Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will close a tax loophole that allows companies to write off the punishment they receive for corporate wrongdoing. Under current law, a corporation or individual business owner may deduct the cost of court- ordered punitive damages paid to victims as an ``ordinary'' business expense. For the victims of extreme corporate misconduct, there is nothing ordinary about this. It is simply wrong. This tax loophole allows corporations to wreak havoc and then write it off as a cost of doing business. That undermines the whole point of punitive damages.

Punitive damage awards are designed to punish the wrongdoers and to correct dangerous or unfair practices. These awards are reserved for the most extreme and harmful misconduct. Sadly, our country's history is replete with examples of serious corporate misconduct that resulted in injury and death to American citizens, but through our civil justice system and the thoughtful deliberations of our Nations' juries, this misconduct is not only punishable by assessing punitive damages, it has led to broad changes to improve the safety and security of American consumers. Unfortunately, our current tax laws shield the worst corporate misconduct. The No Tax Write-Offs for Corporate Wrongdoers Act would change that by making a simple fix to our tax code.

In 2010, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded and 11 Americans were killed in the worst oil spill in American history. That same year, an explosion in the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia claimed the lives of 29 miners. In 2009 and 2010, Toyota recalled more than 10 million vehicles because of a faulty acceleration system that has been linked to at least 31 accidents and 12 deaths, and recently admitted to misleading the public about these dangers. Let us also not forget Exxon's misconduct in 1989, which led to an ecological and human disaster that affects Alaskans even today. Vermonters and all Americans deserve to have companies such as these held accountable for their actions. Why should hard-working taxpayers subsidize corporations who deserve to be punished?

In 1994, a jury awarded $5 billion in punitive damages against Exxon for its actions which caused the Valdez spill that devastated an entire region, the livelihoods of its people, and destroyed a way of life. The role of the jury is enshrined in our Constitution, and nothing is more fundamental to the American justice system than our trust in the judgment of those who serve on them. Rather than accept this reality, Exxon paid its cadre of lawyers to fight the jury's measure of accountability all the way to the Supreme Court. In 2008, after 14 years of appeals, an activist majority on the Court invented a novel rule and held that in maritime cases, punitive damage awards could not exceed twice the amount of compensatory damages, reducing Exxon's punitive damages to $500 million. Adding insult to injury to the victims of the oil spill, Exxon was then able to use the federal tax code to write-off the punitive damages as an ``ordinary'' business expense. This is not how the system should work and it is long past time for Congress to fix it.

I have previously supported legislation by Senator Whitehouse to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Exxon, and I am disappointed that not a single Republican joined this commonsense effort. If we cannot get bipartisan support to ensure corporations pay the highest possible price for actions that cause serious harm to health and public safety, I hope we can at least agree that American taxpayers should not have to subsidize their misconduct once a jury has determined they should be punished.

The Obama administration requested eliminating this tax deduction in its 2014 budget proposal. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that ending this deduction loophole will result in increased revenues of $355 million over 10 years. Members who have devoted so much of their focus to reducing the Federal deficit should support my legislation. Anyone who cares about protecting consumers should agree that extreme corporate misconduct should not be treated in our tax code simply as a cost of doing business.

Right now, the new Republican majority in Congress is pushing legislation to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. Despite being billed as the safest pipeline in history, the existing Keystone pipeline has spilled 12 times in its first year of operation. This has a familiar ring: Before the Valdez spill in Alaska, Exxon executives told us their oil tankers were safe. I do not support Congress bypassing the environmental appeal process to fast-track further construction of the Keystone pipeline, which poses considerable safety and environmental risks. But anyone who does want this pipeline should at a minimum consider the communities and families who would be affected by its construction, and in the event of a spill, they should make sure taxpayers are not subsidizing the damage. This speaks to our basic notions of justice and fair play.

I hope all Senators will join me to end tax write-offs for corporate wrongdoers. When companies can write off a

significant portion of the financial impact of punitive damages, the incentives in our justice system that promote responsible business practices lose their force. Corporate misconduct should no longer be treated as a cost of doing business.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will close a tax loophole that allows companies to write off the punishment they receive for corporate wrongdoing. Under current law, a corporation or individual business owner may deduct the cost of court- ordered punitive damages paid to victims as an ``ordinary'' business expense. For the victims of extreme corporate misconduct, there is nothing ordinary about this. It is simply wrong. This tax loophole allows corporations to wreak havoc and then write it off as a cost of doing business. That undermines the whole point of punitive damages.

Punitive damage awards are designed to punish the wrongdoers and to correct dangerous or unfair practices. These awards are reserved for the most extreme and harmful misconduct. Sadly, our country's history is replete with examples of serious corporate misconduct that resulted in injury and death to American citizens, but through our civil justice system and the thoughtful deliberations of our Nations' juries, this misconduct is not only punishable by assessing punitive damages, it has led to broad changes to improve the safety and security of American consumers. Unfortunately, our current tax laws shield the worst corporate misconduct. The No Tax Write-Offs for Corporate Wrongdoers Act would change that by making a simple fix to our tax code.

In 2010, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded and 11 Americans were killed in the worst oil spill in American history. That same year, an explosion in the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia claimed the lives of 29 miners. In 2009 and 2010, Toyota recalled more than 10 million vehicles because of a faulty acceleration system that has been linked to at least 31 accidents and 12 deaths, and recently admitted to misleading the public about these dangers. Let us also not forget Exxon's misconduct in 1989, which led to an ecological and human disaster that affects Alaskans even today. Vermonters and all Americans deserve to have companies such as these held accountable for their actions. Why should hard-working taxpayers subsidize corporations who deserve to be punished?

In 1994, a jury awarded $5 billion in punitive damages against Exxon for its actions which caused the Valdez spill that devastated an entire region, the livelihoods of its people, and destroyed a way of life. The role of the jury is enshrined in our Constitution, and nothing is more fundamental to the American justice system than our trust in the judgment of those who serve on them. Rather than accept this reality, Exxon paid its cadre of lawyers to fight the jury's measure of accountability all the way to the Supreme Court. In 2008, after 14 years of appeals, an activist majority on the Court invented a novel rule and held that in maritime cases, punitive damage awards could not exceed twice the amount of compensatory damages, reducing Exxon's punitive damages to $500 million. Adding insult to injury to the victims of the oil spill, Exxon was then able to use the federal tax code to write-off the punitive damages as an ``ordinary'' business expense. This is not how the system should work and it is long past time for Congress to fix it.

I have previously supported legislation by Senator Whitehouse to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Exxon, and I am disappointed that not a single Republican joined this commonsense effort. If we cannot get bipartisan support to ensure corporations pay the highest possible price for actions that cause serious harm to health and public safety, I hope we can at least agree that American taxpayers should not have to subsidize their misconduct once a jury has determined they should be punished.

The Obama administration requested eliminating this tax deduction in its 2014 budget proposal. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that ending this deduction loophole will result in increased revenues of $355 million over 10 years. Members who have devoted so much of their focus to reducing the Federal deficit should support my legislation. Anyone who cares about protecting consumers should agree that extreme corporate misconduct should not be treated in our tax code simply as a cost of doing business.

