Floor Statements

Mr. President, this week is the opening of the 101st Benton County Fair and Rodeo. For more than a century, the citizens of Benton County, OR, have come together to show off the literal and metaphorical fruits of their yearlong labor, display their talents, and enjoy a few diversions.

The roots of the Benton County Fair actually run as far back as those of the State of Oregon. Just 7 months after Oregon achieved statehood, the Benton Agricultural Society began holding small fairs. In the early 1900s, Benton County had an outstanding showing at the Oregon State Fair, handily winning the State fair's blue ribbon for its display of produce five times--in 1907, 1908, 1910, 1911, and 1912. In 1912, J.F. Yates, the mayor of Corvallis, announced a public holiday to celebrate Benton County's outstanding showing at the Oregon State Fair. The following year, the county had its own celebration on the grounds of the Oregon Agricultural College, later to become Oregon State University. That year, the county brought out its finest produce, livestock, and technology, starting a tradition that will be continued this week.

The Benton County Fair and Rodeo found its current home in 1957, when the county purchased 20 acres of land for the fair in Corvallis. In 1958, the Future Farmers of America and 4-H joined the thriving county fair in its longstanding practice of showcasing the region's rich agricultural tradition. The fair has matured beyond its roots to include carnival festivities, rides, and concession stands in addition to live music. I know that folks in Benton County will enjoy a wonderful week as they take in the region's storied culture.

I would like to recognize Betty Malone, the Benton County Fair and Rodeo's committee chair, for proposing a quilt to be sewn to commemorate the fair's centennial last year, an important date in the county's history. I would also like to congratulate Dawn Wunder and Donna Johnson for leading the charge to make Betty's proposal a reality. The centennial quilt will be presented to the region's residents in a ceremony today. Dozens of community members decorated the patches that make up the quilt, a collective celebration of the county's history. It is a fitting tribute to folks in Benton County who for more than 100 years have graced the region with their strong spirit and hard work.

It is my pleasure to submit this statement in recognition of the Benton County Fair and Rodeo's 101st year. I look forward to the Fair's continued success for many more years.

Mr. President, I call up amendment 3582 from the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.

Mr. President, the amendment that has just been offered is an amendment the distinguished senior Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, and I have worked on for many weeks. It is a bipartisan agreement on emergency transportation funding that the Senate Finance Committee reported virtually unanimously 2 weeks ago.

I urge our colleagues to support this amendment as a replacement for title II of the House legislation. I will briefly describe why.

As the Senate debates transportation funding, it is abundantly clear that all sides agree on the need for a long-term plan to rebuild the Nation's infrastructure. A number of our colleagues, led by Chair Boxer, a number of Republicans, Senator Corker, and Senator Carper have made that point repeatedly, and it is one I share.

We cannot have a big-league economy with little-league transportation, and the chair of the Environment and Public Works committee, Senator Boxer, has consistently been on target, calling for a long-term plan to rebuild the Nation's infrastructure. The reality is that every Member of this body has constituents who are driving on highways full of potholes and ruts, and our citizens end up having to write a big check for car repairs because of it.

The best way to fix America's transportation system is with a long- term plan. The reality, however, is that to get to the long-term plan, what is needed first is a short-term path so we do not have the transportation equivalent of a government shutdown where we don't have the contracts being let and thousands of our people are put out of work, and a big set of economic dominos starts to fall. We need a short-term solution to prevent that from happening. That is what the Senate has before us today under a proposal from the Senate Finance Committee which

Senator Hatch and I developed in a bipartisan fashion, working under the regular order. This bill is before the Senate under regular order and it includes with Democratic proposals and Republican proposals. Senator Hatch and I worked with every member of the committee to draft our bill.

The House has offered its own plan, and Senator Hatch and I agreed to incorporate to the greatest extent possible House ideas in drafting our alternative, including adopting a measure of customs user fees and some pension smoothing as revenue sources.

I would like to take a moment early on to highlight three major differences between what the Senate has done and what the House has done because I think they are at the heart of the bipartisan case for passing this amendment.

First, I think the other body simply overuses pension smoothing. I was struck in conversations with Senator Hatch and conversations with colleagues--one of our colleagues said: What is really striking about what the House is talking about today is that instead of having one problem, we would have two. We already know we have a huge challenge in paying for transportation long-term, as Senator Boxer has noted, but if you go with the House approach, it overuses pension smoothing. You are going to have two challenges--one, to pay for transportation, and second, what are you going to do with the hopes and aspirations of all those workers who are depending on their pensions?

The second is the House ignores the whole concept of tax compliance-- something else that has had a strong bipartisan tradition here in the Congress. Tax compliance is not increasing taxes. It is not tax hikes. It is not somebody jacking up people's taxes in the dead of night. This is about collecting taxes owed under current law. Let me emphasize that. It is taxes owed under current law. Grover Norquist--somebody who is not exactly soft on taxes, and I probably wouldn't quote him on everything--makes that point as well, agreeing that what is in the Senate finance bill involves collecting taxes that are owed.

Finally, the House bill again ignores some of the important bipartisan legislation that Senator Hatch and I have included on matters that are of great interest to many Senators, including the distinguished President of the Senate.

Our bill promotes natural gas vehicles--natural gas, 50 percent cleaner than the other fossil fuels. Senator Bennet and Senator Burr came together with some very good ideas on that. Senator Isakson and Senator Nelson also came up with an approach to strengthen pensions and how they are accounted for. And I was very pleased that Senator Crapo was very involved with Senator Bennet in improving water transportation--something hugely important for the West, particularly right now when it is so dry back home and in all of the Western States.

So these are major differences between the House and the Senate efforts, and, again, each of those ideas I describe is a sensible, bipartisan approach that comes about because we used our regular order. For example, the Bennet-Burr amendment adjusts tax laws to treat liquid natural gas and diesel fuel on an energy-equivalent basis. That is going to reduce the tax on liquefied natural gas. That is going to help us encourage more use.

What Senator Isakson and Senator Nelson did clarifies pension rules and ensures that workers receive their earned benefits. Many of these individuals took their jobs in their teens and put in three decades of work by their late forties. When I look at what the House did in terms of pension smoothing, this raises real questions in my mind about whether the Congress, without really thinking through an alternative set of pay-fors, is going to cause those young workers additional problems.

Finally, as I have touched on, Senator Crapo and Senator Bennet have done very good work. As we all know--particularly the chairman of the Environmental Public Works Committee--it is dry, dry, dry in the West, and what Senator Crapo and Senator Bennet did was come up with a bipartisan proposal that Senator Hatch and I have included that is going to help deliver water to farmers across the West.

With those bipartisan initiatives, we were able to pick up support from such important groups as America's Natural Gas Alliance, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and the Western Agriculture and Conservation Association. They know that the only way to advance these important ideas is by adopting the amendment the distinguished Senator from Utah and I have offered.

We have had some talk about how there is just not enough time to send a Senate amendment back to the House. I heard that statement made earlier today. I have made it clear to all concerned and I will state it again: This work is going to be done this week. This is non- negotiable. The Congress is going to get this resolved this week, and in no way, shape, or form are we going to have the transportation equivalent of a government shutdown. But the idea that the other body says, ``Hey, it is our way or no highway,'' I don't think is a way to advance the kind of bipartisan, bicameral approach that is going to help us deal with the big challenges.

I have already indicated, as Senator Boxer, the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, has said so eloquently, we are going to have to deal with the long term. There are a lot of good ideas for the long term. I think Senator Paul from Kentucky deserves to have his ideas on repatriation addressed. We have a number of colleagues who are interested in the innovative approach used in Virginia. So we are going to have a variety of ideas to look at transportation funding for the long term, but we have to get the short-term patch resolved in order to get to the long term.

That is why I think for the House to just say, Our way or no highway--I think for us to accept it today would simply be to abdicate our responsibilities. I don't think we are sent here to just wring our hands and say, Oh, my goodness, we can't do anything. There is no time.

