
we will not turn our backs on the children of America. But year after 
year that is exactly what we do. We continue to have millions of 
children living in poverty. In fact, we have the highest rate of 
childhood poverty of any major country on Earth. Almost 20 percent of 
our kids live in poverty. We have about one out of four children in 
America who gets their nutrition from the food stamp program.
  I worry very much about the future of this country if we cannot stand 
with the children of America; if we cannot make sure that working 
parents all over this country have high quality, affordable childcare. 
That is certainly not the case right now, despite the fact that 
virtually all psychologists recognize that the most important years of 
a human being's life are zero to four. But our childcare system is a 
disaster.
  It is not only the children we have turned our backs on. Increasingly 
we are turning our backs on senior citizens as well. It has distressed 
me for a number of years to be hearing many of my Republican friends 
and some Democrats talking about the need to cut Social Security--to 
cut Social Security. There are various schemes out there--some of them 
have to do with the so-called chained CPI--which would reformulate how 
we determine cost-of-living adjustments for seniors. This means, in 
fact, over a period of years significant reductions in what seniors and 
disabled veterans would get.
  We have worked, I have worked, in opposition to that concept for 
years. I think we have beaten it back, but I have no doubt that it will 
surface again. There are folks who want to cut Social Security, and, in 
my view, we have to do everything we can not only to defeat that 
proposal but we have to begin talking about how we expand Social 
Security benefits. Because today the kind of benefits that millions of 
seniors get are simply not adequate for them in terms of giving them 
the income they need to purchase the medicine they require, the food 
they need, the fuel to heat their homes in the wintertime, and other 
basic necessities.
  In terms of Social Security, let me be very clear. Despite what folks 
on TV may be saying, and some politicians may be saying, Social 
Security is not going broke. Let me repeat: Social Security is not 
going broke. Today Social Security has a surplus in the trust fund of 
$2.76 trillion--a surplus of $2.76 trillion--and can pay out benefits 
to every eligible American for the next 19 years, to the year 2033. So 
anyone who comes forward and says Social Security is going broke, that 
is just factually not true. Social Security can pay out every benefit 
owed to every eligible American for the next 19 years.
  We also hear the argument: Well, we have a large deficit, and Social 
Security is one of the causes of our deficit and our national debt. 
That is absolutely inaccurate. Social Security has not contributed one 
nickel to our deficit or our national debt, because Social Security, as 
every worker in America knows, is independently funded through payroll 
tax contributions from workers and employers--6.2 percent from each--
and it does not receive funding from the Federal Treasury.
  So, a, Social Security is not going broke; and b, it is not 
contributing to the deficit. But I will say this about Social Security. 
In an incredibly volatile economy, the stock market goes up, the stock 
market goes down. Social Security, from its inception 79 years ago, 
through good economic times and bad economic times, has paid out every 
nickel owed to every eligible beneficiary with minimal administrative 
cost.
  Social Security is not an investment program. You can invest money on 
Wall Street, and sometimes you do well. You can invest money on Wall 
Street, and sometimes you lose your shirt. Social Security is a social 
insurance program. It has never failed 1 American in 79 years. That is 
a pretty good record.
  But even with Social Security being strong and solvent for the next 
19 years, we have to recognize we do have a retirement crisis in 
America today. I fear very much that the appropriations bill just 
passed the other day, which will allow pensions for millions of workers 
to be cut, is only going to exacerbate that problem. Today in America 
only one in five workers has a traditional defined benefit that 
guarantees income in retirement.

[[Page 18921]]

