Floor Statements

Mr. President, as we begin this debate on funding for the Department of Homeland Security, we face some fundamental questions: Are we going to prioritize the safety and security of the American people? Or are we going to put the country at risk because of an ideological disagreement?

That is the choice I believe we face with this bill. We can either pass a clean bill that makes critical investments in our Nation's security or we can put this country at risk by playing politics with the funding for the Department of Homeland Security.

We all know these are dangerous times that we live in. Every day, new threats emerge that endanger our citizens at home and our allies abroad. The Department of Homeland Security's role in protecting our country from these threats cannot be overstated, and its funding should not be controversial.

Right now, the U.S. law enforcement community is on high alert for terror threats after attacks in Sydney, Australia, and Ottawa, Canada, and in Paris. Just 2 weeks ago, an Ohio man was arrested when authorities discovered he was plotting to blow up the U.S. Capitol in an ISIS-inspired plan. I believe, as the Presiding Officer understands, the man was from Ohio.

ISIS has thousands of foreign fighters, including Americans, among their ranks who seek to return to their home countries to do harm--not to mention the barbarity of ISIS today in killing the Jordanian pilot whom they had in their custody.

These are very real threats--a clear and present danger to the homeland--and because they are so real, we need our counterterrorism intelligence community operating at full strength. We need the entire Department of Homeland Security fully engaged in keeping our Nation safe.

Last week, President Bush's two Homeland Security Secretaries, Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff, joined former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano in a letter to Congress. The three of them wrote:

The national security role that the Department of Homeland

Security plays . . . is critical to ensuring that our nation

is safe from harm. . . . It is imperative that we ensure that

DHS is ready, willing, and able to protect the American

people . . . we urge you not to risk funding for the

operations that protect every American and pass a clean DHS

funding bill.

All three former Secretaries--two of whom served under a Republican President and one under a Democratic President--are warning us that the safety and security of our Nation are at risk if we hold up funding for Homeland Security operations.

Anything short of passing a clean funding bill will endanger important security operations and could very well put our citizens at risk. But because of the anti-immigration riders that have been attached by House Republicans, the bill we are about to vote on cannot become law. Senate Democrats are not going to support it. The President has already said he will veto it. And, furthermore, according to the nonpartisan

Congressional Budget Office, the bill also adds $7.5 billion to the deficit.

Last week, Senator Mikulski and I introduced a clean bill that is modeled after the bicameral, bipartisan agreement that was negotiated last December by Senator Mikulski, who was then chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Congressman Hal Rogers, then chair of the House Appropriations Committee. The bipartisan bill negotiated by Senator Mikulski and Congressman Rogers is a good bill. It is in line with the Murray-Ryan budget deal. It will help keep our Nation safe and secure, funding key counterterrorism, intelligence, and law enforcement activities, and will also strengthen the protections on our borders.

So our position on this issue is clear: Congress needs to pass a clean, full-year funding bill without any controversial immigration riders that are not going to be able to gain support, that the President has already said he is going to veto. It is that simple. There is too much at stake for the security of our Nation to play politics with this bill.

Before I conclude, I would note again that the House-passed Department of Homeland Security funding bill includes several immigration-related provisions that draw budget points of order against the bill. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the immigration-related provisions would increase the deficit by $7.5 billion over 10 years. In addition, the bill includes language relating to the budgetary treatment of these provisions. The result is multiple points of order that would not apply to the bill if the immigration provisions had not been added.

Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry: Does a budget point of order lie against H.R. 240 pursuant to section 311(a)(2)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974?

Does a budget point of order lie against the bill pursuant to section 311(a)(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974?

And does a budget point of order lie against the bill pursuant to section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974?

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will my colleague yield for a question?

I certainly appreciate Senator Hoeven, who chairs the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, for laying out the case for the importance of the funding for critical security agencies in this bill--for the Coast Guard, for Customs and Border Patrol, for efforts to address security at our border, for cyber security.

As the Senator pointed out, there is a lot of very important funding in this bill to address homeland security. I wonder if the Senator agrees with me that we should support the funding of this bill and that if we are going to have a debate about the President's Executive actions, it should be a separate debate on immigration rather than putting at risk the funding in this bill to protect our Nation.

Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks from the Senators from Missouri and New York because I think they reflect my sentiments as well. The senior Senator from Texas suggested that we don't want to debate immigration. We are happy to debate immigration. In fact, I would love to debate immigration reform with our colleagues. But the bill before us is not about immigration reform. It is about whether we are going to fund the Department of Homeland Security. The fact is many of the issues the senior Senator from Texas raised about immigration were addressed in the comprehensive immigration reform bill this body passed in 2013. I am happy to go back to that debate, but that debate should not come in place of our willingness to fund national security and the Department of Homeland Security. That is the issue that is before us today, and we should not hold up our willingness to fund the Department because there are certain Members of the Republican Party in the House and Senate who want to talk about the President's Executive action. This bill is not about that. It is about whether we are going to fund the Department of Homeland Security.

I thought it might be instructive to point out some of the changes Congress has made which are included in this bill and which actually strengthen border security, since that is one of the concerns that has been raised. Over the past 10 years, Congress has gone to extraordinary lengths to secure our borders against the threat of smugglers, of human traffickers, and of illegal immigrants.

Since 2005 the combined budgets for Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement have grown by an astounding 97 percent--97 percent--from about $8.5 billion in 2005 to more than $16.7 billion today.

In fact, the combined budgets for these two border security agencies now account for more than 42 percent of the entire discretionary appropriations of the Department of Homeland Security. But Congress just hasn't thrown money at the problem. We have made wise investments to ensure our borders are more secure than they have ever been.

Since 2011 Congress has steadily maintained 21,370 Border Patrol agents. That more than doubles the size of this force since 2001. Over the past 2 years Congress has added 2,000 Customs officers to help stop the flow of illegal drugs and prevent human trafficking while still facilitating legitimate trade.

I have been to the San Ysidro border crossing in San Diego. I have seen the advanced technologies that have been implemented to make sure that legitimate trade can get across the border yet stop those people who are coming illegally.

Congress has deployed enhanced border security technology, including integrated fixed towers, remote and mobile video surveillance systems, tethered aerostats, and other technology to secure our southern border.

We have also funded the construction of 652 miles of vehicle and pedestrian fencing at critical locations determined by the Border Patrol agents on the ground. The Department's ability to detect illegal border traffic has grown substantially due to simultaneous investments in airborne assets, including Blackhawk helicopters, multirole enforcement aircraft, and surveillance planes critical in the war against drugs, as well as nine unmanned, unarmed Predator aerial systems.