Right now, the new Republican majority in Congress is pushing legislation to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. Despite being billed as the safest pipeline in history, the existing Keystone pipeline has spilled 12 times in its first year of operation. This has a familiar ring: Before the Valdez spill in Alaska, Exxon executives told us their oil tankers were safe. I do not support Congress bypassing the environmental appeal process to fast-track further construction of the Keystone pipeline, which poses considerable safety and environmental risks. But anyone who does want this pipeline should at a minimum consider the communities and families who would be affected by its construction, and in the event of a spill, they should make sure taxpayers are not subsidizing the damage. This speaks to our basic notions of justice and fair play.

I hope all Senators will join me to end tax write-offs for corporate wrongdoers. When companies can write off a

significant portion of the financial impact of punitive damages, the incentives in our justice system that promote responsible business practices lose their force. Corporate misconduct should no longer be treated as a cost of doing business.

Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 2015. Once enacted, this legislation will continue for another five years the immensely successful grant program that provides matching funds for State and local law enforcement agencies to purchase protective vests for officers serving in the field.

Our Nation needs no additional reminders of the dangers faced by law enforcement officers each and every day. Far too often we have grieved as officers are killed in the line of duty. In 2014 alone, 126 men and women serving in law enforcement lost their lives. Although protective vests cannot save every officer, they have already saved the lives of more than 3,000 law enforcement officers since 1987. Vests dramatically increase the chance of survival when tragedy occurs. I have met personally with police officers who are living today because of a bulletproof vest, and they will attest to the fact that the vests provided through this program are worth every penny.

No officer should have to serve without a protective vest. Yet we know that, for far too many jurisdictions, vests can cost too much and wear out too soon. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program helps to fill the gap. Since it was first authorized in 1999, it has enabled more than 13,000 State and local law enforcement agencies to purchase more than one million bulletproof vests, including more than 4,000 vests for officers in Vermont. As these officers have helped to protect our communities, these grants have helped to protect them. Unfortunately the authorization for this grant program lapsed in 2012. We must not delay any longer in reauthorizing this program

This bill also contains a number of improvements to the grant program. It provides incentives for agencies to provide uniquely fitted vests for female officers and others. It also codifies existing Justice Department policies that grantee law enforcement agencies cannot use other Federal grant funds to satisfy the matching fund requirement, and they must also have mandatory wear policies to ensure the vests are used regularly.

Protecting those who serve has historically been a bipartisan effort in Congress. Republican Senator Ben Nighthorse-Campbell and I worked together to create this program more than 15 years ago. It was so successful that, in the past, it was reauthorized with a voice vote. It was the right thing to do, it saved lives, and that was enough for both Democrats and Republicans. This is not a partisan issue, and I am pleased that Senator Graham is the lead cosponsor of this measure. Senators Coons and Blunt are also original cosponsors of this bill.

The law enforcement community speaks with a single voice on this issue. And I am proud that this bill is supported by the Fraternal Order of Police, International Association of Chiefs of Police, National Association of Police Organizations, National Sheriffs' Association, Major County Sheriffs' Association, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, National Tactical Officers Association, and Sergeants Benevolent Association.

There are very few bills that can so directly affect and improve the safety of those who serve and protect our communities. This program saves lives, and I am hopeful that all Senators--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike--will join us now to ensure its swift reauthorization.

Mr. President, when Sarah Kenney decided to volunteer with the Women's Rape Crisis Center in Burlington, VT, in 1997, she may not have realized just how that experience would shape nearly two decades of her life. There, in cramped offices furnished with old futons, she recalls, ``I fell in love with the passion of the place.''

That passion led Sarah to the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, where she has spent the past 13 years advocating to end such violence and to raise public awareness about the abhorrent crimes that account for roughly half of all homicides in Vermont in any given year.

Over the years, Sarah has been a trusted and valuable partner in my work to strengthen support for survivors of domestic and sexual violence, including the successful reauthorization and expansion of the Violence Against Women Act so that it better protects all survivors. Her understanding of the legislative process, combined with her ability to work with all sides, have been the hallmark of her effective advocacy. Sarah has also spent much time at the Vermont State House, testifying on legislation to strengthen protections against victims of crime across our State.

Sarah will be leaving her post as the Vermont Network's Associate Director of Public Policy this month, to take on a new advocacy role as Deputy Director at Let's Grow Kids in Burlington, where she will use her tremendous skills on behalf of bettering children's lives.

I am proud to note that Sarah holds a bachelor's degree in political science from my alma mater, St. Michael's College. Her contributions are too many to list here, but her work in shaping policy has undoubtedly resulted in stronger protections for women and families in Vermont and across the Nation. In my 40 years in the U.S. Senate, I have worked with many advocates who are passionate about the work they do. I can say that Sarah's passion and commitment make her one of the best. She is superbly effective in turning advocacy into action.

In Vermont, we are fortunate to have an organization such as the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, and even more fortunate to have someone of Sarah's talents advocating on behalf of victims. It has been an honor to work with someone whose commitment to a cause is so distilled and focused. The Vermont Network will miss Sarah's many talents, but Vermont's children have just gained a passionate advocate.

I wish Sarah and her family all the best in her new role.

Mr. President, for nearly a year now, Americans across the country have made their voices heard on the critical issue of how we protect an open Internet. Their message has been loud and clear--they want meaningful rules that protect the Internet as a platform for free expression and innovation. Consumers want to see the online space as we have always known it, as a place where the best ideas and services can reach users on merit rather than based on a financial relationship with a broadband provider. Last Congress I joined with my friend in the House, Representative Doris Matsui of California, to introduce bicameral legislation requiring the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, to ban ``pay-to-play'' deals on the Internet. Today, I am pleased to once again join with her to reintroduce this important bill.

When we originally introduced this legislation last June, nearly 300,000 Americans had commented on FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's open Internet proposal. That number alone would have been an impressive level of public engagement. Since that time, however, the number of public comments filed at the FCC has swelled to nearly 4 million. As the comments show, consumers are concerned that without meaningful rules the Internet will become a place where broadband providers charge tolls to websites or applications for them to reach end users. This would represent a fundamental departure from the way in which consumers and entrepreneurs interact with the Internet. A two-tiered Internet based on ability to pay would harm the innovative and competitive environment we have all come to expect in the online world.

Like an overwhelming number of the public, I have grave concerns that a pay-to-play Internet would allow larger companies to squeeze out their competitors, stifling competition online. A small web company in Vermont that develops an idea to rival the largest Silicon Valley titans should not have to worry that its access to consumers could be blocked because its competitors have a paid arrangement with broadband providers. The next generation of Internet companies and retailers should have the same protections that allowed a company like the Vermont Country Store to become a thriving online success.

Pay-to-play arrangements would also harm consumers, who would not have the assurance that the service they are paying for will provide the speed that they want. Too many Americans currently lack real choice in broadband providers, particularly those in rural areas. A pay-to- play Internet could result in whole swaths of the Internet becoming functionally inaccessible to the customers of certain Internet providers. This is not the Internet we know today, and the FCC or Congress must act to ensure that it does not come to pass.

The Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act is straightforward. It requires the FCC to establish rules preventing providers from charging websites for priority access. It also requires rules to prevent providers from prioritizing their own affiliated content or services. These are simple rules to preserve the equal platform we know online today.

This legislation should not be used by opponents of meaningful open Internet rules to undermine the FCC's important work to craft open Internet rules that will protect consumers and innovators. To the contrary, this bill sets out important policy positions that the FCC should adopt in its current consideration of open Internet rules. The FCC should not hesitate to act at its February meeting to ban these deals outright.

