Floor Statements

Mr. President, my daughter Alicia works for the Motion Picture Association of America and sent me a report from the Wall Street Journal written by Robert Iger.

My wife Marcelle and I, as well as Alicia, have been to Mr. Iger's home and spent time with him, his highly talented wife Willow Bay, and their children. We have all been impressed with the enthusiasm and direction he brings to the Walt Disney Company, and some of my most interesting times have been with him talking about it.

Mr. President, I wanted to share with others his report, and I ask consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall not, of course, because as I told the press in Vermont last week, I had the privilege of serving with more than 10 leaders in both parties since I have been here, and it is impossible to find a finer leader than Howard Baker. I considered him to be a Senator's Senator and one of the finest people I have ever served with. So of course I will wait.

I would ask to amend the unanimous consent request so that following the remarks of the Republican leader and the two Senators from Tennessee I then be recognized for my remarks.

I have been moved by the comments from the Senators regarding Senator Baker. The story the senior Senator from Tennessee told about the lightbulbs is--those of us who knew Senator Baker could well understand that. He was a man who brought Senators together--both parties.

I will tell two very quick stories. One is referencing a leadership race won by one vote. He had called a good friend of his, who was at home on official business, and said: I know the press says I am going to lose this race, but I know you are voting for me. Can you come back and vote?

That Senator did. The Senator was the then-senior Senator from Vermont, Robert Stafford, and he flew back to get to the caucus to vote for his friend Howard Baker--the first one by one vote; all the rest by acclamation. I know this because both Senator Stafford and Howard Baker told me that story. They were also two of the finest Senators with whom I have ever served. Both tried to work things out.

My other story is we were going to be in session until midnight one night on a technically contested matter.

Senator Ted Stevens and I and a few others went to see Howard Baker, who was the majority leader. We talked about the issue that was divisive. We said: We think we have a solution. We have all been talking. We can work it out but it is going to take some time for the drafting. Could you recess and not stay until midnight when all it is going to do is exacerbate tempers? Come back in the morning and we will have it all worked out, and we will get this done.

Senator Baker knew that we were all Senators in both parties who kept our word. He said: ``Of course.'' So we recessed. Now, as the Senator from Tennessee knows, we have cloakrooms here in the back of this Chamber. We all--if we have late-night votes, most of us hang around the cloakroom between votes. At that time they had beautiful stained glass windows in the alcoves.

We recessed and went home. An hour or so after we went home a bomb went off out here in the corridor. When we came in the next morning, this place looked like a war zone. Shards of glass from those windows in both cloakrooms were embedded in the walls. The door to where the distinguished Republican deputy leader has his office now was blown in, the stained window above of it was ruined. Paintings out here were shredded, and some of the marble busts of former vice presidents were damaged. You could smell the gunpowder of the explosive when we came to work.

I mention this because his form of leadership was that if we could get together and work things out, he preferred we do that. He would encourage it--both Republicans and Democrats. Then because he could rely on those of us--again both Republicans and Democrats--who would keep our word, he agreed to that. We knew he would keep his word.

I wonder how many lives of Senators were saved that night because of that. How many would have been terribly injured. Of course our staffs who work often long after we have gone--how many people could have been harmed if it had not been for the fact that the Senate was a different place, and I believe a better place.

But I say this not so much to tell historical stories, but I say this out of my great respect for Howard Baker. Somebody calculated the other day that I

have served with 18 percent of all of the Senators since the beginning of this country. If I put my tiny handful of the best, Howard Baker is in there, hands down--a wonderful, wonderful man. He was a Senator's Senator. He believed in the Senate. He believed what a privilege it was to serve here.

He believed that the Senate could be the conscience of the Nation. I appreciate the tribute that was paid by my dear friend, the senior Senator from Tennessee, who I knew as Governor and as Cabinet member. We have always had a good personal relationship. I listened to his tales of Howard Baker. His colleague from Tennessee painted quite a picture of him. I thank them for doing that. I thank them for adding to the history of the Senate by doing it.

Order of Procedure

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois be recognized once I yield the floor.

Everyone knows the old adage that a picture is worth 1,000 words. I have been an avid photographer since I was a child. I have a strong sense of that. So I thought I would provide a few examples today, because sometimes words are not enough.

I have often spoken about the horrific toll on civilians from landmines. These tiny explosives, about the size of a hockey puck or a can of soup, can kill a child or blow the legs and arms off an adult. They are triggered by the victim. In other words, unlike a gun that a soldier aims and fires or a bomb that is dropped and explodes on a target, landmines sit there and wait for their victims.

It could be hours or days or weeks, even years. But however long it is after they are scattered and hidden beneath a layer of sand or dirt, they explode when an unsuspecting person, whether a combatant or an innocent civilian, steps on it or triggers it with a plow or a wheelbarrow or a bicycle. That person's life is changed forever.

In many countries where there are few doctors, landmine victims bleed to death. Those who survive with a leg or both legs gone are the lucky ones. This girl is an example of who I am talking about. We do not know her nationality, but the picture tells a lot. She is learning to walk on artificial legs. Her life has been made immeasurably harder because of a landmine that probably cost less than $2. I have a granddaughter not much older than her.