Since 2011 Congress has provided more than $721 million above the President's request for these important airborne assets that strengthen our border security. In the bipartisan full-year budget that Senator Mikulski and Congressman Rogers negotiated last December--the same bill that Senator Mikulski and I have introduced in this session of the Senate--we included those critical investments made to continue those efforts to secure the border. These investments will not occur or they are going to be delayed if we have a short-term budget, if we continue with a continuing resolution and, heaven forbid, if we shut down the Department of Homeland Security, which some of the Members of this body and the House have suggested is not a problem for us to do.

The clean bill includes a $119 million increase for Customs and Border Protection. This is the funding level that supports the largest operational force levels in history--21,370 Border Patrol agents and 23,775 CBP officers. The agreement restores funding cuts to CBP's Office of Air and Marine proposed by the administration. That enables them to fly more patrols along the border and to continue purchasing critical assets.

The clean bill also increases funding for the border security, fencing, infrastructure, and technology account by $20 million to provide additional video surveillance systems and adapt surplus Defense Department equipment for border security purposes.

For Customs and Border Protection, a short-term budget also means that pending contracts for border security upgrades are going to be put on hold. When I met last week with CBP Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske, he told me that $90 million in contracts for mobile and remote video surveillance technology--the very technology that is going to help us keep illegal aliens from coming across the border--is going to be put on hold due to funding uncertainty.

A clean, full-year budget bill provides an increase of $700 million for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency responsible for apprehending and detaining undocumented immigrants in this country. If we don't pass on full-year bill, ICE will have insufficient resources to maintain a statutorily mandated level of 34,000 detention beds for detaining illegal immigrants, the vast majority of which are criminals. They are going to fall over 4,000 beds short of that mandated level under a continuing resolution. Furthermore, they will have no funding to complete construction and continue operating new family detention facilities in Texas.

Now, 3,000 family detention beds are supposed to be completed in Texas to deal with the surge of unaccompanied children and families to the southwest border. The very people who are complaining about border security, who are complaining about illegal immigrants coming into this country are opposing the funding that would address that border security. It makes no sense.

The bill also increases ICE's capability to engage in domestic and international investigations with a $67 million increase for antihuman smuggling

and traffic activities, to combat cyber crime, to combat drug smuggling, and to expand visa vetting capabilities. With a short-term budget, a continuing resolution, these additional investments will not be made. We should not be holding up this funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security with critical border protections in it because we have a few Members of the House and Senate who want to make this an ideological battle about the President's Executive action. Let's have that immigration debate, but this is not the place to do it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Eric Bader, a detailee from the Coast Guard, be granted floor privileges for the duration of debate to consider the fiscal year 2015 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill.

Madam President, I wish to pay tribute to Bayard Winslow ``Chip'' Kennett II, a native of Conway, N.H., who passed away on January 17 at the age of 34.

Growing up in the Mount Washington Valley, Chip was a fantastic student-athlete and natural leader. At A. Crosby Kennett High School, one of two schools in Conway which bears his family name, Chip quarterbacked the Kennett High School football team and was honored with the Jack Burns Memorial Award for leadership, dedication and loyalty to his teammates on the Kennett High baseball team. His parents, Bayard and Theresa, instilled in Chip a love for the region and its people, and Chip spent his summers volunteering and working at Conway's community recreation center.

Chip would later go on to a career in public service that spanned close to a decade, rising from a college internship with then-New Hampshire Representative John Sununu to a position in Senator Judd Gregg's office, after which he returned to work for John Sununu upon his election to the Senate. Before leaving Capitol Hill to join Raytheon's government affairs practice, Chip most recently worked for Maine Senator Susan Collins as her military legislative assistant and director of appropriations. During his time in Washington, Chip was active in the New Hampshire State Society, helping to raise funds for New Hampshire students hoping to intern in the Nation's capital as he had during college. All those who knew him in the Senate recall his upbeat and caring nature, both qualities that buoyed him and his family through the difficulties of the past 2 years.

In October 2012, Chip's wife Sheila was 35 weeks pregnant when he was diagnosed with stage IV advanced lung cancer. As he learned more about his diagnosis, Chip, who was not a smoker, was struck by the lack of progress in improving the survival rate for this deadly cancer which, contrary to popular perception, annually affects more non-smokers than smokers. During his own treatment, Chip became an advocate for lung cancer and worked exceptionally hard to increase awareness of the disease and to end the negative stigma of a lung cancer diagnosis. He gave his time and legislative expertise to LUNGevity, a lung cancer- focused nonprofit, to help fight for much-needed lung cancer research, education and support. His efforts culminated in an invitation to testify on Capitol Hill regarding the need to expedite trials for breakthrough drugs to treat life-threatening diseases like lung cancer. Throughout his own battle with the disease, Chip held out hope that one day we could all celebrate a cure for cancer.

Chip truly embodied the spirit of public service, especially in his remaining days when he served as a voice for others. I know I speak for all in the Senate when I say thank you, Chip, for providing an example of what it means to be a great father, son, husband, friend and American.

Chip is survived by his 5-year-old son Bayard ``Joe'' Kennett II, his 2-year-old daughter Crosby Reynolds and his wife Sheila whom he met while they were both serving as staff members in the Senate; his mother and father, Bayard and Theresa Kennett of Conway, N.H., as well as his brother and sister-in-law Tanner and Sarah Kennett of North Conway,

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

Mr. President, I am here this afternoon to discuss the two concerns I have about the bill currently before the Senate--the regulation that would grant immediate approval of the Presidential permit necessary to construct and operate the Keystone XL Pipeline.

First and foremost, I believe a thorough regulatory review process is critical for any major infrastructure project, particularly one that will cross our country's border. Regulatory review enables the identification of economic impacts from a major project and, more importantly, environmental impacts that infrastructure projects such as the Keystone Pipeline may bring.

We shouldn't trade transparency for expediency when it comes to the construction of an international project that has such scope. I can't support a bill that sacrifices these important protections. That is why I voted in the past against legislation to allow the Keystone XL Pipeline to circumvent the normal review process, and that is why I intend to again vote against this bill.

I also have a number of concerns about the impact of the Keystone Pipeline on our environment. In the past 2 weeks, we have had a spirited debate on this floor, and a number of my colleagues have come to the floor to talk about the pipeline oilspills we have seen in this country.

Just a few days ago, an oil pipeline burst, leaking 50,000 gallons of crude oil into the Yellowstone River in Montana. Yet this spill pales in comparison to the 2010 Kalamazoo River oil spill where over 1 million gallons of oil sands poured into Talmadge Creek in Michigan. The cleanup has already cost more than $1 billion and taken over 4 years to complete. In fact, to date there has been no authoritative study on how the spills of oil sands crude may differ from those of conventional crude oil. This means we have no idea about the spill's long-term effects on the health of wildlife in that river.

