Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, for his comments.

I don't think I have ever heard it put quite as concisely or the timeline explained quite as well as he did. I hope people are paying attention. I hope people take a look at the journal and see exactly how short a timeframe that is for both the employer and the employees.

So I rise to support the resolution of disapproval that would repeal the National Labor Relations Board's ambush election rule.

I again thank my friend Senator Alexander for his leadership as the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and for leading this effort to prevent yet more misguided Federal regulation that will hurt American businesses and employees.

Unfortunately this isn't the first time we have had to fight this rule from the NLRB. When I led the Congressional Review Act resolution to stop this rule in 2012, I truly appreciated Senator Alexander's support and am proud to support him now. I didn't have the votes to pass the resolution in 2012, but we have had some elections and some changes in the Senate since then.

The rule the National Labor Relations Board has proposed would be a tremendous burden on employers, especially small businesses. If this rule goes into effect, it will mean employers will barely have time to meet their preelection legal obligations. It will mean employees will be rushed into an election without time to study and consider what the unionization would mean for them, for their workplace, and for their community. Also, Big Labor will be able to force elections through in order to boost revenue from union dues and increase the influence of Big Labor.

Our economy is already grappling with Federal rules and regulations that hold back businesses. This rule from the National Labor Relations Board will be yet another break, slowing down our economy at a time when we need to encourage employers and businesses to grow. It would be especially harmful to small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy and the most important factor in maintaining our fragile economic growth.

Small businesses that don't have human resource departments and more particularly don't have in-house legal counsel already face a significant burden when they have to navigate union elections. This rule would only make it harder. This rule would hurt businesses for the sole purpose of helping unions that don't need it.

Union elections are supposed to be held in a timely and fair manner, which is what the current system achieves. The average time between filing an election petition, as has been mentioned, and holding the vote is 38 days, and nearly all elections happen within 2 months.

That process allows employers to understand their rights and meet their legal obligations. It allows employees to educate themselves about what unionization means for them personally and for their work, and it ensures that union elections will be a fair opportunity for workers to decide whether to organize.

Under the current system there is a 25-day waiting period between the setting of an election and the actual secret ballot election. That window of time is crucial. Employers use that time to understand their rights and restrictions in the process and to meet their legal obligations.

The union election process is not simple, nor is it straightforward for employees. There are numerous places where a well-meaning employer working to meet their obligations could misstep and face heavy penalties from the National Labor Relations Board.

Employers also use this time to communicate with their employees about the decision they are making and to clear up misstatements, rumors or falsehoods that have been going around.

The time between petitioning for election and voting is also used for parties to study decisions by hearing officers or the National Labor Relations Board's regional director and ask for clarification or review.

Under the National Labor Relations Board's rule, all the opportunities for anyone involved with the process to understand their legal obligations, to exercise their rights, to study or debate the arguments for or against unionization or even to learn about the issue would be squeezed into as little as 14 days.

Is it fair for an employee to only have 10 days to learn how his or her vote will affect the rest of their time with that employer--we have to remember they are going to be working during that time probably--or how much money membership in a union is going to cost them or what it means for their ability to negotiate directly with their employer for raises or other benefits or concerns or any of the countless other issues an employee might want to approach his or her employer about?

Under current law, both parties are able to raise issues about the election at a preelection hearing, covering such issues as which employees should be included in the bargaining unit and whether particular employees are actually supervisors.

Under the new regulation, parties will be barred from raising these questions until after the election. Employees will be forced to vote without knowing which other employees will actually be in the bargaining unit with them. This is important information that weighs heavily in most employees' votes.

Under current law, when either party raises preelection issues, they are allowed to submit evidence and testimony, and file post-hearing briefs for the hearing officer to consider, and then they have 14 days in which to appeal decisions made with respect to that election.

Under the new regulation, the hearing officer is given the broad discretion to bar all evidence and testimony unrelated to the question of representation and all post-election briefs and no appeals or requests for stays are allowed. This could be quite a disadvantage for employees as well as employers.

What this all adds up to is an extremely small window of time for filing

the petition to the actual election, little opportunity for employers to learn their rights or communicate with their employees their rights, and less opportunities for employees to research the union and the ramifications of forming the union.

The NLRB is ensuring that the odds are stacked against the employees and the businesses. This vote is an opportunity to tell the National Labor Relations Board to reverse course.

I hope this resolution will convince the National Labor Relations Board to pull back from this disastrous rule and encourage them to focus on their statutory mission rather than overturning decades of settled practice that ensures that this process is held in a timely manner and that there is a fair opportunity for all sides to understand, to participate, and to exercise their rights.

The NLRB's purpose is to enforce the National Labor Relations Act, which is a carefully balanced law that has only rarely been changed. When changes have occurred, they have been the result of careful negotiations, with input from stakeholders and thoughtful debate.

The NLRB is attempting a sneak attack through the rulemaking process. This is an ambush on the National Labor Relations Act to set up ambush elections.

The National Labor Relations Board is an agency that has historically issued very few regulations. Most of the questions that come up under the law are handled through the decisions of the Board. Board decisions often do change the enforcement of the law significantly, but they are issued in response to an actual dispute and a question of law.

In contrast, the ambush election is not a response to a real problem because the current election process for certifying whether employees want to form a union is not broken. The rule was not carefully negotiated by stakeholders, it was not made with careful debate, and there was no attempt to reach a consensus.

In the late 1950s Congress worked to pass the Landrieu-Griffin Act, which protected the rights of both rank-and-file union members and their employees. This was a carefully constructed piece of legislation that came out of a special committee to study the issue, that heard from more than 1,500 witnesses over 3 years. And Congress debated the issue of how long a period of time there should be between the request for an election and the actual election coming up during those negotiations.

My colleagues may be surprised to learn--although they wouldn't if they were listening to the previous two speeches--that it was Senator John F. Kennedy who argued vigorously for a 30-day waiting period prior to the election. He said:

There should be at least a 30 day interval between a

request for an election and the holding of an election . . .

in which both parties can present their viewpoints. . . . The

30 day waiting period is an additional safeguard against

rushing employees into an election where they are unfamiliar

with the issues.

Again, that was a quote by Senator John F. Kennedy, speaking directly to the need for fairness to employees. The 30-day waiting period provision he supported did not ultimately become part of the law, and obviously it is not a law today. Instead, the NLRB adopted the practice of a 25-day waiting period in almost every case.

This caution about the need for employees to have a chance to become familiar with the issues is just as true today. Employees who are not aware of the organizing activity at their worksites and even those who are need to have an opportunity to learn about the union they may join. They will want to research the union to ensure it has no signs of corruption. They will want to know how other worksites have fared with this union and whether they can believe the promises the union organizers may be extending. Employees should have every chance to understand the impact of unionization. Four decades ago Senators recognized that employees deserved the opportunity to gather this and all other relevant information before casting their votes. Unfortunately, the NLRB is choosing to ignore this caution, and rank- and-file employees will suffer.

This situation is exactly what the Congressional Review Act was intended for. When an agency goes too far and tries to impose rules and regulations that are unnecessary or harmful--in this case, both--the Congressional Review Act gives Congress an expedited process for repealing that regulation. It is a process that cannot be held up and cannot be stalled or put off to ensure that Congress can act when it needs to stop an out-of-control agency.

By any measure, the current law and certification system for union elections ensures that the process is fair for all parties and that all parties have the opportunity to exercise their rights and to fully understand the implications. The National Labor Relations Board has not made the case that elections are being held up or stalled. They cannot make the case because the data doesn't support it. I want to repeat. The National Labor Relations Board has not made the case that elections are being held up or stalled. They cannot make that case because the data doesn't support it. There is no need for this rule, which is just a handout to Big Labor, which relies on pushing unions forward before businesses and employees have a chance to study and understand the full effects.