The importance of an open Internet is an issue that resonates in homes and businesses across the country. I spent significant time last year listening to voices outside of Washington, particularly those of Vermonters, so that I could hear firsthand about the impact the Internet has had on small businesses and consumers. The Judiciary Committee held two hearings on this issue, including one in Vermont, where I heard exactly these kinds of stories. These are not people looking for a handout or special treatment--these are entrepreneurs and consumers who simply want the Internet to remain an equalizing tool regardless of where you live or how deep your pockets are.

There should be widespread agreement to prevent special deals that harm consumers and dampen online innovation. The FCC and Congress should rightly focus on this timely and significant issue to protect innovation and competition online.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, for nearly a year now, Americans across the country have made their voices heard on the critical issue of how we protect an open Internet. Their message has been loud and clear--they want meaningful rules that protect the Internet as a platform for free expression and innovation. Consumers want to see the online space as we have always known it, as a place where the best ideas and services can reach users on merit rather than based on a financial relationship with a broadband provider. Last Congress I joined with my friend in the House, Representative Doris Matsui of California, to introduce bicameral legislation requiring the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, to ban ``pay-to-play'' deals on the Internet. Today, I am pleased to once again join with her to reintroduce this important bill.

When we originally introduced this legislation last June, nearly 300,000 Americans had commented on FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's open Internet proposal. That number alone would have been an impressive level of public engagement. Since that time, however, the number of public comments filed at the FCC has swelled to nearly 4 million. As the comments show, consumers are concerned that without meaningful rules the Internet will become a place where broadband providers charge tolls to websites or applications for them to reach end users. This would represent a fundamental departure from the way in which consumers and entrepreneurs interact with the Internet. A two-tiered Internet based on ability to pay would harm the innovative and competitive environment we have all come to expect in the online world.

Like an overwhelming number of the public, I have grave concerns that a pay-to-play Internet would allow larger companies to squeeze out their competitors, stifling competition online. A small web company in Vermont that develops an idea to rival the largest Silicon Valley titans should not have to worry that its access to consumers could be blocked because its competitors have a paid arrangement with broadband providers. The next generation of Internet companies and retailers should have the same protections that allowed a company like the Vermont Country Store to become a thriving online success.

Pay-to-play arrangements would also harm consumers, who would not have the assurance that the service they are paying for will provide the speed that they want. Too many Americans currently lack real choice in broadband providers, particularly those in rural areas. A pay-to- play Internet could result in whole swaths of the Internet becoming functionally inaccessible to the customers of certain Internet providers. This is not the Internet we know today, and the FCC or Congress must act to ensure that it does not come to pass.

The Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act is straightforward. It requires the FCC to establish rules preventing providers from charging websites for priority access. It also requires rules to prevent providers from prioritizing their own affiliated content or services. These are simple rules to preserve the equal platform we know online today.

This legislation should not be used by opponents of meaningful open Internet rules to undermine the FCC's important work to craft open Internet rules that will protect consumers and innovators. To the contrary, this bill sets out important policy positions that the FCC should adopt in its current consideration of open Internet rules. The FCC should not hesitate to act at its February meeting to ban these deals outright.

The importance of an open Internet is an issue that resonates in homes and businesses across the country. I spent significant time last year listening to voices outside of Washington, particularly those of Vermonters, so that I could hear firsthand about the impact the Internet has had on small businesses and consumers. The Judiciary Committee held two hearings on this issue, including one in Vermont, where I heard exactly these kinds of stories. These are not people looking for a handout or special treatment--these are entrepreneurs and consumers who simply want the Internet to remain an equalizing tool regardless of where you live or how deep your pockets are.

There should be widespread agreement to prevent special deals that harm consumers and dampen online innovation. The FCC and Congress should rightly focus on this timely and significant issue to protect innovation and competition online.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, over the past few years we have seen remarkable progress in one of the defining civil rights issues of our era--ensuring that all lawfully married couples are treated equally under the law. In 2011, when I chaired the first Congressional hearing to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, only 5 States, including Vermont, recognized same-sex marriage. With today's lifting of Florida's unconstitutional same-sex marriage ban, couples in 36 States and the District of Columbia now have the freedom to marry. This is welcome progress, and I hope we will see similar advancements in even more States this year so that all Americans can marry the one they love.

Despite this tremendous progress, there is still more to be done to ensure that no person faces discrimination based on who they marry or wish to marry. As I said when the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, ``All couples who are lawfully married under state law, including in Vermont, should be entitled to the same Federal protections afforded to all other married couples.'' Court challenges will continue this year in the remaining States that do not recognize marriage equality. But in Congress, there are several steps we can take immediately to help ensure our Federal laws treat all marriages equally.

Surprisingly, the Copyright Act, which protects our Nation's diverse creative voices, still bears vestiges of discrimination. A provision in the Act grants rights to the surviving spouse of a copyright owner only if the marriage is recognized in the owner's State of residence at the time he or she dies. This means that a writer who lawfully marries his or her partner in Vermont or California is not a ``spouse'' under the Copyright Act if they move to Michigan, Georgia, or one of the other States that do not currently recognize their marriage.

Congress should close this discriminatory loophole to ensure our Federal statutes live up to our Nation's promise of equality under the law. As the Supreme Court recognized in striking down key portions of the Defense of Marriage Act, it is wrong for the Federal Government to deny benefits or privileges to couples who have lawfully wed.

Today I am reintroducing the Copyright and Marriage Equality Act in the Senate to correct this problem. The bill, which I introduced in the Senate last Congress and which a bipartisan group of lawmakers including Representatives Derek Kilmer, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Jared Polis plans to reintroduce in the House of Representatives soon, amends the Copyright Act to look simply at whether a couple is lawfully married--not where a married couple happens to live when the copyright owner dies. It will ensure that the rights attached to the works of our Nation's gay and lesbian authors, musicians, painters, photographers, and other creators pass to their widows and widowers. Artists are part of the creative lifeblood of our Nation, and our laws should protect their families equally.

When I introduced this bill last year, it failed to get the support of a single Republican in the Senate. I hope that in this Congress, Republicans will consider joining this effort to correct

these remnants of discrimination in our Federal laws. On the issue of marriage equality, the arc of history is at long last bending towards justice, so that all Americans one day will be free to marry the one they love. Statutes like the Copyright Act, or laws governing the Social Security Administration and Department of Veterans Affairs which also contain remnants of discrimination, are no place for inequality in our country. I urge the Senate to take up and pass this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, over the past few years we have seen remarkable progress in one of the defining civil rights issues of our era--ensuring that all lawfully married couples are treated equally under the law. In 2011, when I chaired the first Congressional hearing to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, only 5 States, including Vermont, recognized same-sex marriage. With today's lifting of Florida's unconstitutional same-sex marriage ban, couples in 36 States and the District of Columbia now have the freedom to marry. This is welcome progress, and I hope we will see similar advancements in even more States this year so that all Americans can marry the one they love.

Despite this tremendous progress, there is still more to be done to ensure that no person faces discrimination based on who they marry or wish to marry. As I said when the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, ``All couples who are lawfully married under state law, including in Vermont, should be entitled to the same Federal protections afforded to all other married couples.'' Court challenges will continue this year in the remaining States that do not recognize marriage equality. But in Congress, there are several steps we can take immediately to help ensure our Federal laws treat all marriages equally.