The other issue that has been raced onto the floor is the fact that right now, because of the way we define crude oil, TransCanada-- supporting and planning to build the Keystone Pipeline--is not required to pay into the federal oil spill liability trust fund, which would ensure taxpayers against any spills. So we have this out-of-state, out- of-country foreign company that is coming in to build this pipeline, and yet they are not required to pay, as any American company would be, into the oil spill liability trust fund. That, to me, doesn't make sense. Circumventing the regulatory process for Keystone prevents us from understanding the health hazards that we would face should another spill occur.

I am also concerned that construction of the Keystone Pipeline will increase carbon emissions and undermine some of the most critical climate policies that we have in place. The pipeline poses threats to our environment that have already been identified. Tar sands greenhouse gas emissions are 81 percent greater than those of conventional oil. That is because the production of oil sands crude is more energy intensive, or more greenhouse gas intensive, than conventional crude production. Additional processes are required to extract the oil, remove the sand, and dilute the oil so that it can flow in a pipeline.

In addition, if the pipeline is approved, much of the boreal wetlands in Alberta, Canada, which act as a carbon sink, would be destroyed, releasing 11 million to 47 million metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

One of the reasons I am concerned about circumventing the regulatory process is because I believe this could set a precedent for a rushed approval of infrastructure projects currently under consideration in New Hampshire.

In New Hampshire, we have two projects that really merit careful consideration and thorough review that could be affected by a precedent that says we should ignore the regulatory process. In New Hampshire, the Northern Pass transmission proposal, which proposes to deliver hydropower from Quebec into the New England energy markets and goes through northern New Hampshire, would bring power to southern New England, but New Hampshire wouldn't benefit. And any suggestion that we would circumvent the

process is a real concern to people in New Hampshire who would be affected by that project.

The other project is the potential reversal of the Portland-Montreal pipeline, which, if the determination were made to do this, would send oil sands through many New Hampshire communities, and that oil would then be shipped to foreign countries.

So if we set the precedent of trading transparency for expediency with Keystone, without requiring the completion of a comprehensive approval process, local communities in New Hampshire may not have a meaningful voice in the process that deals with Northern Pass or reversing the Portland-Montreal pipeline. I think that is unacceptable.

These three projects--Keystone, Northern Pass, and Portland- Montreal--have one important thing in common: They should undergo the comprehensive environmental and safety approval process required by existing law, and that should be done independent of politics.

Circumventing the Presidential permitting process for cross-border pipelines and electric transmission facilities avoids the due process that is needed to determine whether these projects are in the best interests of the country.

In New Hampshire, Northern Pass and the Portland-Montreal pipeline have raised serious concerns for people who live in areas impacted by these projects. That is why I worked with the entire New Hampshire congressional delegation in a bipartisan way to ensure that both projects undergo a transparent, thorough, and comprehensive review process. That allows the input of local communities who will be affected by these projects.

Like people in New Hampshire and across the country, I share concerns about our Nation's energy future. Throughout my career I have fought for smart policies that will reduce energy costs in New Hampshire and across the country, that will help create jobs, and will protect our air and water from pollution.

But I don't believe mandating a project that bypasses the approval process is a smart policy. We need to be smart and thoughtful about our energy future. I think it would set a dangerous precedent for other projects that could have serious consequences in New Hampshire and in other States around the country.

I appreciate the debate we have had here on the Senate floor about the Keystone Pipeline, but I will be opposing this bill.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ariel Marshall and Kelley Sparrow, fellows in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the first session of the 114th Congress.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

I rise this morning to join our colleagues in discussing the need for a clean, full-year bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security. Just 30 days from today, funding for the Department of Homeland Security expires unless Congress acts.

I know that sometimes in congressional time 30 days may seem like a long time, but with a scheduled recess in a few weeks and the certain fact that the House-passed bill cannot pass the Senate, we must act soon to prevent a shutdown and provide the resources to keep our country safe.

Luckily, there is a path forward to prevent a shutdown. We should pass the bipartisan, bicameral, Homeland Security funding bill that was agreed to last December.

Just a few weeks ago, Senator Mikulski, then Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Congressman Rogers, Chair of the House Appropriations Committee, negotiated spending bills for the entire government, including the Department of Homeland Security bill. This was a compromise measure. Not everyone got what they wanted, but the bill funded the Department at levels that would ensure the Department can fulfill its mission to secure the homeland.

Then, unfortunately, politics came into play. Some House Republicans demanded the homeland bill be removed from the larger budget because of immigration issues, and now the entire Department is funded on a short- term basis through February 27. Now we face a fundamental question: Are we going to put the country at risk because of an ideological disagreement?

Since Senator Mikulski and Congressman Rogers reached that agreement in December, we have seen many threats to our Nation and to our allies. The U.S. law enforcement community is on high alert for terror threats after attacks in Australia and Ottawa, Canada, and in Paris. Recently, an Ohio man was arrested when it was discovered he was plotting to blow up the U.S. Capitol in an ISIS-inspired plan. Now is not the time to be holding up funding for the Department of Homeland Security because of ideological reasons.

Last week, I had the opportunity to visit the Department of Homeland Security's cyber security center in Arlington. The center is where officials are working every day to prevent attacks not just against the Federal Government or against State governments but against the private sector, against U.S. companies such as Sony, and against critical infrastructure such as nuclear powerplants and the electric grid.

Last week, in the Armed Services Committee, former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft said that he views cyber security threats to be ``as dangerous as nuclear weapons.''

We must continue to make important investments in our cyber defenses. But if we fail to fully fund their budget--the clean budget that was agreed to by the House and Senate--their efforts to identify the newest technologies and strategies to protect our cyber infrastructure will be put on hold.

One of the things they talked to me about when I visited the center includes two areas I think are particularly important to our national security. One is the effort to identify a secure emergency response line, which is very critical when we have national emergencies--even the snowstorm we are seeing in the northeast in New Hampshire, where we have several feet of snow that is being predicted. We also need a secure emergency response line so our first responders--the people there on the ground when an emergency happens--can communicate with each other. That is at risk if we pass a CR rather than a clean funding bill.

The other thing at risk is the effort to identify the next generation of cyber threats. There are things being worked on that we don't even know yet, and unless we are ahead of that curve we are not going to be there to protect our cyber system throughout the country. So we need to give the Department of Homeland Security budgetary certainty so it can plan and prepare for these kinds of threats. That is why a short-term continuing resolution should be off the table. We need to pass a bill that funds homeland security for the rest of this fiscal year.

A short-term budget means the Department is on autopilot. That would be extraordinarily bad for business and for our national security. If Homeland Security operates under a short-term budget, new projects and grants are halted, contracts and acquisitions are postponed, hiring is delayed, employee training is scaled back, and grants to our first responders--those people on the ground when something happens--are not going to be awarded, and congressionally targeted reductions--those reductions we want to make in wasteful programs--are also put on hold.

