Floor Statements

Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to convey to my colleagues news of the tragic death of Sylvia Rickard--one of the Nation's top breast cancer advocates--a woman so full of life and joy, so deeply immersed in the science of her passion, that it is impossible to imagine this sad, sad occurrence.

Sylvia was truly an amazing person who touched many lives. I first met Sylvia when she visited my office so many years ago to educate me on the need for more breast cancer research, for better breast cancer screening, and for better patient navigation. Sylvia, herself a two- time survivor of breast cancer, and later of ocular melanoma, made sure that my staff and I, and indeed all of the Utah and Idaho delegations, regardless of party, were kept apprised of the latest developments in breast cancer research. She patiently walked us through the science behind the research--a science she made it her business to know in great detail.

Sylvia was such a good advocate because she had fought this dread disease, and won. Not once, but twice.

Moreover, Sylvia, and her husband Rick, became friends to all--to me, my staff, and to my former staff--here in Washington, and in our beloved State of Utah. She always had a smile and a hug for everyone.

Sylvia made it her business not just to talk the talk, but also to walk the walk. She was a past president of the Women's State Legislative Council in Utah, a bipartisan group of women who meet to discuss issues of importance to Utah and the Nation. She also was the founder of the Utah Breast Cancer Network, and the president of the Hispanic Health Care Task Force in Utah. Sylvia became involved in building awareness at the local level, as well as the national level. Indeed, she was very proud to have been selected to be an advisor to the National Institutes of Health--a remarkable recognition of her top- ranked talent. She was involved at all levels in advocating for better biomedical research, better support for that research, and for a nonpartisan, commonsense approach to a disease that is now expected to affect one in eight women over their lifetimes.

I recall the twinkle in Sylvia's eye when top experts at the Huntsman Cancer Center in Salt Lake City sought her knowledge about eye cancer, after she was treated successfully. She had found a surgeon in another State who could treat her without the certain loss of her eye, and she helped to connect the physicians so they could learn from each other.

It was a great loss to Utah when Rick Rickard built Sylvia the house of their dreams for retirement in Boise, ID this past fall. But we were all happy they had achieved their dream. I heard she was absolutely delighted to cook in her new kitchen. I am so pleased she at least got to spend a few months in their new home, one they had worked for so hard over so many years finally to achieve.

So our hearts go out to the Rickard and Garcia families, to Sylvia and Rick's two sons, Richard, Jr. and David, and to the many millions of others whose lives have been made better by the significant achievements of my friend, Sylvia Rickard.

Reserving the right to object.

No, Mr. President; reserving the right to object.

I spoke at length on the floor about my opposition to confirming Ms. Colvin at this time. While I do not doubt Ms. Colvin's qualifications for this position, there is a cloud hanging over her nomination, and I do not believe the Senate should move forward with her confirmation until that cloud is removed.

Since Ms. Colvin's nomination was reported out of the Finance Committee, several sources, including the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and individual whistleblowers have reported that the Social Security Administration, over a 6-year period, burned through $300 million in a failed attempt to develop and implement the Disability Case Processing System or DCPS. Some of this happened on Ms. Colvin's watch as she has served as Acting Commissioner of the SSA.

Sadly, it gets worse. We also heard allegations from multiple sources that SSA officials intentionally misled the agency's inspector general, as well as Congress, about the deficiencies in the development of the DCPS in order to facilitate Ms. Colvin's confirmation in the Senate.

These are serious allegations, and an investigation--one that may very well conclude a criminal element--is ongoing. Once again, Ms. Colvin currently serves as the Acting Commissioner of SSA. This investigation includes people working in her immediate office.

Put simply, the Senate should not move forward on her nomination until this matter is resolved. I intend to work with our two colleagues from Maryland to see if we can resolve this issue. It may very well be that Ms. Colvin has done nothing wrong. I voted for her out of committee. I certainly hope she has done nothing wrong. I hope that is the case. But we should at least be sure before we move her nomination forward; therefore, I have to object at this time.

I believe my colleague Senator Isakson may have some comments on this matter as well.

I will surely try to work with my colleagues and see if we can expedite this if there is no problem.

I have nothing against Ms. Colvin at all. In fact, I interviewed her in my office. I quite enjoyed meeting with her.

We will see what we can do to move this forward, but as of right now I have to object.

Mr. President, I certainly appreciate all the remarks the Senator from Oklahoma has said. He is one of the great Senators of all time, as far as I am concerned.

I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to give this statement, which shouldn't be much more than 15 minutes.

Mr. President, as we wind down the final days of the 113th Congress, it is a good time both to reflect on the past and to look toward the future. I have been very moved as I listened to the farewell speeches of our departing Senators, and I wish I had time to pay tribute to each one of them. They have all been wonderful colleagues, and I enjoyed working with and getting to know every one of them. I wish them all the very best in all their future endeavors. They will most certainly be missed.

In terms of the future there are a number of challenges before us. We have an economy that despite recent upticks is still struggling. We have a national debt that despite recent reductions in the deficit is headed toward astronomical levels, and we have a pending crisis with our entitlement programs that threatens to swallow up our government and take our economy down with it. I believe we can fix these problems, but it is not going to be easy.

Tax Reform

Today I would like to take a few minutes to talk about a particularly important effort that I believe will help address some of these fundamental changes and challenges. I am talking about tax reform. Over the last few years I have spoken numerous times on the floor and elsewhere about the need to fix our broken Tax Code. I would understand if there are some who tire of hearing me talk about tax reform, but that doesn't mean I am going to stop any time soon.

Tax reform is no longer optional but essential. If we are going to get our economy moving again, we need a Tax Code that will stop standing in the way. Make no mistake. Promoting job creation and economic growth is the first and most important step we need to take in order to address our Nation's most pressing problems. This is no secret to anyone in this Chamber. I don't believe I have been blessed with unique insight into these matters. We all know what we have to do and that, in and of itself, is pretty remarkable. Indeed, with all the partisanship and division we have seen over the past few years, there is bipartisan agreement on the need to reform our tax system. There are disagreements on the details that cannot at this time be overlooked, but on the basic question surrounding the need for reform, people in both parties have reached the same answer: Reform is necessary, and it needs to happen sooner rather than later.

My hope is that today I can say a few words that will help to set the stage for our reform efforts in the near future. Last week I released a report drafted by my staff on the Senate Finance Committee entitled ``Comprehensive Tax Reform for 2015 and Beyond.'' This report--I have been calling it a book because it is 340 pages long--outlines the major issues policymakers would have to confront as we undertake tax reform. It describes where we are with our current Tax Code, where we have been, and most importantly, it gives some direction as to where we should go with our reform efforts in the future. I hope all of our colleagues will take time to read through it.

I need to be clear. This is not a tax reform plan. It is a discussion of ideas and principles that I hope will be the first step in a renewed bipartisan effort to reform our Nation's Tax Code in the very near future. More than anything, I hope my colleagues will view this book as an invitation to work together in this most important endeavor.

As I outlined in the book, tax reform, in my view, should be undertaken with a set of simple principles in mind. The most important principles are the three set out by President Reagan the last time Congress was able to pass a major tax overhaul, nearly three decades ago. President Reagan's first principle, and in my view the most important, is economic growth. Tax reform should significantly reduce many of the economic distortions that are present under the current income tax system and promote growth in our economy. It should eliminate the anticompetitive nature of the current tax system, such as the high U.S. corporate tax rate, which stifles job growth. High marginal tax rates are present up and

down the income scale and they act as disincentives for work, entrepreneurship, and investment. These growth deterrents--which are embedded nearly everywhere in our Tax Code--should be eliminated.