  Amazingly enough, when we talk about anxiety among the American 
people, stress among the American people, and why people are angry, why 
they are fearful, over half of all Americans have less than $10,000 in 
savings. Stop and think about that. If you have less than $10,000 in 
savings, an automobile accident or needing a new car can wipe you out; 
an illness can wipe you out; a divorce can wipe you out. So we have 
millions and millions of Americans sitting there wondering how they are 
going to retire with dignity when they have $5,000, $8,000 or less in 
savings.
  Here is the importance of Social Security: Two-thirds of senior 
citizens today depend upon Social Security for more than half of their 
income; one-third of all seniors depend upon Social Security for at 
least 90 percent of their income.
  So when we talk about cutting Social Security, understand that a 
third of seniors depend upon Social Security for at least 90 percent of 
their income. This is not extra money; this is not fun money; this is 
life-and-death money. This is money that people need to buy medicine, 
food, and to keep their homes warm in the wintertime.
  I wish I could say otherwise, but the truth is that the percentage of 
seniors living in poverty in America is going up. In 2011, the official 
senior poverty rate was 8.7 percent. Last year the official senior 
poverty rate was 9.5 percent. That is a pretty significant increase in 
senior poverty.
  But if we look at the Census Bureau's more comprehensive measure of 
poverty, which takes a careful look at the out-of-pocket medical costs 
for seniors, the poverty rate for seniors is even worse. According to 
this supplemental poverty measure from the Census Bureau, the real 
senior poverty rate in America is actually 14.6 percent. What that 
means is that one out of seven seniors living in America last year 
could not afford to meet their most basic needs.
  The average Social Security benefit today is just $14,000 a year. As 
someone who will be the next ranking member of the Budget Committee, I 
intend to do everything I can not only to oppose vigorously any efforts 
to cut Social Security, I am going to do everything I can to expand 
Social Security benefits.
  In fact, the best way to expand Social Security is to ask the 
wealthiest people in our country to pay more into the system by 
scrapping the cap on income that is subject to the Social Security 
payroll tax. As the Presiding Officer knows, right now a billionaire 
pays the same amount into Social Security as someone who makes $117,000 
a year. So if there is a multimillionaire here--somebody who is making 
$50 million--and somebody who is making $117,000, they both contribute 
the same amount into the Social Security trust fund. This is 
regressive. This is unfair. This is absurd. If we lifted this cap and 
applied the Social Security payroll tax to income above $250,000--not 
$117,000, but $250,000 a year, we could not only extend the solvency of 
Social Security for decades to come--which is what we want to do--but 
we could also provide the resources necessary to expand Social Security 
benefits. That is exactly what we should be doing, and that in fact is 
what the American people want us to do.
  In August 2014, a poll by Lake Research Partners asked likely voters 
if they support the idea of:

     . . . increasing Social Security benefits and paying for that 
     increase by having wealthy Americans pay the same rate into 
     Social Security as everybody else.

  Interestingly, the poll found that 90 percent of Democratic voters 
said they support the idea, and 75 percent strongly support that idea 
of lifting the cap; 73 percent of Independent voters support that idea, 
55 percent strongly support it; 73 percent of Republican voters support 
that idea, 47 percent strongly support it.
  So there is for that idea enormously strong support across the 
political spectrum, Democrats, Independents, Republicans.
  Sadly, despite this overwhelming support for expanding Social 
Security, the CEOs at the Business Roundtable--the organization 
representing the largest corporations in America--came out with a plan 
last year which does exactly what the American people do not want to 
do. The American people want to expand Social Security and the Business 
Roundtable came out with a plan that would increase the Social Security 
retirement age from 67 to 70 and severely cut the COLA of senior 
citizens and disabled veterans.
  The Congress and the Senate here have got to make a very fundamental 
decision, and that is: Do we listen to the American people who are 
hurting today--the seniors who have worked their whole lives but who 
cannot get by in what in many cases are meager and inadequate Social 
Security benefits--do we listen to them? Do we stand up for and with 
the people who helped build this country--who worked the farms, who 
worked in our factories, who served us in our Armed Forces? Do we stand 
with them and expand Social Security, or do we listen to those on Wall 
Street and corporate America who want to cut Social Security benefits 
and in some cases want to privatize Social Security?
  This is a huge issue for tens of millions of Americans. I intend to 
do everything I can not only to resist cuts to Social Security but to 
do everything we can to expand Social Security benefits for those 
seniors and disabled vets who desperately need that expansion.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                            Bough Nomination