Yesterday I had the opportunity to visit New Hampshire's fusion center. Every State has a fusion center. This is a network of centers designed to serve as a focal point in each State to coordinate terrorism-related information and threats to our national security, to our State security, and to our municipalities. It is a place where first responders, local law enforcement, and in New

Hampshire's fusion center, in addition to our State and local folks being represented, someone from the FBI is there on hand, someone from the Department of Homeland Security identifies potential threats and relays that information up and down the chain of command.

In New Hampshire, the fusion center has also been very critical in working to address drug interdiction and to help identify the heroin abuse epidemic that, sadly, we have seen not only in New Hampshire but in northern New England. If we have a short-term budget, new grants to our fusion centers, which are on the front lines of protecting our States and municipalities against security threats, and the security grants to State and local law enforcement will not be awarded.

Why would we threaten this important public safety and security funding for unrelated ideological reasons?

Secretary Jeh Johnson recently said:

As long as this Department continues to operate on a

continuing resolution, we are prevented from funding key

homeland security initiatives. These include, for example,

funding for new grants to State and local law enforcement,

additional border security resources, and additional Secret

Service resources to implement the changes recommended by the

independent panel. Other core missions, such as aviation

security and protection of Federal installations and

personnel, are also hampered.

That is a direct quote from the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson.

In addition to what he lays out there, I want to highlight a few specific examples of why a short-term budget--a continuing resolution-- is problematic for the Department and for our national security.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement--ICE--could not fund all of its current detention, antitrafficking, and smuggling requirements under a short-term budget. Under a short-term budget, ICE will not have the funding they need to meet their legal mandate to have 34,000 detention beds in place for immigration detainees nor funding for a new family detention center.

So for those people concerned about our border security, concerned about people coming into this country, why would we want to deny funding to address efforts to interdict people coming across the border, to interdict surveillance efforts, to build a new family detention center so we can find out who these people are and whether they should go back to the country they came from? It makes no sense.

Under a short-term budget, there is no funding to hire additional investigators for antitrafficking and smuggling cases to combat the influx of unaccompanied children at the southern border.

Under a short-term budget, no funding is provided to address Secret Service weaknesses identified after the recent White House fence- jumping incident.

Yesterday we saw concerns about how the Secret Service operates. This time I think everybody acknowledged they could not have been expected to intervene in the drone that got dropped on the White House lawn, but it highlights again the threats that are there and why we need to ensure the Secret Service has the resources to reform itself and to make sure the President and officials are protected.

A short-term budget would delay the contract for the Coast Guard's eighth national security cutter we need for maritime security.

In New Hampshire, we have a border with the ocean, so we very much appreciate the work of the Coast Guard, but I think it is critical throughout the country. And one of the things that would be put on hold is upgrading the Coast Guard's ice-breaking fleet.

Last winter alone, when the Great Lakes froze, $705 million in shipping was lost and 3,800 jobs because we didn't have a Coast Guard ice-breaker that can open a channel on the Great Lakes.

Under a short-term budget, aging nuclear weapons equipment will not be replaced. That causes gaps in an area where mistakes are simply unacceptable and too dangerous even to comprehend.

A short-term budget would delay upgrades to emergency communications for first responders--something I have already talked about--as we think about how they respond to local emergencies.

The best way forward is to provide certainty and stability for the men and women who fulfill homeland security's mission to protect the United States from harm. To ensure our local communities and our States that we are providing the resources they need, we need to pass a clean bill--a clean bill that was agreed to last December.

Lurching from funding crisis to funding crisis is a terrible way to govern. It is an especially terrible way to govern when our Nation is dealing with major threats. The clean bill that was agreed to by the House and Senate last December provides a good budget that strengthens our Nation, protects against known threats, properly supports homeland security and those who serve on the front lines of protecting this country.

The negotiated agreement includes critical increases in funding and support for border security, for cyber security, and for other national security initiatives. It maintains strong maritime security operations provided by the Coast Guard. The agreement fully funds continued cyber security advancements. It invests in innovative solutions for border security, for biological defense, and for explosives detection.

Senators on both sides of the aisle have talked about the importance of border security and a clean bill that robustly funds border security requirements. The clean bill funds customs and border protections requirements to apprehend, care for, and transmit unaccompanied alien children, while maintaining 21,370 Border Patrol agents on our borders and safely facilitating legitimate travel and trade.

The agreement also funds enhanced border security technologies as well as air and marine surveillance along our land and maritime borders to help the Department better interdict illegal crossing of people and narcotics.

It allocates grant funding to train and equip first responders, continuing real progress and efficient preparedness, as was so evident in New England in the response to the Boston marathon bombing.

And the agreement fully funds known disaster needs and prepares us for the next disaster.

In closing, let us support our national security funding by passing a clean bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security for the rest of this fiscal year.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I join my colleague Senator Portman from Ohio in a bipartisan amendment on energy efficiency. This is a very short version that passed overwhelmingly in the House last year. It doesn't pick favorites in terms of fuel sources, and it is good for every region of the country. This is something we all ought to be able to get behind. I am very pleased and hope we get a very strong vote in the Senate.

I am pleased to support this amendment, and I thank my colleague from Ohio, Senator Portman, for his leadership.

I thank the Presiding Officer and I thank my colleague Senator Isakson, and I am pleased to join him on the floor today as we reintroduce this bipartisan legislation, the Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act. I want to start by recognizing the good work of Senator Isakson because he started working on this issue when he came to the Senate in 2005, and he has introduced this legislation in every Congress since then. I have been pleased to be able to join him in the last two Congresses.

I think we have an opportunity in this Congress to pass this commonsense bipartisan reform. As Senator Isakson pointed out, there is no question that the budget process in Washington is broken. Since 1980 there have been only two budgets that have been finished on time, according to the process. In that timeframe Congress has resorted to more than 150 short-term funding bills or continuing resolutions, and we all remember what it was like when the government shut down in October of 2013. It cost the economy $24 billion. It hurt small business. It hurt people across this country. That is no way to govern.

While we have made significant progress to reduce deficits in recent years, we need a new way to do business in Washington. Biennial budgeting won't fix everything, but as Senator Isakson said, it is an important reform that will allow us to work across the aisle not only to make more sense of the budget process but to be better stewards of taxpayer dollars.

We know that biennial budgeting works. I can attest to that personally, coming from the State of New Hampshire where we have a biennial budget. I served three terms as Governor. We were able in each of those bienniums to pass a budget that was balanced, that allowed us to get the budget done in the first year of the election cycle and in the second year to be able to have oversight. It works in New Hampshire, it works in 20 States around the country, and it can work in Washington.

