Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that in about a minute we are going to be voting on the first of a series of amendments. The first amendment is the amendment I have offered which I talked about before. I want to remind my colleagues what this amendment does.

First, it would require a notification to Governors and to county officials of risks to their drinking water supplies that may be caused by the Keystone Pipeline.

Second, the local officials would have the right to bring that information back to the Federal Government so that action could be taken in order to protect their drinking water supplies.

Third, it provides a right of action for property owners for damages caused to their wells and drinking water as a direct result of the Keystone Pipeline construction.

This is a pretty straightforward amendment. It provides States rights in knowing what is happening with regard to their drinking water, and it provides property owners rights for the damages that could be caused as a result of Keystone.

I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I may be able to offer my amendment, amendment No. 124.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, my amendment states that S. 1 may not ``change, suspend, supersede, or abrogate any trust obligation or treaty requirement of the United States without consultation with, and the informed express consent of, any affected Indian nation, Indian tribe, individual Indian, or Indian tribal organization.''

The need for this amendment becomes particularly relevant because on January 11 of this year, the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association wrote to President Obama to express the association's unequivocal opposition to the Keystone XL Pipeline.

The association speaks on behalf of 16 sovereign American Indian tribes and asserts that the pipeline violates the Fort Laramie Treaties of 1851 and 1868.

I am not taking a legal position on whether the assertion is correct. Rather, I think it is important that the Senate go on record that our trust obligations and treaty requirements, which are with sovereign Nations, must be honored and that any changes to those obligations may only occur with consultation and their consent.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter dated January 11, 2015, from the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association and the Association's resolution regarding the KXL pipeline be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, could I ask my colleague from California to yield for a question?

The question I am going to ask Senator Boxer to respond to is: What are the consequences if we invoke cloture about 15 minutes from now when that comes up for a vote on the floor?

There were many of my colleagues who had amendments they wanted to offer. They filed those amendments.

Unless those amendments become pending, it is my understanding that-- and unless those amendments meet the very narrow germaneness rule--they may be relevant to debate--but the germaneness rules are pretty tough so that unless we defeat cloture, we may not have an open amendment process.

I know the majority leader talked about an open amendment process, but many of my colleagues--including this Member, who has additional amendments I would like to have considered--will not be able to get those amendments considered, if I understand it, Senator Boxer, unless the cloture motion is defeated.

Let me talk for one moment about amendment 75, which I filed and is pending, and I think is critically important.

What that amendment would do is allow our Governors and our county officials to be able to get information about the risk to their drinking water as a result of the potential spills on the aquifers. This is not a hypothetical question because the Ogallala Aquifer, which is the country's largest underground freshwater resource, is crossed by the proposed line of the Keystone. Therefore, it is of major concern to the Governors and local officials what a potential spill could have with regard to their drinking water supplies, to their communities. At some of places the aquifer is within 5 feet of the surface. So a spill could have a dramatic impact on the supply of safe drinking water.

As has already been pointed out by my colleagues in Michigan, in July 2010 there was a pipeline rupture near Marshall, MI, that released 843,000 gallons of tar sands oil. It had a horrific impact on the environment, and it is still difficult to see the end in sight because of the cleanup difficulties in this thick, tar sands oil.

On March 29, 2013, there was a pipeline rupture in Mayflower, AR, that caused an incredible challenge to the cleanup.

So my amendment is pretty simple. My amendment would allow that information to be made available to our Governors and our local officials so that they could then notify the President that they have a concern on the route and allow that to be considered before the pipeline is constructed, giving our local governments the opportunity to be heard--to have the information and then be heard on this very important issue.

My question to the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, is: If we are going to have an open amendment process, how can that be if the cloture motion that was filed by the majority leader were to become approved? Wouldn't that deny us that full, open amendment process that we had heard was going to be used in this Congress?

I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment would open the courthouse door over disputes of whether to place worthy lands under protection because of challenges that there are not enough resources or certain issues were not considered ahead of time.

Let me give one concrete example. A little over 1 year ago the President designated the Harriet Tubman Park as a national historic monument. It was a prerequisite to becoming a national park. That could have been challenged in the courts and it could have prevented the protection of that land. That could have been done.

What this amendment does--and it was not intended to do that--is add additional bureaucracy to the protection of worthy lands. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. I think it will do harm to the protection of necessary lands in our country.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside to call up amendment No. 75.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I will be very brief.

This is an important amendment, as it deals with the rights of property owners to clean water. The Ogallala Aquifer is the largest aquifer in the western part of the United States, and the Keystone Pipeline would bisect that. At some point the aquifer is only 5 feet from the surface. Private owners drill wells to get their drinking water, and there is no protection in the event there is a spill. A spill is a real possibility. We have seen in prior cases in Michigan and Arkansas the impact of spills from this tar sands oil and the damage it can cause.

My amendment is pretty straightforward. It allows our Governors to be able to challenge the safety of their drinking water. It is a States rights issue. It gives the property owners whose wells could be contaminated by this the right of action. I ask my colleagues to favorably consider this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. President. I take this time--and some of my colleagues will be joining me--to express concerns about the first major bill that has been brought to the floor under the Republican leadership dealing with the Keystone Pipeline.

I want to start first by talking about the so-called urgency for us to take this issue up and circumvent the normal process. The normal process would be for this matter to continue through the regulatory review, which is there to protect the public interest. To short-circuit that in an unprecedented way and for Congress to approve a site for a pipeline is not the way it is done.

In order to consider this there must be some urgency. First, let me just share with my colleagues what the American people are experiencing with the price of gasoline at the pump. It is at a historic low over the last 5 years, with $2.19 the average price for gasoline at the pump. So there is certainly no urgency if we are talking about trying to get more oil in the pipelines for the cost of energy. By the way, I think we all understand that our actions here in this Congress will have very little to do with the availability of oil in the near term. It would take some time to construct the pipeline and for it to have an impact on the level of oil that is available.

The second issue that I find somewhat puzzling with regard to the urgency of this issue--and some of my colleagues have pointed it out on both sides of this issue--is that there is already a pipeline that is available that could be used. Admittedly, it is not as efficient as what they are trying to do with the Keystone, and that is to make tar sand, the dirty oil we have, more economically available and feasible to be transported. That makes little sense under today's economics and the price of gasoline makes it even more hard to understand. Construction of this pipeline and the approval of this Congress will have very little to do with the consumer availability of energy here in the United States.

Now, compound the fact that we are talking about Canadian oil, the dirtiest oil--the tar sand oil--that is being transported through the United States because Canada doesn't want to transport it through their own country because of their concerns on the environmental side and which ends up in Texas at the Port Arthur, TX, refinery. Now for those who are not familiar, that is a foreign tax zone which is tax-free. So, therefore, the oil can go into the international marketplace in a very easy manner. Valero, which is one of the potential users--consumers of this oil--is building export facilities in order to handle more exports to the international communities. None of us can speak with any definitive judgment as to how much of this oil will in fact end up in the United States, but the fact that they are transporting it to a southern port--they are not transporting it to a refinery in the Midwest, which would be a lot closer and a lot cheaper--is a clear indication this oil will end up in the international marketplace and will have very little to do

with energy security in the United States. I think we have to make that clear.