Surprisingly, the Copyright Act, which protects our Nation's diverse creative voices, still bears vestiges of discrimination. A provision in the Act grants rights to the surviving spouse of a copyright owner only if the marriage is recognized in the owner's State of residence at the time he or she dies. This means that a writer who lawfully marries his or her partner in Vermont or California is not a ``spouse'' under the Copyright Act if they move to Michigan, Georgia, or one of the other States that do not currently recognize their marriage.

Congress should close this discriminatory loophole to ensure our Federal statutes live up to our Nation's promise of equality under the law. As the Supreme Court recognized in striking down key portions of the Defense of Marriage Act, it is wrong for the Federal Government to deny benefits or privileges to couples who have lawfully wed.

Today I am reintroducing the Copyright and Marriage Equality Act in the Senate to correct this problem. The bill, which I introduced in the Senate last Congress and which a bipartisan group of lawmakers including Representatives Derek Kilmer, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Jared Polis plans to reintroduce in the House of Representatives soon, amends the Copyright Act to look simply at whether a couple is lawfully married--not where a married couple happens to live when the copyright owner dies. It will ensure that the rights attached to the works of our Nation's gay and lesbian authors, musicians, painters, photographers, and other creators pass to their widows and widowers. Artists are part of the creative lifeblood of our Nation, and our laws should protect their families equally.

When I introduced this bill last year, it failed to get the support of a single Republican in the Senate. I hope that in this Congress, Republicans will consider joining this effort to correct

these remnants of discrimination in our Federal laws. On the issue of marriage equality, the arc of history is at long last bending towards justice, so that all Americans one day will be free to marry the one they love. Statutes like the Copyright Act, or laws governing the Social Security Administration and Department of Veterans Affairs which also contain remnants of discrimination, are no place for inequality in our country. I urge the Senate to take up and pass this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, today, we will vote on the nomination of Ms. Sarah Saldana to serve as Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, where she will lead the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, office. Ms. Saldana has been considered and favorably reported by both the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee.

A native of South Texas, Ms. Saldana is the youngest of seven children. Inspired by her mother's emphasis on education, Ms. Saldana went to college and graduated from law school. She established a successful career as an attorney in private practice before becoming a Federal prosecutor. In 2011, with the support of her home State Senators from Texas, the Senate unanimously confirmed her as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Texas, and she became the first Latina U.S. attorney in the State's history. In this position, Ms. Saldana has earned a reputation as a tough but fair prosecutor. Throughout her career, she has demonstrated a firm and unequivocal commitment to enforcing the law, and she has pledged that she will maintain that commitment if confirmed to lead ICE.

At her hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee in September, Senator Cornyn introduced Ms. Saldana and vouched for her qualifications, stating: ``If respect for the rule of law is our standard . . . we would be hard-pressed to find a person more qualified to enforce the law than Ms. Saldana.'' I agree. Ms. Saldana has made clear that, if confirmed, she will ``faithfully execute all immigration laws, including those laws that [she] or the President disagree with.''

Some want to use Ms. Saldana's nomination as an opportunity to attack President Obama's Executive action on immigration, but that is not the issue we are considering today. There is no evidence that she was involved in either the House's refusal to allow a vote on the Senate- passed comprehensive immigration reform bill or the President's decision to take what steps he could in the wake of the House's refusal to act. The vote before us concerns Ms. Saldana's qualifications to lead ICE, and she has proved that she is more than capable of executing the duties of the position. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been without a Senate-confirmed leader for more than a year. If Senators want our immigration laws enforced, they should focus on filling this key leadership position.

There is no question that Sarah Saldana is qualified to lead the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office. I urge Senators to vote to confirm her to this important law enforcement position at the Department of Homeland Security without further delay.

Mr. President, today, the Senate is considering the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014, a House-passed bill that extends a limited and narrow set of expired tax credits and deductions, and includes the Achieving a Better Life Experience Act of 2014, ABLE Act. Once again, Congress has waited until the eleventh hour to address tax credits that expired nearly a year ago. Once again, this has resulted in needless confusion for families and businesses who have been unable to plan and unable to grow, given the uncertainty of the outcome of these credits. I heard from Vermonters over the last year concerned about the expiration of these credits--and the pending expiration of dozens of more tax credits that benefit hardworking, middle-class families. Congress has a responsibility to do its part to provide certainty within the Tax Code to ensure families in Vermont and across the country have the predictability they need to make financial decisions. While I support extending these tax credits, I cannot support an effort that once again simply kicks the can down the road and leaves for the next year the unfinished business of this Congress.

I am disappointed that, earlier this year, Republicans in the Senate squandered an opportunity to consider a more comprehensive package that would have benefited small businesses, researchers, the environment, and middle-class families. I have been deeply disappointed in the process, which has left us with a choice between bad: passing the House bill; and worse: not doing anything. This legislation revives more than 55 expired tax deductions from 2013, and while I agree these are important provisions, I cannot support this bill on principle. We cannot continue to retroactively fix problems Congress carelessly and irresponsibly creates, without addressing the same tax provisions that will expire in just a few short weeks from now, only to have the same fight next year. It is time we have a meaningful, full debate about tax reform, and how Congress can ensure that our Tax Code reflects the needs of all Americans, not just those who are the wealthiest among us.

Included in this patch bill is the important ABLE Act, which allows those with disabilities to plan for their futures by creating tax-free savings accounts. I have strongly supported this legislation, and continue to do so. This legislation creates opportunities for individuals with disabilities to save for college or retirement or other living expenses and opens doors for families across the country. The House of Representatives held two votes last week related to taxes: one on the extenders package, and one on the ABLE Act. If the Senate were allowed to do so, I would cast my vote in strong support of the ABLE Act.

I asked Vermonters to elect me as their representative in the Senate because I wanted carry their voices to the decision centers in Washington. I strongly believe in the best of what the Senate has been, should be, and can once again become. There are many Vermonters, and people across the country, who are counting on us to provide comprehensive, long-term solutions to our country's problems. I hope that in the new Congress we can work together instead of kicking the can down the road, yet again. We were elected to find solutions, not excuses.

Mr. President, it has been 10 months since the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions favorably reported the nomination of Dr. Vivek Murthy to serve as Surgeon General of the United States. While this seat sat vacant, our Nation has suffered through concerns and divergent information about the possibility of an Ebola outbreak and is on the cusp of what is predicted to be a difficult flu season. It is past time to move forward and confirm this nomination.

The Surgeon General is the Nation's chief medical officer and plays the role of chief medical information ``explainer'' for all Americans. There is a vast amount of information available about how to best take care of your health and the health of your family. The Surgeon General has the authority to distill the best research to present a clear message on effective disease prevention and health promotion. As the health policy advisor to the President and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Surgeon General plays an important role in proactively

addressing the many public health issues that face Americans. With an aging population and chronic diseases such as diabetes on the rise, this is a key position in the effort to improve the overall health and wellbeing of the American people.

Unfortunately, this nomination has been stalled for months due to comments Dr. Murthy made in the context of the school shootings in Newtown, CT. Dr. Murthy referred to gun violence as an ``important public health issue'' but also acknowledges that the causes of gun violence are ``complex and multi-faceted.'' He urges Congress ``to develop a comprehensive national plan to stop gun violence.''