This resolution will preserve the fairness and swift resolution of claims which occur under current law. It will not disadvantage unions or roll back any rights. It is important to say that again because there is going to be a lot of misinformation about what this resolution does. This resolution does not disadvantage unions or roll back any union rights. What it does is it ensures that small business employers and employees in America are not unfairly disadvantaged by a burdensome process and that employees are not misled with insufficient or incorrect information during the union election process.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Under a successful Congressional Review Act disapproval, the agency in question is prohibited from issuing any substantially similar regulation. That means the National Labor Relations Board could not just reissue this regulation again and again, as they have currently done.

I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution to ensure that the National Labor Relations Board understands that this rule is a no- go and that we will stand up to ensure a fair process.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, for his comments.

I don't think I have ever heard it put quite as concisely or the timeline explained quite as well as he did. I hope people are paying attention. I hope people take a look at the journal and see exactly how short a timeframe that is for both the employer and the employees.

So I rise to support the resolution of disapproval that would repeal the National Labor Relations Board's ambush election rule.

I again thank my friend Senator Alexander for his leadership as the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and for leading this effort to prevent yet more misguided Federal regulation that will hurt American businesses and employees.

Unfortunately this isn't the first time we have had to fight this rule from the NLRB. When I led the Congressional Review Act resolution to stop this rule in 2012, I truly appreciated Senator Alexander's support and am proud to support him now. I didn't have the votes to pass the resolution in 2012, but we have had some elections and some changes in the Senate since then.

The rule the National Labor Relations Board has proposed would be a tremendous burden on employers, especially small businesses. If this rule goes into effect, it will mean employers will barely have time to meet their preelection legal obligations. It will mean employees will be rushed into an election without time to study and consider what the unionization would mean for them, for their workplace, and for their community. Also, Big Labor will be able to force elections through in order to boost revenue from union dues and increase the influence of Big Labor.

Our economy is already grappling with Federal rules and regulations that hold back businesses. This rule from the National Labor Relations Board will be yet another break, slowing down our economy at a time when we need to encourage employers and businesses to grow. It would be especially harmful to small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy and the most important factor in maintaining our fragile economic growth.

Small businesses that don't have human resource departments and more particularly don't have in-house legal counsel already face a significant burden when they have to navigate union elections. This rule would only make it harder. This rule would hurt businesses for the sole purpose of helping unions that don't need it.

Union elections are supposed to be held in a timely and fair manner, which is what the current system achieves. The average time between filing an election petition, as has been mentioned, and holding the vote is 38 days, and nearly all elections happen within 2 months.

That process allows employers to understand their rights and meet their legal obligations. It allows employees to educate themselves about what unionization means for them personally and for their work, and it ensures that union elections will be a fair opportunity for workers to decide whether to organize.

Under the current system there is a 25-day waiting period between the setting of an election and the actual secret ballot election. That window of time is crucial. Employers use that time to understand their rights and restrictions in the process and to meet their legal obligations.

The union election process is not simple, nor is it straightforward for employees. There are numerous places where a well-meaning employer working to meet their obligations could misstep and face heavy penalties from the National Labor Relations Board.

Employers also use this time to communicate with their employees about the decision they are making and to clear up misstatements, rumors or falsehoods that have been going around.

The time between petitioning for election and voting is also used for parties to study decisions by hearing officers or the National Labor Relations Board's regional director and ask for clarification or review.

Under the National Labor Relations Board's rule, all the opportunities for anyone involved with the process to understand their legal obligations, to exercise their rights, to study or debate the arguments for or against unionization or even to learn about the issue would be squeezed into as little as 14 days.

Is it fair for an employee to only have 10 days to learn how his or her vote will affect the rest of their time with that employer--we have to remember they are going to be working during that time probably--or how much money membership in a union is going to cost them or what it means for their ability to negotiate directly with their employer for raises or other benefits or concerns or any of the countless other issues an employee might want to approach his or her employer about?

Under current law, both parties are able to raise issues about the election at a preelection hearing, covering such issues as which employees should be included in the bargaining unit and whether particular employees are actually supervisors.

Under the new regulation, parties will be barred from raising these questions until after the election. Employees will be forced to vote without knowing which other employees will actually be in the bargaining unit with them. This is important information that weighs heavily in most employees' votes.

Under current law, when either party raises preelection issues, they are allowed to submit evidence and testimony, and file post-hearing briefs for the hearing officer to consider, and then they have 14 days in which to appeal decisions made with respect to that election.

Under the new regulation, the hearing officer is given the broad discretion to bar all evidence and testimony unrelated to the question of representation and all post-election briefs and no appeals or requests for stays are allowed. This could be quite a disadvantage for employees as well as employers.

What this all adds up to is an extremely small window of time for filing

the petition to the actual election, little opportunity for employers to learn their rights or communicate with their employees their rights, and less opportunities for employees to research the union and the ramifications of forming the union.

The NLRB is ensuring that the odds are stacked against the employees and the businesses. This vote is an opportunity to tell the National Labor Relations Board to reverse course.

I hope this resolution will convince the National Labor Relations Board to pull back from this disastrous rule and encourage them to focus on their statutory mission rather than overturning decades of settled practice that ensures that this process is held in a timely manner and that there is a fair opportunity for all sides to understand, to participate, and to exercise their rights.

The NLRB's purpose is to enforce the National Labor Relations Act, which is a carefully balanced law that has only rarely been changed. When changes have occurred, they have been the result of careful negotiations, with input from stakeholders and thoughtful debate.

The NLRB is attempting a sneak attack through the rulemaking process. This is an ambush on the National Labor Relations Act to set up ambush elections.

The National Labor Relations Board is an agency that has historically issued very few regulations. Most of the questions that come up under the law are handled through the decisions of the Board. Board decisions often do change the enforcement of the law significantly, but they are issued in response to an actual dispute and a question of law.

In contrast, the ambush election is not a response to a real problem because the current election process for certifying whether employees want to form a union is not broken. The rule was not carefully negotiated by stakeholders, it was not made with careful debate, and there was no attempt to reach a consensus.

In the late 1950s Congress worked to pass the Landrieu-Griffin Act, which protected the rights of both rank-and-file union members and their employees. This was a carefully constructed piece of legislation that came out of a special committee to study the issue, that heard from more than 1,500 witnesses over 3 years. And Congress debated the issue of how long a period of time there should be between the request for an election and the actual election coming up during those negotiations.

My colleagues may be surprised to learn--although they wouldn't if they were listening to the previous two speeches--that it was Senator John F. Kennedy who argued vigorously for a 30-day waiting period prior to the election. He said:

There should be at least a 30 day interval between a

request for an election and the holding of an election . . .

in which both parties can present their viewpoints. . . . The

30 day waiting period is an additional safeguard against

rushing employees into an election where they are unfamiliar

with the issues.

Again, that was a quote by Senator John F. Kennedy, speaking directly to the need for fairness to employees. The 30-day waiting period provision he supported did not ultimately become part of the law, and obviously it is not a law today. Instead, the NLRB adopted the practice of a 25-day waiting period in almost every case.

This caution about the need for employees to have a chance to become familiar with the issues is just as true today. Employees who are not aware of the organizing activity at their worksites and even those who are need to have an opportunity to learn about the union they may join. They will want to research the union to ensure it has no signs of corruption. They will want to know how other worksites have fared with this union and whether they can believe the promises the union organizers may be extending. Employees should have every chance to understand the impact of unionization. Four decades ago Senators recognized that employees deserved the opportunity to gather this and all other relevant information before casting their votes. Unfortunately, the NLRB is choosing to ignore this caution, and rank- and-file employees will suffer.

This situation is exactly what the Congressional Review Act was intended for. When an agency goes too far and tries to impose rules and regulations that are unnecessary or harmful--in this case, both--the Congressional Review Act gives Congress an expedited process for repealing that regulation. It is a process that cannot be held up and cannot be stalled or put off to ensure that Congress can act when it needs to stop an out-of-control agency.