We are bypassing the normal process to allow Canadian oil to enter the international marketplace more efficiently with risk to the United States and very little benefit. Why are we doing this? We hear it will give us jobs. I am for job creation. I would like to see us work on a transportation bill where we could create millions of jobs in a far more harmonious way than we can with Keystone. I am for clean energy policies which will create great permanent jobs in the United States. But the job creation estimates for the Keystone Pipeline are that it will create literally a few thousand temporary construction jobs. They are not permanent jobs. There are only a handful of permanent jobs. So it isn't about creating jobs, and it is not about energy security in the United States.

What is this all about? There is very little benefit compared to the risk factors in the United States. Let me talk about the risk factors which give most of us concern. The environmental risk factors have us the most concerned. Tar sand is a multitype of product that is literally mined and processed into a crude oil which is very thick and dirty. There are different ways to get to the tar sand, but one way to get to the tar sand is to take the topsoil off the property and mine it through a strip mining process. That has been done in Canada, and it is still being done in Canada, causing tremendous environmental damage. It is, in and of itself, a process that most of us would want to avoid. Yet this legislation does nothing to prevent that type of processing of the tar sands. Tar sands produce a very thick oil product that can only make its way through the pipeline by it being processed, and it creates additional risk factors because of the way it is processed.

There have been oil spills of the tar sands product. We have seen it in Arkansas and we have seen it in Michigan. It caused devastating damage. It is not easy to clean up. It is not like normal crude. It causes permanent-type damage to a community, as we saw most recently in Michigan. So there are risks associated with taking Canadian oil in an effort to make it easier to reach the international marketplace, unlikely to end up in the United States, creating few permanent jobs. Frankly, a lot of us don't quite understand this.

As I said, it is dirty. The use of this tar sands oil produces a much larger carbon footprint than other crude oil, causing additional problems in dealing with climate change. We have a serious issue with what is happening to our environment. I am proud to represent the State of Maryland. Most of the people in my State live in coastal areas. They know the consequences of global climate change. They understand it. They know what is happening along the coast, and they know we are at risk. They understand the fact that we have inhabitable islands in the Chesapeake Bay that have disappeared and are disappearing. They understand that our seafood crop, the blue crab, is threatened because the warming water affects the sea grass growth which is critically important for juvenile crabs to survive. They understand the risks and want us to be responsible in dealing with climate change. They also know that we are getting a lot more extreme weather in the east coast of the United States and throughout our country.

They know on the west coast. They are getting dry spells and wildfires. They understand the risks. They understand the cost to America of not dealing with climate change issues. The costs involve not only direct damage that is caused but also in the global consequences of climate change.

So we are worried about our carbon fingerprint. We are proud the United States is joining other countries in dealing with climate issues.

I applaud the work of President Obama, in the most recent international meetings, when he dealt with climate change issues. We need to do a better job.

Why are tar sands an issue? Because tar sands produce more carbon emissions than other types of oil. It is about 81 percent higher than the average use of crude oil and 17 percent higher than the well-to- wheels basis of producing oil. That is a concern. That translates into millions and millions of cars--the difference between that and having millions of cars on the roads. It is an important part of our leadership.

If we are trying to establish international credibility and then we facilitate more of this dirty tar sands oil, what message does that send? What type of cooperation should we expect to receive?

I am trying to figure out why this is the new priority of the leadership in the Senate. Why is this the very first bill to come to the floor of the Senate when, as I pointed out earlier, there seems to be no urgency. I have been told it has been delayed and delayed and delayed. The reason it was delayed is because the construction operating firm changed the routes of the pipeline. They had one route mapped out--and no alternative routes--but didn't check to make sure it didn't violate State laws. Now they are wondering why it is taking so long. It is taking so long because they had to change the route. It is not the governmental process that is slowing this down, it is the fact that the proposers of this route did not have their ducks lined up in a row before they submitted the route that could be approved. We are still not sure about that.

As I said earlier, for Congress to dictate where a pipeline should be is wrong. That is not our role. We should let the regulatory process, which is there to protect the public, go forward. It would also trample on States rights. There are some serious legal challenges pending in State courts as to the actions of a Governor dealing with a location issue. That should be resolved by the courts, and we are pretty close to having that ruling. It is very unclear to me what impact this legislation would have on States rights as it is currently being litigated in the State court. Why are we doing that?

The delays have been caused because of the way this pipeline was suggested. The regulatory process that would protect the public safety is moving forward. Considering oil and gasoline prices at the pump there is no urgency. There are serious environmental risk issues.

I understand the State Department report has been mentioned frequently. Look at the State Department report and look at what it is saying about the price for oil. The per barrel price of oil was a lot higher when they did that report. Lower costs have a major impact on what we are talking about here.

I urge my colleagues to let the process go forward. I thank the President for spelling out his concerns and his desire to let the regulatory process reach its conclusion, let the State court decision go forward as to what the State believes is the right thing to be done here. I believe all of that will give us a much better process than us trying to substitute our judgment for what should be done through a regulatory process.

I am going to close by quoting from one of the individuals, Ben Gotschall, from Nebraska, who has been very active on this issue. He said:

The Cowboy Indian Alliance shows our cooperation and our

working together in mutual respect. That shared bond proves

that we pipeline fighters are not just a few angry landowners

holding out, or environmentalists pushing a narrow agenda. We

are people from all walks of life and include people who have

been here the longest and know the land best.

I think that is pretty instructive. This is a broad coalition that is concerned about the actions that are being contemplated in the Senate-- actions that would overrule landowner rights, actions that would take away State rights, actions that would shortcut regulatory process, actions that help private companies directly without taking into account the regulatory protections that are provided under law.

It seems rather unusual that this would be the very first issue where we could work together in a bipartisan way to expand opportunities for energy in the United States. Clean energy produces a lot more jobs, and we could be talking about incentives so we could have a larger production of clean energy in the United States. Democrats and Republicans would clearly work together to come up with ways we could have more efficient use of energy.

Democrats and Republicans could clearly work together in that regard. There are so many areas where we could work together and show the

American people that we understand their frustration with Congress's failure to deal with many of the issues in the last Congress, but instead it looks as though we are picking an issue that is more about special interest than it is one that will help deal with an energy problem in the United States and has the potential to broaden our environmental challenges in the United States.

For all of those reasons, I hope my colleagues will reject this approach and let us go back and work together to find a common way to help us deal with our environment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I greatly respect Senator Hatch and his respect for the integrity of our system. I know he is acting with his sincere beliefs, but I am disappointed and I need to say that.

The inspector general's report is a serious investigation. It involves episodes that took place during the previous administration in which the Commissioner was appointed by a Republican. There is no indication at all of Carolyn Colvin being the subject of the investigation.

In fact, she has tried to take steps to be totally open and transparent about what has happened and has been totally forthcoming with our committee, the Ways and Means Committee, in providing information.

I wish to stress what Senator Mikulski said about the urgency of this matter. If we don't confirm her during the lameduck session, it will be more than 2 years that the Social Security Administration has operated without a

confirmed Commissioner. This is one of the most important agencies in the government.

As an Acting Commissioner, she cannot appoint her key team in order to carry out the responsibilities of the Social Security Administration. The morale of the agency is very much impacted when you can't get a confirmed Commissioner. Quite frankly, the Senate Finance Committee recommended her appointment 3 months ago, and as Senator Hatch pointed out, it was a 22-to-2 vote. The vote in the Senate Finance Committee at that time was not even close, and now we cannot get her confirmed.