While there is significant disagreement over firearm regulations in our country, we should all be able to agree that reducing gun violence, and the devastating effects it can have on our communities, is a priority. Many doctors' groups treat gun violence as a public health concern and believe it is a relevant and important issue to discuss with patients. Dr. Murthy testified in his confirmation hearing before the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that he does ``not intend to use the Surgeon General's Office as a bully pulpit for gun control. That is not going to be my priority.''

Dr. Murthy further explained that his ``concerns with regards to issues like gun violence have to do with my experience as a physician, seeing patients in emergency rooms who have come in with acute injuries; but also seeing many patients over the years who are dealing with spinal cord injuries, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other chronic complications from gun violence.''

I am a gun owner myself, and I and have enormous respect and appreciation for the freedoms the Second Amendment protects. However, I do not believe that gun violence, and the injuries and fatalities that result from it, is a problem we can simply ignore. On average, more than 100,000 people are shot every year in the United States. From 2000 to 2010, more than 335,000 people were killed by guns in the United States. This is an issue about which we must be able to have an honest discussion.

Dr. Murthy's impressive background as both a hospitalist attending physician and instructor in medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital at Harvard Medical School, and his background as the founder and president of Doctors for America make him well qualified to serve as our Nation's Surgeon General. I hope his nomination is confirmed today.

Madam President, on first glance, one might not think that Michigan and Vermont share much in common. But to delve deeper is to see that both States have deep roots in their rural populations, strong agricultural bases, and stunning natural landscapes. Senator Carl Levin has represented the people of Michigan in the U.S. Senate since 1979. He is one of this Chamber's most senior Members and one of the longest serving Senators in history. He has cast more than 12,500 votes on behalf of his constituents.

Senator Levin has worked to ensure that the lakes of Michigan will be clean and safe for generations of Michigan residents to come. He has sponsored legislation to protect and restore the Great Lakes and their abundant wildlife habitats and secured millions to bring Michigan's lakes back to their natural pristine glory, and he has supported the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, which has supported the Great Lakes, Lake Champlain, and international waterways.

As chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin has been a powerful force in crafting our Nation's defense policy, particularly in the post-9/11 era. The battlefield has been vast, and his support of our troops has never wavered. He has consistently worked to ensure that the brave men and women serving in uniform have the support they need to keep our Nation and our allies safe. He and I shared reservations about launching a war in Iraq, reservations that have proven sound.

I was particularly moved by Senator Levin's strong support--and steadfast leadership--in advancing the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act. That measure ultimately became law in 2009, in large part to Senator Levin's commitment to ensuring its inclusion in the National Defense Authorization Act. This Federal hate crimes law took years to achieve. At a time when it may have been easier to push a final vote down the road, Senator Levin worked with me to ensure that it was considered by the Senate and then upheld through a conference committee. This alone would be a remarkable achievement, but Senator Levin's Senate career boasts many achievements.

I have also been honored to work with Senator Levin to reaffirm our Nation's commitments to those citizens of the world who, persecuted, oppressed and stateless, look to our country for protection. He has been a voice on behalf of displaced Iraqis and Syrians, and a dependable cosponsor of my Refugee Protection Act.

From protecting America's waters to crafting America's actions abroad, Senator Levin has been a powerful and invaluable presence in the Senate. He heads now into retirement, where I know he and Barbara will enjoy spending time with their three wonderful daughters and beautiful grandchildren. Marcelle and I wish him and Barbara the very best in this new chapter. I will miss him.

Tom Harkin

Madam President, Senator Tom Harkin and I came to Washington in the same year--Tom, to the House of Representatives, and I, to the Senate. For nearly 40 years, he has represented Iowans with the even temper and strong commitment that has become a hallmark of his tenure.

Senator Harkin has been a leading defender of rights for persons with disabilities, anchored by the landmark law he authored, the Americans with Disabilities Act. Inspired by the challenges faced by his own deaf brother, Harkin led a crusade to enact this historic legislation, ensuring that individuals living with disabilities could not be discriminated against because of those disabilities. The ongoing effort to protect and support Americans--and people around the world--living with disabilities, has become a cornerstone of Senator Harkin's career.

As chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, HELP, Senator Harkin has helped create a new model of health care, one focused on prevention and health rather than reaction and sickness. He was one of the leaders in crafting the Affordable Care Act, giving millions of Americans better access to health care. He has continually fought for the missions of and the funding for the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.

I have worked with Senator Harkin on a number of matters, from international human rights to critical funding for breast cancer research. Senator Harkin and I have worked together in our shared commitment to America's farmers and farming, an industry that it so critical to both our States. Together we have worked to increase conservation funding, promote water quality, and protect the environment while supporting our family farmers.

Tom Harkin is a lifelong Iowan. He and his wife Ruth have given decades in public service representing the people of Iowa. I want to congratulate him on an accomplished career and wish him, Ruth, their wonderful children and grandchild all the very best.

Jay Rockefeller

Madam President, for nearly 30 years, West Virginians have elected Jay Rockefeller to represent them in the U.S. Senate. When he retires in January, he will leave a record of tireless service on behalf of West Virginians and all Americans.

Senator Rockefeller ranks among the champions of affordable health care. He coauthored the Child Health Insurance Program, CHIP, a program I have also been proud to support, which provides health care coverage to more than 6 million children each year, who would otherwise be uninsured. A former chair of the Veterans Affairs Committee, he authored legislation to improve care for our Nation's heroes. He was instrumental in the creation of a commission on long-term care to look for solutions to a lack of essential long-term medical support for millions of Americans. With Ted Kennedy, he led the charge for health care reform in the Senate in the 1990s. The list of achievements goes on.

For nearly 50 years, Senator Rockefeller has served the people of West Virginia as a State representative, a secretary of state, a college president, a Governor, and, for the last 30 years, as a U.S. Senator. He is a dear and valued friend. I wish Jay and his wife Sharon the very best as he retires from the Senate.

Tim Johnson

Madam President, the senior Senator from South Dakota, Tim Johnson, is as fine a public servant as I have known. These are words I have used before about Senator Johnson. As he approaches his retirement from the Senate, they are as true now as ever before.

Senator Johnson embodies the traits of a dedicated public servant. He represents South Dakotans with every fiber of his being. He is the great-grandson of a homesteader who settled in South Dakota when it was still a territory. And he has never lost sight of the interests of the constituents he has served in Congress for more than 25 years. Never one to rest on the job, he introduced more legislation in his freshman term than any of the almost 60 new Members of Congress that term.

Vermont and South Dakota share similar rural challenges, and in Senator Johnson, I have found a partner in such efforts as protecting rural schools and giving them a voice in national competitions like Race to the Top. He and I share a strong commitment to supporting small family farms, an effort he has been recognized for by the National Farmers Union and others. Through the Appropriations Committee, Senator Johnson has been a stalwart defender of our Nation's veterans, and through his chairmanship of the banking committee, he has fought for middle-class families with steadfast diligence.

Senator Johnson has faced no shortage of challenges in his life. But with his wife Barbara by his side, he has met all of these challenges with determination and with grace, and he remains a fierce defender of South Dakota and a friend. As he retires from the Senate, I wish him, Barbara, his children and grandchildren and his entire family all of our best wishes.

Mary Landrieu

Madam President, for nearly 20 years, Louisianans have had no greater advocate, and no stronger voice, than that of Mary Landrieu. She has been a crusader for her State, and even today continues to fight to build on Louisiana's recovery from the devastating storms of 2005 that wreaked havoc across Louisiana and throughout the city of New Orleans.

