Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clean Cookstove Support Act. This legislation addresses a serious global public health and environmental issue, and I am very pleased to be joined in this effort by my friend and colleague, Senator Durbin.

Nearly half of the world's population cooks over open fires or with inefficient, polluting, and unsafe cookstoves using wood, agricultural waste, dung, coal, or other solid fuels. Smoke from these traditional cookstoves and open fires is associated with chronic and acute diseases and affects women and children disproportionately.

Alarmingly, the Global Burden of Disease Study of 2010 doubled the mortality estimates for exposure to smoke from cookstoves referred to as household air pollution from 2 million to 4 million deaths annually in the developing world. The GBD indicates this is more than the deaths from malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS combined. The GBD ranks household air pollution as the fourth worst overall health risk factor in the world and as the second worst health risk factor in the world for women and girls. Millions more are sickened from the toxic smoke and thousands suffer burns annually from open fires or unsafe cookstoves.

Traditional cookstoves also create serious environmental problems. Recent studies show that the emissions of black carbon or common soot from biomass cookstoves significantly contribute to regional air and climate change. In fact, cookstoves account for some 25 percent of black carbon emissions. Each family using a traditional cookstove can require up to 2 tons of biomass cooking fuel, and where demand for fuel outstrips the natural regrowth of resources, local land degradation and loss of biodiversity often results.

Moreover, the collection of this fuel is a burden that is shouldered disproportionately by women and children. In some regions of the world, women and girls risk rape and gender-based violence during the up to 20 hours a week they spend away from their families gathering fuel.

Replacing these cookstoves with modern alternatives would help reverse these alarming health and environmental trends. This would be relatively inexpensive. In fact, there are stoves that are coming on the market now that cost as little as $20 and are 50 percent more efficient than the traditional cooking methods. It also could be done quickly. It is what scientists call the low-hanging fruit of environmental fixes.

Through the leadership of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the United Nations Foundation, the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves was formed in 2010. Recognizing the serious health and environmental issues posed by traditional cookstoves, the alliance aims to save lives, improve livelihoods, empower women, and combat pollution by creating a thriving global market for clean and efficient household cooking solutions. Alliance partners are working to help overcome market barriers that currently impede production, deployment, and use of cookstoves that are clean in the developing world.

To assist in this important endeavor, several Federal agencies and departments have committed a total of up to $125 million to the sector for the first 5 years of the alliance. These include a wide variety of departments, including the Departments of State, Energy, and Health and Human Services, the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, NOAA, and the Peace Corps have also made commitments to provide technical assistance in the developing world.

To help advance the alliance's goal to spur the adoption of clean cookstoves in 100 million households by the year 2020, the U.S. Government has focused its commitments on applied research and development, diplomatic engagement to encourage a market for clean cookstoves, and to improve access, international development projects to help build commercial businesses, and development efforts, including humanitarian and empowerment programs for women and girls.

The legislation Senator Durbin and I are introducing today reinforces this commitment and would require the Secretary of State to work to advance the goals of the alliance. In addition, the bill authorizes the existing funding commitments made by our government to ensure that these crucial pledges toward preventing unnecessary illness and reducing pollution around the globe are met.

By supporting the work of the alliance and the commitments of the U.S. Government to replace traditional cookstoves with modern versions that emit far less soot, this bill aims to directly benefit some of the world's poorest people and to reduce harmful pollution that affects us all. It offers a way for us to address the second leading contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in a way that is inexpensive, not burdensome to the people of this country, and will benefit poor people living in developing nations.

There is yet another reason for my colleagues to support this initiative. Addressing persistent global issues of poverty and underdevelopment makes our country more secure by undercutting some of the key drivers of extremism and militancy around the world.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Durbin and me in supporting the Clean Cookstoves and Fuel Support Act.

Madam President, I am relieved that legislation addressing the crisis of military assault has finally been brought to the Senate Floor, and I commend the Senator from New York, Mrs. Gillibrand, and the Senator from Missouri, Mrs. McCaskill, for their leadership in bringing this important issue to the forefront.

I also acknowledge the courage and conviction of Jennifer Norris and Ruth Moore--two Mainers who were sexually assaulted while serving our country. They have made it their mission to change the broken system that has not put victims first. Through their advocacy they have helped to shine a light on this crisis, and they deserve our gratitude.

In fact, as Senator Gillibrand and I were coming on to the floor, we were stopped by a reporter who asked us: What has made the difference? I said it had been the leadership of the Senator from New York and the Senator from Missouri, but I also pointed to the survivors of military sexual assault who have come forward and been willing to tell their stories, painful though those stories are.