We are going to get this done this week. I believe the approach we have built in the Finance Committee is a more responsible approach. There certainly is time to compromise. The reality is our staff--and Senator Hatch and I have had a number of conversations with Chairman Camp on this, as I indicated earlier--Senator Hatch and I have agreed to adopt many of the House proposals. There is no reason this body can't quickly come to agreement with the House. The Congress has addressed much bigger pieces of legislation and differences between the Senate and the House on tight timeframes in the past. The reality is the Senate has to act first or we are sending a message--and I will close with this because my colleague from Utah has been very patient and the distinguished chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee has been very patient. If we simply say all we are going to do today is accept this House approach, this ``our way or no highway'' kind of approach, we are going to advance a bill that overuses pension smoothing, and we are going to move away from an approach both political parties have felt very strongly about, which is that tax compliance should be an ongoing part of our work. It should be a part of our work today and it should be part of the bipartisan efforts for tax reform that Senator Hatch and I are pursuing. It is not in the House bill. It is in the Senate bill. We would be walking away from that provision by accepting the House approach, and we also would, as I have indicated, be walking away from bipartisan efforts that are going to promote cleaner natural gas vehicles, bipartisan efforts that will promote water use, and the good work done by Senator Isakson and Senator Nelson on pensions at a time when we are very concerned about their future. We shouldn't do that today.

I am going to yield to my colleagues who have been doing very good work on this issue. I think our plan is now Senator Hatch will make remarks on behalf of the bipartisan efforts in the Finance Committee. Senator Boxer, the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, will speak after Senator Hatch. It is my intention to stay here throughout the afternoon. I think both sides would like to get this done expeditiously, and I hope we can.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order with respect to H.R. 5021 be modified to allow for 2 minutes equally divided in the usual form between the votes and that all after the first vote be 10-minute votes, with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

Madam President, just for purposes of making a unanimous consent request, I ask unanimous consent that the only remaining time be 5 minutes each for the following Senators and the Senate then proceed to vote on the amendments and the bill as provided under the previous order: Senator Carper, Senator Flake, Senator Wyden, and Senator King. The unanimous consent request is for 5 minutes each, and then the votes.

Madam President, this debate has shown the urgency of moving on both a short-term patch for funding transportation and a long-term solution. Senator Hatch and I, with the first amendment, offer a bipartisan path forward. We take ideas from the other Chamber. We take ideas from both parties. We take ideas that both sides can build on for the long term, as Chairwoman Boxer has recommended.

There are important differences between the other body and the Senate. The other Chamber overuses pension smoothing. That creates two problems rather than solving one: They ignore the issue of tax compliance. That has always been bipartisan--paying taxes on taxes owed. Not tax hikes, not increases, not jacking revenues through the stratosphere, paying taxes on what is owed.

The other body abandons important bipartisan initiatives, initiatives from Senator Burr and Senator Bennet to promote natural gas vehicles; from Senator Isakson and Senator Nelson to protect earned pension rights; and Senators Bennet and Crapo to make sure we can deliver water to farmers across the Nation. The American Farm Bureau has endorsed this amendment.

The other body is saying: It is our way or no highway. I would ask colleagues, is that what we are sent here to the Senate to do, that we accept every dotted I and every crossed T from the other body and say that is just fine?

Colleagues, we talk about regular order. How is it regular order to be a rubberstamp for the other body?

This is going to be done this week. That is nonnegotiable. This bill will be finished this week. What should be negotiable is that the Senate and the other body should have a chance to work out differences. Working that out is as much a part of regular order as voting on amendments. So let's vote to be the Senate, and not have the other body dictate that it is either their way or no highway.

I urge my colleagues strongly to support the first amendment. It is a bipartisan amendment from Senator Hatch and me. It passed with virtual unanimity in the finance committee.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, as Senator Hatch and I--very briefly-- offer a bipartisan amendment, it is a bipartisan amendment based on the ideas from both bodies. It reflects the fact that we have tried to come up with an approach we can finish this week that does not overuse pension smoothing, that ensures we comply with our tax laws, and includes bipartisan initiatives that promote natural gas vehicles, help our farmers, and ensure that earned pension rights are protected.

The other body offers what amounts to our way or no highway. We offer a bipartisan alternative. I hope all of my colleagues will support it. It is the first vote at hand.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to Shirin Panahandeh and Ryan Meyer, research associates in my office, for the remainder of the 113th Congress.

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

Madam President, it is hard to imagine a more pressing need for our people, for our economy, and for our quality of life than reauthorizing the highway trust fund.

The Senate has previously entered into a unanimous consent agreement to have votes on four transportation funding amendments. The reality, however, is that time is running out to hold those votes before they would become what amounts to a meaningless exercise.

We all know that this week the Senate still has to vote on veterans health care, emergency funding to deal with wildfires raging in the West, and the challenge of those child immigrants coming across the border from Mexico. That is all the more reason why the critical issue, the urgent issue of transportation funding should not be left to the last minute. Left to the last minute, in effect, this body would simply be surrendering its ability to have a genuine impact on an urgent national issue--an issue critical for our people, for our economy, and for our country in the days ahead.

Now, if the Senate were to vote tomorrow on transportation funding-- and the majority leader, Senator Reid, has assured me that would be acceptable to him--there would still be time to work out any differences between the Senate and the other body before the Congress recesses at the end of this week.

However, if the votes are delayed until later in the week, my judgment, as chairman of the Finance Committee, where Senator Hatch and I have put together a bipartisan bill is that if the votes are delayed, for example, on the bipartisan Wyden-Hatch amendment, it would become almost impossible for the Senate to have any input into the final transportation bill that goes to the President.

Just from my own standpoint, I think it would be legislative malpractice for the Senate not to have a role to play in this premier economic issue now before the Congress. The highway trust fund, colleagues, is going to be reauthorized this week. That is nonnegotiable. The reason it is going to be reauthorized this week and we will not accept anything else is that the stakes are just too great. If our country was to have the transportation equivalent of a government shutdown, more than 700,000 jobs could be affected, coming on the heels of a slowdown in home construction which we have just seen in the last few days. It would be a devastating blow for the construction industry and our whole economy.

Beyond the short-term impact and the threat to the already shaky recovery, my view is that every Senator, every Democrat and every Republican, understands transportation funding and improving our infrastructure is critical to our country's future. The reality is that it is just not possible to have a big league quality of life with little league infrastructure.

Now as I wrap up, I would like to talk about a couple of other points that are relevant to how the Senate conducts its business. I am especially grateful to Senator Hatch, who has consistently met me halfway. As we know, our distinguished colleague, the former chairman, Senator Baucus, is now Ambassador to China. I took up that position in February. From the very day I became chairman of the committee, Senator Hatch has been willing to work with me, meet me halfway and, in particular, has talked about the importance of the Senate functioning in its regular order.

I would point out that a number of colleagues have been saying just that, and that the Senate has not had a chance to vote on amendments to legislation this year. That is not how this great body is supposed to operate. We know, with respect to this transportation bill, if we can get it brought to the floor tomorrow so we can have a real debate, we could have two bipartisan amendments and two from the minority that will shape not only transportation policy but also policies in vital other areas, including taxes, pensions, and trade.

If the votes on these amendments, bipartisan amendments, are fairly structured so that both sides would have a chance to weigh in and if the votes on these amendments are going to be given full and fair consideration and not become some kind of exercise in futility, they have to be held tomorrow. So I hope we will be able to work this out. I had thought about coming here and advancing a procedural motion. My hope is we can work this out so we can really debate these critical issues.

I do think the other body goes too far on the issue of pensions smoothing. Given that position, the country is likely to have two big challenges in the future. First, how do we fund transportation? And second, what are we going to do about the hopes and aspirations of all of those workers relying on pensions and the future of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation?

So I do think the bipartisan Senate proposal that Senator Hatch and I have authored--and there are other bipartisan proposals--gives us a chance to, in effect, have the Senate weigh in in a meaningful fashion on this critical issue.