President Reagan's second principle was fairness. The income tax base, which has become riddled with exclusions, exemptions, deductions, and credits, should be as broad as possible. Tax reform should reduce the number of tax expenditures, thereby broadening the tax base while simultaneously lowering tax rates. A broader tax base coupled with significantly lower tax rates is the basis of what would be a much fairer tax system.

The final principle outlined by President Reagan was simplicity. Our Tax Code has grown to almost four million words. Today, approximately 59 percent of American households use paid preparers to do their individual income taxes and another 30 percent use tax software to assist them. Taxpayers and businesses spend over $168 billion annually. That is larger than the size of the entire economy of New Zealand, and an amount that would employ more than three million workers full time at an hourly wage of $25.

A simpler Tax Code would greatly reduce these compliance costs, resulting in greater efficiency and compliance by American taxpayers. Let's unleash resources from being devoted to figuring out or gaming our broken Tax Code and make the resources available for job creation.

The three principles from President Reagan would be vital to our tax reform efforts. But, as I said, it has been nearly 30 years since Congress tried to put President Reagan's principles into action. Much has changed in that time. In order to address the needs of today, additional principles are necessary.

One of those principles is permanence. The Tax Code needs certainty. The Joint Committee on Taxation lists almost 100 tax provisions that will expire between 2013 and 2023. Individuals and businesses need to be able to rely on provisions in the tax law for planning purposes. The lack of certainty in our tax laws hinders job creation and stifles economic growth. We need a tax system that no longer threatens to change from year to year.

Another important principle is competitiveness. The combination of a high corporate tax rate, worldwide taxation, and the temporary nature of some tax incentives make U.S. companies less competitive when compared to their foreign counterparts. In addition, U.S. multinationals are discouraged from repatriating foreign earnings because of the U.S. corporate tax that applies at the time of repatriation--a corporate rate that is the highest in our industrialized world.

Tax reform should reduce the high tax rates on businesses and also achieve neutrality through a competitive international tax system, thereby placing worldwide American companies on a level playing field with their foreign competitors when conducting business in other countries. The result would be more worldwide American companies establishing or retaining their corporate headquarters in the United States, more exports to global markets, and retention and investment of money in the United States rather than abroad.

Promoting savings and investment is another important principle. Many aspects of the U.S. income tax system discourage savings and investments by individuals, thereby hindering long-term growth. Tax reform should result in a tax system that actually encourages people to save and invest.

Last, but certainly not least, there is the principle of revenue neutrality. I know this will be a sticking point for some, though, for the life of me I can't see why. If we are scouring the Tax Code looking for ways to squeeze more revenue to fuel government spending, we are not reforming the Tax Code, we are raising taxes. It is as simple as that.

Tax reform should not be used as an excuse to raise taxes on the American people or on U.S. businesses. Any effort to use tax reform as a revenue-raising exercise is a needless distraction. Anyone who believes that the American people are currently undertaxed should look at historical trends.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, Federal revenues are set to exceed historical averages as early as next year and will remain that way. We can talk about shoring up deficits and paying for spending, but we should not be looking to the Tax Code as a resource for additional revenue.

If you count up these principles--including those established by President Reagan, and the ones added since--there are seven in total. In my view, these seven principles should serve as guideposts for our tax reform efforts. Any idea or proposal we consider should link back and be relevant to at least one of these principles. The best ideas and proposals should probably link back to all of them.

As I said, the book we released last week outlines these principles and also provides a wealth of background information about our Tax Code and the need for reform. I view it as a first major step in a tax reform effort that I hope will get underway early next year.

In the coming weeks and months, I plan to reveal additional steps. I plan to involve many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, particularly those who will be joining me on the Senate Finance Committee.

My hope is that as this conversation continues, a path toward real bipartisan tax reform will begin to take shape. Of course, it will take more than just talk and discussion. It will take hard work, commitment, and, of course, compromise.

I said it many times before, and I will say it again today: I am willing to work with anyone, Republican or Democrat, to reform our Nation's Tax Code, and I look forward to continuing this effort in the 114th Congress, and, if necessary, beyond.

I yield the floor.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. President, I am going to personally thank the distinguished Senators from North Carolina and Pennsylvania for their work on the act. It is a very important bill. I want to give them credit for doing such a good job. The Senate will soon vote on a 1-year tax extenders package that, if enacted, will retroactively extend tax provisions that expire at the end of 2014. It is quite literally the best we can do. At this point it is something we must do. We are actually disappointed that 1-year package that was sent over to the House was basically rejected by the President. We would have preferred to have had that package. On the other hand, this is reckoning time at the end of the year. I might add in his epic speech, Prime Minister Winston Churchill stated, ``Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few.''

In the case of the legislation before us, it could be said: Never in the history of tax legislation have so many voted for so little and been so disappointed. In fact, today, for the first time in 20 years, we will ensure that the new Congress will start with all of the regular so-called tax extenders already expired at the end of the first session, as the distinguished Senator from Oregon has explained. That is a dubious distinction that was entirely avoidable in our view.

The problem of course is the President and some of his allies in the Senate pulled the plug on a bipartisan negotiation that would have produced a more satisfying result. As we all know, the Speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader were, just a few weeks ago, on the verge of reaching a deal that both sides could reasonably support. President Obama caught wind of the emerging deal which had yet to be finalized and promptly issued a veto threat. That threat was then ratified by many in this Chamber, including some at the negotiating table. For those who wish we were voting on a better extenders package, they should know who to blame--President Obama and his supporters in the Senate. At this late hour, passing a 1-year extension is the only option left for us.

I plan to support the bill before us, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I should also note this bill includes, as we have said, the ABLE Act--a great piece of legislation that our colleagues, Senators Casey and Burr, have worked on for years right up to this point. I want to applaud them for their work on behalf of families affected by disabilities. I take a great interest in that myself, so I am very pleased to see these two leaders getting this bill finally through.

I am pleased we are coming to the end of this session; hopefully in the next year, we can all work together to do an even better job than we have done this year.

How much time do we have remaining?

How much time does the other side have?

The Senate will soon vote on a one-year tax extenders package that, if enacted, will retroactively extend tax provisions that expired at the end of 2013. It is, quite literally, the least we can do, and at this point, it is something we must do.

The remarkable thing about this tax extenders bill is that no one seems to be happy with it. I don't know a single Member of Congress that is pleased that we're going to pass a simple, one-year extension of expiring provisions. But, sadly, that's where we are. Of course, it didn't have to be this way.

There was a time in the not-too-distant past when we were working on a package that would not only extend most of the expired provisions for a longer period time, but also make a number of important provisions permanent, thus eliminating much of the year-to-year roller coaster that individuals, families, and businesses have to go through when planning for their taxes.

There was bipartisan agreement on such an approach. And, in fact, at one point it appeared that a deal--a bipartisan, bicameral deal--was on the immediate horizon. But, as we all know now, that deal came crashing down after the President and some of his more liberal allies here in the Senate decided they were unwilling to compromise.

I came to the floor to talk about this debacle a couple weeks back, but some of the points bear repeating.

Just before Thanksgiving, the Senate majority leader and the Speaker of the House were very close to reaching a deal on the tax extenders, one that would have included all of the provisions of the Senate Finance Committee's extenders package--the EXPIRE Act--while also making a number of tax extenders permanent.

The emerging deal was a reasonable compromise. It would have been something both Republicans and Democrats could support, and I have little doubt that it would have passed easily through both Chambers.

It wasn't perfect. There were certainly parts of it that I, personally, could have lived without and provisions that most Republicans that I know didn't really support. But, as a

compromise between two negotiating positions, it was a very good deal, and, as I said, I believe it would have passed easily through both the House and Senate.