Since 2004, I have been sounding the alarm over the military's ineffective response to the growing crisis of sexual assault in the military, including the need to ensure appropriate punishment for the perpetrators of these crimes, to provide adequate care for the survivor, and to change the culture across the military so that sexual assault is unthinkable.

It was 10 years ago, during an Armed Services Committee hearing, that I first brought up the alarming increase in the number of sexual assaults in the military. Back then the attitude of the witness, GEN George Casey, Jr., then Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, testifying at that hearing was completely dismissive, even though these are serious crimes that traumatize survivors and erode the trust and discipline fundamental to every military unit. I was appalled at the reaction.

While the attitude today among the most senior military leaders is markedly different than the one that I encountered a decade ago, the work of translating the military's stated policy of zero tolerance into reality remains unfinished business. Fostering a culture of zero tolerance so that the number of assaults is greatly diminished remains a goal, not reality. Ensuring that survivors do not think twice about reporting an assault for fear of retaliation or damage to their careers is still not part of the military culture.

In 2011 I joined our former colleague, John Kerry, in introducing the Defense STRONG Act as an initial step to address this crisis. The provisions of that bill, which were signed into law as part of the fiscal year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, provide survivors of sexual assault the assistance of advocates with genuine confidentiality, guaranteed access to an attorney, and expedited consideration for the victim to be transferred far away from the assailant.

These were helpful first steps. But more than anything, the victims of sexual assaults, the survivors, need to have the confidence the legal system in which they report a crime will produce a just and fair result. We need to encourage more reporting, and that is what Senator Gillibrand's bill will accomplish. This is a goal that I believe is shared by all Members of the Senate, despite our differing opinions on the best path forward for achieving these goals.

In the 113th Congress, a number of proposals have been introduced aimed at reducing the barriers to justice that many survivors of sexual assault face in our military. I have been pleased to work with both Senators Gillibrand and McCaskill toward this end. As a result of our efforts, as well as those of many others, including Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Inhofe, important provisions that all of us agree on have been signed into law as part of this past year's National Defense Authorization Act.

Among those provisions is legislation that I coauthored to extend the STRONG Act to the Coast Guard. In addition, Senator McCaskill and I wrote provisions mandating a dishonorable discharge or dismissal for any servicemember convicted of sexual assault. We also allowed a commander to relocate an alleged perpetrator of a sexual assault crime rather than the survivor. Why should it be the survivor who has to move?

Senator Gillibrand and I authored a provision that eliminates the elements of the character of the accused from the factors a commander could consider, making it more like what would occur in the civilian system. Senator Gillibrand, Senator McCaskill, and I authored a provision that eliminates a commander's ability to overturn a conviction by a jury post trial for major offenses.

I mention these reforms because I am encouraged that we have taken these steps to address this vitally important issue. But more remains to be done. I remain cognizant of the fact there are strong views at the Pentagon and within this body about how we should best move forward from here and what that may mean for the military's unique legal system. But one of the criticisms which I totally reject is that we should just wait a few more months for the result of a few more studies or wait a few more years to see if the recently enacted provisions have made a difference. I strongly disagree.

How many more victims are required to suffer before we act further? How many more lives must be ruined before we take additional steps that we know are required to solve this problem? Rather than waiting for the results of yet more studies, we must continue to enact real reforms to increase the confidence of survivors to come forward and report the crimes, to ensure that perpetrators will be dealt with appropriately, and to strengthen prevention efforts right now.

Senator Gillibrand's bill is a reasonable proposal designed to communicate to survivors and potential perpetrators alike that when survivors are subjected to these unacceptable, horrific crimes, they will have access to a legal system that fully protects their interests. Providing our troops with that basic confidence is the least we can do.

I believe there is no question of Congress' commitment to reducing the instances of sexual assault in the military and providing appropriate redress and care for survivors. While we debate various proposals, we are united by the need for serious reforms that will strengthen the military's response to sexual assaults. But for the leadership of Senator Gillibrand and Senator McCaskill, and the courage of those survivors who were finally willing to come forward and tell their stories and know that we would listen to them, believe them, and act, we would not be here today. I am certain that our work will reduce the unnecessary suffering and injustice felt by those who have survived these horrific crimes.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, this year marks the 175th anniversary of the incorporation of Aroostook County, ME. As one who was born and raised in that wonderful place, I wish to celebrate its fascinating past, energetic present, and bright future.

If the story of Aroostook County could be summed up in one thought, it would be this: We are the largest county east of the Mississippi River, yet we are all neighbors. From the frontier to the front lines of innovation, the people of ``The County,'' as it is known throughout Maine, have always worked hard and worked together.