By any measure, the current law and certification system for union elections ensures that the process is fair for all parties and that all parties have the opportunity to exercise their rights and to fully understand the implications. The National Labor Relations Board has not made the case that elections are being held up or stalled. They cannot make the case because the data doesn't support it. I want to repeat. The National Labor Relations Board has not made the case that elections are being held up or stalled. They cannot make that case because the data doesn't support it. There is no need for this rule, which is just a handout to Big Labor, which relies on pushing unions forward before businesses and employees have a chance to study and understand the full effects.

This resolution will preserve the fairness and swift resolution of claims which occur under current law. It will not disadvantage unions or roll back any rights. It is important to say that again because there is going to be a lot of misinformation about what this resolution does. This resolution does not disadvantage unions or roll back any union rights. What it does is it ensures that small business employers and employees in America are not unfairly disadvantaged by a burdensome process and that employees are not misled with insufficient or incorrect information during the union election process.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Under a successful Congressional Review Act disapproval, the agency in question is prohibited from issuing any substantially similar regulation. That means the National Labor Relations Board could not just reissue this regulation again and again, as they have currently done.

I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution to ensure that the National Labor Relations Board understands that this rule is a no- go and that we will stand up to ensure a fair process.

Mr. President, I wish to encourage the Senate to start debate on H.R. 240, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2015. I am puzzled by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who insist on blocking debate on this bill, particularly after many of those individuals criticized the majority for spending 3 weeks on the Keystone XL bill.

This body has a constitutional obligation to consider appropriations bills. As a member of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, I understand the important role that the Department of Homeland Security plays in protecting our Nation at its borders and in our communities. As the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, I also understand the substantial amount of resources it takes to fund Customs and Border Protection, FEMA, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Coast Guard, and TSA.

It was not all that long ago, President Obama criticized Congressional Republicans by saying it was time to, ``get out of the habit of governing by crisis.'' Well, here we are just shy of a month before funding for the Department of Homeland Security expires. This bill has already passed the House with substantial support and now the Senate has the time to debate it, amend it, and pass it. However, nobody will get a chance to offer amendments unless our colleagues join us in allowing debate to begin on this bill.

I also believe President Obama acted unconstitutionally with his Executive actions on immigration last year. A number of my colleagues feel the same way and this bill is an opportunity for the Senate to debate and fix this administration's failure to enforce the law.

I do not buy the arguments that the Senate should consider its own bill to fund the Department. I would like to take this time to remind my colleagues that the Constitution requires revenue and spending bills to originate in the House. Why not call up the House bill and then offer our own amendments?

It is important that the Senate continue the regular order that rejuvenated this body with the start of the 114th Congress. I have long spoken on the merits of considering bills, amending bills, and passing bills under regular order. It is a process that our constituents demand and it is one that makes the Senate a healthier institution.

I for one do not wish to play chicken with the Department that keeps our skies safe, protects our borders and enforces a substantial body of Federal law. This is why I encourage my colleagues to move forward with debate on this bill at this time.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss several issues that I hope Congress will consider in this Congress.

First, I intend to work this year to address our Nation's spending problems because I sit up nights worrying about our Nation's debt and how it will affect our children and grandchildren. As chairman of the Budget Committee, I will have a hand in handling that, so I have more responsibility.

We have a spending problem in this country, and we cannot spend our way to prosperity; rather, we have to stop spending more than we take in and find a way to start paying down $18 trillion. The debt is growing. In fact, last fiscal year we spent $469 billion more than we took in. This fiscal year we are projected to spend $550 billion more than we will take in.

The money on which we actually get to make decisions is about $1,000 billion. I could say $1 trillion, but $1,000 billion seems to me like a lot more. When we talk about one, we don't pay much attention, whether it is a penny or a dollar or a million or a billion or a trillion, but if we put it out in real terms, we are talking about $1,000 billion that we could actually make decisions on, and we go ahead and spend half more than that, half more than we take in. How long do you think we can do that?

Well, it is affected by interest. We have to pay interest on the money we spend that is in addition to the money we take in. Right now we are able to borrow that money at only 1.9 percent. Only? That amounts to $251 billion that we are paying in interest. It doesn't do a single program, just pays interest.

How many people think the interest rate is going to stay at 1.9 percent? Well, nobody does. In fact, the projections for this year for that interest rate, as we sell our bonds, is for 2.1 percent and going up. The average would be 5 percent. Let's see--$250 billion. If that doubled, that would be $500 billion. That could happen in 1 year. That would be an extra $250 billion that we couldn't spend out of that $1,000 billion that we now get to make decisions on, which is only two- thirds of what we actually spend. We have a spending problem, and it is catastrophic in the long run.

People would like us to balance the budget, and I have noticed that 24 States have already passed a constitutional convention balanced budget amendment. There is a provision--article V of the Constitution says you can have a constitutional convention, and there are ways of having it happen, and that is by two-thirds of the States saying they want to have one. The way all those are being phrased is as though it would be limited to a constitutional convention on the balanced budget amendment only, but there is no provision to keep it at that. The only real provision in article V is one that says that no matter what you do in a constitutional convention, the thing that cannot be violated is that all States have equal representation in the U.S. Senate. Since we are the least populated State, that is one of my favorite parts of that article, and that is my favorite article. But everything else could be tapped. There are 10 more States that are considering that resolution. If all 34 of them pass it, we will have a constitutional convention.

If we had to balance that budget in 1 year, that would mean we would have to cut $550 billion out of $1,000 billion. In other words, we would have to make a 50-percent cut to balance the budget.

The real tragedy of this--I am not even talking about paying down the national debt; I am just talking about what we would be able to spend after we pay interest because we overspend.

So we are trying to get it on a track where we can at least see the end of the tunnel and hope that is not the light of a train coming our way. So far it is. That is one of the things that keep me up. Several Members of the Senate have ideas on how we can do that, and I intend to work with them in an effort to find real solutions, eliminate some of the budget gimmicks we have had in the past, and I have some ideas I hope my colleagues will consider. One of them is my penny plan. That cuts the overall spending by 1 percent for 3 years to balance the budget. It is a little pain for virtually everybody. Everybody gives up one penny out every dollar they get from the Federal Government. The plan doesn't mandate any specific cuts. Congress would have the authority to make targeted cuts and focus on the worst first. That is what we ought to do--focus on the worst first, and there is plenty of worst-first out there. If we focus on identifying and eliminating all of the wasteful spending that occurs in Washington, we might not have to cut important programs and services. Let's not make the cuts hurt. Let's be smart about the spending cuts and prioritize how we spend taxpayers' money.

My biennial appropriations bill would allow for each of the appropriations bills to be taken up for a 2-year period. That means agencies would know what they are doing for 2 years. What happens right now is we don't meet the spending deadline--which is October 1--until sometime into the next year. So they not only don't know what they are going to do for 2 years, they don't even know what they are going to do for the year they are in. We need to solve that problem.

My biennial budgeting bill actually breaks up the spending into two pieces. We do 12 of the bills, so we do the six tough ones right after the election and then we do the six easy ones before an election to make that a little easier to get done. But each of them would allow the agencies to know what they are going to do for a 2-year period, and it would allow the appropriators to scrutinize the details of those budgets. When you are looking at $1,000 billion, how much detail do you think you can look at when you have to do that each and every year? So I am suggesting that we only have to do it once every 2 years for half of the budget, and I think that would get us into a position where we would be cutting that worst first.

Of course, the Defense appropriations bill would be taken up each year, just as we take up the authorization bill. Some people have mentioned that we are funding some things that aren't authorized right now. They were authorized before, but the authorization date has passed, so technically they are not authorized to happen. I was curious as to how many of those there were. I found out there were over 250 authorizations. So how many of those are current? Well, 150 of them are out of date. We are still spending the money, but we haven't looked at the program to see if that is what we intended for them to do and if that is how they are using the money and if it is getting done. It is about time we did that.

Eliminating duplication and waste as well as improper payments could be a real part of the solution this year because those are avoidable wastes of taxpayer dollars. The Government Accountability Office has reported that 31 areas of the Federal Government are in need of reform to eliminate duplicative and unnecessary programs. Consolidating programs and agency functions that overlap could save $95 billion.