I know we are going to have a vote in a little bit, and there will be a discussion between the leaders and colleagues. I may come back later tonight to discuss this further. I simply come this afternoon--more than anything else, what I have sought to do is to try to advance exactly what Senator Hatch has been talking about: Regular order and the chance for both sides to be heard on critical issues and to try to get beyond some of the polarizing, divisive kind of rhetoric that certainly you hear outside the Capitol.

I was home this weekend marching in parades, getting out across the State. That is what I heard continually, people coming up and saying: Ron, can't the Senate and the Congress find a way to come together? Senator Hatch and I did that on a bipartisan proposal. There are other bipartisan proposals, proposals that ensure the minority has a chance to be heard. I just hope we can work it out this evening so both sides will have a chance to have a fair debate on this issue at a time when it is still meaningful.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time in quorum calls be equally divided.

Mr. President, as the Senate begins debate on transportation funding this week, it is clear to me that all sides-- Democrats and Republicans--agree that what is needed most is a long- term plan for rebuilding our country's infrastructure.

The reality is we simply cannot have big league economic growth with little league infrastructure. Unfortunately, all over our country, we have potholes and sinkholes, and one of the reasons we are not seeing them filled is because there is no long-term plan or a plan that provides certainty and predictability for all sides--local government and businesses and developers and others--to know the funding will be there.

As we start the discussion that is going to go through the week about a bipartisan plan to go forward on transportation funding--as Senator Hatch and I and the Finance Committee have brought before the Senate today--I want all sides to know it is our view that to get to the long- term road, you have to have a short-term path, and that short-term path is what Senator Hatch and I have pulled together on a bipartisan basis which we hope our colleagues will support before the week is out.

I think all of the Senators understand what is at stake here. Allowing the highway trust fund to run dry would slam the brakes on critical infrastructure projects across the land. Let's be clear: It is nonnegotiable that Congress will prevent that from happening. No Senator wants State and local governments to have to pick and choose which projects move forward and which ones are to be set apart because Congress didn't do its job before the August break.

The reality is a transportation shutdown would be horrendous news for tens of thousands of construction workers facing layoffs. The damages would ripple throughout our economy. Businesses would have a tougher time getting products to market and customers through their doors. Commuters would spend more time sitting in traffic and burning through gas. Car owners would have to fork over more cash to replace their tires and fix their broken suspensions.

With all Americans having something at stake, Congress must act, and that is why it is so important, in my view, to pass the bipartisan PATH Act--Preserving America's Transit and Highways Act--this week.

As I have indicated, the Finance Committee came together on a bipartisan basis to advance this legislation to the Senate floor. Senator Hatch and I met regularly on this matter throughout the spring to reach a solution. When I first proposed a draft of a chairman's mark and announced a committee markup, Senator Hatch and the Finance Committee's Republicans asked for more time to reach a bipartisan consensus, and I agreed. We continued to talk almost each day, with our staffs in constant contact. Every member of the committee pitched in. When the committee reconvened to consider the modified legislation, it passed with virtual unanimity. This is a truly bipartisan plan.

Our colleagues in the other body have offered their own legislation. I wish to take a brief moment to highlight some of the differences between the two bills that, in my view, are quite important. As part of our effort to reach a bipartisan agreement, the Finance Committee agreed to adopt several of the funding sources proposed by the Ways and Means Committee. Those sources included customs user fees and pension smoothing. The Finance Committee's bill leaves room for customs user fees to continue to support vital trade programs. In the committee's view, that is an important tradition to protect.

The Finance Committee's legislation also leaves room for revenue from the pension smoothing provision to help secure multi-employer pension plans that face insolvency.

Finally, the Finance Committee's legislation draws some revenue by improving the enforcement of tax laws that are now on the books. I bring this up because I have seen some inaccurate accusations about what these enforcement provisions would do. Let's be clear: These are not new taxes. They are not tax increases. In fact, the Finance Committee even received a letter from Grover Norquist and the group Americans for Tax Reform saying so. Mr. Norquist is not soft on the question of tax increases, and he has indicated that these provisions are not tax hikes. What these provisions do is crack down on tax cheats and ensure that mortgage lenders provide homeowners with more tax information than they are usually getting today.

By contrast, it is my view that the other body not only missed an opportunity to strengthen tax compliance, but also weakened the solvency of pension plans and leaves no funds in reserve to address that problem down the road. The House approach for paying for transportation funding creates another funding problem for pension plans that Congress will have to solve in the future. In effect, as one colleague indicated to me, we have one challenge on our hands in terms of transportation, and if we now take the House approach, we will have two challenges on our hands: transportation and pension.

The Finance Committee, on a bipartisan basis, decided through the PATH Act to come to the Senate floor as the transportation shutdown approaches with tens of thousands of jobs on the line and advance a bipartisan proposal.

What is needed next after this legislation has passed and is safely in the rearview mirror is what I touched on at the outset: a long-term plan that would rebuild America's infrastructure and end the cycle of stopgap funding. That will require more than the bare minimum of fixing the highway trust fund. Even in the best of times when there is no threat of a transportation shutdown--we are making a little league infrastructure investment of less than 2 percent of our gross domestic product.

Our big league competitors are going a different route. In parts of Canada they put 10 percent of GDP into infrastructure projects, and China invests almost as much.

With such a small investment, it is getting harder for our country to maintain the transportation system it has, much less take up new projects that would help America compete with the world's other heavyweight economies.

For example, in our State the poor condition of many roads costs the average driver almost $175 per year. There are more than 1,300 bridges functionally obsolete, and more than 400 bridges are structurally deficient. The bill for repairs will only grow and grow as Congress waits to get serious about infrastructure.

We ought to look at managing the transportation system like owning a car. Responsible car owners don't let them fall into disrepair. They change the oil, rotate the tires, and fix the transmission when it is needed. It is all part of responsible ownership. Some day, if you want to resell the car or give it to your child, the car will be in good shape. It is time for this generation to be responsible owners of America's transportation system.

The challenge in the weeks and months ahead will be to find policies that can sustain the highway trust fund for good while finding new ways to draw investment dollars into American infrastructure. Priority one, in my view, ought to be to bring private capital off the sidelines and into the game on transportation. With interest rates as low as they are today, now is the time to act.

In that regard, I wish to commend my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Hoeven, who has joined me in just such an effort. We call them TRIP bonds, transportation and regional infrastructure projects, to get more private capital into infrastructure. Senators Warner, Blunt, and Bennet have tried another approach.

As Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, I say to colleagues that all of the long-term approaches will be on the table when we get over this short-term challenge this week.

Our colleague from Kentucky, Senator Paul, has a very important idea with respect to transportation, which is to look at repatriation. Senator Schumer, my seatmate on the Finance Committee, has another approach. The point is that all of these promising ideas--each of which has the opportunity for bipartisan support--deserves consideration, and as Chair of the Finance Committee, I commit this afternoon to do that.

When the Committee approved the PATH Act, there was unanimous agreement to work together on a long-term solution to our infrastructure challenge. I have talked with a number of Senators on both sides, and the message is clear: The Senate is ready to act. This will not become another extender issue with Congress kicking the can down a crumbling road again and again.

I will close with this. We have an important job to do this week. I hope we will continue the Finance Committee's bipartisan work and pass the PATH Act so we can protect thousands of construction jobs and end the threat of a transportation shutdown.

Some people have said there is no time and no room for compromise with our colleagues in the House--that the House is saying, it's our way or no highway. I disagree. By working together, our colleagues in the House and the Senate can reach a bipartisan agreement very quickly, and then we will move on to the next challenge and solve our infrastructure crisis for the long term.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today, I wish to pay tribute to Brig. Gen. Bruce Prunk. After 35 years of service to our Nation and the State of Oregon, General Prunk will retire from the Oregon National Guard. I know I speak for Oregonians across the State in thanking him for his service.