The story of Aroostook County begins long before its incorporation in 1839. For thousands of years, it has been the home of the Micmac and Maliseet; the name Aroostook comes from the Native American word for ``beautiful river.''

French explorers, led by Samuel de Champlain, first visited the area in 1604. The settlements that followed laid the foundation for the vibrant Acadian culture that is so important in Maine, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and as far away as Louisiana. Under French, and later, English rule, Aroostook's rich natural resources drew hardy lumberjacks and trappers to the area.

For decades after the American Revolution, Maine's northernmost region was the site of a protracted and tense border dispute between our new Nation and British Canada. As negotiations, led by the great American statesman Daniel Webster, to end what is now called the Bloodless Aroostook War neared completion, families and entrepreneurs settled in the area, and Aroostook County was incorporated. Among those early settlers was my ancestor, Samuel W. Collins, who built a lumber mill in Caribou in 1844 that was the beginning of our fifth-generation family business still in operation today.

People were drawn to Aroostook County in search of liberty and opportunity, and they have always worked and sacrificed to extend those blessings to others. In the years before emancipation, Aroostook County was the last stop on the Underground Railroad that took slaves to freedom. The Friends Quaker Church in Fort Fairfield stands today as a powerful memorial to that time of courage and compassion. Civil War monuments in villages throughout Aroostook County stand in honor of the many heroes who gave their lives so that all could be free.

Throughout the 19th century, the people of Aroostook County connected their remote region to the world with their own hands. Town by town, they built roads and railroads with pick, shovel, and wheelbarrow. These transportation networks, combined with the region's rich soil, made Aroostook County an agricultural powerhouse. The potato industry remains an essential part of the Maine economy.

During World War II, Presque Isle and Houlton both had U.S. Army bases. Houlton had a prisoner-of-war camp for German soldiers. Presque Isle's base was used to launch P-38s, C-47s, and B-17s to the European theater. During the cold war, Loring Air Force Base in Limestone, due its proximity to Northern Europe, became a crucial forward post in America's defense.

The closure of Loring Air Force base in 1994 was a difficult challenge. But the people of Aroostook County responded with the qualities that wrote their history: strength, a strong work ethic, and determination. They are building a new economy with new jobs and opportunities. Back then, biathlon was little-known, yet today Aroostook County is a world-class center for winter sports and Olympic training and the home to an Olympian in the biathlon.

Aroostook's hospitals have become national models for expert and compassionate care in rural regions, particularly for our veterans. Educational institutions and industry have joined together to lead the way in the development of renewable energy sources. The closed bases in Houlton and Presque Isle, and Loring Air Force Base have evolved into hubs of commerce and industry.

Through the years, Aroostook County has gone by many names--the Crown of Maine, the Garden County, the Last Frontier of the East, and, of course, The County. A more recent addition is the motto of the University of Maine at Presque Isle--``North of Ordinary'' is the perfect way to describe a place that is truly extraordinary.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California for allowing me to precede her in speaking on the Senate floor this evening. I very much appreciate her courtesy.

(The remarks of Senator Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 2081 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Taxpayer Protection Act of 2014. This bill would require the independent IRS oversight board to better fulfill its obligation to protect the constitutional rights of American taxpayers. The history of the IRS offers abundant examples of the agency trampling on these rights. In the most recent controversy, the IRS subjected applications from conservative groups that were seeking tax-exempt status to heightened scrutiny. Delaying these groups' applications suggests an effort to chill the constitutional right of speech and association by groups that hold conservative views.

The details that have emerged are truly alarming. The IRS has admitted that it deliberately targeted conservative groups' applications for tax-exempt status for extra review if they included such words as ``tea party,'' ``patriots,'' or ``9/11'' in their names or they criticized how this country is being run or if their purpose were to address government spending, government debt, taxes, or simply to make America a better place. Incredible.

These inappropriate criteria stayed in place for more than 18 months and resulted in substantial delays in processing the applications of many different groups. In some cases, the applications remained outstanding for more than 2 years.

The IRS also sought to compel some of the targeted groups to divulge their membership list. IRS officials have subsequently admitted there was absolutely no reason for agency personnel to have sought that kind of information.

Such behavior, unfortunately, is not a one-time aberration. A May 2013 ``Time'' magazine article notes that the IRS has been involved in scandals going back at least as far as the Kennedy administration, which used the service to investigate so-called rightwing groups. President Nixon employed a secret IRS operation to investigate and audit political opponents. During the Johnson administration, the IRS targeted antiwar activists.