Additionally, in fiscal year 2012 there were nearly $100 billion in improper payments. That is the last time we have an accurate record--or inaccurate record of inaccuracies. These are payments that shouldn't be going out the door to people who are no longer eligible for benefits or overpayments of benefits or, in the worst cases, payments to people who are deceased. Ending waste and duplication could not only help out our fiscal house and get it back in order, but it could restore some confidence in the ability of government to operate effectively.

Additionally, I believe that now is the time to deal with the problems we have seen each day since ObamaCare was implemented. Premiums are skyrocketing for many people this year, while small businesses continue to hold off on hiring new workers or are keeping people on a part-time schedule so they do not have to go out of business.

We should repeal this law because it is bad for consumers and bad for businesses. We need real health care reform that gets health care costs under control and ensures that rural health care providers can afford to continue to provide vital services. We can redo that so we provide what the President promised but hasn't provided.

I am also hopeful this Congress can take up tax reform legislation. This will be a challenge since the President

said he wants $1 trillion more in revenue from the Tax Code. I disagree with that premise because I don't think Washington needs to spend more. Tax reform shouldn't raise any more money for the Federal Government than the current system does, but if done correctly tax reform may generate additional revenue through economic growth. That revenue can be used to reduce the deficits and pay down the debt. I hope we can work on a bipartisan basis to take our Tax Code off of autopilot and make it more simple and more fair for everyone--families, small businesses, corporations, and particularly individuals. As the only accountant on the Finance Committee, I am ready to roll up my sleeves and get to work on tax reform.

I also hope Congress will work to improve our economy and make energy more affordable by approving the Keystone Pipeline that we are debating now and fighting against the President's war on coal--the only stockpileable energy source we have. The Keystone Pipeline application has been pending for more than 5 years, and the State Department has had five reviews of the project and wants more. Every one of those reviews has determined the pipeline would cause no significant environmental impacts and that the pipeline would create thousands of jobs. Let's get it built.

Similarly, we need to encourage coal production and prevent the administration from restricting this low-cost, reliable, stockpileable energy source. The coal industry provided--directly and indirectly-- over 700,000 good-paying jobs in 2010, but since being sworn into office, President Obama's rulemaking machine has released rule after rule designed to make it difficult and more expensive to use coal. Instead of running from coal, America should run on coal, and I hope this Congress will embrace its abundance and its power and its potential. With the ingenuity of the American people, there isn't any problem I have seen where we couldn't solve it. So let's just go to work on having cleaner energy and putting some of that incentive into using coal.

We need to challenge the President's other regulatory overreach as well. President Obama has issued more Executive orders, more regulations and other Executive actions than either Presidents Bush, Clinton or Reagan. In fact, last month USA Today reported this President is on track to take more high-level Executive actions than any President since Truman, with 195 Executive orders and 198 Presidential memoranda under his belt. This year we need to fight the abuse of Executive power, whether it is used to grant illegal Executive amnesty to illegal immigrants or to regulate all bodies of water on public and private land or to make unconstitutional political appointments. I will be reintroducing my constitutional amendment to allow States to repeal Federal regulations and hope to work with my colleagues on other efforts to fight regulatory overreach.

I am confident we can make real progress for America this year on these and other issues because I believe the Republican leader has established regular order. I expect we will use the committee process so Senators can offer constructive amendments and debate bills in that forum, where they are intensely interested in that legislation. I am hopeful we will also have an amendment process on the Senate floor so all 100 Members of the Senate have an opportunity to improve the bills we consider. Each of us has a different background and each of us looks at every proposal from a different point of view. Working together we can make things better for the American people, and I hope we will do it this year.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to express my opposition to the nomination of Sarah Saldana to be Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security.

My concerns are not based on Ms. Saldana's qualifications. In fact I supported reporting her out of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on November 12, 2014 with every other member of that committee. However, in the wake of the President's unilateral changes to our immigration policies through Executive actions, I cannot support her confirmation at this time.

The head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement is responsible for enforcing Federal laws governing border control, customs, trade and immigration. But last month President Obama announced that he and his Cabinet do not intend to deport several million illegal immigrants, and I cannot vote for someone who will not enforce our laws.

By circumventing Congress on immigration and instituting his will through Executive actions last month, President Obama is eroding the very foundation of our country and form of government. This sets a dangerous precedent where future Presidents can flout any law they happen to disagree with and alter the law without going through Congress. Each branch of government is to act as a check against the others and not sit idly by as one exercises authority it does not have.

For these reasons I must oppose Ms. Saldana's nomination at this time.

Under the previous order, all postcloture time has expired. The question occurs on the nomination.

The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Sarah R. Saldana, of Texas, to be an Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security?

Madam President, I wish to express my opposition to the nomination of Antony Blinken to be Deputy Secretary of State.

There is no shortage of global conflicts or crises facing the United States, and as one of the key positions at the State Department, the Deputy Secretary of State will play a key role in developing and implementing our foreign policy. Unfortunately, I must oppose Mr. Blinken's nomination at this time because his track record on some of the most significant foreign policy and national security issues has raised serious concerns about the direction his leadership would take our Nation's foreign policy.

Mr. Blinken has been a foreign policy advisor for several years and played a significant role in determining how and when the United States left Iraq. I believe this has contributed to the instability in the region. Additionally, Mr. Blinken has been less than forthright with some of my colleagues, and has misstated the Administration's position with respect to Iran sanctions.

I am also concerned about the speed of this nomination. He was nominated a month ago and is being forced through in the lame duck. I believe a nominee of this significance should be subject to a more thorough review because at a time when the United States is facing critical national security challenges on many fronts, we must have proven and effective leadership.

For these reasons, I must oppose Mr. Blinken's nomination.

Mr. President, I wish to express my opposition to the nomination of Vivek Murthy to be Surgeon General.

While Dr. Murthy may have future promise as both a physician and public health expert, I have serious concerns about his current qualifications, as well as his choices regarding public health advocacy.

One former Surgeon General, Dr. Richard Carmona, shared a letter with the Senate highlighting his opposition to the nomination. In his words, ``The nominee, Dr. Vivek Murthy is a physician very early in his career with great promise but no formal public health education training, leadership or management experience.'' He goes on to say, ``His partisanship and lack of qualifications for the job of Surgeon General give this nomination the scent of political patronage.'' This insight, from someone who served in that position, is concerning.

Dr. Murthy's main public policy and public health activity to date has been to use the group he founded, Doctors for America, to promote President Obama's campaign to advocate for expansive gun control, going so far as to even recommend that doctors counsel their patients about gun ownership. He is entitled to his opinion, but the opinion of the Surgeon General becomes something much more significant.

At a time when our Nation is at risk from deadly chronic conditions, dangerous disease outbreaks like Ebola, and the ever-present threat of public health disasters and pandemics, this is not the moment to devalue the role of the Surgeon General. The person who serves as Surgeon General must be someone Americans can trust. But Dr. Murthy, so far, has not demonstrated that he is capable of fulfilling that role, and so I must oppose his nomination at this time.

Madam President, at the close of each session of Congress it is our tradition to take a moment to express our appreciation and say goodbye to those of our colleagues who will be retiring at the session's close. It is always a bittersweet moment to reflect on the important contributions our friends have made as they worked so hard to represent their States and our Nation.

Such an individual is Tom Coburn and that is just one of the reasons why we will miss him. Tom always has and always will be a strong voice for conservative values and principles. There are not many who can express their beliefs with the same kind of clarity and power he brings to the issues the Senate takes up for deliberations.

I will always believe that Tom has been so successful in his career as a political leader and a doctor because he began his life with one of the greatest of all advantages--he was born in Wyoming, in Casper. That was not all. He graduated from Oklahoma State University with a degree in accounting. As an accountant myself I was not surprised by that. His love of accounting, his fondness for numbers and details, and his Wyoming birth all help to explain his power of persuasion.

I am kidding about that but one thing that is true about his background is how his love of numbers and his understanding of budgets and accounting practices has helped him to understand the financial problems we currently face as a nation and the importance of taking action to address them before they get so far out of hand we will be jeopardizing the future of our children and our grandchildren.