As Senator Mikulski pointed out, we know Carolyn Colvin. She started out as a stenographer clerk at the Social Security Administration in the 1960s while working her way through college. She went on to become the Deputy Commissioner, carrying out major responsibilities.

Her passion has always been for public service. She was the secretary for human resources for the State of Maryland. She knows State; she knows Federal. Her whole life has been devoted to public service. She is a very honorable person and is dedicated to leading the Social Security Administration.

We have some very critical issues in the next Congress, and we may have some different views on some of those issues, but that is what this Senate is about--to debate those issues. But we need to have a confirmed Commissioner in place to help us sort through the challenges we face. Tens of millions of Americans depend upon the Social Security system. They demand accountability, not just from us but from the agency. How can you have accountability if you don't have a confirmed Commissioner?

All I can say is we have a qualified person who has gone through the process and has been recommended by the committee. She has all the talent, commitment, and drive to do the job, and it looks like we are not going to be able to get this person confirmed. If we don't confirm her now, we will have to wait until the next Congress and start all over again, and we don't know how long that will take.

I appreciate Senator Hatch's willingness to work with us, and I know we will work together on this issue. Senator Hatch has always been an honorable person--and I very much appreciate that--to work with on so many different issues, but I have to express to my colleagues my deep disappointment that we cannot get this nomination up for a vote.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, one of the great honors of serving in the U.S. Senate--and it is a great honor to serve in this body--is the fact that I have had the opportunity to serve with Carl Levin. I think Senator Levin represents the very best of our political system, the very best of the U.S. Senate, and why I am so proud to be a part of this institution.

I must tell my colleagues I came from the House of Representatives and I had the great pleasure to have as one of my closest friends in the House of Representatives Carl's brother, Sandy. Sandy is an incredibly talented person who believes in public service, as does his brother Carl, and the two of them have devoted their family reputation to public service and they have given so much back.

Carl, what you have done for our national security, for our national defense, the type of attention you have paid to make sure this country is as well prepared as it needs to be, you have done that in an exemplary way. I can tell you what you have done for the people in Michigan, the type of Senator you have been. You have been a great U.S. Senator for your State, as well as a great U.S. Senator for the United States. That is not always an easy balance, but you have been able to do it.

As so many colleagues have said, when we seek advice, when we need a Senator to help us understand something, we go to Carl Levin. Some of my constituents have a hard time believing that we read the bills around here. Carl Levin reads the bills around here. He has found typographical errors in some of my legislation. He has found ways to correct us when we didn't express ourselves the way we should have. He writes me notes all the time. I thank him for that dedication.

As several of our colleagues have pointed out, there is no one here who has a greater love for the traditions--the best traditions--of the U.S. Senate, a Senate that debates and respects each other. One of the great opportunities I had was to sit in a room with Lamar Alexander and Carl Levin and others and talk about that, and how we could restore the best traditions of the U.S. Senate.

So, Senator Levin, I want you to know, I will always be indebted to serving in this body with you and learning from you and recognizing just what one person can do to carry out the honor and dignity of public service. You really define public service. For that, I am very grateful, the people of Michigan are grateful, and the people of America are grateful. Congratulations on your great service.

Madam President, first, let me thank Senators Landrieu and Murkowski for their work on this legislation. I was listening to Senator Murkowski go through how this process came together. I also listened to Senator Coburn's concerns about the process that has been used.

Let me share with my colleagues why I strongly support the inclusion of the lands package in the National Defense Authorize Act and encourage my colleagues to support the vote later today. I reference specifically the Harriet Tubman National Historic Park. Talk about frustration. This park, although approved through studies and it went through all the appropriate ways for its designation, was held by one Senator on a hold for 3\1/2\ years, and that is despite the fact that since 2012 there was an offset to make sure it did not cost any additional resources--a requirement that I was told I needed to satisfy to remove the hold.

There is a lot of frustration here. I appreciate what Senator Murkowski did and the history she went through. She is absolutely right. If we tried to bring these bills to the floor on an individual basis, we would never get done the work of the Senate. These land issues have been vetted, and I can tell you in regard to the Harriet Tubman National Historic Park, it is very much needed.

This Senate did pass this particular designation earlier this year, so this has already been passed by the Senate. In the House, I worked with Congressman Harris and Congressman Moffett dealing with some of the same issues that Senator Murkowski mentioned a few moments ago, and that is to make sure we have the right balance between the lands that are designated as part of the historic park and the landowners' rights in the community. The balance that Senator Murkowski said generally in regard to the provisions applies in regard to the Harriet Tubman park. I thank Congressman Harris and Congressman Moffett for their help.

I also want to acknowledge the work of my colleagues--Senator Mikulski, Senator Gillibrand, and Senator Schumer--and thank them for their help in bringing about this package and bringing about the ability today to finally pass the designation of the Harriet Tubman National Historic Park. This will be the first woman, the first African-American woman to have such a recognition under our National Park System. This is an appropriate person for this historic moment. I think most people know that Harriet Tubman was considered the Moses of her people. She was born into slavery in Dorchester County, MD, the Eastern Shore of Maryland. For the first 30 years of her life, she lived in slavery, and then on her own, by herself, she escaped slavery and made her way to liberty in 1849. She did this alone. The courage of this woman--she didn't stop there; she then came back and rescued others slaves and brought them to freedom through the Underground Railroad, which took slaves from slavery to freedom.

I am proud of the historic significance of the State of Maryland in that regard, with the birthplace of Harriet Tubman and where the Underground Railroad operated.

The Eastern Shore is on the eastern part of our State. I could take you to the western part of the State, Cumberland, where you can see the church in which the slaves on their way to freedom were sheltered before they went through a tunnel to the railroad and literally went to Pennsylvania and freedom.

This is an incredible opportunity. We have the landscape, we have the property on the Eastern Shore of Maryland.

In Auburn, NY, we have where Harriet Tubman lived the later years of her life. After escaping and becoming free, she was a spy for the North, for the Union during the Civil War. She then went on to help with women's suffrage. She set up a home for the aged African Americans in New York. A lot of those properties still exist today up in New York and will be part of the Harriet Tubman National Historic Park.

This is an appropriate way to honor a real hero of our country but also to provide a way for young people and all the people in this country to learn more about Harriet Tubman. It will help the local economies of New York and Pennsylvania. It is part of the National Park System's dedication to African-American history. I think it is very appropriate to at long last be able to get this done.

For those who express frustration, we had this paid for a long time ago, we worked out all the balances a long time ago, and we thought this would be done a long time ago. But today we have a chance to get it done, and I urge my colleagues to support the package and support the NDAA bill.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I just wish to underscore the point that it is urgent we take up this Omnibus appropriations bill; that we do this in order to have a budget for our country and that we don't threaten another government shutdown--we know how damaging that is to this country; and that we don't have another continuing resolution.

Another continuing resolution provides uncertainty to our agencies. They can't do the critical work they need to do. It establishes last year's priorities rather than trying to establish the priorities for this year and represents a failure of the Congress.

So I start by first thanking and congratulating my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, for her incredible leadership through this process, working with Senator Shelby and their counterparts in the House of Representatives.

This is not easy. We have sharply different views in this Congress, and we have seen over and over again gridlock where we are unable to make decisions. I congratulate Senator Mikulski for bringing the negotiations of the omnibus to a successful conclusion. When we look at the work she did in the appropriations part of this Omnibus appropriations bill, I am very proud, and I think we all should be very proud and very supportive of the work she has done.