In the decades since, civil rights groups, political activists from both the conservative and liberals ends of the spectrum, and whistleblowers have been subjected to intimidating and discriminatory scrutiny by the IRS.

In 1997, the Senate Finance Committee held 3 days of hearings instigated by reports of IRS abuses. One type of abuse was the so- called Blue Sky Assessment, which then-committee chairman William Roth characterized as agents making tax assessments that had no basis in fact or law, and were, in some instances, simply levied to hurt the taxpayer. Some witnesses had to have their identities concealed out of fear of retaliation for their testimony. As witness No. 1--an IRS agent--stated, `` . . . abuse of the taxpaying public occurs when the IRS improperly and sometimes illegally uses its vast power in the process of implementing some type of enforcement of the tax laws.''

This agent went on to note it wasn't the IRS Code which abused taxpayers but rather how it was being implemented in an unfair, intimidating, and discriminatory way.

I note these 1997 hearings in particular because they coincided with an effort to reform the IRS, culminating in the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act. The act made a number of changes to the structure of the IRS and the manner in which it administers the tax laws. One such reform was the creation of the IRS Oversight Board.

By law, the Board is charged with ensuring taxpayers are treated properly by the IRS, and the Board is designed to be independent of the agency. Of the required nine members, seven must be Senate-confirmed appointees who have professional experience or expertise in business and tax administration. The IRS Reform Act also requires IRS employees be terminated for violating the constitutional rights of taxpayers.

The current IRS scandal was not, however, brought to light by this IRS Oversight Board. Instead, these abuses came to the public's and our attention through a May 2013 report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. Following the release of the inspector general's report, the Oversight Board released a statement saying it would work with the IRS and the IG, among others, to meet its statutory responsibility to protect taxpayers. That is the whole purpose of this Board, and I believe it should do much more than just work with IRS officials and the IG.

So my bill would strengthen its oversight role by requiring reporting to Congress. My bill would ensure the existing laws, which are rooted in the response to prior IRS scandals, work as they should. It would require that the Oversight Board report to Congress each and every year on allegations of abuse, of taxpayers' constitutional rights, on the number of employees who were terminated for such violations, on why employees against whom allegations were raised were not terminated, and on the effectiveness of internal controls, if any, that the IRS has put in place to prevent the unfair targeting of taxpayers.

The IRS's history of abuses demonstrates that Congress must be ever vigilant in protecting taxpayers. The agency's power allows it to pervade the most sensitive aspects of Americans' private lives. Irrespective of whether those singled out are liberal or conservative, Democratic or Republican, Independent or Green Party members, irrespective of their personal views, the targeting of private citizens for exercising their First Amendment rights is way out of bounds. It is illegal behavior and cannot be tolerated.

It has been said the power to tax is the power to destroy. The American people cannot and will not tolerate any abuse of that power.

I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this bill and let us pass it to help protect the most fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution against abuse by government's ability to tax.

Mr. President. I wish to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the town of South Berwick, ME. South Berwick holds a very special place in our State's history, and one that exemplifies the determination and resiliency of Maine people.

While this landmark anniversary marks South Berwick's incorporation, the year 1814 was but one milestone in a long journey of progress. It is a journey that began thousands of years earlier with Native American villages on the banks of the Piscataqua and Salmon Falls rivers. In 1631, barely a decade after the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, Ambrose Gibbens established a settlement at the falls and built the first sawmill in North America. A manufacturing heritage of textile mills and iron works that developed in the 18th century continues today. The skills and work ethic of the people of South Berwick contribute greatly to the cutting-edge industries in the region, from biotechnology to aerospace and defense.

Industry is only part of South Berwick's story. In 1791, the citizens of the region recognized the importance of education and established Berwick Academy with a charter signed by Massachusetts Governor John Hancock.

Located in South Berwick, the academy is the oldest educational institution in Maine and now, as a private school, remains true to its founding purpose of promoting ``virtue and useful knowledge among the rising generation.'' In addition, the people of South Berwick remain true to the vision of their forebears by supporting an outstanding public school system.

During the Revolutionary War, the growing community provided two full companies to fight for America's independence, more than many towns of greater size. The courage and character demonstrated by the townspeople in standing for liberty echo throughout South Berwick's history. In the years before the Civil War, the many churches in the community were powerful voices for the abolition of slavery. During that terrible conflict, more than 294 of South Berwick's young men, including 46 Berwick Academy students fought, and many died, so that all might live in freedom. The town's honor roll of current military personnel demonstrates an ongoing commitment to our Nation's founding principles.