That would have never happened on Tom's watch. Grandfathers are like that. With one eye on the bottom line and the other on the future of our Nation, Tom has developed an amazing knack for finding ways to cut waste and save money, time and effort. For Tom it is clear, if it is not worth doing at all, it is not worth doing well.

His insight and his immediate grasp of the essence of so many controversial and complicated issues has made him a great asset on the committees on which he has served. His willingness to get involved and lead on some pretty difficult issues has enabled him to make a difference that will be remembered around here for quite a while.

In our deliberations one of Tom's great weapons has been his mastery and understanding of the facts surrounding his positions on the issues we have taken up in committee and on the floor. He is an excellent speaker and when he talks we are all very attentive. The reason why is simple. If you agree with him you want to know what his views are so you will be able to strengthen your own arguments on the bill with some of his reflections and recommendations. If you disagree with him you will still want to hear him speak so you will know what the toughest arguments are you will be faced with during our deliberations.

No matter what side you are on, it is rare that anyone has ever questioned his facts. They may not like them--but you can not avoid acknowledging them.

In addition, as a father, a grandfather and a physician, Tom has been an outspoken advocate on health and medical issues. During his career he has worked to increase the access of seniors to the health care services they need. He has also been active in efforts to try to control health care costs and protect the right to life of the unborn.

He has such a strong kinship with the delegations of the West because Tom has a strong and heartfelt understanding of the challenges of our urban communities. I have often said one of our great battles here in Washington is to help our colleagues get a deeper understanding of the difference in life in the large eastern cities and the smaller rural communities of the West. It is a crucial difference that must be understood to get a better sense of what is needed to help both our rural and urban communities to grow and prosper.

In the next session I know we will miss him, his understanding of our conservative values and principles and his commitment to this generation and the next--and beyond. Tom knows that if future generations are to have it as good as we have we will all have to learn to get along with a little less.

Now Tom is closing that great chapter of his life that contains his service in the House and the Senate. It has not been easy. The House and Senate are very different places in which to work--and make progress but Tom has managed to do it--and he has the results to show for his efforts.

Thank you, Tom, for all you have done to make our Nation a better place to live. We are grateful for your service, for your vision for America and most of all, your commitment to the future of Oklahoma and our Nation. Please keep in touch with us. I am going to keep your number on speed dial in my office so I'll have it when one of those days comes along when I need a thoughtful word or two for a debate or a committee session. As the saying goes facts are tough and powerful things and when it comes to those issues in which he truly believes so is Tom Coburn.

Mr. President, as the current session of Congress comes to a close it is our custom to take a moment to express our appreciation for the service of our colleagues who are retiring and will not be with us when the next session begins in January. We will miss them all. Over the years their experience and insights on a number of issues have been a very valuable part of our debates and deliberations.

I know I will especially miss Saxby Chambliss. His work here on the floor and in his committee assignments has played an important role in our consideration of a number of issues over the years. Simply put, he has been a great champion for conservative causes during his service in the House and Senate and he has made a difference for his constituents in many, many ways. He is a man of principle and he has a great gift for expressing his viewpoint in a thoughtful, clear and interesting manner. He is so persuasive, in fact, that even if you disagree with him he makes you take a moment to reconsider your position just to be sure you have not missed something.

Before he began his years of public service to the people of Georgia, Saxby proved to be the kind of individual who would have been a success at just about anything he decided to pursue. Fortunately, the path he chose to follow in his life brought him to the Nation's capital to represent Georgia--first in the House of Representatives and later in the Senate.

Saxby served four terms in the House. It was a challenge that he enjoyed because it gave him a chance to sit on the committees that were taking a closer look at our intelligence organizations to be certain they would be ready to face any future threats to our national security. Georgia was proud to see that they had elected someone to Congress who was hard not to notice. He did such a good job, in fact, he was encouraged to run for the Senate.

When he arrived in this chamber, he had already established himself as one

of our leading conservative voices. That did not surprise any of us. He has a calm, even way of expressing himself and articulating how his principles play out in whatever issue we have before us.

One great attribute that Saxby brought with him to his work in the Congress was his willingness to work with people who did not always agree with him. He knew there would come a time when they would agree with him on something no matter how many times they had disagreed in the past. When the situation presented itself that was what he would focus on.

Simply put, Saxby believes very strongly in making progress and getting results. He is not all that concerned about who gets credit for it. As the old adage reminds us, for Saxby, it is all about leaving things a little better at the end of the day today than they were yesterday.

Over the years Saxby has always found a way to make progress no matter how rough the road seemed to be. It has been one of the guiding principles behind Saxby's 20 years of service. His commitment to moving forward has enabled him to leave his mark in Georgia and throughout much of the United States.

Now that this chapter of Saxby's life has come to a close, I am not sure what he has planned for his next great adventure. He just does not strike me as someone who will be content to sit on the sidelines. I am sure we will be hearing from him from time to time with some words of encouragement and support--and a suggestion or two. In fact, I am looking forward to it.

Saxby, thank you for your service in the House and the Senate. In your 20 years of service in the House and the Senate you have not only been a witness to the history of your home State of Georgia and our Nation, you have helped to write it. Because of you the Nation is stronger, safer and more secure. Yours is a record of leadership of which you should be very proud.

Diana joins in sending our best wishes to you. From one Sigma Chi brother to another, you have made a difference because you have always led the best way--by example. What others are content to talk about you have stepped up to do the work needed to get the job done and because of that you have been able to make a difference--an important and long lasting one.

Mike Johanns

Mr. President, as the current session of Congress comes to a close it is our tradition to take a moment to express our appreciation for the faithful service of those of our colleagues who will be returning home at the end of the year. We appreciate their hard work and great service on behalf of their home States and our Nation. We will miss them and the thoughtful suggestions and good ideas they have brought to our deliberations on the issues before us.

The word ``service'' brings to mind one of our retiring colleagues, Mike Johanns. Mike has followed a path that has brought him from his service as the Mayor of Lincoln, to his post as the Governor of Nebraska, on to serve in the President's Cabinet as Secretary of Agriculture and then on to the floor of the United States Senate. He has made important contributions at each post and now, as he has decided with the support and guidance of his family, ``it is time to close this chapter in his life.''

As a former mayor myself I have a great deal of regard for Mike and his commitment to the people that he has served for many, many years. He has a great understanding of his home State of Nebraska and the workings of its State and local government. He understands the challenges that face his home State in the present, and the hopes and dreams of the people of Nebraska for the future.

It did not take long to discover that Mike is a workhorse, not a showhorse. He is not someone to land on a weekend talk show every week talking about what needs to be done--he would rather be in committee or on the floor every day doing it. In everything he did Mike always brought along an abundance of Nebraska common sense. He used that special gift of his and his varied background as a starting point for finding common ground and a workable solution on a number of issues that would be acceptable to all.

During his service in the Senate it has been good to have a neighbor to work with who understands agriculture and our rural way of life. He has been a great help in making the case clear to the Congress about the difference between living on a farm and living in a big city or town.

That is why I will not be the only one who will miss him. Our rural communities in the West will miss his ability to understand the problems of rural America and what should be done to address them.

Mike has also been one to focus on the money side of each issue that came to the Senate. He knows how important it is for us to get a handle on our Nation's finances to ensure that our children and grandchildren will not have to clean up the financial mess we are going to leave them if we are not careful. Mike has said that our failure to act will cause our financial problems to appear sooner than we might think.

I am sorry to see Mike go when there is so much to be done that could use his understanding not only of the issues, but from his experience, the impact they will have on the local, State and national level.

Still we know where to find him whenever we could use some of his Nebraska-rooted common sense. Thanks, Mike, for your service to the State of Nebraska and to our Nation. You can be proud of what you helped to accomplish and the seeds you planted that will lead to more accomplishments in the years to come.

Thanks for your leadership and thanks for your friendship, too. Diana joins in sending our best wishes to you and our appreciation for all you have done. Please keep in touch with us. We will always be pleased to hear from you.