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Members of the Senate, in a few hours, 
maybe within this day or tomorrow, the Senate will be voting on several 
nominees to be district judges. I come to the floor to speak about one 
of these, Stephen Bough, of Missouri, for a seat on the District Court 
of the Western District of Missouri.
  As I do with every nominee, I thoroughly examined Mr. Bough's record 
with an eye at giving him and others the benefit of the doubt if 
problematic issues arose. After full consideration of that record, I am 
regrettably unable to support this nominee. There are just too many 
data points--red flags, if you will--which tell me that Mr. Bough 
doesn't have what it takes to serve in a lifetime appointment on the 
Missouri District Court.
  These red flags all relate to one troubling question the nominee's 
record raises: whether Mr. Bough has the temperament to be a Federal 
judge. I have come to the conclusion that he doesn't have that type of 
temperament. So I would explain my conclusion.
  First, there is the issue of this nominee's professional conduct. A 
specific incident from last year demonstrates how Mr. Bough has engaged 
in what I believe to be unethical behavior that precludes him from 
service on a Federal bench.
  Last October, a member of the Mississippi bar drew my attention to 
the nominee's participation in a civil case in Federal District Court. 
The presiding judge on that case was the nominee's former employer, 
Senior District Judge Scott O. Wright.
  About a week before the nominee signed on to the case, the 
plaintiff's attorney asked the court to transfer the case to another 
judge. Judge Wright denied that motion the next day. Then, just 1 week 
later, the nominee entered his appearance in the case. Mere hours after 
that, Judge Wright recused himself without any motion from the parties.
  Now why did Judge Wright do that? Well, when Mr. Bough joined the 
case, he created a conflict of interest with Judge Wright. You see, Mr. 
Bough was Judge Wright's law clerk and remains his close personal 
friend today. In fact, Judge Wright had added the nominee to his 
personal conflicts list in January 2006, and Mr. Bough was well aware 
that he was on the conflicts list. So Mr. Bough knew that by joining 
the case Judge Wright was guaranteed to recuse himself--and that is 
exactly what the plaintiffs tried unsuccessfully to do just 1 week 
before Mr. Bough signed on and forced that recusal by creating the 
conflict with the judge.
  Now we can reasonably ask, why is this significant? Well, what the 
nominee did here is known as judge shopping. It is an unethical 
litigation practice that has been strongly criticized

[[Page 18922]]

by courts throughout the country. Essentially, it is when a lawyer 
knowingly creates a conflict with a judge in order to get the judge 
kicked off a case and replaced with a new and perhaps more favorable 
judge. That is the shopping part.
  The Michigan Supreme Court has explained that judge shopping 
``exposes the legal profession and the courts to contempt and 
ridicule.'' The Fifth Circuit calls judge shopping ``sheer manipulation 
of the justice system.'' Another Federal court has noted that the 
practice is ``universally condemned.''
  This isn't the kind of professional conduct we can accept in a 
nominee to the Federal bench.
  I gave Mr. Bough several opportunities to explain his conduct in 
questions for the record that I submitted to him. What I learned from 
his responses was this: The nominee knew that by joining the case he 
created conflict requiring Judge Wright's recusal.
  I also asked the nominee to provide our Judiciary Committee with the 
work he says he did while he was an attorney on that case. You see, I 
wanted to know whether the nominee joined the case in good faith to 
work and to do it for the client, or joined just to create a conflict 
with the judge.
  Mr. Bough responded that he provided advice and edits on only three 
documents. I requested those documents twice, and I told the nominee to 
redact any content protected by attorney-client privilege. The nominee 
has refused to provide those documents to me. The nominee has not 
provided to me memorandums, billing records, or any other materials to 
support his claim that he actually was working on that case; nor did 
the nominee attend any depositions or other pretrial hearings in that 
case. He made no filings with the court.
  In short, Mr. Bough has provided me with almost nothing to support 