As I pointed out earlier, if we don't pass an Omnibus appropriations bill, we are either going to have a government shutdown or we are going to resort to a short-term continuing resolution. In either case, it is very damaging to our country and to our economy.

The Omnibus appropriations bill we have before us allows us to set certain priorities. I know Senator Mikulski has gone through many of those priorities. I just wish to outline a few: the fact that we give additional resources for missing and exploited children; the fact that we provide law enforcement with rape kits to help in law enforcement against those who have perpetrated violence against women; the fact that we provide an additional $5 billion-plus to fight the Ebola crisis globally. This has a direct impact on the world economy, on world health, and directly affects the United States; the appropriations for our Department of Defense to be able to combat the extremist ISIL in its fear that it has invoked not just in that region but globally.

This Omnibus appropriations bill provides the resources in order to carry out these important responsibilities of government. The alternative is a continuing resolution, at best. How do we fight a war on a continuing resolution? How do we fight Ebola on a continuing resolution? We will not have the ability to be able to do it.

I thank Senator Mikulski. She has provided funds in here for our Farm Service Agencies, which is particularly important to keep open the 250 threatened closures of farm services offices. I mention that because in Maryland these offices are very important to our agricultural community. Maryland farmers in their conservation efforts to help us on the Chesapeake Bay work in conjunction with the service agencies. The closing of these agencies would be devastating.

The omnibus provides a modest pay adjustment for our Federal workforce, our Federal workforce which has been asked to do more with less people--less people, more responsibilities. They are on the front lines of public service. This omnibus recognizes their service by giving them a modest adjustment to their pay.

The transportation program, which is critically important for economic growth--I can go over the differences here if we don't get the omnibus. For example, the funds for our transit projects--I know in Maryland there is $100 billion here for the Purple Line in Prince George's County and Montgomery County. For those who travel in this region, we know firsthand the gridlock problems on our roads. The only good thing about being here tonight is that I don't have to fight the traffic going home to Baltimore. We need the transit funding, and thank you, Senator Mikulski, for providing that. If we have a continuing resolution, we lose it. The funds for Baltimore--lost, if we don't have the omnibus appropriations bill.

There are funds for dredging of the Baltimore Harbor. I particularly appreciate the Appropriations Committee continuing the commitment we made in 2008, the legislation that I authored for the full funding of the Federal contributions to the WMATA system.

The funds that are here for our contract air traffic control towers. You know, not too long ago there was a threat of a shutdown. We were going to have to close the contract offices that worked the air traffic control towers in our small airports, including in Maryland. Well, we are protected by the omnibus so that will not occur. Go to a continuing resolution, and there is no such protection.

The Appalachian Regional Commission gets a bump-up in this appropriations bill, for good reason. The work they do is critically important to the rural part of Maryland, the western part. They need that. If you go to a continuing resolution and those initiatives are gone, we don't get that.

We can go on and on and on. There is $1.4 billion of additional money for community health centers--community health centers. Thank you. In Maryland we have used those funds to expand community health centers, to expand prenatal care, increasing infant survival in our State. We have used it for community mental health services, we have used it for pediatric dental services, and in the omnibus bill we will be able to continue to make that progress. If we don't get the omnibus, all bets are off. On a continuing resolution we cannot move forward in those programs.

I would thank you on behalf of the veterans of this country. What you have done requiring advanced funding is that you have protected our veterans and the benefits that we promised them regardless of the problems we have had getting our appropriations bills done. It is the right thing to do. They fought to preserve the liberties of our country, so they should at least know we are going to live up to the commitments we made to protect our veterans.

I also appreciate that in this omnibus you have extended the TAA's benefits that help our workers in transition who otherwise would not have jobs due to the international trade issues. My colleague Senator Brown has been very instrumental in this. We extend that through fiscal year 2015.

Military construction. Military construction is critically important. We have gone through a BRAC process. We have gone through ways in which we have consolidated our military, but we also have to modernize our facilities and the military construction budgets would come to a standstill if we don't have a budget in Maryland, and we will have projects that move forward in Havre de Grace, Annapolis, Indian Head, Pax River, and Andrews. All of that is very important.

Money has been provided in this omnibus to help in regard to the problems of Central America. We saw what happened on our borders. I think we all agree we want children to be safe. It must be a horrible choice for a parent to put their child on a transit to come to the United States because of what is happening in their Central American country. We begin on this omnibus bill to say, hey, let's try to work for safer conditions in Central America which will give us more stability in regard to what is happening on our own borders. That makes sense. That is in there.

I also thank Senator Mikulski for an initiative I requested that deals with Holocaust survivors. For the first time we have a direct appropriation to help Holocaust survivors. These are individuals who have a great fear of ending up in an institution. You can understand why. So access to fundamental services in the community is particularly important. This omnibus is sensitive to make sure that we provide that. Again, if we don't have the omnibus, that initiative is gone.

You are protecting our Pell grant recipients so they can continue to receive their Pell grants at current levels. All of this is so important in the omnibus if we don't get it.

There are some things in this omnibus I don't like at all. As I said earlier, this is a compromise. I know that we have seen the bills come over from the House of Representatives. We have seen the antienvironmental, antifinancial consumer protection bills. So many bills have come over. And we know there were efforts made on numerous of these policy riders to the appropriations to the omnibus bill. Unfortunately, some got on, and I certainly understand the political process. I am not naive to understand that we could win on every issue; but I feel compelled to point out the policy riders that are on this omnibus bill that I hope we will work together to remove the harmful impacts that they could possibly have on policy in this country.

On the environmental front, there is a policy rider that restricts EPA's authority to deal with tackle and ammunition as it relates to lead content. Our policy should be based to allow EPA, based upon best science for how they protect public health. I think that is compromised by that rider.

There is a rider that could compromise how the agriculture community works on our clean water bills. All stakeholders have to be in together to deal with clean water. We do that with the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland. I think that rider could have some very negative impact. We have heard a lot of talk about the sage grouse which is a species that could become endangered. The Environmental Protection Agency should be able to do what is right in establishing the right conservation efforts, but instead there were restrictions placed on EPA, and I regret that. I hope we can work around that.

The definition of fill in mining regulations could open up more mountaintop removal for coal mining, the most obscene way to obtain coal, to blow up mountains and pollute streams. There are better ways. We shouldn't put these arbitrary restrictions on the Environmental Protection Agency.

There is a provision here you have heard a lot of comment on the floor on dealing with financial consumer protection which would repeal the Dodd-Frank provision where banks had to push out some of the derivative trading into separate accounts so they weren't subject to the FDIC, the government insurance program. That provision could be used for risky trading and could result in government bailout. That is bad. Let's work to make sure that doesn't happen. Let's work together to restore that type of protection in our financial services.

The IMF doesn't receive funds over this omnibus bill. I think that is a mistake. I think our responsibilities internationally require us to cooperate in that.

There are provisions in here that interfere with the District of Columbia home rule. That won't be the first time we have done that, and I regret that. So it is not unusual to see those provisions in an appropriations bill. It still doesn't make it right. It is not right.

There are some missed opportunities here. I am sorry we are not participating in the Green Climate Fund. This is an international effort to deal with the realities of climate change. The United States needs to be a leader. We are missing an opportunity by not participating in the Green Climate Fund.