Carl Levin

Mr. President, once again, as is our tradition here in the Senate, we take a moment to express our appreciation for the service of those Members who will be retiring at the end of the year. We will miss them, their good ideas and thoughtful suggestions, and their concern and active involvement in the challenges facing our Nation in a number of areas.

It is hard to mention the word ``service'' and not have Carl Levin come to mind. As a former local official myself, I have a great deal of respect and regard for all those who have worked their way up from the local level to the Senate.

For Carl the great adventure of his political life began with his service on the Detroit City Council. During his 8 years on the council Carl probably had enough run-ins with the Federal bureaucracy that he decided he had to do something about it. For him that meant a run for the Senate.

Carl's election and his subsequent service in the Senate have shown him to be quite an effective legislator and a force for the positions he has taken on a long list of issues. He has been a Member of the Senate since 1979 and he has hit a number of milestones since then that reflect the length and production of his service.

It is important to emphasize that Carl's service in the Senate has never been about longevity, it is been about results. That is why he has been a part of so many issues that needed someone with his talents, skills and abilities to help move them through. Such an issue has been his great support for our Nation's military and our veterans.

Carl has been working for the benefit of those who have served in our Armed Forces since he first walked in the door of the Senate. Determined that they reap the benefits they have earned with their service, Carl joined the Armed Services Committee to ensure our military and our veterans were getting what they deserved and required both during and after their service.

That is one of the main reasons why he is currently serving as the Chairman of our Armed Services Committee. He wanted to make a difference for those who were sacrificing so much to serve in our Nation's military. I don't think our servicemen and women--and our Nation's veterans--have ever had a better friend than Carl Levin.

Now he is closing the chapter of this great adventure of his life. With his service he has made a difference in more ways than I could ever hope to mention in my brief remarks. In the process Carl has touched more lives for the better than we will ever know with his commitment to the day-to-day

issues that affect us all--like education, the environment and health care. He has had an impact on his home State and our Nation that will be felt for a long time to come.

Thank you, Carl, for your service in the Senate. I know I join with the people of Michigan in expressing our appreciation to you for dedicating so much of your life to making our Nation a better place for us all to live. That is why your constituents have always been there to express their appreciation of your work here in the Senate with their votes. That is also why no other Senator has ever represented Michigan as long as you have.

Diana joins in sending our best wishes to you for all you have accomplished and for your close and personal attention to the needs of our Armed Forces and the concerns of our veterans. Thanks, too, for your friendship. We will miss you, but I am certain we will be in touch.

Tom Harkin

Mr. President, it is hard to believe how quickly this session of Congress has come to an end. Before that final gavel brings it to a close, however, it is good to have this time to express our appreciation for the service of those Members who will be retiring at the end of the year. They all have a lot to be proud of--from their first speech here on the floor to their representation of their State over the years.

Those words can not help but bring to mind Tom Harkin. I have had a chance to come to know him and work with him as the Chairman of the health committee. I have been very impressed with his dedication to his work and his determination to make a difference for the people who voted to hire him on for the job--and all Americans in all of the States.

I think one of the reasons why we were able to work together has to do with his Wyoming background. Tom spent some of the best years of his life in Rock Springs and I can not help but think that his time there made a big difference in his life.

Tom has quite a remarkable record of service to the people of Iowa and it is clear they feel the same about him. They have sent him back to the Senate to serve as their representative for five terms in the House and five terms in the Senate. During his service in the Senate I appreciated having the opportunity to work with him as the ranking member of the committee. In addition, the leadership he has provided the committee as chairman has enabled him to take an active role on issues that will have an impact on his home State and the rest of the country for many years to come.

If I were to name just a few of the issues on which Tom has made a difference I would begin with his work on behalf of those living with disabilities that resulted in the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Tom's groundbreaking legislation was written to help ensure all Americans would have an opportunity to lead more fulfilling and productive lives. In the days to come, his work on this issue will continue to provide the support that will help those living with disabilities to work toward their goals in life--and achieve them.

I also wanted to point out his work with our education system. Tom understands the importance of a good education and the difference it makes in young lives--today and tomorrow. Thanks to his hard work and determination students of all ages have a new appreciation for the fact that an education consists of more than just a few years in a classroom--it is a lifelong adventure, a journey that never ends because there is always something new to learn, some new skill that will make someone a more valuable member of the workforce.

I am sure he has heard it before but it is pretty clear that Tom Harkin is Iowa, through and through. He has devoted so many years of his life to the people of his State and they are greatly appreciative of his efforts--and the results he has been able to achieve.

Now, as Tom has made clear, it is time for someone else to step up to the plate and continue the work he has begun on so many issues. There is no question that you will be a difficult act to follow. For all those years Tom's heart and soul has been in Iowa while his mind and his focus has been in the nation's capital, working to make Iowa a better place to live.

Now Tom's remarkable career in the House and the Senate has come to a close and this chapter of his great adventure of serving the people of Iowa here in Congress has concluded. While we did not always agree on the best way to get things done we always agreed that we needed to focus on what we could do to have the greatest impact on the lives of Americans all across the country. Fortunately, I think we succeeded in many ways and Tom will be remembered for those positive results--and so many more.

One last Tom Harkin memory has to do with his popcorn tradition. I know I am not the only one who hopes it will continue. I do not think a single visitor to your office or that section of the building will ever forget the wonderful aroma your Iowa popcorn sent all around the area. For visitors from back home it must have been a touch that made them feel right at home. It was just more proof that you never lost sight of the people back home and they loved you for that.

Thank you, Tom Harkin, for all you have brought to the House and the Senate over the years. You have made it clear what the people of Iowa expect from their government and what you were working so hard to achieve for them. Thank you for your service, thank you for your dedication to making our Nation a better place to live and most of all, thank you for your friendship. You have not only been a witness to the history of your State and our country, you have helped to write each chapter over the years. In the days to come your achievements will continue to inspire the next generation of our leaders who will want to do what you have done. I am sure they can count on you for your insights, suggestions and advice. Diana joins in sending our best wishes to you.

Mark Pryor

Mr. President, it is one of the Senate's great traditions at the close of each session of Congress to take a moment to note the service of those of our colleagues who be leaving the Senate at the end of the year. It is a time for us to express our appreciation to our fellow Senators for their service and share what we have learned from them as we worked together to make a difference in our states and in our nation.

I have often thought that Mark has one great overriding rule that has guided him in his work in the Senate, ``Is this what the people of Arkansas sent me here to do?'' More often than not the answer to that question has helped him to develop a strategy to get things done that were designed to make his home State and our nation better places to live.

Ask just about any one of us here in the Senate what has made Mark Pryor such an effective legislator and you will get the same answer-- bipartisanship. In fact, he was so good at it, we might need to come up with a different word to explain his strategy, something like Pryor- itize. For Mark, the best way to get things done was to get everyone involved--all parties, all sides of an issue, and representatives of every point in between--together and then take the best of what everyone had to offer to form a coalition that would bring his legislative effort to a successful conclusion.

That is why both parties would often try to recruit him for their legislative projects. Each party knew he had a great ability to persuade that would help to bring other members together to support their efforts.

I have often said that serving in the Senate is a great adventure. If it were anything else, it would be too much like work and too hard a job to take on. Because it is an adventure it is something more--it is a chance to take on the greatest challenge there is, leaving the world a better place than we found it when we first walked through the doors of the Senate, and find new, creative, and inventive ways to make it happen.

As he closes this chapter of his life, his Senate adventure, Mark can be very proud of his efforts, and his successes over the years. He has a great deal to be proud of and I hope it brings him the satisfaction that comes from knowing he has taken on a difficult job and done it well.

I know I will miss seeing Mark around campus here in Washington, DC. I will miss his willingness to help on those tough challenging issues we always seen to have before us. I will also miss his words of faith and determination that he would share with us during our prayer breakfasts.