This anniversary is not just about something that is measured in calendar years. It is about human accomplishment. We celebrate the people who, through the centuries, have pulled together, cared for one another, and built a great community that is a wonderful place to live, work, and raise families. Thanks to those who came before, South Berwick has a wonderful history. Thanks to those who are there today, it has a bright future.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Pennsylvania and I be permitted to engage in a colloquy as in morning business.

Mr. President, the ongoing debate on unemployment compensation shines a spotlight on the underlying problem; that is, extremely sluggish job growth in our still-lagging economy. Putting people to work is my number one goal.

As American families continue to struggle to get the jobs they need at the wages they deserve, it is more important than ever for Members on both sides of the aisle to come together on legislation to promote economic growth and job creation. Today, I am pleased to join my good friend and colleague Mr. Casey to discuss our legislation to do exactly that: the Small Business Tax Certainty and Growth Act, which we introduced last year. Our bipartisan legislation focuses on areas of consensus that both parties can embrace to rekindle opportunity by helping small employers start up or grow and create or add good-paying jobs.

It is often said that small businesses are our Nation's job creators, and the data bear that out. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, small businesses generated 65 percent of the net new jobs that were created between 1993 and 2009. Together, America's small businesses employ nearly half of our Nation's workers and generate half of our Nation's GDP.

Even the smallest employers have a huge impact on our economy; 18 percent of all private-sector employees work for businesses with fewer than 20 workers.

Senator Casey and I recognize that employers cannot grow and add jobs unless they have the money to invest in building and expanding their businesses. That is why our bill focuses on making it easier for them to plan their capital investments and aims to reduce the burden and uncertainty of taxation, all in the name of creating jobs.

Let me explain a few of the provisions of our bill.

First, let me start by stating the obvious: Starting a new business that can hire workers costs money. Our bill eases the tax burden on new employers by permanently doubling the deduction for start-up expenses from $5,000 to $10,000.

There are two other provisions in our bill that affect employers both large and small that we propose to extend: first, the so-called bonus depreciation, and second, the 15-year depreciation for improvements to restaurants and retail facilities. Unfortunately, these important provisions were allowed to expire at the end of last year, causing great uncertainty and thus discouraging investment and the creation of jobs.

Just think about this: The law has reverted to a provision that says that a restaurant has to depreciate its renovations over 39 years. Can you imagine a restaurant waiting to renovate only once every 39 years because it is going to take that long to write off, to depreciate the cost? The 15-year depreciation schedule for improvements is far more realistic.

Our bill also provides certainty for small employers who use section 179 of the tax code. That is the small business expensing provision. Recent studies by the National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB, which has endorsed our bill, show that the constant changes in the tax code are among the top concerns of small business owners. Indeed, I think the Senator from Pennsylvania and I have both found in talking to smaller employers in our States that they are yearning for some certainty in tax policy. They simply cannot deal with a tax code where one year the deduction is at one level, and the very next year it is uncertain whether Congress is going to renew the provision or let it expire.

The level of expensing allowed under section 179 has been unpredictable from year to year, and has changed four times in the past 7 years. This uncertainty makes it difficult or even impossible for small employers to take full advantage of this tax incentive in their long-term investment planning. Our bill would fix this problem by making the maximum expensing allowable under this section permanent at $250,000 and indexing it for inflation. We also expand the ability of small employers to use simplified methods of accounting.

Let me give a real-life example of what the small business expensing and the bonus depreciation provisions can mean. Last year I spoke with Rob Tod, the founder of Allagash Brewing Company, which is based in Portland, ME. Allagash makes some of the best craft beer in the country. In fact, Maine is known for its craft beers. Well, Rob's operation started out as a one-man show in 1995. In the 19 years since, it has grown into a firm that employs approximately 65 people and distributes craft beer throughout the United States.

Rob noted to me that his company's ability to expand was fueled in part by bonus depreciation and section 179 expensing. New to the craft beer business,

Rob had difficulty obtaining financing on favorable terms, but these cost recovery provisions allowed him to pay less in taxes in the years he acquired the equipment needed to expand his business. Those tax savings were then reinvested in his business, thus creating jobs.

Just think about that. What a difference these provisions made to this company, which has gone from a one-man operation to employing 65 people. This economic benefit is multiplied when you consider the effect of Allagash's investment on the equipment manufacturers, the transportation companies needed to haul new equipment to his brewery, the increased inventory, and the suppliers of the materials needed to brew additional beer.

We are all too familiar with the litany of polls showing how little faith the American people have in their elected leaders and how much they want us to work together to solve our Nation's problems.