Unfortunately, the deal was not good enough for President Obama, who was apparently less willing than the Senate majority leader to compromise on the extenders package. Before the negotiations were even completed and a deal was even reached, the President issued a veto threat. That's right, the President issued a veto threat on a deal still under negotiation. That's how eager he was to put the kibosh on a compromise.

That was unfortunate. What was even more unfortunate, however, was that parties to the negotiations decided to ratify this threat and pull the plug on the deal being negotiated by the leaders of the two Chambers. The President's excuse for issuing his veto threat on the emerging deal was that it did too much to help the business community and not enough to help individuals and families.

For those of us who have been working on tax issues and have been asking the President to engage on these matters, this statement from the White House was more than just a little bit strange. After all, while Republicans have for years been strongly advocating for comprehensive tax reform, encompassing both the individual and business tax systems, the President has only expressed a willingness to engage in tax reform on the business side. Indeed, he has more or less refused to even talk about tax reform for individuals and families, unless, of course, such reform amounted to a massive tax increase.

In other words, he threatened to veto a tax extenders package that, in his eyes, only helped businesses and not individuals, while at the same time, maintaining a vision for tax reform that did just what he said he opposed--helping businesses and not individuals.

The mental gymnastics at play here are dizzying, and you would be forgiven for being confused by the White House's attempt to be on both sides of this issue.

I am definitely confused by the President's statements. I am even more confused as to why some of my colleagues here in the Senate opted to go along with it.

It is no secret that things are going to change around here in the next Congress. I can't imagine that any of my colleagues really think they are going to get a better deal on the tax extenders than the one that was being negotiated by the current Senate majority leader. But, as is too often the case around here, simple and obvious logic can easily be cast aside when there is a political point to be made. That's what I think is going on here. Pure politics. Sadly, as is also too often the case around here, the American people are the ones who are going to suffer.

Rather than a longer tax extenders deal with some permanency in some key provisions, the American people will be left with a 1-year, retroactive extension. Rather than being able to plan for the future, individuals, families, and businesses will instead have to wait around and hope that Congress can do better the next time around.

Don't get me wrong, I plan to support the 1-year extension, as I have said before, but, we could have done better. And, it's unfortunate that, once again, politics and an unwillingness to compromise stopped a good deal--one that would have satisfied the majority of both parties-- from being made.

In his epic speech on the Battle of Britain, Prime Minister Winston Churchill stated: ``Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few.''

In the case of the legislation before us, it could be said: Never in the history of tax legislation have so many voted for so little and been so disappointed.

In fact, today, for the first time in 20 years, a new Congress will start with all the regular so-called tax extenders already expired at the beginning of the first session. That is a dubious distinction that was entirely avoidable.

I have been pretty hard on the President for his actions on this matter. But, it is not just him. There are many in this Chamber who supported and went right along with him, and, as a result, the package we will be voting on is not nearly as good as it could have been. But, in the end, we don't have much choice on this matter. Passing the 1- year extension is the only option left to us at this late hour. So, I plan to support the bill before us, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Finally, I just want to say I am very pleased that an extremely important bill will accompany the extenders package. I'm talking about the Achieving a Better Life Experience Act of 2014, or the ABLE Act.

The ABLE Act makes permanent changes to the tax code that will provide critical assistance to families saving private funds for the support of individuals with disabilities. These funds may be used to maintain health, independence, quality of life, and pay for all manner of disability-related expenses. The funds may be used throughout the disabled person's life, an important feature for parents that worry about providing for children with lifelong challenges. The funds will supplement, but not supplant, benefits provided through private insurance, Medicaid, Social Security, and employment.

I especially want to thank my friends and colleagues, Senator Casey and Senator Burr, who for several years have done the heavy lifting necessary to make this law a reality. For decades to come disabled Americans will owe these two Senators and their fine staffs an enormous debt of gratitude.

I yield the floor without losing any time.

If the Senator is prepared to yield back his time, I will yield back ours.

I yield back our time.

I voted for this fine woman coming out of the committee, but there since have arisen all kinds of problems concerning perhaps criminal problems at the Social Security----

Madam President, I will make one more statement. There is enough evidence of criminal conduct there--I am not accusing her but, on the other hand, she was the authority there.

We should not be voting on this at this time.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the senior Senator from Michigan, Carl Levin. I have known Carl for many years and am grateful for his friendship. Throughout his career, Carl has always put the needs of Michigan and this nation above his own.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize a dear friend, Senator Tom Harkin. Senator Harkin will be retiring at the end of the month, but his influence will be felt long after he leaves this Chamber. I speak for all of my colleagues when I say he will be sorely missed.

I consider myself lucky to have worked with Tom, and even luckier to call him a friend. Tom has devoted his life to public service.

Like any good statesman, Tom is humble about his achievements. Humility is a trait so often lacking in accomplished men, but Tom is an exception. The allure and glamor of Beltway life never held sway over Tom, and his years spent in the Nation's capital have only shown that he is an Iowa man through and through.

The only thing that runs deeper than Tom's Iowa roots is the corn that grows there. Tom still lives in the very same house in the very same town where he was born--Cumming, IA, population: 383--a far cry from this bustling metropolis. His family still keeps a farm in Cumming, and I am sure he looks forward to spending many peaceful days there in his retirement.

Tom grew up in a family of modest means. His father was a coal miner and his mother a Slovenian immigrant who passed away when Tom was just 10 years old. From an early age, Tom developed his signature work ethic by taking various odd jobs on farms, at construction sites, and even in a bottling plant.

Tom's service to our Nation began long before he came to Congress. He attended Iowa State University on a Navy ROTC scholarship and served as an active-duty Navy pilot for 5 years after graduation. Even after his full-time military service, he continued to serve as a pilot in the Naval Reserve. Tom is a man who always has and always will put our country first. Even though he and I often disagreed on matters of policy, I always knew that Tom had the best interests of our Nation and those of his constituents in mind.

Tom and I first became good friends when I joined him in sponsoring the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1989. At the time, Tom was a first-term Senator approaching reelection, and to support the ADA was politically risky. But true to form, Tom bucked political expediency to champion a law that the

late Senator Ted Kennedy would describe as the ``emancipation proclamation'' for those with disabilities. Although the ADA faced serious opposition, passing this legislation was personal for Tom, whose brother, Frank, grew up deaf, and whose nephew was quadriplegic. In the lives of these loved ones, Tom saw how lack of opportunities for persons with disabilities could make their lives all the more challenging.

My friendship with Tom was forged in the battles we fought to move the ADA through both chambers of Congress. I will never forget the day the Senate passed the bill in 1989. After the vote, Tom and I left the floor and walked into the anteroom, where there were hundreds of persons with disabilities in wheelchairs, on crutches, and with various other disabilities waiting to receive us. Overcome with emotion, both of us broke down and cried. It was a moment I will never forget.

I am not exaggerating when I say that Tom's work on this hallmark legislation will have resounding effects for generations to come. Because of the ADA, millions of Americans with disabilities can now pursue the American Dream.

Throughout his Senate career, Tom has always been there to help those who could not help themselves. His work has affected the lives of millions. Senator Harkin deserves not only our recognition, but also our gratitude. I want to wish him, his wife Ruth, and their family all the best.

Madam President, I was a cosponsor of this amendment to the highway bill in the Finance Committee and understand the importance of equalizing the tax rate between LNG and propane and diesel fuel. Unfortunately, we cannot add this amendment that I support to this time-sensitive legislation. Senator Burr and Senator Bennet, I hope to find an opportunity to include this important provision regarding LNG and propane in legislation next year. This inequitable treatment of LNG and propane deserves a better fate than what exists under current law. I especially want to thank Senator Burr for his tireless efforts on this issue.