his claim that he actually did substantial work on the case during the 
7 months he represented the client.
  It is for this reason and for the circumstances I have already 
described that I am led to believe that the nominee's entry of 
appearance was not in good faith. It looks to me like a textbook case 
of judge shopping.
  But the judge shopping is only one of many red flags. Let me discuss 
another that gives me serious pause.
  The nominee has been active in Democratic Party politics in the 
Kansas City area for a number of years. Now I want to make it very 
clear that I don't hold that against him. I have said frequently over 
the years that I never disqualify a judicial nominee just because he or 
she has been politically active. Instead, the issue for me is whether a 
nominee has shown that they can shift gears and put aside their 
previous political advocacy once they put on the judge's robe. This 
nominee's record makes it abundantly clear that he wouldn't be able to 
make the switch from political advocate to impartial arbiter of law.
  I will give you an example. In recent years the nominee has written a 
number of blogs and those posts have been about national politics. I 
have read his posts. I would say some are of a stridently political 
nature. Those don't bother me. Others though are simply too crude and 
sexist for me to quote. I challenge any Democrat who is voting for this 
nominee to read those blogs aloud to the public. I am confident none of 
my colleagues will do that. So I will just say that the sheer 
coarseness of those posts led me and other members of our Judiciary 
Committee to question whether Mr. Bough has a temperament suited to the 
lifetime judicial service.
  Unfortunately it is not just the blog posts that make me ask that 
question. The nominee has shown in other contexts that he is first and 
foremost a political operative rather than a zealous advocate for a 
client or officer of the court. For example, Mr. Bough has lodged two 
obviously frivolous and abusive complaints with the Federal Elections 
Commission against a congressional candidate whom he opposed 
ideologically. In 2008 the Commission dismissed the first of these 
complaints in a brief opinion. But in 2012, Mr. Bough redoubled his 
efforts and filed a second 93-page complaint against the same 
candidate. This time the Commission responded with a lengthy and 
meticulous opinion that is striking in its strong language dismissing 
each of Mr. Bough's allegations.
  The Commission criticized Mr. Bough's allegations as ``vague and 
speculative'' and said any violation which may have occurred was so 
minor as to not merit consideration. The opinion concluded that Mr. 
Bough's complaint had no basis for its allegations and was without 
merit. So the bottom line is that the nominee was using a government 
agency as a tool to harass a political opponent.
  As I said earlier, that is behavior indicative of a political 
operative, someone who is not going to be able to put it all aside and 
consider cases objectively once he becomes a judge.
  From time to time some of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee 
have commented that the best evidence for the type of judge a nominee 
will be is the type of lawyer they have been. So I think there is a lot 
of wisdom in that view. With this nominee we know what kind of lawyer 
he has been, defending an unsavory client or representing an unpopular 
cause is one thing; we expect lawyers to do that--our system in fact 
demands that they do that--but acting as a political operative is an 
entirely different matter, and that is the kind of lawyer this 
nominee's record shows him to have been: a lawyer steeped in bare-
knuckled political combat.
  I said at the beginning of this statement that I am inclined to give 
nominees the benefit of the doubt when I come across something in their 
record that raises my eyebrows. I probably would have done that with 
this nominee, too, if there had been just an isolated issue or a 
noncharacteristic lapse in judgment. But that is not what we have here 
with Mr. Bough. Not only do we have unethical judge shopping, to that 
we have to add a number of crass, sexist, and insulting blog posts, and 
to that we also add a pair of frivolous complaints that abused the 
jurisdiction of a government agency in order to harass a political 
opponent.
  There are too many red flags for me to support this nominee.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Tax Increase Prevention Act