I have been privileged to work with Senator Casey to do exactly that. The legislation that we have introduced is neither a Republican nor a Democratic proposal. It is, instead, a bipartisan plan to help spur America's economy, to assist our small employers, and, most of all, to create good-paying jobs. I urge my colleagues to support our bipartisan bill. I would ask our leadership to bring this legislation to restore economic growth and job opportunity to the Senate floor for action as soon as possible.

I yield to my colleague from Pennsylvania for his remarks.

Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from Pennsylvania for his remarks. I think it is obvious that both of us have reached out to employers in our States and asked them what would make a difference. What would allow you to create new jobs, preserve the ones you have, and pay your workers more?

To a person, they identified provisions in the Tax Code, the uncertainty that occurs when they expire, the difficulty to plan and to hire new workers when you do not know what the Tax Code is going to be. That formed the basis for our bipartisan bill. We listened to what employers were telling us. I hope more of our colleagues will help us bring this bill to the Senate floor.

Every day that I am talking to an employer in Maine, I am asked: Are the provisions that expired at the end of last year going to be renewed? Will they be retroactive? Can we count on them?

They put their hiring plans on hold until we give them the certainty that they deserve. So, again, it has been a great honor to work with my colleague. I do urge our leaders to bring this important bill to the Senate floor.

Madam President, I do have another statement that I would like to give seeing no one seeking the Senate floor. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Madam President, the world's best athletes have come together in Sochi, Russia, for the 22nd Winter Olympic Games. Among them is Russell Currier, from the small northern Maine town of Stockholm. It is in Aroostook County. It is very near Caribou where I grew up. I rise today to celebrate the determination, hard work, and community spirit that enables Russell Currier to represent our great country in the Olympic Games.

Russell competes in the biathlon, the demanding and increasingly popular sport that combines cross-country skiing with sharpshooting. He secured his place on America's team by winning three out of four qualifying races in January at the U.S. biathlon Olympic trials.

But Russell's snow-covered trail to Russia began long before that. Fourteen years ago, as a seventh grader, he joined the local Nordic skiing program. A former coach described him as a quiet youngster with no particular interest in the sport.

That quickly changed. The next year, Russell won a county-wide middle school championship. The year after that, he won third place at the junior nationals. Caring coaches and encouraging teammates lit a fire in him that burns so brightly today.

On Russell's personal profile on the U.S. Olympic Team Web site, he wrote that his favorite quote is, ``Less talking, more doing.'' He has embraced that motto with all of his strength, and his perseverance has turned his Olympic dream into a goal he has achieved.

I have a particular rooting interest in Russell's success. He and his parents, Debbie and Chris, are graduates of Caribou High School, as am I. Debbie and I grew up spending summers at Madawaska Lake at camps that were very near each other, and we spent endless summers playing together. I have known this wonderful family for many years, and I am thrilled for them. While the world watches the Winter Olympics, the entire population of Aroostook County and indeed of all of Maine will be riveted to the biathlon competition.

As the name suggests, the town of Stockholm, ME, was settled by Swedish immigrants. When the first 21 families came to Aroostook County in the 1870s, they brought with them an unsurpassed work ethic, a strong sense of community, and a love of skiing. In fact, the entire ski industry of Maine, both Nordic and alpine, can be traced to these hardy, outdoors-loving newcomers.

Nearly a century and a half later, the work ethic and the love of skiing remains strong, and the sense of community is more powerful than ever. When Russell won his place on the U.S. team, friends and neighbors held a fundraiser, a spaghetti dinner at Caribou High School, serving up more than 300 spaghetti dinners so Russell's parents, Debbie and Chris, could make the long and expensive trip to Russia to cheer on their son.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article the local newspaper, the Aroostook Republican, published on the community's support behind the Currier family.

Russell's dedication and his community spirit have a strong ally in this remarkable story, the Maine Winter Sports Center. The center was founded in 1999, with the purpose of rekindling Aroostook County's skiing heritage, spurring economic development in that rural region, bringing families together in wholesome recreation, and countering the sedentary lifestyle that leads to so many health problems among our greater population. The Center's world-class facilities in Fort Kent and Presque Isle, ME, have hosted national and international cross-country and biathlon competitions. For the 2006 and 2010 Olympics, 13 Members of the U.S. biathlon team trained at the Maine Winter Sports Center, but Russell is the first homegrown Olympian to come up entirely through the center's program.