Each of these photographs tell a similar story. None of these people were combatants. Each are facing lives of pain, and sometimes in their communities stigmatization because of weapons that are designed to be indiscriminate.

The Leahy War Victims Fund has helped some of them, as this photograph taken in Vietnam shows. My wife Marcelle and I have seen the difference the Fund has made, but I wish there were no need for it because there would be no landmines.

Over the years, as people around the world became aware of the landmine problem, they took action. The Senate was the first legislative body in the world to ban exports of antipersonnel landmines. I am proud of writing that amendment. Other countries soon followed our example.

And there were others, especially Canada's former Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. Thanks to them an international treaty outlawing the weapons has been joined by 161 countries. I regret that the United States, of all the NATO countries, is the only one that has not joined, even though the U.S. military has not used antipersonnel mines for 22 years, despite two long wars.

On June 27, though, the Obama administration finally took a step--it is an incremental step, but it is a significant one--to put the United States on a path to join the treaty. Although the United States has not produced or purchased antipersonnel mines since the 1990s, the White House announced that as a matter of official policy that it will no longer produce or otherwise acquire antipersonnel mines, nor will the Pentagon replenish its stockpile of mines as they become obsolete.

Our closest allies and many others around the world welcomed this step, even though it falls far short of what supporters of the treaty have called for.

But one senior Member of the House of Representatives immediately accused President Obama of ignoring U.S. military commanders, some of whom have defended the use of landmines, just as the military defended poison gas a century ago when nations acted to ban it.

This Member of the House said: The President ``owes our military an explanation for ignoring their advice'', and he went on to say that this decision represents an ``expensive solution in search of a nonexistent problem.''

A Member of our body, the Senate, called the announcement a ``brazen attempt by the President to circumvent the constitutional responsibility of the Senate to provide advice and consent to international treaties that bind the United States.''

These are strong words. They make great sound bites for the press. But the truth lies elsewhere.

Over the years, the White House has consulted closely with the Pentagon, including about this decision. The policy just announced simply makes official what has been an informal fact for at least 17 years through three Presidential administrations.

It also ignores the fact that the United States has neither joined the treaty nor has the President sent it to the Senate for ratification, so the President has obviously not circumvented the Senate's advice and consent role.

And it ignores that every one of our NATO allies and most of our coalition partners have renounced antipersonnel mines, as have dozens of countries that could never dream of having a powerful, modern army as we do--countries that look to the United States, the most powerful Nation on Earth, but they got rid of their landmines.

The naysayers' argument is simple. It goes like this: The United States is no longer causing the misery captured in these photographs, so why should we join the treaty? Does that mean they also oppose the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, such as the crippled people in this photograph? Do they oppose the Chemical Weapons Treaty, and every other treaty dealing with international relations that the United States has joined since the time of George Washington?

Does the fact that we are not causing a problem, that we do not use landmines or chemical weapons, absolve us from having a responsibility to be part of an international treaty to stop it? Of course not. The world looks to the United States for leadership.

In 1992, if the Senate had accepted the argument now being made this body would never have voted 100 to 0 to ban the export of antipersonnel landmines.

I suppose those in the House who criticize President Obama today would say the entire Senate was wrong 22 years ago. Those 100 Democrats and Republicans who voted back then to ban U.S. exports of antipersonnel mines understood that while the United States may not have been causing the problem, we needed to be part of the solution. The same holds true today.

In 1996 President Clinton called on the Pentagon to develop alternatives to antipersonnel mines, whether they were technological or doctrinal alternatives. He was Commander in Chief, but the Pentagon largely ignored him. But now 18 years later it needs to be done. Not at some unspecified time in the future but by a reasonable deadline-- because it can be done.

Now, I am not so naive to think that a treaty will prevent every last person on Earth from using landmines. But if people use them, they pay a price for using them. Bashar Assad used poison gas, but look at the political price he paid. Are those who oppose the landmine treaty so dismissive of the benefits of outlawing and stigmatizing a weapon like IEDs, which pose a danger to our own troops?

Rather than opposing a treaty that will make it a war crime to use landmines against our troops, why not support the mine-breaching technology they need to protect themselves?

I always come back to the photographs. I have met many people like these. They may not be Americans, but what happened to them happens to

thousands of others like them each year. The United States can help stop it. It is a moral issue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, we will vote to defeat the filibuster against the nomination of Cheryl Krause to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Her nomination has the strong bipartisan support of Pennsylvania Senators, Senator Bob Casey and Senator Patrick Toomey. The American Bar Association has unanimously given her their highest rating of ``well qualified.'' The Senate Judiciary Committee reported her unanimously by voice vote to the full Senate this past April, nearly 3 months ago.

Ms. Krause should already have been confirmed and be at work for the American people. Instead, Senate Republicans continue to filibuster qualified, uncontroversial nominees who in previous years would have been confirmed without any delay. This is deeply unfair to all Americans seeking access to justice and to the judicial nominees who, like Cheryl Krause, have had distinguished careers in the law. Of the 54 judicial nominees filibustered this year, 30 have been confirmed unanimously, without a single vote against them. These filibusters are undeserved, and should stop.