Madam President, I rise today to honor my good friend Senator Saxby Chambliss on the occasion of his retirement. For 20 years, he has served his fellow Georgians in Congress with honor and distinction. He will be sorely missed.

A preacher's son, Saxby was born in Warrenton, NC. He graduated from the University of Georgia and the University of Tennessee College of Law. As a lawyer in south Georgia, he built a successful law practice representing the farmers that are the lifeblood of his state.

He put his expertise on farm issues to good use here in Congress and became a key player in negotiations for each of the farm bills considered during his tenure. And just 2 years after he was elected to the Senate, he assumed the chairmanship of the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, the fastest any new Senator has risen to chair a standing committee since 1947.

Saxby and I served together for many years on the Select Committee on Intelligence, where I came to appreciate his wisdom, his sound judgment, and his unyielding commitment to keeping this nation safe. He has been an enormously effective vice chairman over the past 4 years. And even as his tenure here draws to a close, he has once again demonstrated his superb leadership in setting the record straight on the Intelligence Committee's investigation of the CIA's detention and interrogation program.

Above all else, Saxby is a proud husband, father of two, and grandfather of six. I know that his lovely wife Julianne and the rest of his family are eager to spend more time together in the coming years.

Mr. President, Saxby and the entire Chambliss family should know that his colleagues, his fellow Georgians, and his fellow Americans are truly grateful for Saxby's service and his family's sacrifices. I wish them all the best.

Tom Coburn

Madam President, I also pay tribute to my friend Tom Coburn as he prepares to leave the Senate. For 10 years, Tom has served the people of Oklahoma as their junior Senator. He is a man of principle and fierce determination. He has shown himself willing time and again to stand up to special interests and to fight for what he believes in. He will be missed.

Senator Coburn was born in Casper, Wyoming, in 1948 and was raised in Muskogee, OK. His father Orin was a prominent optician and the founder of Coburn Optical Industries. Tom attended college at Oklahoma State University, where he graduated with a degree in accounting. From 1970 to 1978 he was a manufacturing manager at his family's company. After a bout with cancer, Tom returned to school to become a physician, graduating in 1983 from the University of Oklahoma Medical School. Following his residency, Tom moved back to Muskogee to practice family medicine and obstetrics. He has personally delivered more than 4,000 babies.

Senator Coburn began his career in public service in 1994, when he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Oklahoma. He served in the House for 6 years, then went back to Muskogee to resume his medical practice. Three years later, in 2004, Tom was elected to the U.S. Senate to fill the seat being vacated by retiring Senator Don Nickles. Here in the Senate he has served with distinction on a number of important committees, including the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, of which he is the Ranking Member.

Since first arriving in Congress, Senator Coburn has been a strong proponent of fiscal restraint. His efforts to fight deficit spending, pork barrel projects, and earmarks earned him the nickname ``Dr. No.'' I have always thought this nickname was a compliment to Tom. It shows he is willing to stand up against powerful interests in defense of his principles, and that he takes seriously the problems of unnecessary spending and long-term debt.

Passing a balanced budget amendment has been a priority of mine for many years, and I have been glad to count Tom as a strong ally in that effort.

I have also been fortunate to work with Senator Coburn on a number of other issues during his time in the Senate. Earlier this year, Tom and I, along with Senator Richard Burr, introduced the Patient CARE Act, a market-based alternative to Obamacare. Tom and I have also worked together to fight waste and corruption at the Department of Health and Human Services and to reinvigorate the States' roles in meeting transportation, safety, and other needs.

Madam President, Senator Coburn is an honorable and steadfast man. He has served his country well. I wish him, his wife Carolyn, and their family the very best.

Mike Johanns

Madam President, as well I honor my colleague and friend Mike Johanns. For many years, Senator Johanns has worked tirelessly for the people of Nebraska, first at the local level, then at the state level as Governor, and most recently as senior Senator from Nebraska. Mike is a kind and thoughtful man, and I have been grateful to serve with him these past 6 years.

Senator Johanns was born and raised in Osage, IA, where he grew up working on his family's farm. After high school, he attended Saint Mary's University of Minnesota and Creighton University School of Law. Following law school Mike clerked on the Nebraska Supreme Court and then practiced law in Lincoln, NE, where he was a founding partner at the firm Nelson, Johanns, Morris, Holdeman, and Titus.

In 1983, Senator Johanns was elected to the Lancaster County Board. Five years later he won election to the Lincoln City Council, and then, 3 years after that, became Mayor of Lincoln. Mike followed his success in local politics with success in state politics. In 1998, he won his first term as Governor of Nebraska, and was reelected by a landslide 4 years later.

Senator Johanns entered national politics in 2004 when President George W. Bush asked him to serve as Secretary of Agriculture. Four years later he won election to the U.S. Senate from Nebraska, where he has served with distinction ever since.

When he retires later this month, Senator Johanns will have spent more than 25 years as a public servant. I commend him for his service to the state of Nebraska and to the people of this Nation.

Although his tenure in the Senate was brief, Senator Johanns wasted no time. His previous experience as Secretary of Agriculture proved indispensable as a member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture. To this committee, he brought an expertise on farming issues unrivaled by other freshman senators. He also served actively on the Banking Committee and was a member of the Senate's Gang of Eight during budget negotiations in 2011. Throughout his service, Senator Johanns always had the best interests of the Nation at heart.

Madam President, Senator Johanns is a good man who has served his country well. His retirement is well deserved. I wish him, his wife Stephanie, and their children the best going forward.

Jay Rockefeller

Madam President, in addition I pay tribute to my friend and colleague Jay Rockefeller, who will soon retire from the Senate. I have known Jay for many years. He is a man of principle who has dedicated his life to serving the citizens of West Virginia. He is a serious legislator and an honorable man. I will miss him.

Senator Rockefeller is a member of a prominent and distinguished American family. He is the great-grandson of John D. Rockefeller, the founder of Standard Oil. Jay was born in New York City and attended school at Phillips Exeter Academy and Harvard College, from which he earned an A.B. After college Jay worked for the Peace Corps and the Department of Far Eastern Affairs. He then went to work for the Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) program, during which time he moved to West Virginia.

Senator Rockefeller began his political career in 1966, when he was elected to the West Virginia House of Delegates. Two years he later became the West Virginia Secretary of State. After a brief stint as President of West Virginia Wesleyan College, Jay returned to public service in 1976, when he was elected Governor of West Virginia. Following two successful terms as Governor, he won election to the U.S. Senate in 1984, where he has served ever since.

Senator Rockefeller has held a number of important positions in the Senate, including Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, where I was privileged to serve with him. This is a crucially important committee that deals with some of the weightiest issues that come before Congress. Jay led the committee with equanimity and respect. His work helped keep our country safe.

Senator Rockefeller has also been an active legislator. I was honored to work with him on the creation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, which has made health insurance available to millions of children. Other issues Jay and I have worked on together over the years include tax reform, stem cell research, and protecting the American flag. He and I did not always see eye to eye, but I always knew he did what he thought was right.

Mr. President, I am grateful to have been able to serve alongside Senator Rockefeller these past 30 years. He's a man of deep conviction, and a man utterly devoted to the people of his home state of West Virginia. I wish the very best for him, his wife Sharon, and their family as they enter the next chapter of their lives.

Mark Pryor

Madam President, I also honor my friend Mark Pryor. For 12 years Senator Pryor has served the people of Arkansas in this body. He is independent, open-minded, and hard-working. He will be missed.