Biennial budgeting offers a better process that encourages us to work together to pass budgets on time and to use taxpayer dollars more efficiently. As Senator Isakson says, in the first year congressional agencies would put together a 2-year budget. In the second year Congress would have time to conduct oversight to give agencies the ability to focus on achieving their missions.

As we all know, there are regular reports from the Government Accountability Office, GAO, that identify areas of waste, fraud, and duplicative programs within government.

For example, they have identified ways to reform the farm programs, to cut down on inefficiencies in defense, to reduce fraud in health programs, but the current budget process doesn't provide an effective mechanism to regularly review GAO's recommendations.

Under my annual budgeting, we would be able to take a close look at

those recommendations to implement savings in the second year which will allow us to figure out how we can more effectively provide programs to the American people and eliminate those that don't work and support those that do.

As we said, in 2013 we had a very strong vote with 68 Senators voting to endorse the concept of biannual budgeting. It was a very strong bipartisan vote. A similar biannual budget bill passed the House last year with a bipartisan bill vote. It is clear the momentum is growing for this concept because people understand we have to do something to reform our budget process.

The bill we are introducing today has 22 bipartisan cosponsors. I know we are both working to get more bipartisan sponsors on the bill, and we think we have a great shot, with support from this body, to pass biannual budgeting. We think there is support in the House to do that, and I look forward to working with Senator Isakson and my colleagues in the Senate to get this done.

I thank the Presiding Officer and I thank my colleague Senator Isakson, and I am pleased to join him on the floor today as we reintroduce this bipartisan legislation, the Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act. I want to start by recognizing the good work of Senator Isakson because he started working on this issue when he came to the Senate in 2005, and he has introduced this legislation in every Congress since then. I have been pleased to be able to join him in the last two Congresses.

I think we have an opportunity in this Congress to pass this commonsense bipartisan reform. As Senator Isakson pointed out, there is no question that the budget process in Washington is broken. Since 1980 there have been only two budgets that have been finished on time, according to the process. In that timeframe Congress has resorted to more than 150 short-term funding bills or continuing resolutions, and we all remember what it was like when the government shut down in October of 2013. It cost the economy $24 billion. It hurt small business. It hurt people across this country. That is no way to govern.

While we have made significant progress to reduce deficits in recent years, we need a new way to do business in Washington. Biennial budgeting won't fix everything, but as Senator Isakson said, it is an important reform that will allow us to work across the aisle not only to make more sense of the budget process but to be better stewards of taxpayer dollars.

We know that biennial budgeting works. I can attest to that personally, coming from the State of New Hampshire where we have a biennial budget. I served three terms as Governor. We were able in each of those bienniums to pass a budget that was balanced, that allowed us to get the budget done in the first year of the election cycle and in the second year to be able to have oversight. It works in New Hampshire, it works in 20 States around the country, and it can work in Washington.

Biennial budgeting offers a better process that encourages us to work together to pass budgets on time and to use taxpayer dollars more efficiently. As Senator Isakson says, in the first year congressional agencies would put together a 2-year budget. In the second year Congress would have time to conduct oversight to give agencies the ability to focus on achieving their missions.

As we all know, there are regular reports from the Government Accountability Office, GAO, that identify areas of waste, fraud, and duplicative programs within government.

For example, they have identified ways to reform the farm programs, to cut down on inefficiencies in defense, to reduce fraud in health programs, but the current budget process doesn't provide an effective mechanism to regularly review GAO's recommendations.

Under my annual budgeting, we would be able to take a close look at

those recommendations to implement savings in the second year which will allow us to figure out how we can more effectively provide programs to the American people and eliminate those that don't work and support those that do.

As we said, in 2013 we had a very strong vote with 68 Senators voting to endorse the concept of biannual budgeting. It was a very strong bipartisan vote. A similar biannual budget bill passed the House last year with a bipartisan bill vote. It is clear the momentum is growing for this concept because people understand we have to do something to reform our budget process.

The bill we are introducing today has 22 bipartisan cosponsors. I know we are both working to get more bipartisan sponsors on the bill, and we think we have a great shot, with support from this body, to pass biannual budgeting. We think there is support in the House to do that, and I look forward to working with Senator Isakson and my colleagues in the Senate to get this done.

Mr. President, today I have the solemn duty of memorializing SGT Stephen R. Paquin, a soldier and native of Nashua, NH, who passed away on December 16 at the age of 27. After serving two tours in Afghanistan and a tour in Europe, Sergeant Paquin had recently transitioned from active duty into the U.S. Army Reserves and was training to become a drill sergeant with 1st Battalion, 304th Regiment in Londonderry. Born and raised in Nashua by his parents Kenneth and Paula alongside his brother Shawn, he was a graduate of the University of New Hampshire and Nashua High School South, where in his senior year Stephen was a member of the Purple Panthers 2005 State championship baseball team.

Stephen will forever be a member of the special community of Americans who selflessly defend our country so that the rest of us may continue to live in peace and freedom. He bravely joined the military at a time when it was almost guaranteed that new recruits would be called on to serve in a dangerous warzone far from home. It is my hope that during this extremely difficult time, Stephen's family and friends will find comfort in knowing that Americans everywhere deeply appreciate his commitment to our Nation.

Stephen is survived by his parents, Kenneth and Paula, his brother Shawn D. Paquin, and Christine Smith of Waltham, MA, his grandmothers Gloria Paquin of Nashua and Carol Mulligan of Dracut, MA, many aunts, uncles, cousins, and friends. This patriot will be missed by all.

On behalf of the people of New Hampshire, I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in honoring the life and service of this brave American, SGT Stephen Paquin.

Mr. President, I am here with Senator Portman of Ohio to try--I think for about the sixth time--to get energy efficiency legislation passed.

Senator Portman and I have been working on legislation called the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act for 4 years now. We have tried to bring it to the floor, and it has been objected to not because of provisions in the bill but because of extraneous provisions that have people holding it up.

Tonight we are again trying to pass a smaller version of that bill. It is H.R. 2126, the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act, which was passed out of the House with a strong bipartisan vote of 375 to just 36. It was sponsored in the House by Representative McKinley from West Virginia and Representative Welch from Vermont. Senator Portman and I introduced the same bill here in the Senate a couple of weeks ago.

I am going to be asking for unanimous consent that the Senate consider passage of this legislation. Before I do that, it is my understanding it is going to be objected to again and that Senator Toomey is here to do that. But I wonder if I could get an answer to a question from Senator Toomey about what his specific objections are to the legislation.