Ms. Krause has worked in private practice for over a decade, including as a partner at Dechert LLP and a shareholder at Hangley, Aronchick Segal, & Pudlin. Her work has focused on complex criminal defense matters in securities fraud, antitrust, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. She has also taught courses on appellate advocacy, cyber crime, and judicial decisionmaking at University of Pennsylvania Law School and Stanford Law School. Professors from both universities have written in strong support for her nomination, and I ask consent that these letters be included in the Record.

From 1997 to 2002, Ms. Krause served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, where she distinguished herself as the lead prosecutor in the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. Before becoming a prosecutor, she worked as an associate at the prestigious firm of Davis, Polk, & Wardwell and as a law clerk at Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe LLP. After graduating with honors from Stanford Law School, she served as a law clerk to Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 1993 to 1994 and to Justice Anthony Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1994 to 1995.

Her commitment both to the practice of law and to her community in Philadelphia has been admirable. In 2011, as part of partnership between Dechert LLP and the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, Ms. Krause brought a class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of over 1,000 autistic students within the school district of Pennsylvania challenging the school district's transfer of these students from school to school without adequate notice to parents. After 2 years of litigation, Ms. Krause was successful, and the district court required the school district to redevelop its policy. Ms. Krause has also helped to launch the Philadelphia Project, a program that provides legal services to families of children with disabilities in the school district of Philadelphia.

She is well qualified to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Her record of accomplishments is unquestionable, as is her dedication to the rule of law and the Constitution. I urge my colleagues to vote to defeat the filibuster against this excellent nominee.

Madam President, one year ago tomorrow, the Senate came together to pass historic legislation to reform our broken immigration system. We did so with a strong bipartisan vote and after weeks of exhaustive work. The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act would unite families, spur the economy, and help protect our borders. Above all else, this historic legislation would create an immigration system that is worthy of our American values.

Today, our system does not reflect the values we hold as a nation. It is devastating that after 1 year, the House has yet to pass desperately needed immigration reform. The cost of inaction is all around us, from the millions of workers who are forced to live in the shadows without fully contributing to our economy, to the foreign-born students who are taking their skills overseas when they graduate instead of investing their talents here, to the uncertainty that continues to plague our agricultural and dairy industries because of unstable work visa programs. Families are being torn apart by deportations, and visa applicants around the world find themselves stuck in limbo because of our lengthy visa backlogs. However, nowhere is the cost of inaction more evident than in the faces of the young children sleeping on cold floors in detention centers on our border.

The humanitarian crisis at the border is growing, and we have a moral duty to address it. I was glad this body came together last year to support my bipartisan Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which included important new provisions to improve the treatment of unaccompanied children at our border. This vital legislation, signed into law as part of the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 provides additional advocates and support for the unaccompanied youngsters who come to our border often fleeing violence and abuse in their country of origin. I was proud when the Republican-controlled House voted overwhelmingly to support these important protections for unaccompanied minors. But they address just one piece of a rapidly growing problem. To truly address the crisis we are seeing today, the Republican House must act to pass bipartisan and comprehensive immigration reform.

Those Republican critics who claim we must first secure our border before the House will vote on immigration reform should actually read the bipartisan Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act that the Senate passed last year. The bill would double the number of Border Patrol agents and authorize the completion of a 700-mile wall at the southern border. This language was a Republican demand during Senate consideration of the legislation. While I did not agree with it, I voted to authorize this so-called border surge because I supported the broader reform that would do so much for the families and DREAMers who contribute to the fabric of this Nation. Border security measures take up an entire title of the legislation, allocating billions of dollars to border security in addition to the considerable expenditures already authorized by existing law. Those measures are reinforced by ``triggers'' that must be satisfied before undocumented individuals may apply for permanent residence under the bill. These issues were hard-fought in the Senate, and the result was legislation that dramatically reshaped the landscape for border enforcement. So I say again, those who claim we must secure our border before passing immigration reform should look at the bill this Senate passed with broad bipartisan support a year ago.

Americans have seen too much inaction in Washington. The issue before us is too important to simply put off for another time. Just as House Republican leaders set aside partisanship to do what is right by passing the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Act, they should again recognize that a majority of the Chamber supports passing comprehensive immigration reform. Immigration reform should not be held back due to partisan caucus rules that say only legislation supported by the majority of Republicans can be considered. All Members, Democrats and Republicans, should have the courage to vote. House Republican leaders cast aside partisanship and showed their courage last year by bringing the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Act to the floor. They should do so again today.

Legislating is about making tough choices. It is not about standing on the sidelines and complaining that this solution is not perfect. It is about supporting efforts that move this country forward. The bipartisan legislation we passed had the support of businesses, community and faith leaders. It received support from groups ranging from the chamber of commerce and Americans for Tax Reform to law enforcement, university presidents, civil rights groups, and community advocates. Voices from across the Nation and the political spectrum came together in support of enacting long-overdue reforms.