Senator Pryor comes from a distinguished Arkansas political family. His father, David Pryor, was Governor of and later Senator from Arkansas. Mark was born in Fayetteville, AR, and attended college at the University of Arkansas. He received a law degree from the University of Arkansas School of Law and then spent several years in private practice.

In 1991, Senator Pryor was elected to the Arkansas House of Representatives. Eight years later he was elected Attorney General of Arkansas. In 2002, Mark won election to the U.S. Senate from Arkansas, winning the same seat his father once held.

In the Senate, Mark has distinguished himself through his independence and his willingness to reach across party lines. Although Mark and I have not always agreed, I have always known he has acted in what he firmly believes are the best interests of his State.

Senator Pryor has served on a number of important committees during his time in the Senate, including the Appropriations Committee, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. I have been fortunate to work with him on a number of important pieces of legislation, on topics ranging from medical care to homeland security to victim restitution. He has been a strong partner in these efforts, and I have been grateful to have him as an ally.

Senator Pryor is a decent and thoughtful man. He has served his State honorably. I wish him and his family the very best.

John Walsh

Madam President, finally I pay tribute to Senator John Walsh. I have known John for only a brief time, but I know that he is a good man who has served his country well.

Senator Walsh began his service to our country long before he came to the Senate. He joined the Montana National Guard right after high school-the start of an impressive military career. John served 8 years as an enlisted U.S. Army soldier before he was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in 1987. As an officer, he distinguished himself and quickly rose through the ranks.

Senator Walsh led the 163rd Infantry Battalion in Iraq, commanding more than 700 Army National Guard soldiers in combat. He later received the Bronze Star and the Combat Infantryman's badge for his service. In 2008, Governor Brian Schweitzer appointed John the Adjutant General of Montana's National Guard. As Adjutant General,

John oversaw the command of thousands of troops. These soldiers and their families looked to him for leadership and strength, and he always delivered.

Senator Walsh moved from military service to public office when he became Montana's Lieutenant Governor in 2013. Governor Steve Bullock appointed John to fill former Senator Max Baucus's seat in February 2014, making John the first Iraq War veteran to serve as a Senator.

Though his time here in the Senate was brief, Senator Walsh was an active member of the Committee on Rules and Administration; the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry; and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. He always treated me and our other colleagues with the utmost kindness and respect.

Senator Walsh is a good man who has dedicated his life to serving our country and keeping us safe. I wish him, his wife Janet, and their children the very best.

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

Madam President, I wish to take a few minutes to speak about the nomination of Carolyn Colvin to be the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.

In recent weeks a number of disturbing facts have come to light about Ms. Colvin and her tenure as the Acting Social Security Commissioner. These revelations, coupled with the fact that there is an ongoing investigation of the conduct of people in her immediate office, raise serious questions about whether she is qualified to serve in this position.

Let me make one thing clear. My doubts about Ms. Colvin's nomination have nothing to do with partisanship. I, along with 20 of my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee, voted to report her nomination out of the committee in September. At that time I believed she had the necessary qualifications for the job and saw no reason to oppose her nomination. I have to say I liked her personally, but as I said, since that time, new facts have come to light that are extremely disconcerting.

Just days before Ms. Colvin appeared before the Finance Committee, we became aware of allegations concerning potential waste and mismanagement at the SSA, as well as allegations regarding the possible coverup of that waste and mismanagement. Several sources, including the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and individual whistleblowers reported that SSA had, over a 6-year period, burned through $300 million in a failed attempt to develop and implement the Disability Case Processing System or DCPS.

These sources derived their information from a report issued in June by a private contractor commissioned by SSA. This report was subsequently provided to Congress by SSA whistleblowers.

According to the report, mismanagement and poor planning at the SSA stalled the development of the DCPS. This, in turn, resulted in the substantial waste of taxpayer dollars.

Once again, the amount was, I am informed, roughly $300 million. These allegations were just breaking when Ms. Colvin appeared before the Finance Committee, but I did mention them during the hearing.

Needless to say, as we have learned more details about the failure surrounding the DCPS, the picture has only gotten even cloudier. At a minimum, these allegations call into question the quality of SSA's overall management and the leadership skills of those managing the agency. It certainly calls into question their commitment to preventing waste and preserving SSA's already scarce resources.

Sadly, it gets worse. On July 23, 2014, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform sent a letter to Ms. Colvin that raised even more issues about the failures of SSA, partially under Ms. Colvin's leadership as Acting Commissioner, including possible actions by agency officials designed to intentionally mislead Congress and the IG's office about the deficiencies and the development of the DCPS. Indeed, the allegation is that Congress may have been intentionally misled so as to facilitate approval of Ms. Colvin's nomination to be the next Social Security Administration Commissioner.

Subsequently, on November 18, 2014, a press release from the House Ways

and Means Subcommittee on Social Security indicated that the ``results of a criminal investigation regarding the implementation of DCPS is still pending.''

In addition, whistleblowers have informed the Senate Finance Committee that the ongoing IG investigation has centered on high-level officials at the SSA, including members of Ms. Colvin's immediate office, and that alleged criminal conduct may extend to irregularities in the award of contracts for the DCPS project. This is a serious problem. I do not know how the Senate can with good conscience vote to confirm anyone with this type of ongoing investigation going on around their immediate office. It may very well turn out that Ms. Colvin did nothing wrong, but we need to know for sure.

This is a very important position. That is why I, along with all of the Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee, sent a letter to Ms. Colvin last week asking for more details about the DCPS and her office's conduct. She has since responded claiming that she is not responsible for any mismanagement of the DCPS project and that she committed no criminal conduct. As I said, that may very well be the case. I hope it is. But the specter of an ongoing investigation still hangs over her nomination; therefore, I do not believe the Senate should proceed toward confirming her until this matter is resolved. I want to be fair to her, but this is an important problem that needs to be resolved.

I want to make one thing clear: This is about more than just mismanagement of funds or bureaucratic incompetence; this is about an ongoing investigation of people in Ms. Colvin's direct office for contract issues and allegations that they purposefully misled Congress in order to move her nomination through.

Once again, this is not partisan. I supported Ms. Colvin's nomination in committee and continue to believe she has the right credentials and experience for this important job. Of course, if these allegations prove to be true, my assessment of her qualifications will most certainly change.

Put simply, with this investigation--which may very well have a criminal element to it--still ongoing, I cannot support moving forward on Carolyn Colvin's nomination. I hope this matter can be resolved quickly and cleanly, but until such time, I plan to vote against confirming her as the next Social Security Commissioner unless we resolve these matters beforehand.

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

Mr. President, I applaud the passage of the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act.

Across the United States, newborns are screened routinely for certain genetic, metabolic, hormonal and functional disorders. Most of these birth defects have no immediate visible effects on a baby but, unless detected and treated early, they can cause serious physical problems, developmental disability and, in some cases, death.

Fortunately, most infants are given a clean bill of health when tested. In cases where newborns are found to have metabolic disorders or hearing impairment, early diagnosis and proper treatment are crucial in making the difference between healthy development and lifelong infirmity.

Newborn screening has been saving lives for more than 50 years, but programs vary from State to State. To address disparity among States' newborn screening capabilities, Congress passed the original Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2008, P.L. 110-204, legislation I sponsored with Senator Chris Dodd. The law established national newborn screening guidelines and helped facilitate comprehensive newborn screening in every State in America and the District of Columbia.

Before passage, some States offered as few as only four of the recommended tests, and only 11 States and D.C. required the recommended screening for all disorders. Today, 42 States and D.C. require screening for at least 29 of the 31 treatable core conditions, and both parents and physicians are more aware of the availability and necessity of newborn screening.