It was in 2005 that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita ravaged the gulf coast, devastating New Orleans. Then in 2010 the Deepwater Horizon oilspill sent millions of barrels of oil into the gulf, coating Louisiana's beaches and wildlife. During these terrible times Louisiana could have had no better advocate than Senator Landrieu. After Katrina, Senator Landrieu secured more than $120 billion in recovery money to help restore New Orleans and Louisiana's coast. After the Deepwater Horizon spill, Senator Landrieu worked tirelessly with both Democratic and Republican colleagues to move the RESTORE the Gulf Coast Act through the Senate. Her leadership secured essential reparations from British Petroleum to restore the battered gulf coast.

In 2009, Senator Landrieu and former Senator Olympia Snowe made history as the first two female lawmakers to lead a full congressional committee--the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship--as chair and ranking member. Senator Landrieu is also the first female Senator to chair the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

She has been an active member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and I have appreciated her willingness to work with me on so many issues in her capacity as the chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee. When Vermont was devastated by Hurricane Irene, Senator Landrieu was a key ally in helping me secure needed resources to help rebuild roads, bridges, businesses, and communities in Vermont. I thank her for that, Vermonters thank her, and I will never forget her invaluable work and support.

Louisiana has been well represented by Senator Landrieu. She has been a steadfast and stalwart defender of her State's priorities and needs. I wish her, her husband Frank, and their entire family the very best.

Mark Pryor

Madam President, since 2002, Senator Mark Pryor has been a dedicated representative in the U.S. Senate for the people of Arkansas. Throughout his career he has carried on a strong family tradition of service. I worked alongside his father, Senator David Pryor, for nearly 20 years. Both father and son are two of the finest public servants I have known. Their conscientiousness and their decency are but two of the many distinguishing features of their work in this body.

Throughout his tenure here, Mark Pryor has been a fierce defender of and advocate for rural communities, a commitment both he and I share. He has promoted expansion of rural broadband infrastructure to ensure that families, farmers, businesses, and students in even the most rural communities in Arkansas, in Vermont, and across the Nation have access to the World Wide Web. As the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, he has been a partner of mine in working to ensure that farms small and large have the resources and support to maintain and contribute to the rich agricultural history of the Nation. We have also worked together to advance key conservation programs to help protect farmlands across the country.

I have also greatly admired Senator Pryor's commitment to the National Guard. As cochair of the Senate National Guard caucus I have seen how active and effective he has been as a caucus member and as a valued ally in our bipartisan efforts to protect, defend, and bolster resources for the men and women of the National Guard.

In the day-to-day work of the Senate, I will miss Senator Pryor's insight, his evenhandedness, and his friendship. He has been a passionate voice in the Senate for the people of Arkansas. I wish him and the entire Pryor family all best wishes in the years ahead.

Mark Udall

Madam President, for nearly 20 years in Congress, Mark Udall has represented the people of Colorado with commitment and courage. He is a dedicated public servant, whose drive and responsibility to the people of Colorado will not wane with his retirement.

An experienced mountaineer and proud environmentalist, Senator Udall has spent weekends exploring and enjoying the great outdoors, and his weekdays protecting them. He has authored legislation to create wildlife refuges and preserve wilderness in Colorado. He is also a leader in renewable energy, helping his home State adopt a renewable electricity standard and working to bring a similar innovation to the national stage.

Senator Udall has worked hard to bridge the partisan divide during a period of unprecedented polarization. Many of the bills he has authored have enjoyed wide bipartisan support, including proposals to reauthorize NASA and to protect public lands. He was one of the Senate's newest Members when he successfully called on Republicans and Democrats to sit together in a show of national unity at the 2011 State of the Union, following the tragic shootings in Tucson, AZ.

Senator Udall has been a tireless advocate for the protection of civil liberties. His work on the Senate Intelligence Committee has been focused on protecting the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans, a commitment that I strongly share. His departure will be a loss to the work of the Intelligence Committee.

Mark Udall comes from a family with an uncommon history of public service. Though Senator Udall is retiring from the Senate, I know this service will continue. I wish him, his wife Maggie, their children and their entire family all best wishes as they begin their next chapter.

Kay Hagan

Madam President, back when I was in law school, I tried to get an internship here on Capitol Hill, with no luck. Senator Kay Hagan has a different story. She first walked these Halls as an intern in the 1970s.

Her tenure here in the Senate has been too short, but she has represented her constituents in North Carolina with vigor and dedication. She has been a tireless advocate for women and children and was a key ally in my efforts to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act in 2013. I have long felt that she has placed conscience above politics. She has shown a willingness to take tough votes on difficult issues, from LGBT rights to gun safety.

Senator Hagan comes from a strong military family. North Carolina has one of the highest per capita enlistment rates in the country, and Senator Hagan has understood that behind every officer, behind every enlisted member of the military, is a family that needs our appreciation and support. She was an active partner in our efforts to strengthen the National Guard, and she authored such important legislative initiatives as the Hire a Hero Act.

After decades of public service, I know that North Carolina can expect more service from Senator Hagan. I wish her, her husband Chip and their wonderful daughters the best.

Mark Begich

Madam President, Senator Mark Begich comes from a long line of public servants. In his 6 years in the U.S. Senate, he has been a strong advocate for the people of Alaska. Senator Begich has worked tirelessly to promote Alaska's economy and business. During his

Senate tenure, he has been a partner on such issues as voter protection, the USA PATRIOT Act and FISA reform, and empowering the National Guard.

Alaska has more veterans per capita than any other State. As a member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Senator Begich has fought to improve veterans access to care, increase funding for the VA, and for research to better understand mental illnesses such as post- traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, and traumatic brain injury, TBI. These are priorities I share as well. He has also worked through the commerce committee to ensure that Alaska's many fisheries and their booming industry remain sustainable. His commitment to his constituents similarly extended to his work on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, where he fought to protect native voters from discrimination and to ensure that laws reflect and respect their needs and traditions.

I have appreciated the opportunity to work with Senator Begich on some of the unique challenges that face rural states like Vermont and Alaska. Senator Begich has consistently worked to improve rural schools through legislation such as his Investing in Innovation for Education Act, which I was pleased to cosponsor and which would have given 25 percent of its grants to rural schools. Senator Begich has supported legislation to facilitate rural Alaskans' access to quality health care. And he has supported measures to address the high heating costs facing our northern constituents.

He is a man with an unfailing optimistic outlook on life. I wish Senator Begich, his wife Deborah, their young son Jacob, and his entire family best wishes.

John Walsh

Madam President, Senator John Walsh has served but a brief time in the Senate, but he came to this body with a long history of public service. A decorated veteran, he enlisted in the Montana National Guard in 1979, and he rose through the ranks, ultimately being selected as Montana's adjutant general. He is the first veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to serve as a Senator, and during his tour of duty, he earned the Bronze Star, the Legion of Merit, and the combat infantry badge.

As a Senator, John Walsh has been a strong advocate of mental health care for veterans, preserving native languages, and bringing outsourced jobs back to the United States. As cochair of the Senate National Guard Caucus, I recognize and greatly appreciate his deep understanding and strong support for the Guard, its needs, and its future.

I wish him, his wife Janet, and their children and grandchild all the best in the next chapter of their lives.