I have been privileged to serve in this great body for nearly four decades because of the trust of the people of Vermont. In my time here, I have rarely seen such commitment to an issue as I did last year to comprehensive immigration reform. What was initially a proposal from the so-called Gang of 8 went through an extensive committee and floor process to allow every Senator to offer their input. The result was an historic bill supported by 68 Senators from both sides of the aisle. I congratulate those Senators for their hard work to pass this historic legislation. They share my belief that the status quo is not an option. President Obama, who has called the crisis at the border an ``urgent humanitarian situation,'' knows that maintaining the system we have in place today is not an option. We need a long-term plan to address the many problems in our immigration system and to ensure that in the future we have the tools to address crises like the one we are seeing now. That solution lies in passing the Senate immigration bill.

There is still time this year to accomplish meaningful and historic reform. I urge Republican leaders in the House not to waste another day and to bring up the bipartisan Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.

Madam President, I wish to call attention to a recent decision by the Ecuadoran Government to issue a permit for oil drilling in the Yasuni reserve in the Amazon region. This should raise alarm bells in the international community for a number of reasons.

It was not long ago that President Correa was supporting a lawsuit against Chevron, citing contamination that resulted from oil exploration by Texaco, the previous owner of the

wells, in the Amazon region of Ecuador. That case, while fraught with allegations of corruption and ethical violations, shone a spotlight on the undeniable environmental damage, water contamination, and health problems associated with those oil wells, as well as on the rich biodiversity and indigenous populations in that region.

But the Correa administration has now backstepped, deciding to allow the state-run oil company Petroamazonas to begin exploratory drilling. Given the history, one can only be concerned about the threat this poses to one of the most biologically diverse regions in the world and the people who live there.

I am also disappointed by the circumstances leading up to the decision to begin oil production. Having failed in its far-fetched attempt to elicit contributions from the international community in exchange for halting plans to drill in the reserve, the Correa administration is moving ahead with this ill-conceived project. In other words, if someone else won't pay to prevent the Ecuadoran Government from potentially despoiling their own forests, they will drill there themselves despite the grave problems that occurred in the past.

Nobody questions Ecuador's need for energy. Nobody doubts Ecuador's right to drill for oil. But we all have a responsibility to protect areas especially rich in biodiversity for future generations. We also have a responsibility to respect vulnerable indigenous cultures. While no country, including the United States, can claim perfection in environmental stewardship, we need to collectively learn from our mistakes and avoid repeating them.

Mr. President, yesterday in Maputo, Mozambique, representatives of many of the 161 countries that have joined the treaty banning the production, stockpiling, export, and use of antipersonnel landmines convened the third review conference in the 15 years since the treaty came into force.

The impact of that treaty, once ridiculed as a naive dream by many in the U.S. defense establishment, has been extraordinary. The vast majority of landmine use and production has stopped. New casualties have dropped significantly. Many countries have cleared the mined areas in their territories.

Of the 35 countries that have not yet joined the treaty, including the United States, almost all abide by its provisions. We can be proud that the United States has been the largest contributor to programs to clear mines and to help mine victims. Those programs have saved countless lives. In fact, the Leahy War Victims Fund was first used in Mozambique.

But I remember during the negotiations on the treaty how officials in the U.S. administration at the time urged, even warned, their counterparts in other countries, including our NATO allies, against signing the treaty. In the end, every member of NATO except the United States joined it.

Some in our government said it was a meaningless gesture that would accomplish nothing. I think they resented that other governments, especially Canada, and nongovernmental organizations from around the world could achieve something outside the U.N. negotiation process, which had utterly failed to address this problem.

Instead, the treaty has already accomplished more than most people expected, thanks to the extraordinary advocacy of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and three-quarters of the world's governments, many of whose people have suffered from the scourge of landmines.

But the problem is far from solved. There are still thousands of deaths and injuries from mines each year, and most are innocent civilians.

Twenty years ago this week, in a speech at the United Nations that inspired people around the world, President Clinton called for a global ban on antipersonnel mines. I was proud of President Clinton for doing that, but his Presidency, his administration, was outmaneuvered by the Pentagon, and it failed to join the treaty. Then, during the 8 years of the last Bush administration, nothing happened. In fact, during those years, the White House reneged on some of the pledges of the Clinton administration.

When President Obama was elected, I thought we would finally see the United States get on the right side of this issue. After all, we fought two long wars without using antipersonnel mines. All our NATO allies and most of our coalition partners have banned them.

But that has not happened.

Now we rightly condemned, and I do condemn, the Taliban for using victim-activated IEDs, which are also banned by the treaty, but we still insist on retaining our right to use antipersonnel mines.

Eighteen years ago, President Clinton charged the Pentagon to develop alternatives to antipersonnel mines. Instead, the Pentagon has fought every attempt to get rid of these indiscriminate weapons, even if they do not use them.

As I have said many times, no one argues that antipersonnel mines have no military utility. Every weapon does. Poison gas has a military utility, but we outlawed it a century ago. Are we incapable of renouncing, as our closest allies have, tiny explosives that are the antithesis of precision-guided weapons, weapons we have rightly not used during two long wars, weapons that kill children and innocent civilians, and weapons that should bring condemnation to anybody using them?