To maintain the important work of newborn screening programs, I am a proud sponsor of the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act of 2013. This legislation will allow States to continue improving their programs to help medical providers promptly diagnose and treat conditions which could result otherwise in irreversible brain damage, permanent disability, or death.

I very much appreciate and commend the hard work of my colleagues and their staffs here in the Congress, the administration, and the public health community to ensure that this program will continue to help States provide critical, timely, and lifesaving newborn screening for our youngest Americans.

Mr. President, I have only heard two of the comments of the majority leader--one for the distinguished Senator from Michigan and one for the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. I have to say that both of those Senators deserve a lot of commendation for the service they have given to the Senate. They are both friends of mine.

Carl Levin

Senator Levin has been a terrific, solid performer for the Democrats in the U.S. Senate, and he is an honest--totally honest--decent, honorable man.

Jay Rockefeller

Senator Rockefeller is on the Finance Committee with me. He is one of the senior people on that committee and certainly one of the people I have enjoyed working with. We worked a number of years ago on the CHIP bill, the SCHIP bill, and he was of inestimable help there. I have to say he has been a wonderful member of the very important Finance Committee.

I will miss both of these brethren and wish them the very, very best in their lives as they go through the remaining years of their lives, and hopefully they and their families will have a wonderful, wonderful time together.

Mr. President, as the Appropriations Committees prepare to release the product of their negotiations on a spending bill this afternoon, I rise today to discuss the troubling development that has made their work all the more challenging: President Obama's immigration Executive order. By circumventing Congress, the President has dispensed with the duly-enacted law of the land in a unilateral attempt to alter the legal status of millions of immigrants.

Unfortunately, this issue of Executive overreach is not a new one. Over the past year, I have come to the Senate floor repeatedly to lay out my objections to President Obama's lawlessness--from the release of Guantanamo detainees to ObamaCare, from his purported recess appointments to Benghazi. Today I come to discuss this latest astonishing instance in the area of immigration.

Immigration is a complex and divisive issue, and Americans hold a wide variety of views on the matter. But one thing that should not be controversial is the President's duty to place fidelity to the Constitution over partisan politics.

The Constitution vests lawmaking authority with Congress, not the President. And the Framers specifically sought to end centuries of abuses by the English monarchs, who claimed the power to dispense with the laws of the land, by requiring the President to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. The Constitution does not suggest or invite the President to enforce the law; it obligates him to do so.

The President and his executive branch, of course, exercise prosecutorial discretion--the discretion to choose not to prosecute certain cases. But that power stems from considerations of fairness and equity in particular cases. Instead of requiring individualized determinations in specific cases, the President's latest Executive order claims the power to sweep up millions of people based on only a few broad, widely shared criteria.

The President is also within his rights not to prosecute when there are not sufficient resources to do so, but the Obama administration has never explained how the Executive order would save money. In fact, the administration's own policy advisers have acknowledged that a work permitting program will be expensive and will take away resources from law enforcement. While no one disagrees that capturing and removing violent criminals should be our highest immigration priority, President Obama has gone much further and made current immigration law essentially a dead letter for millions of illegal immigrants.

President Obama cannot credibly claim that he is attempting to execute immigration law faithfully when ICE agents were forced to release 68,000 potentially deportable aliens last year alone, when the administration took disciplinary action against ICE officers for making lawful arrests, and when the President of the National ICE Council felt compelled to testify before Congress that although ``most Americans assume that ICE agents and officers are empowered by the government to enforce the law . . . nothing could be further from the truth.''

Moreover, despite the administration's claim to the contrary, President Obama's action is not comparable to the Executive actions taken by President Reagan or even President George H.W. Bush. Even the Washington Post's editorial board found that claim by the White House to be ``indefensible.'' Presidents Reagan and Bush simply implemented the enforcement priorities established in laws that Congress actually passed. By contrast President Obama has sought to change the law before Congress has acted, so he cannot rely on Congress's authority to enforce the policy he prefers. Here President Obama has acted directly in the face of congressional opposition, and we should call his Executive order what it is: an attempt to bypass the constitutionally ordained legislative process and rewrite the law unilaterally.

We are all sometimes disappointed and even angry about the outcomes of the legislative process. I have certainly felt that way many times over the course of my 38 years here. But the right response is to redouble our efforts to get it right, not to try to subvert our constitutional system.

The President should heed his own wisdom from as recently as last fall when he said that by broadening immigration enforcement carve-outs ``then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that is not an option. . . . What I've said is there is a path to get this done, and that's through Congress.''

Even beyond the legal and constitutional problems with the Executive order, the President's approach is also bad policy. His Executive order greatly undercuts the chances for lasting immigration reform because it undermines our confidence that the President will live with any compromises we agree to forge through the legislative process. The Executive order is even bad for those who are currently here illegally--those who are supposed to benefit from it. Instead of temporary half measures, they need the certainty that only legislation can provide.

Last month, in an election in which President Obama insisted that all of his policies were on the ballot, the American people delivered the President a decisive rebuke. Many of us from Congress took the right message from the election--that it is time for us to come together to find areas of agreement and to govern like adults.

Apparently President Obama missed that message. To announce this Executive order after the defeat at the polls displays shocking arrogance. Given how the White House and its allies in the media keep raising the specter of a shutdown or impeachment, it is clear the President is attempting to goad Congress into a fight rather than work with us in the difficult job of actually legislating.

Unlike President Obama, I am committed to making real progress toward implementing lasting immigration reform. I supported the Senate's comprehensive immigration bill last year. Even though the bill was far from perfect, I voted for it because I believe in working together to get something done on this vitally important issue. As I have long argued, the way to get real immigration reform back on track is not for the President to insist on his ``my way or the highway'' approach, either by trying to enact his preferred policy unilaterally or even for him to demand an all-or-nothing comprehensive bill. Instead we should consider individual immigration reform measures that can win broad support and help rebuild trust in our country. Only by doing so will we clear a path forward for other more far-reaching reforms.

Take the area of high-skilled immigration. We face a high-skilled worker shortage that has become a national crisis. In April for the second year in a row the Federal Government reached its current H-1B visa quota for workers just 5 days after accepting applications. Employers submitted 172,500 petitions for just 85,000 available visas, so

American companies were unable to hire nearly 90,000 high-skilled workers essential to help grow their domestic businesses, develop innovative technologies at home rather than abroad, and compete internationally. Keep in mind most of these folks we have educated in our colleges and universities. They could be of great help to us.

I have been trying to get H-1B expansion through here for a number of months. I think we will get it through honorably. In response to this crisis I worked with my friends Senators Klobuchar, Rubio, and Coons to introduce the bipartisan immigration innovation or the I-Squared Act. Our bill provides a thoughtful, lasting legislative framework that would increase the number of H-1B visas, based on annual market demand, to attract the highly skilled workers and innovators our economy so desperately needs.

Unilateralism is not the way forward on immigration. If the President is serious about enacting meaningful immigration reform, he can choose to take the first essential step. Even in the current partisan climate there is a widespread consensus and real opportunity for bipartisan, bicameral reform for our outdated visa system for economically essential high-skilled immigrants.

The concrete legislative victory where there is already considerable consensus would help build trust and good will among those who disagree sharply over other areas of immigration policy and would mark a critical first step along the path to broader reform.

For the life of me I cannot understand why the President doesn't accept this hand we are extending to him, knowing that we educate these people, get them their college degrees, their master's degrees, their doctoral degrees, their Ph.D.s, and then we push them out of the country when they want to stay and help us in the continually evolving and impressive high-tech world. It is mind-boggling to me that we do this.