I understand the Tenant Star provision in the bill is what he is objecting to. Yet this would establish best practices, and it would set up a voluntary certification system for efficiency and commercial tenant spaces. What it does not do is provide financial incentives or create new regulations. It is a voluntary, market-based, business- friendly approach to encouraging energy efficiency--which is the cheapest, fastest way to deal with our energy needs in this country. It is something everybody agrees we should try and do.

So I wonder if I can ask my colleague from Pennsylvania if he could describe his concerns about that provision in the bill.

Mr. President, in that case, I ask unanimous consent that the energy committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2126, the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act, and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from Ohio who I know is here to talk about the legislation or my colleague from New Hampshire who has been working on the Tenant Star provision with Senator Bennet from Colorado.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to my friend and colleague, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, who will soon retire from the Senate after representing his beloved West Virginia for the last 30 years.

Senator Rockefeller and I both came to Washington after having previously served as Governors of our home States, and I have been grateful for his friendship and counsel. I would also note that Senator Rockefeller has some familiarity with New Hampshire, having graduated from Phillips Exeter Academy.

Senator Rockefeller will forever be remembered in the Senate for his dedication to the hard-working people of West Virginia. When West Virginia coal mining companies threatened to abandon their pension obligations to miners, Senator Rockefeller successfully fought to pass the Coal Act of 1992 to safeguard their retirements. Among his numerous other legislative accomplishments, Senator Rockefeller will certainly be remembered as the father of the Children's Health Insurance Program. Since its creation in 1997, CHIP has provided millions of low-income children and pregnant women access to health insurance. Just last year, CHIP touched the lives of more than 8 million Americans.

During his lengthy career Senator Rockefeller chaired the Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs, Intelligence, and most recently Commerce, Science, and Transportation. As a chairman, Senator Rockefeller believed strongly that good policy started with listening and ran his committees in a way that allowed all Senators, no matter their party, a voice and a role in the legislative process.

The example set by Senator Rockefeller is an inspiration to all of us who serve in the Senate. On behalf of the people of New Hampshire, I thank him for his years of dedicated service to our country and wish him the best in his well-deserved retirement.

Carl Levin

Mr. President, I wish to honor Senator Carl Levin as he prepares to retire after 36 years of dedicated service in the Senate.

As the longest serving Senator in Michigan's history, Senator Levin has been a stalwart advocate for the people of his State. In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, Senator Levin played a critical role in drafting the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to ensure it would bolster the Midwestern manufacturers that would prove integral to our national economic recovery. As cochair of the Great Lakes Task Force, Senator Levin has worked throughout his career to protect the vast waterways that are critical to Michigan's economy and those of the other Great Lakes States.

I have had the honor of serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee under the leadership of Chairman Levin, and his concern for the people of Michigan is perhaps only matched by his concern for the soldiers, sailors, marines, and airman who defend our Nation, as well as the families who support them. Under his steady leadership the Senate has kept faith with our military by passing the annual National Defense Authorization Act, and this year's defense bill bears Senator Levin's name as tribute to his lengthy service on the Committee. As chair of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support, I have always appreciated Senator Levin's commitment to a strong bipartisan spirit in the work of the committee, and I know it will endure thanks to his example.

A sharp legal mind, Senator Levin also worked in a bipartisan fashion as chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to hold powerful public and private institutions accountable. Born from the highly successful Truman Committee formed in the lead-up to World War II, Senator Levin's subcommittee investigated critical issues such as the 2008 financial crisis, systemic credit card fraud, as well as corporate abuse of off-shore tax havens--bringing light to complex and obscure issues to the benefit of the American people.

Senator Levin has been a source of reasoned counsel for many in the Senate, and I know his presence will be missed. However, I also know he is looking forward to spending some well-earned time back in Michigan with his children, grandchildren, and wife Barbara.

Tom Harkin

Mr. President, I wish to recognize Senator Tom Harkin and his 30 years of Senate service.

When Senator Harkin retires at the end of this year, he will also step down from his chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions, a post from which he has advocated progressive policies

aimed at increasing opportunity for all Americans.

One of Senator Harkin's greatest legislative achievements is the Americans with Disabilities Act, legislation that he fought for on behalf of millions of disabled Americans. The ADA is truly a landmark law in this country, and Senator Harkin's decades of work on this issue will never be forgotten.

Senator Harkin also has a strong legacy as a champion for human rights, which began even before his election to public office while he was still a staffer on Capitol Hill. Invited to travel with a congressional delegation to Vietnam in the summer of 1970, Senator Harkin arranged for the group to visit the Con Son prison in order to investigate allegations of human rights abuses by the South Vietnamese Government. At the prison, the delegation strayed from the official tour and found abused prisoners held in so-called ``tiger cages,'' which Senator Harkin documented extensively with a camera. In defiance of some of the delegation members, Senator Harkin courageously handed over the pictures to Life magazine in order to better educate the American public about U.S involvement in Vietnam.

I have been fortunate to witness firsthand Senator Harkin's passion for U.S. leadership in human rights during our service together on the Senate Appropriations Committee, where he has brought heightened attention to the scourge of child labor and exploitation. I know this is one particular issue on which Senator Harkin feels his work has just begun, and I look forward to hearing of his continued efforts on behalf of vulnerable children around the world.

On a more personal note, I will miss competing with Senator Harkin's office for the most staff participants in the Everybody Wins! DC reading mentorship program, a great cause in which Senator Harkin has been involved in for the last 16 years.

I join my colleagues in thanking Senator Harkin for his dedicated service in the Senate and wish him all the best in retirement.

Kay Hagan

Mr. President, Senator Hagan and I came to the Senate 6 years ago with a shared commitment to bipartisan problem solving reflective of the independent spirit of the States we represent. I am glad to say that in Senator Hagan I found not only a strong partner in policymaking but also a good friend.

Born in Shelby, NC, Senator Hagan got her start in politics, as many of us do, at the State level. During 10 years in the North Carolina Senate, she built a reputation as a committed public servant, and that reputation would eventually propel her to the United States Senate.

In Washington, Senator Hagan has used her position on the Senate Armed Services Committee to support the military families stationed at Fort Bragg, Camp Lejune, and other military installations in North Carolina. Thanks to her efforts, Congress passed legislation in 2012 to provide health care and compensation to military families impacted by water contamination at Camp Lejune. Also a member of the small business committee, Senator Hagan's private sector experience has been a tremendous asset to the legislative work of the committee.

I would like to wish the very best to Senator Hagan, who I know is looking forward to the opportunity to spend more time with her family, especially her grandchildren.

Mark Udall

Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to thank my friend and colleague Senator Mark Udall for his dedicated service to the people of Colorado and our Nation.