I regret that this is an omnibus appropriations bill for all agencies except one: Homeland Security. That is wrong. Our Homeland Security needs the protection of a budget, not a continuing resolution. We may have very different views on what we should do on immigration policy, but that shouldn't stop us from allowing those

who serve in Homeland Security to have the confidence that we will support their budget for a year, and that they can go forward with an initiative. I regret that. That is a missed opportunity that is in the omnibus bill.

Lastly, let me mention the two extraneous issues that made their way into the omnibus appropriations bill. That was a mystery, I think, to Senator Mikulski and others who worked so hard in negotiating back and forth in good faith only to find that the Rules Committee in the House of Representatives added two extraneous provisions to an omnibus appropriations bill. The process is wrong. They shouldn't do that. That is an abuse of power. They are also, by the way, wrong on the policy.

One, it is a very serious issue, how to deal with multi-employer plans. I have been working on pension issues ever since I came to the Congress. We have a problem with the multi-employer plans, there is no question about that. But we should have a bill on the floor of the Senate and debate that. We shouldn't be passing a bill that could very well have some very stark consequences on individuals who are currently retired. That could very easily happen under this provision.

The second, which adds new categories of giving in our political system to political party conventions and to the building funds, and to recount, we don't need more money in politics in this country and we shouldn't be taking up that bill on an omnibus appropriations bill.

Let me conclude my remarks as I began. To me, this is an easy decision to make. It is an easy decision because the public does not want to see more gridlock in Washington. They know the House of Representatives has gone home. They know that our leaders have negotiated an omnibus budget for the next fiscal year, and they are saying at long last could we at least get this done, or are we going to have another threatened shutdown? Are we going to put the government on autopilot for a 3-month period?

I think we have a responsibility to see issues to conclusion, and on the appropriation issues that are in this bill, you should be very proud to support the work of Senator Mikulski and the entire group behind the negotiations of this omnibus bill, Senator Shelby and others. We should support that and recognize that what we need to do next year--I know my colleague from Maryland has been the champion of this. I heard her speak so eloquently in our caucus about this and on the floor of the Senate, but what we need to do is get a budget done in regular order so the appropriators know what their budget limits are and they can work on the individual appropriation bills. We can bring them to the floor, we can debate them, have amendment votes, and then we won't be as frustrated as we are tonight, in the eleventh hour dealing with issues for the very first time that we see on the omnibus appropriations bill.

I know Senator Mikulski has been the great champion of saying let's get back to regular order. She did that in her committee. We are not surprised. We saw the work of her committee. It was done very openly. We had a chance for input, and that is why a lot of what is in this omnibus appropriations bill represents the work of each Member of this body. But we can do this in a more open and transparent way by considering individual appropriation bills on the floor of the Senate, reconciling those differences at the House, and really doing the people's business and not just confront ourselves with another omnibus appropriations bill.

I encourage my colleagues to support the good work that has been done and I hope we can approve the omnibus appropriations bill this evening well in advance of the hour of midnight, which will be here sooner than we think, in order to avoid a government shutdown and let the people of this Nation know we are doing our very best.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to celebrate the long awaited enactment of the Harriet Tubman National Historical Parks Act, a bill to establish the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park on the Eastern Shore of Maryland and the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park in Auburn, NY. This is an effort that I have worked closely with Senators Mikulski, Schumer and Gillibrand as well as Secretary Clinton, when she represented New York in this body, and mark the culmination of the legislative work on this effort started by my predecessor, Senator Sarbanes when he passed legislation commissioning the National Service to conduct a Special Resource Study on Harriet Tubman. We all share a deep appreciation for how important establishing these parks is to preserving the legacy of this remarkable historical figure in American History but also to how important these parks will be to the communities where they will be located.

In my career, I have spoken on the Senate Floor, at events in Maryland, in meetings with constituents and with my colleagues about Harriet Tubman's legacy. While I hope each opportunity I have taken to discuss the life of this remarkable woman helps raise awareness about her importance to the history of our great nation, my ultimate goal has always been to properly commemorate her life and her work by establishing the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park on the Eastern Shore of Maryland and, to establish the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park in Auburn, NY.

For the last 7 years I have championed the legislation that was enacted today as part of the National Defense Authorization Act.

I also greatly appreciate the support this legislation received in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Senate as a whole. In both this Congress and the 112 Congress, the Harriet Tubman National Historical Parks Act was reported out of committee with bipartisan support including the support of Chairwoman Landrieu and Ranking Member Murkowski. I am incredibly grateful for the work of the Chair and Ranking Member, and their staffs, to maintain progress on the bill which has led to its passage today.

The establishment of the Harriet Tubman Historical Parks has been years in the making and is long overdue. The mission of the National Park Service has evolved over time from not only preserving natural wonders across the U.S. for recreational purposes but also commemorating unique places of significance to historical events and extraordinary Americans that have shaped our nation.

The woman, who is known to us as Harriet Tubman, was born in approximately 1822 in Dorchester County, MD, and given the name Araminta, Minty, Ross. She spent nearly 30 years of her life in slavery on Maryland's Eastern Shore. She worked on a number of different plantations on Maryland's Eastern Shore and as a teenager was trained to be a seamstress. As an adult she took the first name Harriet, and when she was 25 years-old married John Tubman.

In her late twenties, Harriet Tubman escaped from slavery in 1849. She fled in the dead of night, navigating the maze of tidal streams and wetlands that, to this day, comprise the Eastern Shore's landscape. She did so alone, demonstrating courage, strength and fortitude that became her hallmarks. Not satisfied with attaining her own freedom, she returned repeatedly for more than 10 years to the places of her enslavement in Dorchester and Caroline counties where, under the most adverse conditions, she led away many family members and other slaves to freedom in the Northeastern United States. She helped develop a complex network of safe houses and recruited abolitionist sympathizers residing along secret routes connecting the Southern slave states and Northern Free States. No one knows exactly how many people she led to freedom or the number of trips between the North and South she led, but the legend of her work was an inspiration to the multitude of slaves seeking freedom and to abolitionists fighting to end slavery. Tubman became known as ``the Moses of her people'' by African-Americans and white abolitionists alike. Tubman once proudly told Frederick Douglass that in all of her journeys she ``never lost a single passenger.'' She was so effective that in 1856 there was a $40,000 reward offered for her capture in the South. She is the most famous and most important conductor of the network of resistance known as the Underground Railroad.

During the Civil War, Tubman served the Union forces as a spy, a scout and a nurse. She served in Virginia, Florida, and South Carolina. She is credited with leading slaves from those slave states to freedom during those years as well.

Following the Civil War, and the emancipation of all black slaves, Tubman settled in Auburn, NY. There she was active in the women's suffrage movement, and she also established one of the first incorporated African-American homes for aged to care for the elderly. In 1903 she bequeathed the Tubman Home to the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church in Auburn where it stands to this day. Harriet Tubman died in Auburn in 1913 and she is buried in the Fort Hill Cemetery. Fortunately many of the structures and landmarks in New York remain intact and in relatively good condition.

Only recently has the Park Service begun establishing units dedicated to the lives of African-Americans. Places like Booker T. Washington National Monument on the campus of the Tuskegee University in Alabama, the George Washington Carver National Monument in Missouri, The Buffalo Soldiers at Guadalupe Mountains National Park, the National Historical Trail commemorating the March for Voting Rights from Selma to Montgomery Alabama, and most recently the Martin Luther King Jr. memorial on the National Mall are all important monuments and places of historical significance that help tell the story of the African- American experience.