We talk about the importance of avoiding civilian casualties. We all believe in that. We have seen how civilian casualties can turn a local population against us. We do not export antipersonnel landmines. We do not use them. We can drive a robot on Mars by remote control, but we say we cannot solve this problem. It begs credulity.

This is not an abstract issue. This girl is who I am talking about. I have met countless people like her. She is lucky. She survived, even though without hands and legs. Many others like her bleed to death.

I have been to clinics in poor countries where, instead of soccer balls, they make artificial limbs like these. We support them with the Leahy War Victims Fund. I am glad we can help, but I wish there was absolutely no need for that.

I visited a young girl in a hospital after the Bosnia war. Her parents had sent her away so she could be safe. The war ended. The soldiers returned home. She was running down the road calling out to her parents, and she stepped on a mine. Both her legs were blown off. The war was over, but not for her.

We recently sent people to that part of the world after flooding. Why? Because thousands of landmines still in the ground had washed up and moved around. Schoolchildren now face the danger again, because even though they had mapped where the landmines were that was before the floods.

As in the past, the White House hides behind their failure to act by pointing at North Korea. Who is not concerned about North Korea? But are we so dependent on antipersonnel landmines that we cannot develop war plans to defend South Korea without them? I reject that just as former commanders of our forces in South Korea rejected it long ago.

Last week, after a cursory 2-minute debate that inaccurately described the landmines in the Korean DMZ as U.S. mines, which they are not, and that inaccurately asserted, based on erroneous press reports, that the White House is about to join the mine ban treaty, which it is not, the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee adopted by voice vote a prohibition on the use of funds to implement the treaty.

The amendment's sponsor even claimed that the one thing--the only thing--stopping a North Korean invasion is U.S. antipersonnel mines. Balderdash. Did the Pentagon tell them that? Of course not. I wonder how many, if any, Members of that subcommittee have even read the treaty.

One would think, 61 years after the Korean war, that the Pentagon would not still be arguing that the defense of South Korea depends on tiny, indiscriminate explosives that would pose a threat to U.S. forces if we counterattacked. It makes you wonder.

This country, with the most powerful army, that spends far more money on its armed forces than any country in the world, has to rely on antipersonnel landmines? Oh, come on.

President Obama can still put the United States on a path to join the treaty, but time is running out. It will require some revision of our Korea war plans. That can be done in a manner that protects the security of South Korea and our troops. It needs to be done, because without the participation and support of the United States, the most powerful Nation on Earth, no international treaty can achieve its potential.

I commend the participants at the Maputo review conference. I regret the United States is there only as an observer, as it has been since the Ottawa process began 18 years ago. We sit on the sidelines as though we have no role in this. What a missed opportunity, what a stain on the country that should be the moral leader.

The next review conference is in 2019, the 25th anniversary of President Clinton's speech. What an anniversary it would be if that next review conference were held in Washington, with the United States attending as a party to the treaty.

I ask unanimous consent that a June 22 article in the Boston Globe and a June 23 article in the New York Times on this subject be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

I yield the floor.

Madam President, is this the Crawford nomination?

Let me say he is strongly supported by both Senators from Vermont, and I might say also by the people of Vermont.

I yield back the remaining time.

Mr. President, I applaud the Senate today for voting on the confirmation of Leon Rodriguez to be Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS. This is a vital leadership position within the Department of Homeland Security, responsible for administering and processing asylum and refugee applications, immigration benefits, and naturalization and visa petitions, including the EB-5 Regional Center Program.

Mr. Rodriguez's confirmation comes at a critical time. Nearly 1 year after the Senate's historic vote on the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act, House Republicans have failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform, and have maintained a status quo that leaves our immigration system in tatters. We are now seeing the human cost of this inaction, as tens of thousands of young, unaccompanied alien children flood our Southwest border. Many of these children fled their homes to escape unimaginable violence, only to endure a harrowing journey and, once here, yet another humanitarian crisis. House Republicans must act to fix our broken immigration system, as we did in the Senate 1 year ago this week. Until then, our borders will be undermanned, our immigration courts overwhelmed, our economy will lag, and millions of people who have lived and worked in our country for years will be left in limbo.

Although he will face these extraordinary challenges, I am confident that Mr. Rodriguez will ably lead USCIS. He currently serves as the Director for the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. He previously served as the Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Chief of Staff for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Prior to joining the administration, Mr. Rodriguez was the county attorney for Montgomery County, Maryland. Before that he was in private practice here in Washington. He has vast leadership and management experience, spanning both public and private practice, and often intersecting with issues of national origin and immigration status, making him extremely qualified to lead USCIS effectively.

Mr. Rodriguez understands the need for both a comprehensive and compassionate response to the humanitarian crisis facing children seeking refuge in our country. With parents who fled an oppressive regime in Cuba, and grandparents who fled anti-Semitism and poverty in Turkey and Poland before that, Mr. Rodriguez understands the challenges and remarkable potential of immigration, both for the immigrant and for our country. This process begins with the fair, swift adjudication of asylum, refugee, and visa petitions.