I got to know Bruce well during the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commissions, BRAC, process. He was a key player in leading the Oregon National Guard's efforts and working with my office to build an overwhelming business case for keeping the 142nd Fighter Wing open at the Portland Air National Guard Base. Everywhere you turned, it seemed like he was at community meetings, making media presentations, and doing outreach with elected officials and business leaders to build consensus. As a result of these herculean efforts, we successfully beat back Secretary Rumsfeld's recommendation to close the 142nd Fighter Wing, and the wing's airmen keep the skies of the Pacific Northwest safe to this day.

General Prunk enlisted in the Oregon Air National Guard in 1983 and worked his way up to serve in several high-level positions throughout the Oregon Air National Guard, including vice wing commander of the 142nd Fighter Wing, chief of staff for air at Joint Force Headquarters, and assistant adjutant general of the Oregon National Guard. He also held positions in the National Guard Bureau out in Washington, DC, serving as assistant and as special assistant to the Director of the Air National Guard. And I would be remiss if I didn't mention that Bruce volunteered to deploy to Iraq in 2007 with the 732nd Air Expeditionary Group, 332nd Air Expeditionary Wing and that he earned the Bronze Star for actions during that deployment.

Rising to the level of general is quite an accomplishment and enough of a career for most folks, but not Bruce. In his civilian life, he joined the Portland Police in 1976, working his way up to captain, then to commander, and finally to assistant chief of police. In these positions, he led community policing efforts, working with local leaders and elected officials to improve neighborhood livability in Portland. He retired from the Portland Police in 2004 and was able to devote more time to the Oregon National Guard.

I think General Prunk's career epitomizes the citizen-soldier envisioned by the Founders. His civilian service and long military career have given him an appreciation for the various challenges Oregon's National Guard soldiers and airmen face balancing family, employer, and often medical issues. His ability to bring different groups together to solve problems is perhaps best illustrated through his work with Camp Rosenbaum, a free camp on the Oregon coast for low- income, inner-city children. For over 25 years he has led efforts to build a unique partnership between police, public employees, and private sponsors to help thousands of at-risk young people go to Camp Rosenbaum.

From his work on the BRAC recommendations to his service in the Portland Police to his involvement with Oregon's military crisis hotline on suicide prevention, General Prunk has just about done it all. Oregon is grateful for all of his hard work on the State's behalf and for the leadership he has displayed over his long and decorated career. It has been a privilege to get to know such a dedicated public official, and I want to thank him for his many years of outstanding service. His retirement will be a loss to Oregon, but we wish him a long, happy, and healthy retirement.

Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Madam President, as the chairman of the Finance Committee, which oversees the IRS, I have a question as to whether bringing in a special prosecutor would be a good use of taxpayer money in this case. I am going to spend a few minutes laying out what is actually going on with respect to this matter.

There are already five IRS investigations that have either concluded or are ongoing. There was the original Treasury inspector general audit, in addition to ongoing investigations by four congressional committees, the Senate Finance Committee, the House Ways and Means Committee, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

The Senate Finance Committee, the committee I chair, has been conducting a bipartisan investigation for more than a year. I repeat: This is a bipartisan investigation. In fact, the committee's report was essentially ready to be released last week when the IRS informed us that some emails were missing because of a hard drive crash. So that colleagues understand just how bipartisan our effort has been, Senator Hatch and I have worked closely on this every step of the way since I had the honor of becoming the chair of the Finance Committee. When we heard of the hard drive problem, the two of us, a Democrat and a Republican, immediately asked the IRS Commissioner to come to my office where we asked pointed questions of Commissioner Koskinen. We didn't wait 10 days. We didn't wait a week. The two of us, a Democrat and a Republican, felt it was an important part of our committee's bipartisan inquiry, so we had Mr. Koskinen come to our office. And this has just been one example--it happens to be very recent--of the bipartisan efforts that have been made looking into this matter.

The Finance Committee staff, Democrats and Republicans, have reviewed over 700,000 pages of documents and interviewed 30 IRS employees. Those interviews were done jointly. We had Democrats and Republicans doing them together. Now, as we continue to look at how this is going to unfold, the Treasury Department Inspector General--that is Mr. Russell George--has agreed to investigate the most recent matter, and he briefed our staff just yesterday on the work plan for getting their investigation done promptly. Once the committee determines what happened with the hard drive crashes, then the committee will, again on a bipartisan basis, move forward with releasing our report--the report that was almost ready to be released when the IRS informed us that the emails were missing because of a hard drive crash and when Senator Hatch and I together brought Mr. Koskinen immediately to my office.

I heard my colleague say that things would be different if this were a Republican administration. Well, I want it understood--I want every Senator to understand this. Senator Hatch and I would be doing exactly what we are doing now, with the same diligence, if it was a Republican administration. That, in my view, is the bottom line, because that is what bipartisanship is

all about. That is the way an important inquiry ought to be handled.

There is nothing of value that a special prosecutor would bring to the table, and it certainly would involve significant cost to American taxpayers. In fact, many of us can remember special prosecutors abusing their power, spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money, and going on for years and years without concluding their investigations. Too often, special prosecutors have turned into lawyers' full employment programs. They ought to be reserved for when there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing inside the government. It would be premature to appoint a special prosecutor with the bipartisan Finance Committee report almost finished.

I will just close by saying I am a pretty bipartisan fellow. In fact, sometimes I get a fair amount of criticism for being too bipartisan. I want it understood this is a bipartisan inquiry that is being done by the book. Senator Hatch and I are looking at these matters together. We talk about it frequently. Those witnesses were interviewed together. We brought Mr. Koskinen in immediately. My view is that it would be premature to appoint a special prosecutor with the bipartisan Finance Committee report almost finished.

If we look at this in terms of what is at issue now, we can bring the facts to light with our own investigators and our own bipartisan inquiry and avoid the special prosecutor disasters of the past.

I object to the Senator's request.

Mr. President, I would like to recognize someone who people in my State know very well; someone who for more than three decades has been an inspiring leader and a tireless advocate for children, the elderly and the disabled. She is also a close friend who has never been shy in using her formidable voice to let me know how we can do more to help those in need.

Margaret Louise Carter may be poised for retirement, but that does not mean she is going to stop adding to an impressive list of accomplishments and building on her legacy of hard work and determined advocacy.

Margaret Carter is a true force of nature. A single mother of nine, she graduated from Portland State University with a B.S. in education. She later earned her Master's in Educational psychology from Oregon State University, which led to a career as teacher and counselor at Portland Community College.

Out of concern for the most vulnerable in her northeast Portland neighborhood, she used her compassion, natural leadership ability and tenacity to win a seat in the Oregon House of Representatives in 1984, becoming the first African-American woman elected to the Oregon State Legislature.

She did not stop there. She went on to serve in the Oregon Senate, as chair of the Democratic Party of Oregon, became president and CEO of the Urban League of Portland and president of the National Organization of Black Elected Legislative Women. She helped establish the Job Skills Center for Portland Community College's Cascade Campus, where the Technology Education Building was renamed in her

honor, making it the first building in PCC's 50 year history to be named after a woman.

Margaret accomplished many notable things while in office, including, but not limited to, helping create a permanent Head Start program in Oregon, co-sponsoring a bill to create parity for mental health services, establishing a State holiday to honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and co-founding the Oregon Youth Conservation Corps.

While Margaret may be leaving the world of work, those of us who know her know that there is no way she is leaving the world of community involvement. Whether it is advocating for affordable home-ownership options for low to moderate-income families, organizing a kids choir to perform at community events, or entertaining friends with a singing voice that is just as strong as her personality, you can rest assured that Margaret will be there.

After a life of service to others, it is fitting that Margaret is retiring from her position at the Oregon Department of Human Services. It is with great pride, both personally and professionally, that I extend my congratulations to Margaret Louise Carter.