As the National Park Service continues its important work to recognize and preserve African-American history by providing greater public access and information about the places and people that have shaped the African-American experience, there are very few units dedicated to the lives of African-American women, and there are no National Historical Parks commemorating African-American women.

I cannot think of a more fitting hero than Harriet Tubman to be the first African-American woman to be memorialized with National Historical Parks that tell both her personal story and her lifelong fight for justice and freedom starting with her fight against the cruel institution of slavery and work of the Underground Railroad she led to her work in the women's suffrage movement.

I am grateful for the support of my colleagues. These parks will hopefully pave the way for the Park Service to develop more National Historical Parks commemorating the lives of many other important African-American women in our history.

The vision for the Tubman National Historical Parks is to preserve the places significant to the life of Harriet Tubman and tell her story through interpretative activities and continue to discover aspects of her life and the experience of passage along the Underground Railroad through archaeological research and discovery.

The buildings and structures in Maryland have mostly disappeared. Slaves were forced to live in primitive buildings even though many slaves were skilled tradesmen who constructed the substantial homes of their owners. Not surprisingly, few of the structures associated with the early years of Tubman's life remain standing today. The landscape of the Eastern Shore of Maryland, however, is still evocative of the time that Tubman lived there. Farm fields and loblolly pine forests dot the lowland landscape, which is also notable for its extensive network of tidal rivers and wetlands that Tubman, and the people she guided to freedom, under the cover of night. In particular, a number of properties including the homestead of Ben Ross, her father, Stewart's Canal, where he worked, the Brodess Farm, where she worked as a slave, and others are within the master plan boundaries of the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge.

Similarly, Poplar Neck, the plantation from which she escaped to freedom, is still largely intact in Caroline County. The properties in Talbot County, immediately across the Choptank River from the plantation, are currently protected by various conservation easements. Were she alive today, Tubman would recognize much of the landscape that she knew intimately as she secretly led black men, women and children to freedom.

There has never been any doubt that Tubman led an extraordinary life. Her contributions to American history are surpassed by few. Determining the most appropriate way to recognize that life and her contributions, however, has been exceedingly difficult. The National Park Service determined that designating a Historical Park that would include two geographically separate units would be an appropriate tribute to the life of this extraordinary American. The New York unit would include the tightly clustered Tubman buildings in the town of Auburn. The Maryland portion would include large sections of landscapes that are evocative of Tubman's time and are historically relevant.

Harriet Tubman was a true American patriot. She was someone for whom liberty and freedom were not just concepts but values she fought tirelessly for. She lived those principles and so selflessly helped others attain freedom. In doing so, she has earned a Nation's respect and honor.

Harriet Tubman is one of many great Americans that we honor and celebrate every February during Black History Month. In schools across the country, American History curriculums teach our children about Tubman's courage, conviction, her fight for freedom and her contributions to the greatness of our Nation during a contentious time in U.S. history. Now it is time to add to Tubman's legacy by preserving and commemorating the places evocative of Harriet Tubman's extraordinary life.

Every year, millions of school children, as well as millions of adults, visit our National Historical Parks gain the experience and knowledge about our Nation's history that simply cannot be found in history books or on the Internet. Our Nation's strength and character comes from the actions of the Americans who came before us and the significant events that shaped our Nation. The National Park Service is engaged in the important work of preserving the places where American history was made and providing a tangible experience for current and future generations to experience and understand. It is one thing to learn about Harriet Tubman from a book, and it is yet a completely different and fulfilling experience to explore, see, listen to and feel the places where she worked as a slave, where she escaped from and where she lived out her life as a free American.

The National Park Service is uniquely suited to honor and preserve these places of historical significance and I urge my colleagues to join me in preserving and growing the legacy of Harriet Tubman by establishing the Harriet Tubman National Historical Parks in her honor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Progressive Consumption Tax Act of 2014.

We need a tax code that is fair for American employers and fair for American families. We need a tax code that makes our U.S.-based businesses more competitive. Finally, we need a tax code that allows us to responsibly and reliably collect reasonable revenues.

I applaud the contributions of my colleagues in both the Senate and the House for their efforts in also trying to achieve these goals in tax reform. However, I am adding this bill to the tax reform debate, because I think we need to seriously reconsider the framework for that debate.

Today, we seem to be stuck on 1986-style tax reform--lower the income tax rate, and broaden the base by eliminating tax preferences.

The 1986 reform was a tremendous effort. But, I would argue that that reform lasted less than one year before Congress began tinkering with our income taxes once again. Since then, innumerable changes have made our tax code more and more complicated and, for many taxpayers, less and less fair.

Another issue with reform efforts focusing on our current tax system is this--the extent to which we rely on income taxes is very out of step with the rest of the world.

Compared to other countries that are in the OECD--developed countries with advanced economies, countries that we want to be competitive with--all taxes as a percentage of GDP in the United States are low.

But, the U.S. is not a low income tax country. Our income tax revenues as a percentage of GDP are higher than the OECD countries. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, we have some of the highest statutory income tax rates in the world.

What accounts for the difference is that all OECD countries except the U.S. have a consumption tax. In fact, about 150 countries now have a consumption tax, many of which were enacted decades ago.

Unlike the U.S., these countries can tax imports and subsidize exports by rebating their consumption taxes for exports--without violating current World Trade Organization, WTO, rules. As important, these countries can sustain reductions in their corporate income tax rates, because they have an alternative and more pro-growth revenue source--a consumption tax.

The Progressive Consumption Tax Act puts this country on a level playing field by providing for a broad-based progressive consumption tax, or PCT, at a rate of 10 percent. The PCT would generate revenue by taxing goods and services, rather than income.

This is not simply an add-on tax. The revenues generated by the Act would be used to eliminate an income tax liability for a significant number of households. Those who do still have an income tax liability would see a much simplified income tax with their marginal rates reduced--the top marginal individual income tax rate, applying to taxable income over $500,000 for joint filers, would be 28 percent. The current top marginal rate, applying to taxable income over approximately $450,000 for joint filers, is 39.6 percent.

The act would also slice our corporate rate by more than half, to 17 percent.

Finally, the act would provide rebates to lower- and moderate-income families to counteract heir consumption tax burden and to replace essential support programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit. Like the EITC and CTC, Individuals and families who do not have an income tax liability would still be able to receive these rebates.

A key part of the act is progressivity. By eliminating an income tax liability for a significant number of households and providing rebates, the Act is meant to be at least as progressive as the current system.

The act is also meant to responsibly produce reasonable revenues. I know that some have concerns that the act would just provide a new lever for the government to raise funds. That is why the act contains a revenue ``circuit breaker'' mechanism that returns excess PCT revenues to taxpayers if a certain threshold is met.

Overall, the Progressive Consumption Tax Act has many advantages compared to our current reform efforts.

First, it encourages saving. Under current law, families and individuals are taxed on income, which includes savings. Under the act, most households would be exempt from the income tax, and thus would be able to save tax free.

The act enhances U.S. economic competitiveness. The U.S. corporate income tax rate would be lowered to 17 percent, encouraging multinational corporations to locate here, not abroad. OECD countries currently attracting U.S. multinationals often impose higher consumption or corporate tax rates than those envisioned by the act.