Canada even advertises in California and in the States south of the Canadian border: Come to Canada. You are welcome here. I commend Canada for having the brains and guts and ability and the political instincts to attract these very highly educated--educated in the United States-- people, to help them in their high-tech world, in their engineering world, in their mathematical world, in their science world. Of course we can name a whole host of other areas where they are now helping Canadians when they were educated here, wanted to stay here, wanted to be part of America, and we could not provide a means whereby these people could help us and at the same time an intelligent means that people in our society could accept.

That is the not the only action we could take. Naturally we should work together as Democrats and Republicans to do real immigration reform. We have 11 million or more people here who aren't going to go back to their countries. Many of them have never been in their countries, such as the children who were born here and young children who were brought here and never knew anything about their parents' former country. We have to solve these problems, and we don't do it by unilateral actions by a President who basically doesn't seem to give a darn, except for his own unilateral approach to things. That is not what the Presidency should be.

There are three branches of government. They are coequal. The President should enforce laws that are enacted only by Congress. The Supreme Court should interpret laws that are enacted by Congress if there are reasons for doing so. In this case we have a President who basically is ignoring the law, just acting on his own, as though Congress doesn't mean a thing, even though it means everything in these areas.

I counsel the President to change these ways and work with us. I think there will be more people willing to work with him should he do so, and we can solve these problems--we can solve them--not in some stupid, unilateral way that is going to create more problems than it solves but in a way the American people will accept.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Madam President, I wish to spend a few minutes today to discuss the ongoing saga of the 2014 tax extenders package.

Getting this legislation passed through the Senate has been quite an ordeal from the outset. As my colleagues will recall, the Finance Committee reported its tax extenders package in April and a few weeks later progress stalled on the Senate floor when the Senate majority leadership refused to allow votes on any amendments.

After that time--which was in mid-May--the tax extenders sat somewhat in limbo, although both sides acknowledged the desire to get something passed during the lameduck session, if not before.

The Finance Committee extenders package, if my colleagues remember, extended 55 expired or expiring tax provisions for 2 years without making any of them permanent.

The House took a different approach which was to make certain important tax provisions, such as the R&D tax credit, for example, permanent, bringing more certainty to American businesses, families, and individuals.

Over the past several weeks, negotiations have been ongoing in the hopes of producing a bill that combined the Senate Finance Committee's package with the approach taken by the House.

I am generally hesitant to publicly comment about what happens behind closed doors in negotiations; but, on the other hand, much of what happened next has already been printed in the media. That being the case, I don't feel too awkward discussing the recent turn of events that has brought us to where we are now with the tax extenders.

Last week, before the Thanksgiving holiday, the Speaker's office and the Senate majority leader's office were very close to reaching a deal on a tax extenders package--one that would have included all of the provisions from the EXPIRE Act, which is the Senate Finance Committee- reported tax extenders bill, as well as a number of permanent tax extender provisions.

This emerging deal would have been a reasonable compromise between Republicans and Democrats and between the House and Senate approaches to this matter. It was not the legislation I would have written, but as a compromise taking place in a Congress that is, for the time being, still divided, it was likely the best both parties could hope for.

As I said, we were on the cusp of a deal last week, and then something strange happened. On Tuesday, the White House caught wind of the potential deal--even though the terms had not yet been finalized-- and issued a veto threat. How often does that happen? How often does the President issue a veto threat on potential deals still under negotiation? How often do we find that extraordinary threat ratified by people who are involved in the negotiations? As I said, this was not a Republican wish list being negotiated. House Republicans were willing to make a number of tough concessions in order to get a deal across the finish line.

For example, the deal would have made permanent the American opportunity tax credit--a provision that first came into law in the Democrats' partisan 2009 stimulus bill and has been a high priority item for Democrats. It would have also made the State and local sales tax deduction--which is a high priority for a number of congressional Democrats--permanent. And it would have rolled over the tax extenders that expired during 2013--including many that most Republicans do not support--for another 2 years.

These were major concessions and, to its credit, the House was willing to make them in the interests of a bipartisan agreement.

More importantly, the deal was supported by the Senate majority leader who, the last time I checked, was a Democrat. Yet the deal wasn't good enough for the President and for the more liberal Members of the Senate, or should I say the Senate Democratic Caucus. Apparently they weren't willing to take yes for an answer. Instead of compromising even a little bit, President Obama issued his veto threat and has been rallying Democratic Senators against the proposed deal, or at least that is what I have been told. As a result, it appears unlikely that a deal on the tax extenders package will be reached in this Congress. Instead, the most likely scenario appears to be that the Congress will pass a 1-year referendum of tax extenders that have already expired.

Short of not passing anything at all, this is surely the worst of all possible worlds. Rather than the certainty that would come with making some of the more prominent individual tax extenders permanent, families, individuals, and businesses will have to once again put long- term plans on hold in hopes that Congress can get its act together the next time around.

This is bad news for middle-class families. This is bad news for individuals. This is bad news for job creators. And this is bad news for those of us hoping the government will improve the way it does business any time in the near future.

We all know the makeup of the next Congress will be different than it is now. I don't mean to be too presumptuous, but I think it is safe to say the President and his liberal allies are unlikely to get a better tax deal in the next Congress than the one the Senate Democratic leadership had been negotiating up until the last week. I commend the Senate Democratic leadership for its work on that matter. I commend the House leadership and congratulate them for doing the same thing.

Do any of my Democratic colleagues who came out against the proposed deal really think their prospects are likely to improve next year? I have to ask because, quite frankly, this recent turn of events is mind- boggling to me.

In the end, I think the only conclusion that makes sense is that this line of attack--the President's veto threat--and liberal opposition to the potential extenders deal is more about politics than about policy. It is about the President's strategy of following an electoral rebuke of his policies by tacking even further to the left. And it is about congressional Democrats' efforts to pander to their liberal base at the expense of good government.

I hope I am wrong about this, but as I said, there is not another logical explanation that I have heard. I hope the White House and its Senate allies will prove me wrong and come to the table with an offer that reflects a genuine compromise with the House.

I think the events of this past week have demonstrated divisions in the Democratic Party, and that those divisions are causing real problems. Once again, we had the Senate majority leader in the room and ready to make a deal, only to be undercut by the President and his liberal allies in the Senate. I find that very unfortunate. I commend the Democratic majority leader for trying.

Of course, at the end of the day, I suppose none of us should be surprised at what has happened. After all, President Obama is not particularly known for being business friendly or placing his focus on job creation, which is sorely needed in this country. Whether it is crippling environmental regulations--which we are now seeing come to the forefront in dramatic terms--or whether it is labor policy or health care, the President has demonstrated that he is all too willing to put his political ideology above the needs of our economy.

Make no mistake, the proposed tax extenders deal--the one the President scuttled with his veto threat--was all about job creation. It would have made the research and development tax credit, small business expensing, and other provisions permanent, giving certainty to the business community, paving the way for more investment, and paving the way for more jobs in our society.

The President's latest gambit on the tax extenders is just a series in a long line of instances where politics has trumped job creation. Still, as one who has been willing to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I can't help but be disappointed.

But make no mistake, things are about to change around here and we will have an opportunity to right this ship. I just hope we will have a lot of Democrats who are willing to help us. We need to focus on an agenda that will actually grow our economy. We need to focus on an agenda that will actually create jobs. And we need to focus on an agenda that will empower the American people. That is going to be the focus of this new Congress.