I hope you will keep in touch with us in the days to come with news of your next great adventure in life. Thank you for your service to our country, thank you for your focus on making Arkansas and our nation better places to live, and, most of all, thank you for your friendship. Good luck in all your future endeavors. God bless.

Tim Johnson

Mr. President, It is one of the Senate's great traditions that each retiring Senator is given some time on the floor to share with us what they have learned during their service in the Senate and their thoughts about our future as a Nation as the chapter of this great adventure in their life comes to a close. Then, we, their colleagues, take a moment to share with them what we have learned from them from their service in the Senate and what lessons we will take with us in the days and months to come from our work together here in the Capitol.

That is why I greatly appreciate having the opportunity to be here for Jay's final speech on the Senate floor. It is one of those moments that I will long remember, another moment in which Jay has not only been a witness to our Nation's history, but in this case, it's another time when he has written it with his well-chosen words.

This moment is one of those I call an instant replay memory. It means so much to me because I have known Jay Rockefeller for a longer time than I have known any other member of the Senate. In fact, when we first met, serving in Washington, DC, here in the Senate, was the furthest thing from our minds.

When I first had the chance to get to know Jay he was the governor of West Virginia and I was the mayor of Gillette. Coal was a great part of the day-to-day life of my hometown and his home State and together we were serving on the Energy Council. I remember when Jay came to Gillette for a visit. I had the chance to give him a tour of the mines of the Gillette area. As we were traveling around the site Jay said to me, ``You don't mine coal. You just back up the trains and load them up!'' I knew immediately what point he was making about the difference between the mines of Gillette and the mines of West Virginia. While the people of my State were working to keep up coal production by removing the surface coal facing one set of hazards, West Virginia miners were heading deep into the earth to face a different kind of challenge.

Make no mistake, mining is both a difficult and a dangerous occupation for all who have dedicated their lives to working the mines. It is labor intensive and every miner who makes it down the shafts to begin work knows there is always a chance they might not be coming home again.

It was a lesson we were reminded of in 2006 when the mine tragedies occurred at the Alma and Sago mines in West Virginia. Those were difficult days for his State. Jay's leadership came to the front as we went as a delegation to console the families of those miners from the Sago mines who had lost their lives and listened to their concerns. They shared their great loss with us, but as they did there was another message that seemed to come to us from all those with whom we spoke-- ``Don't let this happen to another family.'' It was clear. Something needed to be done to bring mine safety up to more modern standards. After meeting with the families we returned to Washington committed to get something done to honor the memory of those lost miners and make mining a safer occupation. As I thought about the beginnings of a legislative response to this issue, I remembered Jay's remarks to me that day in Gillette as he pointed out the different mining standards and the need for different approaches to mining safety. It was clear that a safety policy for our Nation's mines would have to address every facet of the industry and bring more modern technologies to accident prevention and rescue efforts.

Soon after we returned from West Virginia the entire delegation joined together to begin the work that needed to be done to minimize the danger and increase our ability to respond whenever a problem or hazard threatened the miners. The result was the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response (MINER) Act. It was the first major advance in mining safety that had been legislated in 30 years. That law will always be remembered as a part of Jay's legacy of service to the people of West Virginia. It was a change in our mining communities and businesses that will continue to have an impact in the years to come in our ability to protect the lives of miners all over this Nation. It is also a warning--as use of coal plunges, there is less incentive for safety inventors.

That is just one moment in which Jay made a difference in the present and future of our nation. If you look at Jay's impressive legislative record throughout his career you will note that he has been productive and effective in promoting his legislative agenda no matter which party was in control of the Congress. That is because

Jay has always been willing to work with members from both sides of the aisle and all sides of an issue. That is why he has been able to accomplish so very much for West Virginia and the Nation.

As we have heard, Jay has quite a remarkable story to tell. It truly began years ago when a younger--but equally committed--Jay Rockefeller came to work in a small town in West Virginia as a part of the VISTA program. The plan was for him to work with the people of the area for about a year. As the old adage says so well, ``God had other plans.'' That experience changed his life and his goals for the future. It led him to run for office and then progress in opportunity and service to the people of West Virginia as he worked his way to the United States Senate and this moment on the Senate Floor.

So, that is what I have learned from you, Jay. As I mentioned, there are times when we are sure what we want to do with our lives, but ``God has other plans'' which often leads to something better for us and the world around us than what we were planning on. If Jay hadn't made that decision back when he first arrived in West Virginia to do whatever he could to make life better for the people of that State it might never have been accomplished quite the way he has been able to do it. I have always suspected that God gives us all a mission in life, a chance to respond to a higher calling and make that inspired moment the beginning of our life's work. Jay Rockefeller did that and that is the lesson I have learned from him.

Thanks for your service in the Senate, Jay, and for all you have done for West Virginia and our Nation. Thanks, too, for your friendship. Fortunately, you will never be more than a phone call away. Keep in touch. Your comments, suggestions and West Virginia common sense ideas will always be welcome. Diana joins in sending our best wishes to you. We will look forward to seeing you in the days and months to come.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I express my opposition to the President's plan to grant executive amnesty to 4 million to 5 million illegal immigrants residing in the United States.

By circumventing Congress on immigration and instituting his will through executive actions, President Obama is eroding the very foundation of our country and form of government. This sets a dangerous precedent where future Presidents can flout any law they happen to disagree with and alter the law without going through Congress. Each branch of government is to act as a check against the others and not sit idly by as one exercises authority it does not have. A constitutional law professor should know that.

I believe we all agree that our immigration system is broken--both the legal system which allows individuals to visit and work in our country and the failures which continue to allow others to reside illegally within our borders. The first step we need to take to fix our system is to secure our borders and bolster interior enforcement. We cannot reduce illegal immigration without better border security and entry/exit enforcement measures. We also need to ensure that we have a strong, workable employment verification system in place, because if Congress can ensure that only authorized job seekers gain employment in this country, then we remove the incentive for illegal immigration--and we cannot grant those who are here illegally amnesty.

Yet this week the President intends to circumvent the will of Congress by illegally granting amnesty to 4 millions to 5 million illegal immigrants. This cannot stand. The American people do not want it, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have advocated against it, and the President himself has said more than 20 times that he does not have the authority to take this action. I am certain that the Republicans in the Senate will take action next year when we become the majority, and I look forward to being a part of that cause.

But I must be clear: this is part of a much larger fight. I know all of my colleagues remember the unconstitutional NLRB recess appointments the President made in 2012. In that case, the Supreme Court rejected his move, but it hasn't stopped the President from pushing forward. He has proposed a cap and tax proposal through regulation that Congress has already rejected, and I know my colleagues from coal-producing States intend to fight that EPA rule with me. I know my colleagues from Western States also intend to join me in fighting the EPA's proposed rule that could allow the administration to regulate all bodies of water, no matter how small, and regardless of whether the water is on public or private property.

This week's action is the latest step too far by the President, and I will continue to fight executive overreach--including amnesty by executive order--whether by targeting rampant, unaccountable Federal spending, working to reverse illegal executive orders with legitimate Federal laws or using the Congressional Review Act to reject the President's actions. I will be looking closely at every option.

Madam President, I rise to voice my continued support for the enactment of the Marketplace Fairness Act this year. There have been a number of editorials and letters and emails and other messages lately that have left out part of the story and have some of the other parts of the story wrong. I am not sure the people behind these messages have read the bill.

Last year the Senate passed this bill with a strong bipartisan vote of 69 Members. I believe that now is the time to get this issue done. I have been working on this sales tax fairness issue since joining the Senate in 1997, because as a former State legislator, mayor and small business owner, I believe it is important to level the playing field for all retailers--in-store, catalog, and online--so an outdated rule for sales tax collection does not adversely impact small business and Main Street retailers.

In the last century, the Supreme Court challenged us to solve this problem. We have been working on it. Thanks to a suggestion by Senator Alexander, we made this bill a States rights bill. The States passed laws a long time ago that required the collection of sales tax. And those laws say that if the tax is not collected by the retailer out of State, it has to be paid directly by the purchaser in state. Most people do not even know about that requirement, but I do understand in Wyoming we collect about $1.5 million from people voluntarily realizing the law and complying with it.