For instance, this year, we heard of many companies that were considering relocating to the U.K. That country's corporate income tax rate is 21 percent and its general consumption tax rate is 20 percent. Under the Act, the U.S. corporate tax rate would become 17 percent and the consumption tax rate would be only 10 percent.

In fact, if the Progressive Consumption Tax Act became law, every top statutory rate in the United States--our individual income tax rate, our corporate tax rate, our consumption tax rate--would be at least five percentage points lower than the OECD average.

The act encourages economic growth. In study that examined 35 years of data on 21 OECD countries, consumption taxes were found to be more growth-friendly than both personal income taxes and corporate income taxes. Corporate income taxes, especially, appear to have the most negative effect on GDP per capita. Growth-oriented tax reform should move away from income tax revenues and towards consumption tax revenues, as the act does.

The act also enhances U.S. trade competitiveness. Countries with consumption taxes can adjust their taxes at the border by rebating exports. That means that these countries can agree to reduced tariffs under trade agreements, can still tax imports with their consumption taxes, and can export their own goods without a full tax load. Because the PCT is border-adjusted, the U.S. would be able to maintain export and import tax parity in the same way as these other countries.

The act reduces income tax compliance costs. Most households would not have an income tax liability under the act--although they would need to provide key pieces of information to the IRS in order to obtain their rebates.

Finally, the act protects low- and middle-income families from an unfair tax burden. Through the income tax exemption and rebate feature, the Progressive Consumption Tax Act aims to ensure that this new tax system is at least as progressive as the current income tax system.

When my colleagues and others talk to me about comprehensive, responsible, pro-growth tax reform, this to me is what we need to do.

That's why I am pleased to introduce Progressive Consumption Tax Act in this Congress. The Act is meant as an opening for serious discussion on this type of reform. We can't just stand by, fight the same tax reform fights we did

nearly 30 years ago, and in the meantime watch American jobs move overseas and our income tax system become further riddled with loopholes. I hope we will stand for what is right in our tax code, and enact the type of reform that allows our country to have among the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world, and the fairest system for all Americans.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Progressive Consumption Tax Act of 2014.

We need a tax code that is fair for American employers and fair for American families. We need a tax code that makes our U.S.-based businesses more competitive. Finally, we need a tax code that allows us to responsibly and reliably collect reasonable revenues.

I applaud the contributions of my colleagues in both the Senate and the House for their efforts in also trying to achieve these goals in tax reform. However, I am adding this bill to the tax reform debate, because I think we need to seriously reconsider the framework for that debate.

Today, we seem to be stuck on 1986-style tax reform--lower the income tax rate, and broaden the base by eliminating tax preferences.

The 1986 reform was a tremendous effort. But, I would argue that that reform lasted less than one year before Congress began tinkering with our income taxes once again. Since then, innumerable changes have made our tax code more and more complicated and, for many taxpayers, less and less fair.

Another issue with reform efforts focusing on our current tax system is this--the extent to which we rely on income taxes is very out of step with the rest of the world.

Compared to other countries that are in the OECD--developed countries with advanced economies, countries that we want to be competitive with--all taxes as a percentage of GDP in the United States are low.

But, the U.S. is not a low income tax country. Our income tax revenues as a percentage of GDP are higher than the OECD countries. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, we have some of the highest statutory income tax rates in the world.

What accounts for the difference is that all OECD countries except the U.S. have a consumption tax. In fact, about 150 countries now have a consumption tax, many of which were enacted decades ago.

Unlike the U.S., these countries can tax imports and subsidize exports by rebating their consumption taxes for exports--without violating current World Trade Organization, WTO, rules. As important, these countries can sustain reductions in their corporate income tax rates, because they have an alternative and more pro-growth revenue source--a consumption tax.

The Progressive Consumption Tax Act puts this country on a level playing field by providing for a broad-based progressive consumption tax, or PCT, at a rate of 10 percent. The PCT would generate revenue by taxing goods and services, rather than income.

This is not simply an add-on tax. The revenues generated by the Act would be used to eliminate an income tax liability for a significant number of households. Those who do still have an income tax liability would see a much simplified income tax with their marginal rates reduced--the top marginal individual income tax rate, applying to taxable income over $500,000 for joint filers, would be 28 percent. The current top marginal rate, applying to taxable income over approximately $450,000 for joint filers, is 39.6 percent.

The act would also slice our corporate rate by more than half, to 17 percent.

Finally, the act would provide rebates to lower- and moderate-income families to counteract heir consumption tax burden and to replace essential support programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit. Like the EITC and CTC, Individuals and families who do not have an income tax liability would still be able to receive these rebates.

A key part of the act is progressivity. By eliminating an income tax liability for a significant number of households and providing rebates, the Act is meant to be at least as progressive as the current system.

The act is also meant to responsibly produce reasonable revenues. I know that some have concerns that the act would just provide a new lever for the government to raise funds. That is why the act contains a revenue ``circuit breaker'' mechanism that returns excess PCT revenues to taxpayers if a certain threshold is met.

Overall, the Progressive Consumption Tax Act has many advantages compared to our current reform efforts.

First, it encourages saving. Under current law, families and individuals are taxed on income, which includes savings. Under the act, most households would be exempt from the income tax, and thus would be able to save tax free.

The act enhances U.S. economic competitiveness. The U.S. corporate income tax rate would be lowered to 17 percent, encouraging multinational corporations to locate here, not abroad. OECD countries currently attracting U.S. multinationals often impose higher consumption or corporate tax rates than those envisioned by the act.

For instance, this year, we heard of many companies that were considering relocating to the U.K. That country's corporate income tax rate is 21 percent and its general consumption tax rate is 20 percent. Under the Act, the U.S. corporate tax rate would become 17 percent and the consumption tax rate would be only 10 percent.

In fact, if the Progressive Consumption Tax Act became law, every top statutory rate in the United States--our individual income tax rate, our corporate tax rate, our consumption tax rate--would be at least five percentage points lower than the OECD average.

The act encourages economic growth. In study that examined 35 years of data on 21 OECD countries, consumption taxes were found to be more growth-friendly than both personal income taxes and corporate income taxes. Corporate income taxes, especially, appear to have the most negative effect on GDP per capita. Growth-oriented tax reform should move away from income tax revenues and towards consumption tax revenues, as the act does.

The act also enhances U.S. trade competitiveness. Countries with consumption taxes can adjust their taxes at the border by rebating exports. That means that these countries can agree to reduced tariffs under trade agreements, can still tax imports with their consumption taxes, and can export their own goods without a full tax load. Because the PCT is border-adjusted, the U.S. would be able to maintain export and import tax parity in the same way as these other countries.

The act reduces income tax compliance costs. Most households would not have an income tax liability under the act--although they would need to provide key pieces of information to the IRS in order to obtain their rebates.

Finally, the act protects low- and middle-income families from an unfair tax burden. Through the income tax exemption and rebate feature, the Progressive Consumption Tax Act aims to ensure that this new tax system is at least as progressive as the current income tax system.

When my colleagues and others talk to me about comprehensive, responsible, pro-growth tax reform, this to me is what we need to do.