Last night the Senate passed the Intelligence authorization bill, and it contains some very important provisions relating to whistleblowers. While Senator Collins is on the floor, I wish to commend her for her extraordinary work on this issue. She has been at this for years, and it is a pleasure to be able to team up with her in this effort. I think it is fair to say both of us are very appreciative of the work done by our chair, Senator Feinstein, who did so much to make this possible.

I am going to be very brief. Chairman Harkin has some important remarks to make this morning. He graciously allowed me to go ahead of him.

I wish to reflect a little bit on where we are with respect to whistleblowers and the ability of intelligence agency employees to speak out on matters that do not affect national security but are important to the debate about how to ensure our country resolutely fights terror and protects the public's right to know.

I think it is fair to say--and I make this judgment on the basis of having been on the intelligence committee for 13 years now--that the very important and worthwhile efforts to protect our national security after the terrorists murdered more than 3,000 of our people on 9/11 were also accompanied by a lot of overreaching by the intelligence leadership.

In recent years I think it is fair to say reformers have made some real progress in our efforts to address that overreach, and now with the PATRIOT Act and other measures coming before us--and the country truly understanding what is at stake--I think it is going to be possible to make additional progress.

The reason I have come to the floor to discuss whistleblowers and the ability of intelligence employees to speak out is a lot of the progress we have seen recently would not have happened without whistleblowers and without some of the intelligence agency employees who are willing to risk their very careers to draw attention to real and serious problems. I also make note of the fact that there were journalists, journalists who worked hard to report the facts responsibly to ensure an informed public debate that is so essential to our democracy.

Here is why the whistleblower issue is so important: There are existing laws and regulations that say employees of American intelligence agencies who are concerned about possible misconduct, such as waste and fraud and illegal activity, are allowed to report that, and these laws and regulations lay out channels for doing it.

The reality is these principles--and the idea is that if there is misconduct reported to one of these entities, the oversight entity would have some opportunity to do something about it. Unfortunately, reporting misconduct by your colleagues or by your agency does not always work out so well. That is why rocking the boat and reporting misconduct can sometimes be hazardous for an individual's career.

If a government employee thinks about blowing the whistle on possible misconduct, but can see that their supervisor or someone in their chain of command is condoning or participating in that misconduct, the employee is rightly going to be concerned about possible retaliation and will not get that promotion and might not even be able to retain their security clearance.

So title VI of this year's Intelligence Authorization Act strengthens the ability of those whistleblowers to come forward. It prohibits retaliation against intelligence whistleblowers who report misconduct using approved channels, and it includes disclosures to the Congress or to an inspector general. It requires the executive branch to establish an appeals process for whistleblowers who have their security clearance unjustifiably revoked. Establishing these protections in statute--in statute--in my view is an important advance forward. So we are making some progress there with respect to whistleblowers, but we are not doing so well with respect to making sure we are protecting the ability of our employees in the intelligence field to speak out.

Recently the head of National Intelligence issued a new policy directive regarding agency employees' contact with the media. I will tell you, I am troubled by how sweeping in nature this is. At the outset, this is supposed to prevent disclosures of genuinely sensitive information. That is obviously an important goal, but it is also important to make sure that as we carry out that provision, we do not keep employees, for example, from being able to talk about nonclassified matters.

The new policy makes it clear that intelligence agency employees can be punished for having ``contact with the media about intelligence- related information.'' Make no mistake about it, that is so broad it could cover unclassified information. It does not lay out any limits on this extraordinarily broad term that I have described.

For example, is an employee's opinion about the scope of the NSA's domestic surveillance activities intelligence-related information? Are publicly available assessments about developments in Syria or the Ukraine intelligence related? This new directive does not say that, but it certainly points in that direction.

It becomes even more problematic if we read further down into this new policy and review the definition of the word ``media.'' It includes any person or entity ``engaged in the collection, production or dissemination to the public of information in any form related to topics of national security, which includes print, broadcast, film and Internet.'' This is extraordinarily broad. It goes well beyond professional news gatherers to include anyone who uses the Internet-- the Internet--to disseminate any information at all relating to national security topics. So if someone is an employee of an intelligence agency and if they have a family member who likes to post or retweet articles about national security, suddenly having a conversation with that family member about important issues, such as NSA surveillance or the war in Afghanistan, could lead to them getting punished for having unauthorized contact with the media, which this directive says ``will be handled in the same manner as a security violation'' regardless of whether any classified information is disclosed.

So I am willing to give everyone the benefit of the doubt; that some of the authors of this policy did not intend to have this happen. I know that trying to make definitions of who is and is not a member of the media is going to be a challenge with these new media technologies, but that does not remove the fact that this policy is too broad, is too sweeping. It incorporates too much of what we want in Montana, in Oregon, which is to make sure our people can talk about the policy issues that afford them the information so they can cast a ballot.

My hope is we can get this corrected because I think it is going to have a chilling effect on intelligence professionals who simply want to talk about unclassified matters on important national security issues-- such as how to reform domestic surveillance or whether our country should go to war.

In closing--and I thank my colleague from Iowa--we have made progress. Back in 2012 there was an overly broad antileaks bill reported by the intelligence committee. It came out of the committee on a 14-to-1 basis. I was the opposing vote. At that time I knew it was a flawed policy, but I did not even know how flawed it was because we were not able at the time to talk to outside parties. When it was ready for the floor, the country and journalists and citizens saw how sweeping it was, saw how flawed it was and the damage it would have done, again, to discussing nonclassified matters, and we got it corrected, but suffice it to say, we are going to have a host of challenges in the years ahead. While we have won victories--such as against that overly broad antileaks policy, when we were able to derail what would have been the biggest invasion of privacy in our country's history, the Total Information Awareness Program, which was derailed because a young person in our office found a memo that demonstrated how sweeping it was--while we have made progress, we have a lot to do.

We are in better shape this morning because of the passage of that intelligence authorization bill and the additional measure of protections for whistleblowers, and Senator Collins and the chair of the committee, Senator Feinstein, deserve enormous credit. But make no mistake about it; we have a lot of work to do, and certainly that new media policy that has come from the Director of National Intelligence-- that is so broad, so broad it could make it difficult to talk about unclassified matters on the Internet--is just one example of the kind of issue we are going to have to zero in on in the days ahead.

I also note that our next speaker, Chairman Harkin, has been a great advocate on these kinds of issues as well.

I thank him for his courtesy so I could go ahead.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I come to the floor today as we get ready to vote on the veterans bill to make several points and would like to begin by commending Senators Sanders and McCain. They have obviously acted quickly. They have acted responsibly. They are taking up some of the most extraordinary concerns that really have come to light in the last few weeks regarding the access our veterans have to medical care.

I think it would be fair to say that every single Senator--every Senator--is grateful for the immeasurable sacrifices veterans make for the Nation. These are men and women who give up years of their lives to serve our country and willingly head into harm's way. They suffer physical and mental wounds all too often. Many of the veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--and I have seen this in my home State-- have volunteered for three, four, and five tours of duty.

What is undisputable is this: The Senate understands that when our veterans come home, the health care services they receive must be second to none. I believe that strongly. I believe it is a concern widely shared here in the Senate. That is why the reports of long wait times and falsified records are so appalling.

The VA audit that came out this week showed, for example, how hard veterans in my home State of Oregon have been hit. More than 3,000 Oregon veterans could not be seen by a doctor within 90 days at the Portland VA facility, and nearly 3,500 faced the same wait times at the Roseberg VA facility. Many Oregon veterans who rely on the Boise and Walla Walla facilities got similar treatment. Moreover, an investigation is underway to determine how things deteriorated so rapidly. It is pretty obvious that these kinds of findings are inexcusable and they are unconscionable.

Veterans deserve the best. Senators Sanders and McCain deserve credit for working in a bipartisan way--a way that is too rare here in Washington, DC--to address this challenge. It is never easy to work in a bipartisan way. I commend them.