  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I am here today to discuss the Tax 
Increase Prevention Act. We are now getting down to the end of the 
year. It is important that we get our work done. An important part of 
that work is passing the Tax Increase Prevention Act. It is often 
referred to as the tax extenders package. What it really does is it 
extends tax credits and deductions used by small businesses across this 
country. The Tax Increase Prevention Act will extend for 1 year 55 
different tax credits and deductions that expired either at the end of 
2013 or during 2014.
  This is a bill that has already passed the House, and it passed with 
a huge margin, with a bipartisan vote of 378 to 46.
  One of the most important provisions in the act is the section 179 
depreciation and expensing provision for small businesses. That is the 
provision I particularly want to focus on today and talk about and 
discuss why it is so important for our small businesses and for our 
entire country.
  Section 179 allows farmers and other small businesses to expense and 
depreciate property they have purchased or repaired for their 
operations. That is important to them so that they don't see a tax 
increase, but it also keeps our economy going. Without it, small 
business will buy and repair less equipment, slowing down our 
manufacturing base and slowing down our economy. Quite simply, that 
means fewer jobs. It is not only because small business's costs are 
increased, but it is also because of the uncertainty that is created 
when they don't know the rules of

[[Page 18923]]

the road. That is why this fix needs to be done on a permanent basis.
  I think it could have been done on a permanent basis this year. We 
were working on a deal until the President threatened to veto that 
legislation. So now we have a 1-year fix, but we have broad support in 
this Chamber for the 1-year fix. We need to pass it now and then go 
back to work on a permanent fix next year.
  I was home for the weekend about a week ago, and I was talking to 
some of the farmers in our State. They told me what they have been 
telling me for some time now; that is, they need the section 179 
expensing and depreciation, they need to know the rules of the road, 
and they need to know it now.
  We are at year-end. They are doing their year-end planning. They are 
doing their tax work. Some are still negotiating on buying equipment 
for next year. The depreciation and expensing rules affect the 
decisions they make. They will also affect the number of jobs in our 
economy. Agriculture alone is responsible for 16 million direct and 
indirect jobs in our economy. Ag is also a sector of our economy that 
produces a positive balance of trade. American agriculture provides the 
highest quality and lowest cost food supply in the world. It is 
something that benefits every single American every day.
  Section 179 expensing and depreciation is important for other small 
businesses as well. And it is not just small businesses, it helps keep 
our large industries going too. For example, Case New Holland and John 
Deere have manufacturing plants in my home State. They produce 
tractors, balers, and other equipment. In addition, they also make 
industrial equipment. When farmers and other small businesses slow down 
their purchase of equipment, these manufacturing facilities slow down 
as well. It means less business, fewer workers needed, and fewer jobs. 
That is how it works. It is that simple. The truth is that small 
business is the backbone of our economy in this country.
  The hallmark of America is that it has historically been the best 
place in the world to do business. It is where everybody has always 
come to do business. We have always had the best legal, tax, and 
regulatory business climate. We provided the certainty businesses need 
to invest, to hire people, to create jobs, and to grow the economy. 
That is the rising tide that lifts all boats--a higher standard of 
living for our people and revenue from economic growth, not higher 
taxes, to reduce our debt and deficit to get them under control as 
well.
  Let's create that certainty for our farmers and small businesses 
across this great Nation. Let's make sure their taxes don't go up. 
Let's start by passing the Tax Increase Prevention Act and section 179 
expensing and depreciation now.
  I would like to close by reading from some of the letters I have 
received from some of my constituents. I think so often that the hard-
working taxpayers of North Dakota, the small business people there who 
are getting it done every day, say it best.
  The first one is from Dick Hedahl, owner of Bismarck-based Hedahls 
Auto Plus. He said: Without section 179 and the bonus depreciation, 
Hedahls Auto Plus would really have felt the pinch last year when we 
purchased equipment to service diesel powered trucks and heavy 
equipment.
  Since the growth in the Bakken, his services have been especially 
important because he can save clients thousands of dollars by 
refurbishing worn diesel engine blocks. What makes the refurbishing 
possible is the 100 percent American-made equipment Hedahl bought in 
2012 and 2013 for $450,000. At a 34-percent tax rate, he says he would 
not have been able to make those equipment purchases work, but with 
section 179 expensing and depreciation, he was able to make those 
things work. As a result, he is providing jobs in the western part of 
our State. Hedahls Auto Plus employs more than 200 people.
  Another constituent wrote in. Leann Slaubaugh of Rolette writes:

       I am concerned about Section 179 and what this is doing to 
     the agricultural sector in North Dakota. Farm equipment is 
     not being sold, as the farmers are concerned about the amount 
     they will have to pay taxes on. I farm with my husband and 
     work at a small town farm supply. Farmers have quit spending 
     due to low commodity prices and Section 179. I am concerned 
     with the effect on our small town economy if Section 179 is 
     not revised. After meeting with our tax consultant, we are 
     concerned with the possible tax liability we are facing and 
     what this means to the future of our family farm. Please push 
     for revision of Section 179.

  Dennis Miller, who grew up in Stark County and worked for an ag 
equipment dealership for 28 years, is similarly concerned. I am going 
to paraphrase from his letter. Four years ago he started his own 
business, Southwest AG Repair, Inc. He sells new McCormick tractors and 
repairs all brands of farm equipment. He has six employees.
  Mr. Miller wrote to me earlier this year, anxious about the 
expiration of section 179:

       It is going to cut sales of farm equipment drastically if 
     the farmers don't get a tax incentive to purchase equipment. 
     The loss of sales will create backlash in the economy 
     throughout the State and the country. There has to be a 
     better way to create the tax revenue.

  Mr. Miller, there is. You create tax revenue with economic growth, 
not higher taxes, just like you create jobs, create economic activity, 
getting that rising tide that lifts all boats--that is when it enables 
us to invest in the future of our country, the roads and bridges, our 
schools, and all of the things people want for this great Nation. But 
it comes from a growing economy. Of course, that is what creates the 
jobs we need for our families across America.
  So when we talk about the Tax Increase Prevention Act, that is what 
we are talking about. We are talking about making sure here at the end 
of the year that taxes don't go up on hard-working taxpayers across 
this country, that taxes don't go up on our small businesses across the 
country, and that we understand that is truly the backbone of our 
economy, that all those people and all those small businesses are the 
ones who make our economy go every minute of every day.
  It is time to act. The time is here. The votes are here on a 
bipartisan basis in this body to get it done. Let's get it done. Our 
American citizens, our hard-working taxpayers have waited long enough.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  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. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Saldana and Deyo Nominations