Saxby Chambliss

Madam President, in Senator Saxby Chambliss, Georgians have had a diligent voice in Congress for nearly 20 years. We may not always agree, but I have appreciated his willingness to cross the aisle on such important issues as budget priorities and agriculture policy.

Senator Chambliss is the former chairman and ranking member of the Senate agriculture committee. In his time in Congress, Senator Chambliss has participated in enactment of four bipartisan omnibus agriculture bills, the most recent of which is the 2014 farm bill. He played an important role in reforming the Crop Insurance Program and has been an advocate for supporting the Nation's agricultural sector. I have particularly appreciated his support for critical conservation and forestry programs.

Senator Chambliss was recognized as a key legislator in the 2011 discussions surrounding deficit reduction. He has been an active member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a strong supporter of the National Guard. Through his tenure, he has been a steadfast representative for the people of Georgia, and one prominent publication in the State gave him the title ``Georgian of the Year'' in 2009.

Senator Chambliss will retire at the end of this Congress, and I wish him, his wife Julianne, their children, and grandchild all the very best.

Tom Coburn

Madam President, while several Members of this Senate class will be retiring this year at the end of their terms, another Senator will also be taking his leave of this Chamber, in the midst of his current term. For a decade, Senator Tom Coburn has represented his constituents in Oklahoma with steadfast dedication and perseverance. He and I have not always agreed, but I have always respected and admired his commitment to his principles.

Senator Coburn has built a record and reputation as a fiscal hawk, reminiscent in some ways of the role that the late Senator Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio assumed for many years in the Senate. Senator Coburn can be a tough bargainer, and sometimes he has chosen not to seek or accept compromise at all. But he also has shown the ability to work across the aisle, whether on reducing government spending or promoting transparency in government. In the first Congress in which he served in the Senate, he partnered with then-Senator Barack Obama and others to author the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, which established a public, online database detailing Federal spending. For many years he served as an active member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where we worked together on such policy issues as patent reform, copyright protections, and support for law enforcement.

Senator Coburn is a longtime public servant for the State of Oklahoma. Members retire from Congress for a host of reasons, and I know Senator Coburn's retirement has been hastened. He has left his mark on this institution, and I wish him, his wife Carolyn, their three daughters and their grandchildren good health and all the best in Tom Coburn's retirement from the Senate.

Mike Johanns

Madam President, it is not uncommon for Senators to leave this Chamber to serve in Cabinet positions. Senator Mike Johanns, however, brought that executive branch experience with him when he was elected by the people of Nebraska to represent them in the Senate. A former mayor, Governor, and U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Senator Johanns has served at every level of government.

While we have often supported competing proposals, we have found important and meaningful places to work together. Senator Johanns joined me in coauthoring legislation to improve the Food for Peace program, helping to feed an additional 200,000 people in dire need. Serving on the agriculture committee together, we are both committed to farming, family farming, and supporting our Nation's agriculture sectors and the people and communities that are part and parcel of farming and food production in America. Senator Johanns has also been an important advocate for veterans, working on programs to help returning soldiers find civilian employment.

I wish Senator Johanns, his wife Stephanie, and their family the very best in this next chapter of their lives.

Mr. President, I commend the distinguished senior Senator from Connecticut. I realize when presiding he cannot respond. But I just want to say what a pleasure it is, as a fellow New Englander, to serve with him in the Senate. Sometimes you feel like you are on a graveyard shift on a Friday night presiding over the Senate. But I must tell him, after decades here, it is extremely important. To have someone of his integrity, his ability, his competence, and his experience presiding over the Senate should make every Senator, both Republican and Democratic, proud.

After late night theatrics in the House yesterday, I hope the Senate will soon vote on the fiscal year 2015 omnibus appropriations bill. I support this comprehensive spending package.

Chairwoman Mikulski has done an outstanding job. She has been a giant of the appropriations process. She should be congratulated for her perseverance in getting us to this point.

I spoke yesterday about the funds included in the bill for the State Department and foreign operations. I commended members of my staff, Senator Graham's staff, and the editorial and printing staff who worked so hard on that.

We included important funding for the environment, for AIDS prevention and treatment, for United Nations peacekeeping, and for emergency funding for Ebola. This bill protects U.S. security, humanitarian, and economic interests around the world.

But it also funds many of the domestic priorities that face budget cuts, that the people of our States depend upon, from law enforcement to transportation, health care, and protecting our national parks. This Congress and a past Congress, in what I believe was a terrible mistake, voted to spend $1 to $2 trillion for the war in Iraq that we should never have been involved in. As a result, we did not have the funds for our police, health care, national parks, or to fix our decaying bridges and roads in America.

I think most Americans think we should take care of those things. This omnibus spending bill does that. It includes critical investments in our rivers and lakes, including an increase in funding for one very near and dear to my heart--Lake Champlain. That is done through the EPA's geographic program.

Lake Champlain is a great treasure to this country. It is the largest body of fresh water outside of the Great Lakes. It borders Vermont, New York, and Canada in the Province of Quebec. Some parts of it are hundreds of feet deep. It is special to me as a Vermonter, and because my wife Marcelle and I first met on the shores of Lake Champlain.

I want to thank Senator Jack Reed, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, for his assistance in protecting the funding for all of the geographic programs receiving funding in this bill--not just Lake Champlain but all of them.

We fund critical investments that address the heroin crisis. Some may think of rural States as being some kind of an enclave that are immune from what happens in the rest of the country. Well, those of us who live in rural America know differently. The heroin crisis has had a devastating impact on communities in small, rural States like Vermont.

It does not make any difference if they are a red State or blue State; they have been hurt. With Senator Mikulski's support, I was pleased to include funding for anti-heroin task forces, to provide Federal assistance to law enforcement efforts to investigate and combat the distribution of heroin. Ensuring our local agencies have the tools they need is just one portion of our effort to deal with this crisis.

But it is also unacceptable that Americans face a waiting list when seeking help to recover from their addictions. This legislation provides crucial funding to expand treatment services for those with heroin dependence.

The omnibus makes important investments in our students by providing funding to increase access to a college education through the Pell Grant Program. It increases funding for the TRIO Program, which helps low-income first-generation students get a college education. They are the future of this country.

The bill provides $30.3 billion for the National Institutes of Health--that is a treasure in this country--and funding for the development of a vaccine against Ebola. Can anyone be against that?

It raises the cap in the Crime Victims Fund to a historic $2.3 billion. It means more money for victims assistance grants at the State and local levels. This is a program I have supported from my early days in the Senate. I compliment the Presiding Officer who always also voted, in the Judiciary Committee, to help victims of crimes. Like me, he knows from his own past experience as a prosecutor that we have money to go after those who break the law, but we also have to help the people who are the victims of crime.

The compromise package invests in housing for veterans and seniors. It supports grants to help schools purchase critical equipment for their school lunch programs. It provides funding for a new food safety outreach program, helping the Food and Drug Administration work with farmers and small businesses to understand complex new food safety laws.

The bill protects our Nation's forests through a strong investment in the Forest Legacy Program. Coming from a State that values its forests I know how important this is. The list goes on.

So obviously, as I have praised the chair of the committee, Senator Mikulski and what she has done, I do intend to support this appropriations bill. She knows that I am disappointed with some last- minute negotiations that forced the inclusion of several controversial riders. It would have been a lot worse if she had not stood her ground. They had nothing to do with funding the operations of the Federal Government. She knew those provisions forced us into a choice between shutting down the government or enacting this omnibus bill.