Mr. Rodriguez also understands how important the USCIS-administered EB-5 jobs program is to States like Vermont. This important economic program has transformed parts of our State, providing much-needed capital and creating jobs. I have spoken to Mr. Rodriguez about the challenges facing the program, including long application processing delays that have threatened to undermine important projects. He is committed to working with us in Congress to strengthen the program and make it permanent.

He has the strong support of law enforcement, including the Major Cities Chiefs Association, as well as a coalition of 37 Latino organizations from across the country. I too support Mr. Rodriguez. I was proud to advance his nomination through the Senate Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor. He is uniquely suited to lead this important office, and I look forward to seeing the progress to come at

Mr. President, I am pleased, although not surprised, with the latest news that Vermont's children rank as the healthiest. Recent data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that Vermont ranks at the top or near the top of the list on a variety of metrics, including a child's access to health care, and percentage of children who exercise regularly. We all know that healthy habits begin in childhood, and Vermont has worked for years to ensure that all Vermont children have access to healthy beginnings.

Vermont has long been a trailblazer on health care, particularly for children. Recognizing that access to health care for children and pregnant women is critical to a healthy society, Vermont created the Dr. Dynasaur Program in 1989 to help families who could not afford health insurance but could not qualify for Medicaid. The program was such a success, Governor Howard Dean expanded Dr. Dynasaur in 1991 to cover all children and teens. Governor Dean's success with the program and leadership on the issue paved the way for Congress to create the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Vermont has taken other steps as well to ensure all children can grow up healthy. In addition to having one of the lowest rates of uninsured children, Vermont has worked hard to give children access to healthy meals at school. Vermont brings local food into schools and teaches children about healthy eating through the Farm to School Program. And in order to make sure all children have access to school meals, Vermont gives those eligible for reduced-price lunches those meals for free. By working in a coordinated fashion across agencies and with advocacy groups, Vermont reaches out to children in need to help those families receive access to health care, nutrition assistance, and other vital safety net programs.

Unfortunately, there are still some troubling national trends related to children's health of which Vermont is not immune. Larger serving sizes and greater access to junk food combined with sedentary lifestyles have contributed to the steady rise in childhood obesity rates. Additionally, we are seeing a rise in the number of children living in poverty and without consistent access to nutritious food and health care. If we fail to reverse these trends, we are setting our children up for health problems that will last well into adulthood.

We must continue to support the efforts of our States and so many families who are trying to help their children make healthy choices. Instead of working to undermine the efforts we have made to ensure children can eat nutritious meals in school or to repeal the Affordable Care Act, or reducing eligibility in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children Program or other nutrition programs, we should be working together to ensure all American children have the chance to succeed.

Vermont has shown tremendous leadership in this area, and I hope we can all learn from its model.

I ask unanimous consent that the following Washington Post article, ``Best state in America: Vermont, for its healthy kids,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I join with several Democratic Senators to reintroduce the DISCLOSE Act, renewing--for the third time--our fight to curtail some of the worst abuses resulting from the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United. Republicans mounted filibusters of this commonsense bill when it was first introduced in 2010 and then again when it was reintroduced in 2012. This was the case even though Republicans claim to support disclosure.

Earlier this month, I chaired a hearing on a proposed constitutional amendment to repair the damage done by Citizens United and a series of other flawed Supreme Court decisions that have eviscerated our campaign finance laws. At this hearing, even Floyd Abrams, the noted First Amendment attorney who testified against the proposed amendment argued that he supported greater disclosure. And yet, Republicans have already filibustered this bill twice and are likely to continue filibustering it. I am hoping that Republicans have come to their senses after seeing how Citizens United has allowed unlimited, undisclosed money to pollute our elections.

Since that decision, our elections have been defined by corporations and billionaires spending vast amounts of secret money to influence elections. In the 2012 election cycle, spending from undisclosed sources exceeded $310 million, a massive increase from the $69 million from undisclosed sources in the previous presidential election cycle in 2008. And this number will only increase. No one doubts that.

While states like Vermont and Congress continue their heavy lift of passing a constitutional amendment to address the flawed Supreme Court decisions that have gutted our campaign finance laws, the Senate can take more immediate action today. By passing the DISCLOSE Act, we can restore transparency and accountability to campaign finance laws by ensuring that all Americans know who is paying for campaign ads. This is a crucial step toward restoring the ability of Vermonters and all American voters to be able to speak, be heard and to hear competing voices, and not be drowned out by powerful corporate interests.

We know disclosure laws can work because they do work for individual Americans donating directly to political campaigns. When you or I give money directly to a political candidate, our donation is not hidden. It is publicly disclosed. Yet those who oppose the DISCLOSE Act are standing up for special rights for corporations and wealthy donors that you and I do not have.

Recently, the Washington Post documented a trend whereby politically active organizations manipulate and use

their tax-exempt status to keep its donor lists private even though these organizations are pouring millions of dollars of undisclosed money into our elections. The increase of secret money can only harm our political process. The DISCLOSE Act would fix this problem. This bill would require any organization spending money on political ads, including 501(c)(4)s and Super PACs, to disclose donors who had given $10,000 or more. This is a commonsense transparency measure that everyone should be willing to support.