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, it is good to see you here today. The 
place is a little empty. I am glad the Presiding Officer, our staff, 
and our pages are all here.
  I rise today to urge my colleagues to support two critical 
nominations to the Department of Homeland Security. They are Russ Deyo 
to be the Under Secretary for Management at the Department of Homeland 
Security and Sarah Saldana to be the Assistant Secretary for 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
  The committee which I am privileged to lead, along with Dr. Tom 
Coburn, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, is 
responsible for working with the administration and others to help 
protect our Nation's security at home and abroad. At the same time, we 
strive to make sure Federal agencies work better and more efficiently 
with the resources that are entrusted to them by the American people.
  During my years of public service, I have learned that the most 
important ingredient in helping organizations to work is leadership. I 
do not care whether the organization is a body such as this, a 
governing body, I do not care whether it is a sports team, a business, 
college or university, a school, the most important ingredient in the 
success of that organization is leadership.
  The Presiding Officer is one who has led the National Guard for the 
State of Montana for a number of years. He knows just what I mean. I 
thank him for his service and for his leadership.

[[Page 18924]]

  When it comes to the Department of Homeland Security, the absence of 
leadership throughout the Department has been a great challenge and a 
major cause of the low standing in terms of employee morale that 
Department faces.
  As we know, the Congress is going to soon wrap up our session for the 
year--in a couple of days. Senators have the obligation to fill two key 
leadership posts in the Department of Homeland Security in the days 
that lie ahead. One is the Under Secretary for Management. Mr. Deyo has 
been nominated by the President. I believe he is a Republican. The 
other is the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement, Sarah Saldana.
  As we all know, this Department plays a critical role in protecting 
our Nation from a number of threats, including terrorism, cyber 
attacks, and natural disasters, just to name a few. Given the 
Department's significant role in the security of our country, it is 
critical that Secretary Jeh Johnson have a full leadership team in 
place. That includes Russ Deyo as his Under Secretary for Management. 
That is the third highest position in the Department.
  I wish to take a couple of minutes to explain why Mr. Deyo's 
nomination is so important. As of this week more than 10 months will 
have passed since the last Senate-confirmed Under Secretary for 
Management, Rafael Borras, stepped down from his post. He was an 
excellent public servant, a great leader. We salute him and wish him 
well. But he has been gone for almost a year, and since then the 
Department has not had Senate-confirmed leadership. They need it.
  Under Secretary Borras was widely respected by members of our 
committee in the Senate and the House and others for his leadership, 
management expertise, and most of all, maybe, for his candor. He helped 
the Department make strides in many areas and led the Department to its 
first clean financial audit--something the Department was able to 
achieve again this year for the second year in a row. Why is that 
important? I have a friend, and if you ask him how he is doing, he 
says: Compared to what? Well the Department of Homeland Security--it 
took them almost a decade to get an unqualified audit, a clean 
financial audit. The Department of Defense has been around a whole lot 
longer--since the end of World War II. They have yet to get a clean 
financial audit. They are making some progress finally. But the 
Department of Homeland Security achieved it 2 years ago and then again 
this year.
  I think it is safe to say that the Department needs somebody with the 
same kind of commitment and leadership Rafael Borras brought. I 
believe, Secretary Johnson believes, and the President believes Russ 
Deyo is that person.
  Mr. Deyo had an impressive career in the private sector, for 27 years 
helping to lead Johnson & Johnson, one of the top companies not just in 
America but in the world. There, he was the general counsel, and he was 
vice president for administration. We are so lucky that someone with 
his capabilities, his commitment, his smarts, his leadership skills, 
and his integrity is willing to serve in the Federal Government at this 
level. He also spent the last 15 years serving on the executive 
committee at Johnson & Johnson, which is the principal management group 
responsible for the company's global operations. He was also a partner 
at a major U.S. law firm.
  Russ Deyo is no stranger to public service and working with law 
enforcement organizations. He was assistant U.S. attorney for New 
Jersey for 8 years. That included a period of time as chief of public 
corruption unit there.
  His perspective from the private and public sectors will be an 
invaluable asset to Secretary Jeh Johnson, particularly as the 
Secretary implements his Unity of Effort Initiative at the Department, 
which strives to help the Department operate in a more unified, 
cohesive manner across all components.
  If confirmed, Mr. Deyo will have a number of other challenges on his 
plate. For example, our friends at the Government Accountability Office 
continue to remind us that the acquisition and budgeting systems at the 
Department of Homeland Security are not fully mature. In fact, the 
overall management of the Department remains on the Government 
Accountability Office's high-risk list of government operations that 
need urgent attention. Of course, if Mr. Deyo is confirmed, he will 
inherit the challenges of improving morale across the Department. These 
are tough challenges, and some have been around since the creation of 
the Department. But I believe Mr. Deyo has the leadership experience 
and the skills necessary to tackle these challenges and to really make 
a difference.
  I will take a moment here, if I can. Every year there is a nonprofit 
organization that looks across the Federal Government and asks 
questions of a lot of employees to really ascertain where morale is 
high, where some of the favorite places are for people to work in the 
Federal Government. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a number of 
years has led the pack there. There are roughly 15 big Departments that 
are part of that survey, but all told, there are something like 314 
Federal agencies that are surveyed to make up this list, and the 
Department of Homeland Security runs dead last among the big 
Departments that are surveyed. Out of all of the Federal agencies that 
are surveyed, and there are 314 in all, ICE, Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement, which Sarah Saldana has been nominated to lead--dead last. 
Dead last. One of the reasons why, when I talk to people at the 
Department of Homeland Security, employees, whether they happen to be 
customs agents, whether they happen to be folks down on the border, 
Border Patrol, whether they happen to be TSA folks--whatever role they 
are playing across the country and around the world, among the major 
factors they point to, explaining the low morale, is lack of 
leadership, lack of confirmed leadership. We have worked so hard to 
address that. We have two holes left. One of them will be filled by Mr. 
Deyo--we need to confirm him--and the other by Sarah Saldana.
  Here is what former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff--Judge Chertoff--
had to say when he introduced Mr. Deyo at his confirmation hearing 
before the homeland security committee earlier this year. Here is what 
the former Secretary said:

       Russ brings to the position he has been nominated for a 
     broad range of experience with one of the best enterprises in 
     the world.

  That is Johnson & Johnson.

       You will find him to be a smart, experienced, and devoted 
     public servant who will actually bring a unique set of skills 
     to this job which are very critical.

  This is a former Secretary of the Department. He said:

       I could not give a stronger endorsement to Mr. Deyo for 
     this position.

  Mr. Deyo has also received strong endorsements from three former 
Under Secretaries for Management at DHS, people who have had this job, 
done this job before: Paul Schneider, Elaine Duke, and the immediate 
past Under Secretary, Rafael Borras, whom I mentioned earlier. Here is 
what they had to say. Here is what the three of them, in unison, had to 
say about Russ Deyo:

       Russ Deyo is an outstanding choice by the President to be 
     Under Secretary for Management.
       An impressive leader, he brings the requisite skills, 
     experience, and leadership to this important position. He is 
     recognized as a professional, unflappable statesman who can 
     meet head-on the challenges this position faces and get 
     results.

  I have had the privilege of meeting with him. I don't make snap 
judgments about people, but he is one impressive human being, one 
impressive leader. Everything I have learned about Mr. Deyo over the 
past several months has led me to conclude that he would be not only an 
exceptional candidate to be a manager at DHS but a terrific Under 
Secretary if confirmed.
  I urge all my colleagues to support the nomination of Russ Deyo.
  I wish to take a few more moments to turn to the nomination of Sarah 
Saldana to be the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement at the Department of Homeland Security.
  We call it ICE, the acronym. As I said earlier, of the 314 Federal 
agencies that

[[Page 18925]]