As many of my colleagues are aware, long before Senator Udall was climbing the steps to Capitol Hill he was hiking the mountains of Colorado as a course director and educator with Outward Bound, an organization he would eventually lead as executive director. However, as a member of the Udall family, headed by his father Congressman Morris ``Mo'' Udall, who served in the House of Representatives for 30 years, elected office was never far from Senator Udall's mind. After 20 years with Outward Bound, Senator Udall left to pursue a career in public service.

After serving a term in the Colorado State Legislature, Senator Udall ran successfully to represent Colorado's Second Congressional District in the House of Representatives, a seat he held for five consecutive terms. When we arrived at the Senate in 2008, Senator Udall and I found common cause in our work on both the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Senator Udall's commitment to working across the aisle to confront the difficult issues facing our Nation was appreciated by many in the Senate, and I know his presence will be missed.

I wish the very best to Senator Udall and thank him for his service.

Mary Landrieu

Mr. President, my friend from Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu has devoted her entire life to public service, and today I wish to recognize the extraordinary leadership and energy that she has brought to the Senate throughout her career.

Senator Landrieu has been a leader on so many issues, none more so than as a passionate advocate for children around the world. I was proud to work with her on legislation to address the decline in international adoptions, in addition to several other bills that Senator Landrieu has authored to support children both in the United States and in developing nations. This issue is particularly near to Senator Landrieu's heart, and I know I am speaking for countless children around the world when I thank her for her efforts to ensure all children experience the benefits of a safe and loving family.

I also had the pleasure of working with Senator Landrieu during her leadership of the Senate Small Business Committee, as well as on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Senator Landrieu has always fought hard for her home State of Louisiana, and her dedication to her constituents was made clear in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. All Americans vividly recall the scenes of destruction caused by the storm--more than 1,800 killed and $100 billion in property destroyed in just days. Those who were fortunate to escape the storm physically unscathed were more than likely left homeless, and over 80% of Senator Landrieu's hometown of New Orleans was under water for weeks after Katrina made landfall.

After the storm Senator Landrieu immediately set to work building support for legislation to jump start the gulf coast recovery and help her constituents put their lives back together. Senator Landrieu nearly singlehandedly pushed through critical funding and reforms to help Louisiana rebuild.

It has been an honor working with her, and I thank her for her years of service to the Senate and the Nation.

Mark Begich

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize my fellow Senator from the class of 2008, Senator Mark Begich of Alaska.

Senator Begich's career in public service began earlier than most at the young age of 19, when he was hired by the Anchorage city health department. By that time, Senator Begich was also well on his way to establishing himself as an enterprising businessman and entrepreneur. Born and raised in Anchorage, AK, Mark Begich would go on to serve in the Anchorage Assembly where he was the youngest member ever elected, before successfully running for the post of mayor in 2003, a role in which he served until his election to the Senate.

Here in Washington Senator Begich has used his position as chair of the commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, as well as his extensive knowledge of the Alaska economy, to advocate for Alaska-first policies. As a Senator from a State with one of the highest populations of veterans per capita, Senator Begich has also been a passionate defender of our Nation's military. I also have had the pleasure of serving with Senator Begich on the Senate Appropriations Committee and have greatly appreciated his contributions.

I would like to thank Senator Begich for his years of dedicated service both to Alaska and the Nation.

Mark Pryor

Mr. President, Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas has served the people of Arkansas in the Senate for the last 12 years, guided by his strong faith and

determination to bridge the partisan divide.

As a member of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Pryor has successfully directed Federal assistance to his Arkansas constituents, helping to strengthen his State's economy. As a member of the commerce committee, he prioritized bringing broadband Internet service to the rural parts of Arkansas. When Senator Pryor served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, he successfully introduced and passed legislation to provide tax relief for our servicemembers deployed in combat zones, as well as legislation to more quickly inform military families when their loved ones are injured in combat.

Senator Pryor has time and again proved his dedication to the State where he was born and raised, and I wish to thank him for his service in the Senate.

Mike Johanns

Mr. President, over three decades as a public servant, my friend and colleague Senator Mike Johanns of Nebraska has proven time and time again that politicians can be deeply principled while still recognizing the need to find common ground on the complex and difficult choices we must make as a nation. I believe this is a lesson that all former Governors carry with them after holding executive office, and Senator Johanns and I were often able to reach an understanding on that basis.

Before coming to the Senate in 2009, Mike Johanns had already built a distinguished record of public service as a county board member, city council member, mayor and two term Governor of Nebraska. Senator Johanns also served for 3 years in the White House Cabinet as Secretary of Agriculture to President George W. Bush. While leading the Department of Agriculture, Senator Johanns helped U.S. agriculture producers find new markets overseas, promoted expanded use of renewable fuels, and encouraged conservation of agricultural lands. Having played a key role in developing the farm bill passed by Congress in 2008, then-Secretary Johanns decided to return to legislating full time and successfully ran to represent Nebraska in the Senate.

Senator Johanns' time in Congress is best characterized by his low- key approach to the most high-profile and consequential issues of the day. He was one of the bipartisan Gang of 8 Senators who tackled the challenge of crafting a comprehensive Federal deficit reduction plan in 2011, and in 2013 we worked together on a bipartisan deal to reopen the Federal Government and avoid a default on our national debt. I was also very proud to work with Senator Johanns on legislation to address the unacceptable trends in military sexual assault. Senator Johanns always brought the work ethic he developed growing up on a Nebraska farm to our business in the Senate, and for that and many other reasons I very much enjoyed working with him.

Senator Johanns has given many years to public service, earning him the right to seek a bit of a break from the spotlight, and I wish him all the best in his retirement.

Carl Levin

Mr. President, I rise in support of my colleague and my partner in this energy efficiency effort, Senator Portman, to support his unanimous consent request that the Senate pass H.R. 2126, the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act.

I am disappointed to hear Senator Coburn's continued objection to this legislation and to energy efficiency measures. This bill is identical to a more narrowly focused energy efficiency bill Senator Portman and I introduced recently in the Senate. It tracks closely to legislation we have been working on actually for 4 years, the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, also known as Shaheen- Portman.

The legislation before us, H.R. 2126, is really a shortened version of Shaheen-Portman. Unfortunately, as we know, the longer version, the energy efficiency act, has stalled twice on the Senate floor--not due to concerns about what was in the bill but because of disagreements over other issues that were related to energy but unrelated to our bill.

While we may not be able to pass the larger bill this session, the Senate still has an opportunity to pass meaningful energy efficiency legislation by passing H.R. 2126. This is bipartisan legislation that was introduced in the House by Representatives McKinley, a Republican from West Virginia, and Welch, a Democrat from Vermont, and passed the House earlier this year with overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle, 375 to 36.