I wish to also raise today one part of the bill that I believe has to be resolved and can be resolved before the legislation gets to the President's desk. The legislation currently directs many of our veterans to Medicare's doctors and specialists. At first glance that might not raise questions, but I wanted to bring up the possibility of some unintended consequences.

Right now there is a mandated 2-percent cut on payments for Medicare services because of across-the-board sequestration. That is still in effect. However, that particular spending cut, that spending reduction, does not apply to treatment for veterans. So, in effect--and I know this was completely unintended--this could create an incentive for physicians--we already do not have enough of them caring for seniors who rely on Medicare--it could create an incentive for doctors to take the veteran patients over our Nation's seniors. I think no Senator wants that to happen. I have talked about this with Chairman Sanders and with Senator McCain, and they certainly do not want that false choice. I think it would be fair to say that no one wants to see seniors pitted against veterans. All Senators want the best possible care for both our older people and our veterans.

The problem, however--and all Senators are familiar with this-- Medicare patients often are already waiting in line to see their doctors. In fact, many of the underperforming VA facilities are located in communities that have difficulty meeting the current demand for care. This is especially true in some medical fields that are absolutely crucial for our veterans, particularly primary care and mental health.

It is important to note that the other body--the House--has picked up on an idea that I and others have advanced in order to resolve this matter. So this is an opportunity for the Senate and the House, in a bipartisan way, to work together. I have talked to leaders of the veterans committee in the House. My sense is that we now have the House fully supportive of a way to resolve this issue and ensure that despite the fact that the veterans funds are not sequestered and the seniors funds--the Medicare funds--are, there would be a way to resolve this, and that would simply be to stipulate that any credentialed provider could contract with the VA to treat veterans. That way, in effect, we would ensure that both seniors and veterans would get the care they need. In effect, it would put the Senate and the other body on the same wavelength.

It is a simple fix. We just allow our veterans to meet with any licensed clinical provider, not just the Medicare provider.

In closing, I commend again Chairman Sanders and Senator McCain for first-rate work, accomplished at truly land-speed record timing.

As chairman of the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction and a long history with respect to Medicare, I want them and our colleagues in the other body to know the Finance Committee is very anxious to work with all concerned to make sure the final version of this legislation-- the bill we hope goes to the President's desk as soon as possible-- addresses what is best for both veterans and seniors.

I am confident that by working together--Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and the House--we can achieve that resolution before the bill gets to the President's desk.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

To close for our side, I would like to strongly urge my colleagues in a few minutes to support the nomination of Sylvia Mathews Burwell to be the next Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

I want to start with a simple fact. Sylvia Mathews Burwell's nomination has a breadth of bipartisan support because she is really that good, she is really that capable, and she is really that qualified.

I am going to say to colleagues, nobody has to take my word for it. We all know that our colleague on the other side of the aisle, Senator Coburn, is a man of strong views. He says what he means, and he means what he says. As a ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Coburn has had many opportunities to work closely with Ms. Burwell during her service as the OMB Director.

For example, he emphasized the nominee's competence, saying: The fact is when you have somebody who is confident, competent, and also has strong character, you find a way to get past your differences to try to solve problems.

He emphasized she is a good listener and that she is communicative.

He said:

Responsiveness is key for the Congress, and I have to tell

you I found her remarkably responsive. The fact is she is

going to be committed to do the right thing and to keep

Congress involved.

Finally, in a quote that I thought was particularly striking, Senator Coburn said:

Even when she has made up her mind, which sometimes

happens, she will listen to another point of view to get

information she might not have.

Senator Coburn also said:

That is a characteristic too often that we don't see, as

Members of Congress, and in members of the administration,

whether they are Republican or a Democrat.

Senator Coburn is not the only one who is part of this we could call it choir of bipartisan support for Sylvia Mathews Burwell.

When she went before the HELP Committee, our Republican colleague from North Carolina, Senator Burr, said:

I support her nomination. I will vote for her in the

Finance Committee, and it is for one primary reason, it is

because she doesn't come with a single experience that would

make her a good Secretary. She comes with a portfolio of

experience that would make her a tremendous asset at

addressing some of the challenges the agency specifically and

uniquely has.

Senator Burr continued:

I look forward to her confirmation being quick and our

ability to then work together to be every bit as quick.

These are statements that reflect a nominee who is going to be, in my view, an active agent of bipartisanship. She is somebody who has already shown she can bring Democrats and Republicans together to solve big challenges, and I think she is going to show it at the Department of Health and Human Services.

Suffice it to say, we know Health and Human Services will need to have strong leadership in the days ahead. We know the debate about the Affordable Care Act is going to continue. It is going to continue in Hawaii, Oregon, and across the country.

My hope, as chair of the Finance Committee, is that Sylvia Mathews Burwell can help bring together Democrats and Republicans to build on the Affordable Care Act, just as many of us did to work with former President George W. Bush, to strengthen the Part D Program, the Medicare prescription drug program. Many of the first stories about Medicare Part D were much like the first stories about the Affordable Care Act. Yet Democrats and Republicans came together, were able to strengthen Part D to the point where now--enormous support among seniors--it has come in at more than 30 percent below the cost projected by the Congressional Budget Office.

So let's all work together with Sylvia Mathews Burwell to do for the Affordable Care Act what we did with George W. Bush's program on prescription drugs, and that has worked in a bipartisan way.

One of the reasons I am so enthused about Sylvia Mathews Burwell is we have big challenges that both sides, Democrats and Republicans, are going to have to team up on to tackle in the days ahead. For example, Medicare in 2014 is dramatically different than Medicare when it began in 1965. In 1965, for example, if a senior broke their ankle, if he or she needed to see a doctor, they went perhaps to an outpatient program, Part B of the Medicare Program. If they needed more attention--perhaps the ankle needed to be reset--they had to go to the hospital, they would get assistance in the hospital under Part A.

Today that is not primarily what Medicare is all about. Today, well over 80 percent of Medicare is tackling chronic disease. We are talking about diabetes, we are talking about cancer, we are talking about strokes and heart disease. Certainly if you add Alzheimer's on top of it, that is 90 percent of the Medicare Program. That broken ankle, when the senior has one, of course, has to be taken care of. But most of Medicare is about chronic disease.

What we are going to need is Democrats and Republicans coming together to tackle an issue that, frankly, has gotten short shrift in Washington, DC. It didn't come up a whole lot in the debate about the Affordable Care Act on any side, and yet it is going to be the issue that dominates the future of the flagship health care program in this country, Medicare; and much of what is done for chronic disease for the Medicare population will also be copied for the under-65 population, since the trend historically, when Medicare takes bold action, is often replicated in the private sector.

Some of this work has begun, but the fact is we need a strong leader with bipartisan support, as I have tried to highlight with Dr. Coburn's comments, Senator Burr's comments, and others. I think it was all summed up when Dr. Coburn and Senator Rockefeller--the senior Democratic Senator from her home State--teamed up that first day and set the mood about how this would be a nominee with exceptional ability to reach out and tackle the big challenges of our time.

Medicare, of course, in my view, is the biggest. But the issue of family support, the child welfare programs the Department manages, these are programs that are critical lifelines for struggling Americans across the country. So many of our people are now falling between the cracks--falling between the cracks into poverty since the recession. The Department of Health and Human Services plays a powerful role ensuring that we have a strong safety net.

I have talked about her credentials before, but her education includes a stellar background, a graduate of Harvard and Oxford, where she was a Rhodes scholar. She was a staff director of the National Economic Council. This is someone who is very savvy on the big economic challenges, and she has superb experience. In 1977 she became Deputy Chief of Staff to the President and moving the following year to become the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

She also has extensive experience in the nonprofit world. At the Gates Foundation she led efforts to tackle some of the most pressing global health challenges of our time.

At the Walmart Foundation, where she served in 2011, she offered outstanding leadership in the fight against hunger and to improve economic opportunity for women.