Once again, the President and his allies here in the Senate missed a big opportunity to address some of their party's priorities with the tax extenders legislation. It is difficult to imagine that they will have another bite at the same apple in the next Congress. Absent a deal, we are now left with only one option: a 1-year extension that will likely be passed by the House this week. Once again, a 1-year extension is not a great deal for families, individuals, and businesses, but it is far better than letting these provisions lapse entirely. Indeed, if we do nothing, we run into a series of problems, including a delayed filing season, which means millions of delayed refunds for Americans who count on them. In addition, doing nothing would essentially amount to a tax hike on millions of people and businesses.

Consequently, I plan to vote in favor of the 1-year extension, unless, of course, my colleagues on the other side finally come to their senses and allow a better deal to be had.

I don't understand this kind of leadership in this country. I don't understand why the President does some of these things. I don't understand why the left just can't take an offering to them that was much better than what we are going to get. The majority leader knew it.

Republicans have been tough on the majority leader. I have been here for years. I care for him. I think it is a tough group of people to manage, just as they are on our side as well. It is a tough job. Frankly, I think the deal he worked out should have been followed. It would have given the President much of what he wanted initially, anyway. It would have brought us together one more time, and it would have been a wonderful thing.

It would have made the end of the year--the work we are doing--much more satisfying and acceptable. It would have been a good prelude to next year of our working together--something that this body needs really badly.

I want to commend the distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, for the work he tried to do. I want to congratulate him. I want to congratulate the Speaker of the House for being willing to work on this.

I think it is unfortunate we are at this point in these negotiations, where we are going to have a 1-year extension. It is not going to be anywhere near where we had negotiated with the majority leader and had negotiated with the House. There are parts of the negotiated bill that I wish I could have changed. But, we had come a long way.

I want to pay tribute to the distinguished chairman of our committee. I don't think he had much confidence at first that we would put our original extenders bill through the committee. At least he didn't express it to me.

I said: Let's do it, and we did. Even with the parts that I wish weren't in there and the parts he wished weren't in there, it was a classic bipartisan compromise by two sides who feel very, very deeply about all these issues--each and every one of them.

I think the work that Senator Reid, the distinguished majority leader, and the Speaker had done was not only a step in the right direction but it would have been something most all of us would have been quite pleased with. I commend them for their work.

I am disappointed with where we are. I hope we can solve these problems in the future. I will be working as hard as I can to bring about bipartisan efforts in that regard.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I wish to take a moment to pay tribute to my former chief of staff, Michael Kennedy. In my 38 years as a Senator, I have

seen many talented staffers come and go, but few have left such a lasting impression as Michael. He is someone for whom I have a deep appreciation and much respect. That is why it was so difficult for me when I learned Michael would be leaving my office to pursue an opportunity in the private sector. I had come to rely so much on his counsel, his leadership, and his savvy. It was very difficult and hard to let him go. I know I speak for everyone on my staff when I say Michael will be sorely missed.

Before Michael came to my office, he was living in Salt Lake City and working at Utah State University as the vice president for Federal and State relations. Under his leadership, that university developed its first professional program, secured critical line-item funding, enhanced its footprint and resource portfolio, and became a key player in facilitating the merger of two Utah schools.

Michael was also the point man for all matters related to Capitol Hill and the Utah State legislature. His reputation for hard work and integrity helped him craft strong relationships throughout the State. He knew the landscape, customs, and culture of Utah better than almost anyone. His experience and his reputation proved invaluable to me.

I know these tributes sound like eulogies with the way we talk about people as if they had already passed on. Considering how hard Michael worked, I am surprised this isn't his eulogy. His energy and work ethic always amazed me, as did his sense of style. Perhaps the only thing sharper than Michael's mind was his wardrobe. Few people can pull off a navy suit with pink lining and silver cufflinks, but Michael did so with ease. Of course, you might not know Michael was such a sharply dressed staffer because his boss usually stole the fashion spotlight, and after Washingtonian magazine named me the best-dressed man in Congress, I can only hope that some of my style rubbed off on him. However, if people knew how little I paid for my clothing, I think they might want to take back that honor.

Michael took a pay cut when he joined my staff nearly 4 years ago, and he always joked that his next job would be as an unpaid summer intern. I like to think Michael's financial sacrifice was emblematic of his desire to serve the State of Utah and improve this great country through the Senate. His willingness to serve was most evident in the way he always put the needs of constituents and staff above his own.

Michael's dedication to my staff was only surpassed by his dedication to his family, and I truly believe he owes his success to the constant support of his wife Natalie--an absolutely beautiful woman whom I have been blessed to know. Natalie and her family have been friends of mine since she was young. Natalie grew up as a friend of my children, so naturally I felt protective and wanted the best for her.

When she announced her engagement to Michael, Elaine and I were delighted. Still, I was surprised that someone as impressive as Natalie would agree to Michael's engagement proposal. I guess to his long list of talents and accomplishments, we could add marrying out of his league.

I was very grateful that Natalie knew very well the rigors and intensity of serving on a Senate staff, having worked previously with Senator Bob Bennett. Not only was she an invaluable support to Michael, she was also there to help me in any way she could. She was wonderful.

While Michael was serving as my chief of staff, Natalie gave birth to their daughter Emily--or as I like to call her ``Sweet Pea.'' Shortly after her birth, Michael's family gathered in my Capitol office and gave Sweet Pea a father's blessing, as is the tradition in our faith. It was a sacred experience for Elaine and me to join Michael and Natalie and both their families for that special occasion.

Michael's family wasn't the only one to grow in the time he was with me. During those few years, we had 12 new babies and 4 spouses added to the families of our staff. Whenever there was a birth or marriage, Michael went out of his way to make sure they were taken care of. He fostered an atmosphere of camaraderie, friendship, and family friendliness that was critical for my office's ability to serve the people of Utah. People always knew he was genuinely concerned for them and their needs as they tried to adjust to the wonderful changes of a growing family.

Nevertheless, I know there were plenty of times when Michael would rather have been with Natalie than with me. One particular instance comes to mind. During the end of the 112th Congress, Michael and I rang in the new year together during an extended voting session. Michael bought a bottle of blue Powerade from the downstairs vending machine here at the Capitol, and we counted down the seconds on my Senate clock. I knew he wanted to be with his family, but I was grateful for his sacrifice in staying with me.

This intense dedication was the norm for Michael Kennedy. Every night that I left the Senate, Michael would be there to wish me a safe drive home and continue his work for me late into the night. Whenever I traveled, he was always by my side and ready to help. Together we spent a lot of time on the road, visiting each of Utah's 29 counties. We drove from meeting to meeting across beautiful western landscapes and had many memorable conversations. Though road trips can often be long and tedious, Michael's sharp intellect and good humor made him one of the greatest traveling companions I have ever had.

I have been extremely fortunate when it comes to my staff. I have had the privilege of serving with some of the most gifted and devoted people our Nation has to offer. Each of them has brought something unique and important to their service, but I have to say that even among the select fraternity of talented Senate staffers, Michael Kennedy belongs in an elite class.

I have no doubt Michael will enjoy enormous success in his new position. Success has been the defining characteristic of every endeavor he has undertaken. I have had many chiefs of staff over my 38 years in the Senate, but none has ever been better than Michael.

While the selfish part of me wishes he could have stayed in the Senate just a bit longer, I have to say that I wish Michael, Natalie, and darling Sweet Pea the very best going forward.

I don't say these things haphazardly. This young man is truly one of the finest people I have known in all of my experience in the Senate of the United States. He was dedicated, he was consecrated to his work, and he did everything he possibly could to help my staff and me do a better job in the Senate.

Michael is a true friend, and he will always be somebody whose friendship I revere. As I said, his wife is a wonderful friend as well, and Sweet Pea--I call her ``Pea'' now--is one of the cutest, most darling young girls that I have ever seen.

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