That's why I am pleased to introduce Progressive Consumption Tax Act in this Congress. The Act is meant as an opening for serious discussion on this type of reform. We can't just stand by, fight the same tax reform fights we did

nearly 30 years ago, and in the meantime watch American jobs move overseas and our income tax system become further riddled with loopholes. I hope we will stand for what is right in our tax code, and enact the type of reform that allows our country to have among the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world, and the fairest system for all Americans.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to Kelly McKellogg Swaine, the Deputy Director of the Office of Public Affairs at the State Department's Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, who is currently serving on my staff as a Brookings LEGIS fellow, for the duration of today's session of the Senate.

Mr. President, one of the truly nice things about serving in the Senate is the people we meet. Myrna and I consider Frank and Mary to be our friends. She is an incredible person and has given incredible service. I am sorry the people of Louisiana could not see Mary in our caucuses as she fought on different issues for the people of Louisiana and what she did as an advocate on behalf of people who otherwise would not have had their voices heard. She did it in a very effective way.

I heard some of the conversations about what happened with Katrina and the people of New Orleans. Mary Landrieu brought us down to Louisiana for us to see firsthand. It was incredible for me, not to just see the physical devastation, but thanks to Mary Landrieu, we saw the people. We saw the spirit in the people, but we saw people who needed help. It is that type of emotional involvement that Mary gives to every cause she believes in.

So I want the Senator from Louisiana to know how much I deeply respect your model of public service and the people you stood up for.

Senator Landrieu spoke about the adoption issue. She got into it because she has such a big family. I think I got into it because of her. She is pretty persuasive. We all feel better because of that. Senator Landrieu is the one who really led us in those efforts. What an incredible legacy.

I want to speak a minute about small business issues. Senator Landrieu chaired that committee during a particularly important time. I want to relate a couple of stories to my colleagues. There are many times I was in the Democratic caucus and we would be talking about an issue and Senator Landrieu would stand and say, Well, how about small businesses? Under her leadership we brought some major initiatives to the floor to help small businesses because of Mary Landrieu and her ability to put together a commonsense package. She understood small businesses are the growth engine of America. That is how jobs are created and that is where innovation takes place. I can tell my colleagues--I worked with her. I know what we got done. I know how we took on our own governmental agencies to make sure they did right for small businesses and how we fought the bundling. Contract officers love to take small contracts and make them into big ones because it is less headache for them but less opportunity for small businesses. Mary Landrieu stopped that practice and put a spotlight on it. It was an incredible experience for me because it showed me that each of us can make a difference.

I knew what I was trying to do. One of the issues I got involved with was to raise the surety bond issues and I didn't see much chance of getting it done and Mary gave me the opportunity to get it done. She coached me on how to get it done, and that is now a permanent law of the land.

She made us all relevant on the committee, individually and collectively. We have a great legacy to help small businesses in this country, thanks to the leadership of Senator Landrieu.

To the people of Louisiana, they could not have had a stronger advocate, a stronger friend, a person who accomplished more for that State during some extremely challenging times. To the people of this country and the work Mary Landrieu did on the Appropriations Committee for our national security and standing up for and protecting and defending our own country, the record of Senator Landrieu is incredible. To those who are voiceless but had Mary Landrieu to speak for them, the disadvantaged; to small businesses--and the list goes on and on and on--this is one incredible legislator. She is a model to many of us. I thank her so much for her service and her commitment to public life. It will always be an inspiration to me, the fact that I was given the honor to serve with you in the Senate of the United States.

Madam President, I ask that my colleagues join me in thanking my State Department foreign policy fellow, Kelly McKellogg Swain, for her exemplary service to the Senate and to wish her well as she returns to the State Department as her fellowship in my office comes to an end.

I think the Presiding Officer would agree with me that, the fellows program we have here in the Senate is so valuable. We get people who are real experts in their areas from the State Department who serve in our office and can advise us and work with us and give us the expertise we need in order to make the right policy.

I think it also helps the State Department because they will have an individual on their staff who will have a better working understanding as to

how the Senate operates so that the Senate and the State Department can work closer together on the foreign policy considerations of our country. That has certainly been my experience during this past year with Kelly.

Kelly has been an incredibly valuable member of my staff, advising us on so many important issues that we have to deal with, and she has really stepped in to be a valuable member of my staff.

The uncertain working hours has placed a strain on her family, and I thank her very much for being willing to entertain these long hours.

I wish to take this opportunity to thank her husband Brian and son Finley for sharing her with the Senate.

Kelly has been a key member of my foreign policy and national security team over the last year. Before she joined my office, she was the Deputy Director in the Office of Public Affairs in the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs at the U.S. Department of State.

She brought her expertise in matters pertaining to East Asia and the Pacific, and her expertise and counsel has been critical to me. Over the last 2 years, I have chaired the East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

This has been a particularly busy year, as President Obama has moved forward on his policy to rebalance Asia, recognizing that Asia is critically important to the United States for our security interests, our economic interests, and our environmental interests. Kelly has been an extremely important part of our team, working on the East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee in carrying out that responsibility during this past year.

Kelly's hard work enabled us to hold five subcommittee hearings ranging from ``Economic Engagement in the Asia Pacific'' to ``Combating Force Labor and Modern Day Slavery in East Asia and the Pacific.'' In addition to developing and executing my subcommittee agenda, she ensured that I was up-to-date on the latest regional developments and more than adequately prepared for office visits with foreign officials on my trips to the region. So she gave me the expertise I needed.

During this past year, we have had significant challenges in East Asia. We have had maritime security issues involving China and Vietnam. We have had the current crisis in Hong Kong. We have had North Korea and the problems it has created. We have had the relationship between two of our close allies that have been strained--Japan and the Republic of Korea. In each of these instances, Kelly gave me the type of help I needed so the Senate was properly exercising its functions on foreign policy.

Kelly's outstanding work does not stop there. When my permanent foreign policy adviser went on maternity leave this summer, Kelly stepped into that role. Within the first few weeks of her expanded role, Malaysian Air flight 17 was shot down in Ukraine, Israel and Hamas went to war, and militants for the Islamic State in Iraq and ISIL terrorist groups were expanding their siege over Iraq and Syria. All that happened when my staff person went on maternity leave, and Kelly stepped right in and took on the responsibilities and helped our office meet our responsibilities. This summer was a particularly busy and challenging time around the world, and not surprisingly Kelly rose to the occasion.

This fall I had a chance to get to know Kelly even better when I went to the United Nations General Assembly in my capacity as the United Nations delegate. I represented the Senate along with Senator Johnson at the 69th session of the United Nations General Assembly. Kelly not only accompanied me for the trip and prepared me for all of my high- level meetings, but she also became a trusted adviser. As I told my colleagues just a little while ago, as I walked through the halls of the United Nations, my ego was a little bit affected because more people knew Kelly than knew me, but that was all right. She was incredibly important to me in carrying out my responsibilities in the U.S. delegation to the United Nations. While Kelly came to the Senate with a background in East Asia and Pacific matters, she has demonstrated to me and to the Senate, too, that her foreign policy extends far beyond that region.

My staff and I will miss Kelly's calm demeanor, sense of humor, and extraordinary work ethic. She has been a tremendous asset not just to my office but to the Foreign Relations Committee and the entire Senate. I urge my colleagues to join me in thanking Kelly for her long service to our Nation. We are fortunate to have such people devote their life to public service. It has been incredibly helpful to us in the Senate and I know she is going to go back to the State Department and continue to serve her country. I thank her.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.