Russell Currier demonstrates that growing up in a community that works hard and works together can be such a great advantage when combined with individual desire, determination, and skill. The success Russell has achieved in realizing his Olympic dream and the support along the way that he has received are truly inspiring.

I am so proud of Russell and all who helped him achieve his dream. I wish him and his teammates all the best.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the men and women who have defended America with their service and to bring to the attention of my colleagues some of the many outstanding ways in which citizens of Maine are honoring those who served and, in some cases, gave their lives for our country.

U.S. Marine Corps Maj. David Cote, a Maine native, recently established the Summit Project, a living tribute to remember and memorialize each Maine servicemember who has been killed in the line of duty since September 11, 2001.

As part of this living memorial, Major Cote has traveled across Maine to visit with the families of the fallen. He has asked each family to search for a stone to represent their loved one who gave his or her life so we could live in peace. From backyards and fishing holes to national forests and lakeside camps, these stones have been hand-picked from across Maine to represent each fallen hero.

Beginning this Memorial Day and annually thereafter, Major Cote will lead commemorative tribute hikes, in which volunteers will each carry a stone in honor of a specific fallen servicemember. During these hiking expeditions, the memories of the fallen, recounted by widows, mothers, fathers, and friends, will be shared with the hikers embarking on their journey to the summit of mountains in Maine. The Summit Project was launched to help the families who have suffered such painful losses truly heal, and to ensure that the experiences of these heroes inspire a new generation of patriots. It will honor the heroism and patriotism of those who gave all for our country since 9/11 and will ensure that their stories and sacrifices are added to Maine's proud history of duty to country.

In another unique effort, which started 23 years ago in Maine and which has now spread to include the entire United States and beyond, thousands of volunteers each year have the opportunity to recognize the ultimate sacrifice made by our brave servicemembers by participating in Wreaths Across America. This annual effort, which provides holiday wreaths to mark the graves of fallen servicemembers, was begun by Morrill and Karen Worcester of Harrington, ME.

On December 14, 2013, approximately one dozen tractor-trailer trucks laden with 143,000 ``remembrance wreaths,'' all proudly made in Maine, were escorted to Arlington National Cemetery by the Maine State Police and Patriot Guard Riders. Numerous volunteers spent the morning placing the wreaths on the headstones of deceased veterans and reflecting on their courage, selflessness, and sacrifice. All told, Wreaths Across America shipped more than 470,000 wreaths to adorn veterans' graves in all 50 States and around the world.

The mission of Wreaths Across America is to ``Remember, Honor, Teach.'' In addition to honoring America's fallen, the group seeks to promote awareness of the sacrifices made by servicemembers through various veterans' events and wreath laying ceremonies at State Houses and the U.S. Capitol. These solemn ceremonies allow us the opportunity to pause and remember the many men and women who have died to preserve our freedoms, and they encourage us to instruct younger generations so that those sacrifices are never forgotten.

For those veterans who have returned home from war, our Nation must ensure that we facilitate their transition to life as civilians. In many cases, these veterans have suffered severe injuries and need further assistance. The third effort I highlight today focuses on one veteran's effort to encourage other veterans.

U.S. Army SSG Travis Mills was on his third tour of duty in Afghanistan when he was critically injured by an improvised explosive device while on patrol. As a result, Travis lost portions of both legs and both arms. He is one of just five quadruple-amputees from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to survive their injuries.

While Travis recovered at Walter Reed Medical Center, he dreamed of providing a camp in Maine as a recreation center for disabled veterans and their families--an affordable place which would provide much-needed quality time for families to spend together. Through the assistance of Dean Lachance, executive director of the Bread of Life Ministries, Travis was connected with Joel and Crista Lavenson, co-owners of Kennebec Camp's Maine Golf & Tennis Academy. Together, they transformed their vision into a reality, creating the National Veterans Family Center, where wounded veterans and their families can enjoy much needed rest and relaxation while participating in outdoor activities that include fishing, boating, and archery.

We must never forget the sacrifices that have been made by all generations of veterans, as well as those who still serve. I am proud that Maine has a long history of great patriots who have died in the service of their country. Low on ammunition and men, Joshua Chamberlain courageously led the charge at Little Round Top at the Battle of Gettysburg. MSG Gary Gordon demonstrated great bravery during the Battle of Mogadishu in 1992, which led to his receiving the Medal of Honor. The brave Americans who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom are no longer with us, but through efforts like The Summit Project, Wreaths Across America, and the National Veterans Family Center, we can honor their sacrifice and ensure that their legacies live on.