There is no doubt Congress has to do something to address vulnerable pension plans. We all agree on that. The 11th-hour provision that we were forced to accept by the Republicans in the House of Representatives to reduce hard-earned benefits for retirees is shameful. For decades these retirees have worked hard. They have contributed to pension plans. They assumed those benefits would be there when they needed them the most.

Now the game is being changed. I cannot help but wonder how the Republicans in the House who are responsible for this provision would react if it affected their pensions?

This legislation includes a particularly offensive rider that rolls back an important provision of the Dodd-Frank Act that protects taxpayers from another Wall Street bailout.

We know that elections have consequences. I worry this is the start of a pattern we can expect to see over the next 2 years of protecting the rich on Wall Street at the expense of hard-working Americans on Main Street. Frankly, like Senator Mikulski, I stand with the hard- working people on Main Street. They are the people I feel comfortable with. Those are the people I know. When I walk down the streets of Montpelier or Burlington or Brattleboro, those are the people who call me by my first name. Those are the people paying the bills. Those are the people representing businesses like the one my mother and father ran, the Leahy Press.

I am also dismayed that this spending package includes another body blow to what little remains of campaign finance law. By increasing the amount of money wealthy donors can contribute to political parties, we further roll back long-held campaign finance limitations that protected the voice of every voter at the ballot box--not just those who paid to have their voices heard.

It is unfortunate that pressure groups and special interests prevailed in making this happen. It is also unfortunate that when we had a chance in this Senate to do something, to restore part of what has been called McCain-Feingold, after Citizens United, we failed by one vote. Every Democrat in this Senate voted to restore many of the provisions of McCain-Feingold. Every single Republican voted to gut McCain-Feingold. It was gutted by a one-vote margin.

Finally, while I am pleased this omnibus bill will fund most of our government through fiscal year 2015, I am disappointed that programs and agencies funded through the Department of Homeland Security will only be funded through February 2015. Yet, for months--for nearly 18 months--House Republican leaders refused to bring to a vote the bipartisan Senate-passed immigration reform bill.

We had hundreds of hours of markups, hearings, and a debate on this floor. Two-thirds of Senate Republicans and Democrats joined together to pass the immigration bill that came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is political hypocrisy on the other side when they say: Oh, look what President Obama is doing on immigration. We have to stop him. They had the chance to pass a bill that would have trumped whatever the President might do. They refused to even vote on it because they were afraid that it would pass.

They wanted to talk about it. They wanted to talk about immigration. They want to talk about what they wanted to do, but they never wanted to vote one way or the other. We stood up here in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans together, and we passed an immigration bill. They refused to even vote on it so they could talk about what is wrong with immigration. It is political hypocrisy at its worst. The bill would have passed, and we would not be where we are today.

No bill is perfect, especially one of this size. There are certainly provisions in here that I wish were not, as I have said. But this bill moves us away

from governing by autopilot and takes off the table the threat in 1, 2 or 3 months of yet another government shutdown. If we fail to pass this bill, under Republican majorities in the House and Senate next year it will only get worse.

Senator Mikulski and Chairman Rogers in the House have kept us from a government shutdown. It is easy to criticize, but waiting until next year is not an option. This bill provides essential funding for this country, for programs the American people depend on. And I would say from a parochial point of view, it will do a great deal to help Vermont.

Any Senator opposing this bill because of the riders it includes should remember that a continuing resolution or omnibus spending bill next year will contain many more, and some far worse.

Chairwoman Mikulski has done a heroic job in getting us to this point. I hope we can do as well next year.

I know Senator Cochran of Mississippi, one of the closest friends I have had in this body since coming to the Senate, and the incoming Appropriations Committee chairman, agrees that we should return to the regular order of debating and passing individual appropriations bill.

We will be well off with Senator Cochran and Senator Mikulski. These are the people who know the difference between rhetoric and reality. They are legislators. They believe in solving problems. The American people do too. They are tired of partisanship, drama, and the harmful consequences of shutting down the government.

Is this bill everything I wanted? No. Is it everything the chairwoman would like? No. Is it everything that any one of us would like? No. But it is a lot better than shutting down the government, or leaving it to the next Congress. I will support it.

I yield the floor.

I thank my dear friend from Maryland.

Madam President, I am deeply disappointed that last night the House failed to pass the FOIA Improvement Act. This bipartisan bill was reported unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee last month, and it was the product of months of hard work by Senator Cornyn and me. Our bill is supported by more than 70 public interest groups that advocate for government transparency, and it passed out of the Senate unanimously. I would think that Members of the House Republican leadership, who have spent so much time on oversight of the Obama administration, would support the goal of making government more accountable and transparent, but instead of supporting this bill, they have chosen secrecy over sunlight.

The FOIA Improvement Act would codify what the President laid out in his historic Executive order in 2009 by requiring Federal agencies to adopt a ``presumption of openness'' when considering the release of government information under FOIA. This bill would require agencies to find a foreseeable harm if they want to withhold information from the public. Prioritizing the people's interest in what their government is doing, our bill will reduce the overuse of exemptions to withhold information. Federal agencies have been required to apply this standard since 2009. They also used this same standard during President Clinton's terms in office. It was only during President George W. Bush's term of secrecy that this standard was rolled back. It appears the House leadership wants to return to that era. It should not matter who is in the White House, information about what their government is doing belongs to the people.

In a political climate as divided as this, I had hoped that we could come together in favor of something as fundamental to our democracy as the public's right to know, that government transparency and openness would not just be the standard applied to the Obama administration but what is applied to every future administration. The FOIA Improvement Act would have done just that.

Madam President, I want to take a moment to share with the Senate one successful story coming out of Vermont.

In this digital age, our children have the opportunity to communicate, to collaborate, and to connect at all times over their cell phones, tablets, social media pages and blogs. But with this limitless connectivity also comes a responsibility to make use of these technologies maturely and respectfully. In Vermont, students and their school community have boldly fought back against cyber bullying. I want to praise their efforts and call the Senate's attention to their achievement.

Cyber bullying has become one of the most troubling threats to the safety and security of our children in this time of unprecedented digital access. Last week, students at Rutland High School were targeted online, as negative posts on an anonymous school news app were discovered. Together, students and school leaders gathered to address this negativity and to recommit themselves to building a more positive school environment. These students organized a ``Positive Post-It'' event to change the climate and then called on one another to delete the application.

Rutland High students went further still and banded together to issue a petition to persuade Apple to take down the app so that other students would not be victimized by anonymous posts. After the gathering, Rutland High School principal Bill Olsen said on Monday ``kids left school on that day feeling very good about how they could help each other overcome such adversity.'' Governor Peter Shumlin has also touted their accomplishment.

According to the 2013 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey, more than 15 percent of high school students were electronically bullied in the past year. Rutland High School has gained international attention, as a wonderful example of how students have acted bravely to stand up against this trend and to hold one another accountable for a safe school space. Other States are following this trend as well. In Michigan, school leaders have also recently spoken out against the use of apps that promote anonymous, negative online behavior. The petition to remove the app has been successful, and Apple has since removed it from its online store.

The leadership that these students have displayed is admirable, heroic, and an example to others. In recognition of their efforts, I ask unanimous consent to have an article from The Rutland Herald printed in the Record.