As Senators consider this nomination in the last couple of minutes before the vote, I only want to remind--perhaps not subtly--the Senate confirmed Sylvia Mathews Burwell for the position of Director of Office of Management and Budget 96 to 0. I think that is a very rare statement of bipartisanship for an extremely important position that not

only has Sylvia Mathews Burwell discharged very well, she has won additional plaudits for her bipartisan work, as I have indicated today.

She is going to respond to the biggest and the big challenges in a way that I believe brings Americans together. That is what Senators have said throughout the process, and they have said it whether you have a D or an R next to your name. What the country needs, in short, is somebody who is a true agent of bipartisanship.

I conclude my remarks by saying I have gotten to know Sylvia Mathews Burwell well in the past few years. She is the right choice for the right time, and I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me this afternoon in supporting her nomination.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, after months and months of polarizing and divisive debate in the Senate about the Affordable Care Act, I rise today to strongly support the nomination of Sylvia Mathews Burwell because I firmly believe she will help the Senate come together to jointly work to improve American health care.

The reality is both political parties have had valid points on this critical issue. My party believes passionately, as I do, that everyone must be covered. Republicans feel equally passionate about having a real role for the private sector to help hold down costs and promote innovation. The Affordable Care Act does both. Working together, working together under the leadership of a talented official like Sylvia Mathews Burwell, we can build on that.

Ms. Burwell has earned much respect here in the Congress on both sides of the aisle. She had our distinguished colleague from Oklahoma Tom Coburn and our friend from West Virginia Jay Rockefeller at the witness table together talking about how she had worked with both of them. She is a leader with a head and a heart, and she is qualified and experienced for this critical job at this critical time.

She is a graduate of Harvard and Oxford, where she was a Rhodes Scholar. Early in her career, she showed a commitment to service by becoming part of the Clinton administration. She was the Staff Director of the National Economic Council beginning in 1993. Soon she transitioned to be Chief of Staff to the Treasury Secretary. In 1997, she became Deputy Chief of Staff to the President and moved the following year to become the Deputy Director of OMB.

She has extensive experience in the nonprofit sector. She led efforts to address some of the most pressing global health challenges of our time. In 2011 she became the head of the Walmart Foundation.

I noted Sylvia Mathews Burwell's support, but here are a couple comments from the other side of the aisle. Senator Burr had this to say about Sylvia Mathews Burwell: ``She comes with a portfolio of experience that would make her a tremendous asset at addressing some of the challenges that that agency specifically and uniquely has.''

Here is what Senator Coburn had to say: ``The fact is, when you have somebody that's competent and also has strong character, you find a way to get past your differences to try to solve problems.''

So she has strong, vigorous support from both sides of the aisle.

Now, we all understand that the Affordable Care Act is going to be a central focus of her work every day as Secretary. Once she is confirmed, I am convinced--and Senator Hatch and I have talked about this again on a bipartisan basis--that we can come together to make the law work better.

For example, my colleague from Utah has done very good work in fixing the dysfunctional reimbursement system for Medicare known as the SGR. With Sylvia Mathews Burwell at the helm, we will get that done, and we will improve Medicare transparency because the public and taxpayers and seniors should not be in the dark about critical services.

I know Senator Begich is going to be making some important remarks about veterans, and I just appreciate my colleague giving me this quick minute or two because I wanted to bring a bipartisan case for Sylvia Mathews Burwell to be confirmed. We will have the beginning of the process go forward today and more discussion about her and, I am sure, the Affordable Care Act as well.

I strongly, strongly urge my colleagues to advance her nomination and to support her when we go to a final vote.

With that, I thank my colleague and yield the floor.

Madam President, Sylvia Mathews Burwell was introduced at the Finance Committee by the Senator from Oklahoma Tom Coburn and the senior Senator from West Virginia Jay Rockefeller. She has extraordinary bipartisan support because she can bring people together. After years of divisive and polarizing discussion about the Affordable Care Act, Sylvia Mathews Burwell is somebody who will bring Democrats and Republicans together to improve the quality and affordability of our health care.

I strongly urge all Senators to vote for Sylvia Mathews Burwell.

I yield back time.

I wish to speak for a few minutes about the urgency of passing the tax extender bill and describe to our colleagues all the bipartisanship that has gone into this important effort.

This bill is truly urgent because America's employers file their taxes quarterly, which means they are paying higher taxes today without this tax extender package, which means less money for hiring and training workers, less money for buying new equipment, and less money for investing in innovation and growing jobs at home.

For example, a restaurant owner who needs to replace a walk-in freezer to keep their business running is going to pay higher taxes because they can't, in effect, hold down the costs through the provision in the tax bill. That means they will be cutting shifts and cutting workers.

This bill is just as urgent for millions of other American families; for example, a family with a college student who is registering for summer school this week and is going to lose a tuition tax break and homeowners whose place is now worth less than they paid for it. They finally caught a break recently from their lender, and without this legislation they will now face a real tax increase on phantom income. So that is why this bill is so timely, so urgent.

I am going to spend a few minutes talking about the extraordinary bipartisan team effort that went into putting this legislation together, getting it through the Finance Committee, and sending it to the Senate floor. The process began almost immediately after Chairman Baucus went to China, when my staff and I began working with Senator Hatch and his staff, as well as other committee members on both sides of the aisle.

We recognized that this would not be an easy bill to write, so Senator Hatch and I agreed to limit the focus of the legislation to tax extenders, the stop-and-go tax policies that we both think should end with comprehensive tax reform. After a lot of sweat equity put in by Democrats and Republicans on the committee, I introduced the EXPIRE Act, and that was the beginning of the bipartisan odyssey to make sure this bill was passed--and passed quickly--so as to deal with those urgent needs I described.

Before the committee met for markup, Senators offered 93 amendments, including 36 from Republicans. My team and I worked with both sides of the committee to incorporate 13 amendments into a modified bill. Eleven of them had Republican sponsors or cosponsors.

Then when the committee got together for markup, there were additional amendments--seven more approved, including three from Republicans.

This bill is thoroughly bipartisan. The committee held to the agreement Senator Hatch and I struck to keep the focus on tax extender policies, and I want to make one thing very clear. Those bipartisan amendments--the ones we have already included--have made the legislation better. If you want the best proof, look at the amendment offered by our colleagues Senator Roberts and Senator Schumer, a Democrat and a Republican. It did important work to strengthen the tax credit for research and development. By the way, this bipartisan amendment built on another bipartisan idea, a first-rate idea from Senator Coons and Senator Enzi to improve the credit; in particular, to make it more attractive for the small businesses, those businesses across the country starting in a garage. It would allow innovative startups to use the R&D credit to help pay their employees' wages.

This is smart policy--not Democratic policy or Republican policy-- because it encourages American innovation, the engine of economic progress, and makes that engine stronger than it is today. It is going to make it easier for young companies to hire new workers, and it is exactly the kind of bipartisanship that the country is making it clear it is hungry for.

There are other bipartisan examples I could cite that all prove the same point, but I wish to wrap up by saying now the Senate has the chance, using exactly that procedure, to make the bill even stronger. It was made clear last week by the majority leader, by myself, and others that we are open to amendments that build on what went on in the committee. By the way, there are lots of them.

I was here on Friday until late week and through the weekend talking to colleagues, an equal number of Democrats and Republicans. It would be one thing if there weren't a lot of germane issues, relevant issues, to choose from. That is not the case. There are dozens of amendments from Senators on both sides of the aisle that directly relate to the topic in question--these stop-and-go provisions that have expired--and if we don't move to renew them, our economy is going to get hurt in ways I have described.

Our goal all along on the Senate floor has been to replicate exactly the kind of bipartisanship that went on in the Finance Committee. I absolutely believe that is still possible. That is why I described it.

As soon as the vote was cast last week, I spent the weekend looking for a bipartisan pathway. We had encouraging calls over the weekend indicating that both sides of the aisle wanted to work together to make progress. We had additional conversations about this through the week. Some Senators were concerned they wouldn't have a chance to offer any amendments whether they focused on tax extenders or not. But as I said then, and I repeat now, I am open to hearing from colleagues on both sides of the aisle about their amendments. I can keep repeating it again and again, but I hope the point is getting through.