When the race is on for secret money and election campaigns are won or lost by who can collect the largest amount of unaccountable, secret donations, it puts at risk government of, by and for the people. In a democracy, our ballots should be secret not massive corporate campaign contributions. Disclosure of who is paying for election ads should not be kept secret from the public.

Vermont is a small state. It would not take more than a tiny fraction of the corporate money flooding the airwaves in other states to outspend all of our local candidates combined. I know that the people of Vermont, like all Americans, take seriously their civic duty to choose wisely on Election Day. Like all Vermonters, I cherish the voters' role in the democratic process and am a staunch believer in the First Amendment. The rights of Vermonters and all Americans to speak to each other and to be heard should not be undercut by corporate spending.

I hope that Republicans who have seen the impact of waves of unaccountable corporate campaign spending will join us to take up this important legislation. I hope Republican Senators will let us vote on the DISCLOSE Act and help us take an important step to ensure the ability of every American to be heard and to be able to meaningfully participate in free and fair elections.

Mr. President, the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, is one of our Nation's most important laws, established to give Americans greater access to their government and protect their ability to hold government accountable. In keeping with my commitment to support this law and expand its mission, today I join with Senator John Cornyn to introduce bipartisan legislation that will improve the implementation of FOIA.

I have sought for decades to make our government more open and transparent. Senator Cornyn has been an important partner in these efforts, and our collaboration has resulted in the enactment of several improvements to FOIA: the OPEN Government Act, the first major reform to FOIA in more than a decade; the OPEN FOIA Act, which increased the transparency of legislative exemptions to FOIA; and the Faster FOIA Act, which responded to the concerns of FOIA requestors and addressed agency delays in processing requests.

The FOIA Improvement Act we are introducing today will make additional improvements to the law. It will enshrine into law the presumption of openness that the President laid out on his first day in office. He said, ``The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails.'' Our bipartisan legislation will require that Federal agencies consider the public interest in the disclosure of government information before invoking a FOIA exemption. It will provide additional independence for the Office of Government Information Services, OGIS, created by the OPEN Government Act in 2007, and reduce the overuse of Exemption 5 to withhold information by adding a public interest balancing test.

There has been significant progress in improving the FOIA process over the years, but I am concerned that the growing trend towards relying upon FOIA exemptions to withhold large swaths of government information is hindering the public's right to know. According to the OpenTheGovernment.org 2013 Secrecy Report, Federal agencies used Exemption 5 more than 79,000 times in 2012--an incredible 41 percent increase from the previous year. This does not exemplify the presumption of openness that we expect from our Government, and that is why Senator Cornyn and I are introducing the FOIA Improvement Act today.

Both Democrats and Republicans understand that a commitment to transparency is a commitment to the American values of openness and accountability, and to the public's right to know what their government is doing. I value the strong partnership that I have formed with Senator Cornyn on open government matters. Ensuring an open government should be a nonpartisan issue, and I invite all Members to support the FOIA Improvement Act of 2014.

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

Mr. President, today, I join with several Democratic Senators to reintroduce the DISCLOSE Act, renewing--for the third time--our fight to curtail some of the worst abuses resulting from the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United. Republicans mounted filibusters of this commonsense bill when it was first introduced in 2010 and then again when it was reintroduced in 2012. This was the case even though Republicans claim to support disclosure.

Earlier this month, I chaired a hearing on a proposed constitutional amendment to repair the damage done by Citizens United and a series of other flawed Supreme Court decisions that have eviscerated our campaign finance laws. At this hearing, even Floyd Abrams, the noted First Amendment attorney who testified against the proposed amendment argued that he supported greater disclosure. And yet, Republicans have already filibustered this bill twice and are likely to continue filibustering it. I am hoping that Republicans have come to their senses after seeing how Citizens United has allowed unlimited, undisclosed money to pollute our elections.

Since that decision, our elections have been defined by corporations and billionaires spending vast amounts of secret money to influence elections. In the 2012 election cycle, spending from undisclosed sources exceeded $310 million, a massive increase from the $69 million from undisclosed sources in the previous presidential election cycle in 2008. And this number will only increase. No one doubts that.

While states like Vermont and Congress continue their heavy lift of passing a constitutional amendment to address the flawed Supreme Court decisions that have gutted our campaign finance laws, the Senate can take more immediate action today. By passing the DISCLOSE Act, we can restore transparency and accountability to campaign finance laws by ensuring that all Americans know who is paying for campaign ads. This is a crucial step toward restoring the ability of Vermonters and all American voters to be able to speak, be heard and to hear competing voices, and not be drowned out by powerful corporate interests.

We know disclosure laws can work because they do work for individual Americans donating directly to political campaigns. When you or I give money directly to a political candidate, our donation is not hidden. It is publicly disclosed. Yet those who oppose the DISCLOSE Act are standing up for special rights for corporations and wealthy donors that you and I do not have.