That broad bipartisan support extends beyond Capitol Hill. It enjoys the support of business groups and environmental organizations and efficiency advocates who all recognize that energy efficiency is the cheapest, fastest way to begin addressing the Nation's energy needs. Supporters include everyone from the Natural Resources Defense Council, to the U.S. Green Building Council, to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Real Estate Roundtable. The list of businesses and organizations that have endorsed this bill numbers over 200.

This bill contains several provisions that will encourage efficient energy consumption, and as a result of this legislation, consumers and families will save money. The legislation will grow our economy, create jobs, and it will reduce pollution. It really is a win-win.

Even though it is not the longer version of energy efficiency legislation Senator Portman and I have been working on for the last 4 years, it will do a number of things that are critical to address our energy needs.

First, it will create a voluntary, market-based tenant star program. This is modeled after the successful ENERGY STAR labeling program from building owners. It sets up a voluntary certification system for efficiency and commercial tenant spaces.

I see my colleague from New Hampshire Senator Ayotte, who I think is going to speak to this provision in the bill.

I think it is important to remind people that what it does not do is provide financial incentives or create new regulations. It does not do that. It is a voluntary, market-based, business-friendly approach to encourage energy efficiency in commercial buildings. It also will establish a benchmarking and disclosure process for energy consumed in federally leased buildings, so we will all know how much energy is being consumed.

Third, it will require Federal agencies to implement strategies to increase the efficiency of data centers that are operated by the Federal Government--a huge user of energy.

Finally, it will remove a regulatory barrier to the manufacturer of large-scale water heaters. It is something Senator Hoeven has been working on for a long time.

These four commonsense, targeted provisions are widely supported. As I said, they will grow our economy and help create jobs and demand for the American-made energy efficiency technologies. They will save businesses and families money on their energy bills, and they will cut pollution.

I am pleased to join Senator Portman in this unanimous consent request, and I am disappointed that once again we are going to be prevented from moving forward with commonsense energy efficiency measures. I do hope that with the continued support on both sides of the aisle for energy efficiency, we will be able to come back before the end of this year and pass this measure.

Thank you very much.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I begin by echoing the wonderful analysis of my colleague Senator Heitkamp relative to how much we are all going to miss Senator Jay Rockefeller. As she pointed out, he reminded us today why we all are here, and that is to try to make a difference for our constituents and for the people we serve. No one did that better than Jay Rockefeller. He was always a voice for those most in need and never stopped fighting for the people he served. We will certainly miss him.

I come to the floor this afternoon to talk about a provision that I think we need to make sure is included as we continue to negotiate and debate the tax extenders package, a commonsense, bipartisan, bicameral provision that enjoys a lot of support and one that I think should be included in any reform or extension effort; that is, the enhanced tax incentive for conservation easement donations.

Conservation easements are a critical component of modern-day efforts to preserve our outdoor treasures. That is something which means a lot to us in New Hampshire, where we have so many wonderful natural resources and historic resources, and we want to try to preserve them.

One of the things that conservation easements do is provide a flexible, voluntary, nongovernmental, and nonregulatory approach to protecting our Nation's natural places. Conservation easements and tax incentives for their donations allow landowners to exchange development rights in order to protect a property's conservation values. That then allows them to pass on those conservation values to future generations. Easements keep the land in its natural state and ensure that these outdoor treasures aren't subdivided and exploited. Just as important, lands placed in conservation easements can continue to be farmed, grazed, hunted, or used for outdoor recreation and wildlife conservation. Equally important, they remain on the tax rolls, which makes a huge difference to local communities.

In 2006 Congress recognized the importance of promoting conservation easements by enacting the enhanced tax incentive for conservation easement donations. That was done with bipartisan, bicameral support because it is an idea that makes sense.

This tax incentive provided working and middle-class landowners with the ability to donate their land for conservation as opposed to simply selling off the land to the highest bidder, allowing it to be developed and partitioned off. The great thing about this incentive is that it worked. It is directly responsible for the conservation of more than 2 million acres of our Nation's natural outdoor heritage.

Unfortunately, as with so many provisions in the tax extenders bill, this tax incentive lapsed at the end of 2013. As a result, landowners who want to donate their land for conservation but need this enhanced deduction to make it work financially are left in limbo.

Making this incentive permanent will provide much needed certainty to landowners because the decision of whether to donate conservation easements on land--and land is often a family's most valuable asset-- requires careful planning and consideration, and it often takes years from the initial conversations with the landowner before conservation easement is executed. Understandably, many landowners will never begin this process without the assurance of a permanent incentive.

In New Hampshire we have seen firsthand how valuable the enhanced conservation easement tax credit is when it comes to making sure we are protecting our special outdoor places for generations to come. For example, take Henry Brooks, Jr., and his sister Linda Brown. They donated two conservation easements on about 200 acres of land in Sullivan, NH, which is down in the western part of our State in what we call the Monadnock Region, not too far from the Vermont border. The land had been in their family since the time of the town's founding-- over 200 years. It is open fields with expansive views all the way to Vermont. The fields are pasture and hay lands that are used for Henry's beef cattle. The forests, streams, and wetlands also provide excellent wildlife habitat.

The enhanced conservation easement tax incentive was very persuasive in the decision to move forward and finish the project by the end of 2013. In particular, the ability to take that deduction over the course of 16 years is going to make a significant difference for Henry, who is really of modest means. As his sister Linda said, the enhanced incentive is a win-win situation.

Another example that I think is significant is the Squam Lakes watershed. The Squam watershed is renowned for its conservation ethos, and it is the only watershed that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Organizations, such as the Squam Lake Conservation Society, have used conservation easements to protect 25 percent of the watershed, and, thanks to tax deductions, 91 percent of these easements were donated. Think about that--25 percent of the watershed and 91 percent of it has been donated.

Projects like these in New Hampshire are great examples of the need to renew the enhanced conservation easement deduction. Protecting these spaces isn't just good for the environment. Certainly that is the case, but it is also critical to New Hampshire's economy, and I know that is true in other States as well. Our economy depends on tourism, on outdoor

recreation. We have thousands of jobs that are created in those industries that bring millions of dollars into our State, and if we can preserve our landscape and protect our national resources, it makes a huge difference in ensuring that those industries are successful, that tourists want to continue to come and visit.

Right now we have families who are making decisions about what they are going to do about conservation easements, and they are in limbo because Congress has not yet acted on this issue. We haven't determined if we are going to pass that forward. So people don't know whether they are going to have any certainty about taking a tax deduction on a conservation easement. It is time for us to provide some certainty to encourage people to make those contributions to protect these national treasures. It is important not only in New Hampshire, I am sure it is important in North Dakota and across this country.

I urge my colleagues, as we are continuing to look at a tax extenders bill, that we support this legislation that will make smart incentives to help our local economies grow stronger and help the middle class.

Thank you very much. I hope we can make some progress on this next week. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.