If I had brought a billboard to the floor, as sometimes people do, the billboard would say: ``BRING ON THE AMENDMENTS'' in big capital letters.

I will wrap up by saying I know the bill is not the legislation that every Senator wants, and--if I had my first choice--we would be working on comprehensive tax reform rather than the extenders, but it hasn't been possible to do that. Today the Senate needs to focus on the urgent business at hand; that is, making sure our people don't get punished.

If the Senate doesn't act on this bill, we would be punishing veterans coming home looking for jobs, we would punish innovators, we would be punishing small businesses, punishing those homeowners who are underwater on their mortgages, and punishing students with the mountains of debt.

I close by saying any colleague who is for that let me know because I don't know of a single Senator, not one, who thinks that is a good idea--when our economy is so fragile--to weigh it down with a tax hike. There aren't any Senators who are telling me they want to subject American families and business to yet more uncertainty about their tax bill.

So our legislation, our bipartisan legislation, would keep that from happening. It is absolutely essential that the Senate come together in a bipartisan way, build on exactly what we did in the Senate Finance Committee, and get this legislation across the goal line.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, it wasn't very long ago when the Senator from Kentucky and I were on the floor talking about drones, and I want to make sure it is understood that Senator Paul's passion, intellectual rigor, and devotion to these issues of liberty and security--which he and I have worked on together now for a number of years--is much appreciated.

I come to the floor today to address the issue Senator Paul and I have discussed in the past, and that is how vigorous oversight--and particularly vigorous oversight over the intelligence field--needs more attention. It is not something we can minimize. It goes right to the heart of the values the Senator from Kentucky and I and others have talked about, and that is liberty and security are not mutually exclusive. We can have both.

The Senator from Kentucky and I often joke about how the Senate would benefit from a Ben Franklin caucus. Ben Franklin famously said, in effect, that anybody who gives up their liberty for security doesn't deserve either.

The Senator from Kentucky and I have certainly had some disagreements from time to time on a particular judicial nomination, but I thank him for his time this morning, and I thank him for the opportunity we have had over the years to make the case about how important these issues are. The American people ought to insist that their elected officials put in place policies which ensure we have both liberty and security. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for that, and I have some brief remarks this morning.

Of course, the Senate is going to vote on the nomination of David Barron to serve as a judge for the First Judicial Circuit. His nomination has been endorsed by a wide variety of Americans, including respected jurists from across the political spectrum.

Mr. Barron has received particularly vocal endorsements from some of our country's most prominent civil rights groups. Of course, the aspect of his record that has perhaps received the closest scrutiny in recent weeks is his authorship of a legal opinion regarding the President's authority to use military force against an individual who is both a U.S. citizen and senior leader of Al-Qaeda. I am quite familiar with this particular memo.

The executive branch first acknowledged its existence 3 years ago in response to a question I asked at an open hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. I followed up by working with my colleagues and pressing the executive branch to provide this memo to the intelligence committee.

This month, of course, the administration made this memo available to all Members of the Senate. Executive branch officials have now said they will provide this memo to the American people as well. This is clearly, in my view, a very constructive step, and I am going to vote yes on Mr. Barron's nomination.

I want to take a minute to outline that this whole matter is about much

more than a single memo. It drives home how incredibly important vigorous congressional oversight is, which is, of course, the mission of the intelligence committee, and it is the mission of all of us.

In his classic work on democratic government, Woodrow Wilson wrote that conducting oversight was one of the most important functions of Congress. He suggested it might be more important than passing legislation. Woodrow Wilson wrote:

It is the proper duty of a representative body to look

diligently into every affair of government and to talk much

about what it sees.

He added that Congress must examine ``the acts and disposition'' of the executive branch and ``scrutinize and sift them by every form of discussion.'' Woodrow Wilson said if the Congress failed in this duty, then the American people would remain ignorant ``of the very affairs which it is most important that [they] understand and direct.''

Woodrow Wilson might not have been able to anticipate the size and scale of the modern national security apparatus, but I believe his words are as true today as they were a century ago.

As the elected representative of nearly 4 million Americans, I have spent years now working from the theory that all of us in the Senate have an obligation to understand how the executive branch is interpreting the President's authority to use military force against Americans who have taken up arms against our Nation. I have long believed it is my obligation to make sure that those I am honored to represent in Redmond, Troutdale, and Dallas, and all across Oregon, understand that as well. I believe every American has the right to know when their government believes it is allowed to kill them.

In the case in question, as I have said before, I believe the President's decision to authorize a military strike in those particular circumstances was legitimate and lawful. I have detailed my views on this case in a letter to the Attorney General that is posted on my Web site.

I agree with the conclusion Mr. Barron reached in what has now certainly become a famous memo. To be clear, while I agree with the conclusion, this is not a memo I would have written. It contains, in effect, some analytical leaps I would not endorse. It jumps to several conclusions, and it certainly leaves a number of important questions unanswered.

I am hopeful that making this memo public will help generate the public pressure that is needed to get those additional questions answered. I am talking here about fundamental questions, such as: How much evidence does the President need to determine that a particular American is a legitimate target for military action? Can the President strike an American anywhere in the world? What does it mean to say that capture must be ``infeasible''? And exactly what other limits and boundaries apply to this authority?

Mr. Barron was not asked to answer these questions, but it is my view it is vitally important that the American people get answers to those questions. In my view, those questions are essential to understanding how Americans' constitutional rights will be protected in the age of 21st century warfare, and I am going to stay at it until the American people get answers to those questions.

In addition to getting detailed public answers to these matters, another important step will be for the Congress to review the other Justice Department memos regarding the President's authority to use military force outside of an active war zone. Clearly, the most important memos on this topic are the ones the Congress has now seen regarding the use of lethal force against Americans, but it is also going to be important for the Senate to review the memos on other aspects of this authority as well.

The past few years have shown when the public is allowed to see and debate how our government interprets the law, it has led to meaningful changes in terms of ensuring that there are additional protections for privacy and civil liberties without sacrificing our country's security at a dangerous time.

It is unfortunate that it took Mr. Barron's nomination for the Justice Department to make these memos public. I will say it has been frustrating over the past few years to see the Justice Department's resistance to providing Congress with memos that outline the executive branch's official understanding of the law. When Mr. Barron was the head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, I believe congressional requests to see particular classified memos and legal opinions were appropriately granted. However, in the years since Mr. Barron moved on from that position, congressional requests to see memos and opinions have frequently been stonewalled--and I use those words specifically--frequently stonewalled.

The executive branch often makes the argument that these memos constitute confidential, predecisional legal advice to the President. Here is the problem with that argument: The President has to be able to get confidential legal advice before he makes a decision, but once a decision has been made and the legal memo from the Justice Department has been sent to the agencies that will carry out the President's decision, that memo is no longer predecisional advice; it is the government's official legal basis for actual acts of war, and as such, in my view, it is entirely unacceptable to withhold it from the Congress.

Congress has the power to declare war, and Congress votes on whether to continue funding wars, so it is vital for the Congress to understand what the executive branch believes the President's war powers actually are. In that classic work I have discussed from Woodrow Wilson, he said:

It is even more important to know how the house is being

built than to know how the plans of the architect were

conceived.

As a former basketball player, I often say that sections of the playbook for combating terrorism will often need to be secret, but the rule book the United States follows should always be available to the American people--all of the American people. Our military intelligence agencies often need to conduct secret operations, but they should never be placed in the position of relying on secret law.

I am very pleased this morning that we know the executive branch is going to provide this memo to the American people, and I believe this constructive step must lead to additional steps that are equally important. This episode is an object lesson in how the U.S. Congress can use the levers it has to fulfill one of the most important functions of government. As my colleagues and I engage in our personal discussions about how to make Congress more functional, I hope this is an experience we will remember.

I yield the floor.