But that is a minority of people. Right now, thousands of local businesses are forced to do business at a competitive disadvantage because they have to collect sales and use taxes and remote sellers do not, which in some States can mean that 5 to 10 percent advantage.

I recently talked with a fellow who had a camera store. A person came in. He was interested in this $2,000 camera and accessories. So of course the store owner helped him to figure it all out and gave him instructions on the camera. Then the guy pulled out his smart phone and clicks on the bar code of the camera and said he could get it cheaper. Of course the owner of the store wondered how much cheaper. It happened to be exactly the amount of sales tax. The small business owner lost the sale.

I am willing to bet that if the person has a problem with the camera, he is going to come back to that store and ask for help with it. Those people who have those small businesses hire locally. It is actually people from the community who are earning money they spend in the same community. They are paying property tax. I would be willing to bet that none of the online companies, unless they are local, are participating in the community the way those businesses are.

Of course, additionally, sales taxes go directly to State and local governments, which brings in the needed revenue for maintaining our schools, fixing our roads, supporting local law enforcement, fire departments, and emergency management crews. An interesting part of that is the smaller the town, the more important that is.

In Wyoming the smaller towns rely on their sales tax to provide police protection and fire protection. People in small towns in Wyoming are sometimes surprised to find out that sales taxes support these services, but realize then that they ought to be paying this sales tax. The smaller the town, the bigger the impact.

If Congress fails to let States collect taxes on remote sales this year, we are implicitly blessing a situation where States will be forced to maybe raise other taxes, such as income or property taxes, to offset the growing loss of sales tax revenue. Do we want this to happen?

There is another side to this too; that is, that some of the people, some of the Governors and legislatures have said: If that passes, we will reduce another tax because sales tax is a more constant flow of dollars that we can rely on more than virtually anything else we do.

So now is the time for Congress to complete action on this issue by enacting the Marketplace Fairness Act this year. Today I want to spend a few minutes debunking some of the myths and allegations that have been raised against the bill. First, some opponents argue the bill is unfairly burdensome to online retailers by forcing them to comply with the various sales tax rates across the country.

In response, I would first note that the Marketplace Fairness Act includes a small seller exemption. It is set at $1 million in remote sales each year. Until they pass that $1 million mark in a given year, states cannot make them comply with sales tax laws. If they do pass the million-dollar mark, then the Marketplace Fairness Act requires that the State provide the sellers with software, free of charge, that can calculate the sales and use tax due on each transaction at the time the transaction is completed. It would also file the sales and use tax returns and be updated to reflect any rate changes.

So all they have to know, to be able to do is, is the purchaser's ZIP Code. They are going to have to know the ZIP Code if they are sending something

somewhere. So it is not that complicated a process. Incidentally, some of the online companies opposing this bill sell the very same program. They make it available to a number of providers. So it is already being used by retailers across the country to accurately collect and remit State and local sales and use taxes.

In addition, opponents of the Marketplace Fairness Act argue that our bill violates States rights by setting tax rates. In fact, our bill does not change State law. It does not require States to do anything. The bill does not create new taxes or increase existing taxes. It simply gives the States the ability to collect the taxes owed, to enforce their own sales and use tax laws.

Our bill is a States rights bill, which is why the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Counties, and the National League of Cities support the bill. Wyoming passed a law in 1934. It says: If someone buys something out of State and they do not pay sales tax on it, by the end of the month they have to fill out a form which they have and submit the money. Our bill makes it easier for Wyomingites to comply with this law. Most people don't realize this, but it is much easier if the person who collects the sales tax is the one who sells the item.

Opponents of the Marketplace Fairness Act also suggest it benefits big business at the expense of small online retailers. Remember I mentioned that $1 million exemption if a business sells less than $1 million online? They are not subject to this bill. That is to give small businesses a chance to grow into big businesses--and we do hope they do pass that $1 million threshold. In fact a $2 million threshold would be fine with me.

But the exemption already protects small businesses. Last year a Small Business Administration study determined that the small seller exemption included in the Marketplace Fairness Act would exempt 99.96 percent of all sellers from the bill's requirements. So it is just the big ones that fall into this bill.

Opponents of marketplace fairness suggest it creates a massive new tax requirement. The truth is the bill that passed the Senate with an overwhelming bipartisan vote of more than two-thirds of the Senate last year does not create any new taxes.

Consumers already owe the sales and use taxes on the goods they purchase if they reside in a State that has a sales tax--whether those purchases are made over the phone, by mail or by the Internet. Unfortunately, as I mentioned, most consumers are unaware that they are required to pay the tax when the retailer does not collect it at the time of the purchase.

Marketplace fairness provides States the authority to reduce the burden of self-reporting from consumers and allow States to enforce the existing State and local sales and use tax laws, and it eliminates the competitive disadvantage for the small retailers in the State. It is an advantage that is currently enjoyed by the remote retailers at the expense of those small businesses.

Additionally, the Marketplace Fairness Act does not tax Internet use. I repeat that it does not tax Internet use. It doesn't even tax Internet services. For many years I have worked with all the interested parties to find a mutually agreeable legislative package to enact this bill.

This Congress, I've worked with Senator Durbin, Senator Alexander, who as I mentioned inserted the States rights approach to this issue that reduced the bill from about 35 pages down to about 9 pages, and Senator Heitkamp, who has been involved in the court case as all of these e-fairness challenges have progressed.

When the Supreme Court heard this challenge and realized there are some other things coming along that could greatly distress States if they don't take some action because of what the courts could do, I worked together with the three colleagues I mentioned and 26 of our Senate colleagues to produce a bipartisan bill that helps sellers, States, and local governments to simplify sales and use tax collection and administration.

We are working with our House supporters, including House of Representative Members Steve Womack, Jackie Speier, Peter Welch, and John Conyers, and have found common ground on this important issue that is supported by more than 200 groups. I publicly commend all of my Senate and House colleagues in taking a leadership role in working on this important policy issue.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the goals of States rights and a level playing field for all businesses--making sure the revenue that is owed particularly for small towns makes it to the small towns--by pushing for the enactment of the Marketplace Fairness Act this year.

I yield the floor for my colleague, Senator Alexander, who has done an outstanding job on this subject.

Mr. President, I wish to express my disappointment about a matter of great importance to Wyoming and many other Western States. The continuing resolution before us does not include critical funding that nearly 1,900 counties in 49 States rely on.

Local governments are responsible for providing fire protection, law enforcement, sanitation, public health, and education, to our constituents. They provide these services largely by raising local revenue, including property taxes. In States where there is little federally owned land, local communities have a large number of private homeowners to help provide these services. But in States such as my home State of Wyoming, the Federal Government owns much of the land. The problem is that these Federal lands cannot be taxed. The Payment in Lieu of Taxes program, or PILT, has been in place for decades and is, essentially, the Federal Government's property taxes.

Last year's omnibus appropriations package did not fund PILT. Instead, the Farm bill provided 1 year of PILT funding. And since Congress has not

passed appropriations bills through regular order this year but is leaving fiscal year 2014 funding on autopilot, PILT isn't addressed in the legislation we are considering today. Yet local governments must still provide critical fire, law enforcement, and health services in these areas and for the people who work on them. What are we supposed to tell our communities that rely on this money for 40 to 80 percent of their budgets?

This body cannot fail to address this issue this year. To do so would break a promise we have made and would force communities to reduce or even eliminate the vital resources upon which their citizens rely. But we should not just address the issue for this year. We need to stop playing games with PILT and find a way to ensure it is adequately and fairly funded for years to come in a way that does not rob Peter to pay Paul.

Yes, the Federal Government is out of money. We are going to have to prioritize. But I would submit that PILT needs to be one of those priorities. PILT represents a promise the Federal Government made to counties and local governments all across the Nation, and they are looking to us to see how we will keep that promise. If we fail to do so, it will have an impact on almost every one of our States.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.