Recently, the Washington Post documented a trend whereby politically active organizations manipulate and use

their tax-exempt status to keep its donor lists private even though these organizations are pouring millions of dollars of undisclosed money into our elections. The increase of secret money can only harm our political process. The DISCLOSE Act would fix this problem. This bill would require any organization spending money on political ads, including 501(c)(4)s and Super PACs, to disclose donors who had given $10,000 or more. This is a commonsense transparency measure that everyone should be willing to support.

When the race is on for secret money and election campaigns are won or lost by who can collect the largest amount of unaccountable, secret donations, it puts at risk government of, by and for the people. In a democracy, our ballots should be secret not massive corporate campaign contributions. Disclosure of who is paying for election ads should not be kept secret from the public.

Vermont is a small state. It would not take more than a tiny fraction of the corporate money flooding the airwaves in other states to outspend all of our local candidates combined. I know that the people of Vermont, like all Americans, take seriously their civic duty to choose wisely on Election Day. Like all Vermonters, I cherish the voters' role in the democratic process and am a staunch believer in the First Amendment. The rights of Vermonters and all Americans to speak to each other and to be heard should not be undercut by corporate spending.

I hope that Republicans who have seen the impact of waves of unaccountable corporate campaign spending will join us to take up this important legislation. I hope Republican Senators will let us vote on the DISCLOSE Act and help us take an important step to ensure the ability of every American to be heard and to be able to meaningfully participate in free and fair elections.

Mr. President, the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, is one of our Nation's most important laws, established to give Americans greater access to their government and protect their ability to hold government accountable. In keeping with my commitment to support this law and expand its mission, today I join with Senator John Cornyn to introduce bipartisan legislation that will improve the implementation of FOIA.

I have sought for decades to make our government more open and transparent. Senator Cornyn has been an important partner in these efforts, and our collaboration has resulted in the enactment of several improvements to FOIA: the OPEN Government Act, the first major reform to FOIA in more than a decade; the OPEN FOIA Act, which increased the transparency of legislative exemptions to FOIA; and the Faster FOIA Act, which responded to the concerns of FOIA requestors and addressed agency delays in processing requests.

The FOIA Improvement Act we are introducing today will make additional improvements to the law. It will enshrine into law the presumption of openness that the President laid out on his first day in office. He said, ``The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails.'' Our bipartisan legislation will require that Federal agencies consider the public interest in the disclosure of government information before invoking a FOIA exemption. It will provide additional independence for the Office of Government Information Services, OGIS, created by the OPEN Government Act in 2007, and reduce the overuse of Exemption 5 to withhold information by adding a public interest balancing test.

There has been significant progress in improving the FOIA process over the years, but I am concerned that the growing trend towards relying upon FOIA exemptions to withhold large swaths of government information is hindering the public's right to know. According to the OpenTheGovernment.org 2013 Secrecy Report, Federal agencies used Exemption 5 more than 79,000 times in 2012--an incredible 41 percent increase from the previous year. This does not exemplify the presumption of openness that we expect from our Government, and that is why Senator Cornyn and I are introducing the FOIA Improvement Act today.

Both Democrats and Republicans understand that a commitment to transparency is a commitment to the American values of openness and accountability, and to the public's right to know what their government is doing. I value the strong partnership that I have formed with Senator Cornyn on open government matters. Ensuring an open government should be a nonpartisan issue, and I invite all Members to support the FOIA Improvement Act of 2014.

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

Madam President, next month Col. Michael Colburn, who is the

director of the U.S. Marine Band, will retire after nearly 30 years with this history-rich and venerated organization.

We like the Marine Band, of course. My son is a Marine. But it is especially nice because Colonel Colburn is a native Vermonter, and his appreciation for the band, known worldwide as ``The President's Own,'' began decades ago when the then-12-year-old euphonium-playing St. Albans native met a principal in the band while at summer band camp in Vermont.

In 1987, Colonel Colburn joined ``The President's Own'' as a euphonium player and ultimately became the band's director, a post he has held for the last decade. His tenure has taken him around the world and back again. He has played for Presidents and foreign dignitaries, at state dinners and inaugurations and regular performances that thousands have witnessed in Washington at the Marine Barracks during the weekly parades.

I have represented the Green Mountain State of Vermont in this Chamber longer than anyone in the history of our State. So you can imagine my enthusiasm when I see a Vermonter here in Washington and all the more so when I have the opportunity of capturing an image such as this, of Colonel Colburn conducting ``The President's Own'' during the January 2013 inauguration of President Obama. I was standing up on the stand when the President was being inaugurated and took that picture of Colonel Colburn. Of course, the whole world was watching the Colonel and watching the President.

I join with the proud citizens of Vermont and the people of a grateful nation in thanking Colonel Colburn for his service and his many, many memorable performances conducting ``The President's Own,'' following in the footsteps of John Philip Sousa and making his own giant footsteps for others to follow. I wish him the very best as he begins the next chapter of his career as the director of bands at the University of Indianapolis.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an interview with Colonel Colburn published in the Marine Corps Times in February.