are evaluated top to bottom in terms of employee satisfaction, ICE was 
dead last, No. 314.
  It has been almost 1\1/2\ years since they had a Senate-confirmed 
leader. They need one--not just anyone, they need a terrific leader. We 
believe Sarah Saldana fills that bill and meets the qualifications and 
the needs very well.
  Immigration and Customs Enforcement--ICE, as we call it--is a vital 
law enforcement agency within the Department of Homeland Security. As I 
said earlier, it has been without a Presidentially appointed and 
confirmed leader for almost 1\1/2\ years--far too long, particularly 
considering all the issues we face along our borders and the more than 
400 laws--think of that--that this agency, ICE, Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement, is required to enforce.
  Some of my colleagues may not be familiar with what ICE does and why 
it is so critical for the agency to have Senate-confirmed leadership in 
place.
  I wish to take a minute to address that. ICE is one of the Nation's 
law enforcement agencies, with more than 19,000 employees in all 50 
States, the District of Columbia, and 48 foreign countries. What do all 
these people do? That is a fair question.
  In 2013 ICE special agents initiated over 125,000 new investigations, 
made over 40,000 criminal arrests, seized $1.3 billion in currency and 
assets and took $1.6 million pounds of narcotics and other dangerous 
drugs off our streets. That is just part of what they do.
  On any given day ICE arrests 370 criminal aliens in the interior of 
our country, has 34,000 people in detention, and moves nearly 500 
criminal aliens from our country--on any given day. Managing such a 
large agency, with one of the most complex missions in the Federal 
Government, is a tall order. Thankfully, Ms. Saldana has agreed to step 
up to this challenge.
  She is a true American success story. She rose from humble beginnings 
in South Texas as the youngest of seven children to become an 
accomplished partner at a major law firm. She is now the Nation's top 
law enforcement officers.
  Ms. Saldana was unanimously confirmed by the Senate in 2011 to her 
current position as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Texas. 
She has a distinguished record representing the U.S. Government as the 
senior law enforcement officer in one of the largest districts in the 
Nation.
  It spans some 100 counties. I don't know how many counties the 
Presiding Officer has in the State of Montana--we have three--but she 
presides over a law enforcement operation that has 100 counties in the 
northern part of Texas.
  In this role, she deals as closely and extensively as anyone else 
with the threats this country faces every day from transnational 
criminal networks. This experience will serve her well if confirmed to 
lead ICE.
  Don't take my word for it. One of our good friends in the Senate, 
John Cornyn, the senior Senator from Texas, felt strongly enough about 
her qualifications that he personally introduced Ms. Saldana at her 
confirmation hearing before the committee Dr. Coburn and I lead, the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Senator Cornyn said about Sarah Saldana:

       In her role as U.S. Attorney and prosecutor over the past 
     decade, Ms. Saldana has served our State with honor, fighting 
     corrupt public officials, organized crime, sex traffickers, 
     and other dangerous criminals.

  That sounds like a highly qualified candidate to me. That is not all 
Senator Cornyn had to say about Ms. Saldana. He went on to say this as 
well:

       If respect for the rule of law is our standard, and I think 
     it should be, we would be hard pressed to find a person more 
     qualified to enforce the law than Ms. Saldana.

  That is high praise indeed and I couldn't agree more.
  Some are arguing we should not confirm Ms. Saldana because of the 
President's recent Executive action on immigration. This decision will 
provide, though, relief from deportation for as many as 5 million 
undocumented immigrants living in the shadows today, law-abiding people 
who are productive members of our communities.
  Still, some argue the President's actions should preclude the Senate 
from confirming even a highly qualified candidate such as Sarah Saldana 
to this critical position. I think that is absurd.
  We have before the Senate a highly qualified candidate, a person 
who--according to her neighbor and the senior Senator from Texas--is 
fiercely independent, has served with honor in her current role, and 
respects the rule of law.
  It does not punish the President to leave this position unfilled, it 
punishes the citizens of our country. It makes it harder for ICE to 
accomplish its mission, and it hurts the men and women at ICE who 
deserve a leader to ensure that this agency runs as efficiently as 
possible.
  I believe the President acted within the bounds of the law in 
announcing his executive action. But whether you agree with me, 
opposing Ms. Saldana's nomination will do nothing to change what the 
President has done, nothing.
  I hope Ms. Saldana, the first Hispanic person and second woman to be 
nominated to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, does not fall victim 
to politics as usual in the Senate. She is by all accounts exactly what 
this critical agency needs: a proven leader and a respected member of 
the law enforcement community.
  What do they say about integrity? If you have it, nothing else 
matters. Integrity, if you don't have it, nothing else matters. She has 
it.
  She will have a tough job ahead of her if she is confirmed this week, 
but I believe she is more than up to the task. I urge so strongly for 
our colleagues to join me, to join Senator Cornyn, and others to 
support her. We will never regret it.
  With that, I am looking around the Senate Chamber. I know we are 
going to have a lot of folks voting, but I don't see anybody to speak.
  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. CARPER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. I have been asked to lead us through this wrapup session, 
even though it is a little early to wrap up, but I want to walk through 
it if I can.

                          ____________________