I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for up to 10 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Retirement Security Act of 2014, legislation I am sponsoring with my good friend, the senior Senator from Florida and the chairman of the Special Committee on Aging. Our bill would encourage small employers to offer retirement plans, encourage employees to save more for their retirement, and ensure that low- and middle-income taxpayers are able to claim tax benefits for retirement savings already authorized in law.

I thought it was interesting last night that the President, in his speech, highlighted what is a growing problem in this country; that is, that people who have not saved sufficiently to have a comfortable retirement.

The legislation we are introducing today is an outgrowth of our work together on the Special Committee on Aging. Last fall, the committee conducted a hearing on retirement security, where we heard from witnesses that far too many American seniors have real reason to fear that they will outlive their savings. According to the nonpartisan Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, there is an estimated $6.6 trillion gap between the savings American households need to maintain their standard of living in retirement and what they actually have. That is an enormous gap that speaks to the fact that we need to shine a light on this problem.

Nationally, one in four retired Americans has no source of income beyond Social Security--in Maine, the number is one in three. Four in ten seniors rely on that vital program for 90 percent of their retirement income. Yet Social Security provides an average benefit of just $1,294 per month--less than $16,000 per year. It is hard to imagine stretching those dollars far enough to pay the bills--certainly a ``comfortable retirement'' is out of the question.

According to a Gallup survey published in 2012, more than half of all Americans are worried they will not be able to maintain their standard of living in retirement, up sharply from 34 percent two decades ago. They are right to be concerned: projections published in 2010 by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) show that nearly half of ``Early Boomers''--those between the ages of 56 and 62 when the study was conducted--are at risk of not having enough money to pay for basic costs in retirement, including uninsured health care costs.

There are many reasons for the decline in retirement security facing American seniors, including the severity of the recent financial crisis, rising health care costs, the need for long-term care, and the fact that Americans are simply living far longer than they did in the past. The shift from employer-based ``defined benefit'' plans-- pensions--to ``defined contribution'' plans like 401(k)s, also has played a role.

Another contributing factor we found is that employees of small businesses are much less likely to participate in employer-based retirement plans. According to a recent GAO study, more than half of the 42 million Americans who work for businesses with fewer than 100 employees lack access to a work-based plan to save for retirement. Cost and complexity are among the reasons plans are not more widely offered by small businesses.

Chairman Nelson and I believe that making it easier for smaller businesses to provide access to retirement plans for their workers would make a significant difference in the financial security for many Americans. That is why the bill we are introducing today focuses on reducing the cost and complexity of retirement plans, especially for small businesses, and on encouraging individuals to save more for their retirement. Let me describe some of the provisions of our bill:

First, our bill would allow small businesses to enter into multiple employer plans (MEPs) to jointly offer retirement programs to their employees. This allows small companies to share the administrative burden of a retirement plan, which helps to lower costs. Current law discourages the use of MEPs because it requires a connection, or ``nexus,'' between unrelated businesses in order to join a MEP, such as membership in the same trade association. Our bill would waive the nexus requirement for businesses with fewer than 500 employees. So as not to discourage growth, our bill provides a long phase-out, under which businesses are not automatically disqualified from a MEP when they hire their 500th employee.

Second, our bill makes joining a MEP a more attractive option for small businesses. Under current law, if one employer in a MEP fails to meet the minimum criteria necessary for retirement plans to obtain tax benefits, all employers and their employees could lose their tax benefits. These benefits are substantial. For employees, they include delaying the taxation of income contributed to a plan until funds are withdrawn. For employers, plan disqualification could result in limited

deductions and a higher tax burden. Our bill directs Treasury to issue regulations to address this uncertainty, and protect members of a MEP from the failure of one bad apple to meet its obligations.

Third, our bill reduces the cost of maintaining a retirement plan. Current law requires that participants in a retirement plan receive a variety of notices. Our bill would direct Treasury to simplify, clarify, and consolidate these required notices, which creates savings that can be passed on to employers.

As ranking member of the Special Committee on Aging, I have heard countless stories of retirees whose savings did not go as far as they anticipated. Adequate savings reduce poverty among our seniors during what should be their golden years. As the HELP Committee noted in a July 2012 report, elder poverty also increases Medicare and Medicaid costs and strains our social safety net. Giving those not yet at retirement age more opportunities to save, and to save more, may help to ease this additional burden on entitlement programs that already are projected to be unsustainable.

The Retirement Security Act of 2014 encourages those still in the workforce to save more for retirement. Retirement plans are often designed to comply with existing safe harbors to prevent the IRS from challenging the tax benefits that flow to employees and employers. The existing safe harbor for so-called ``automatic enrollment'' plans effectively caps employee contributions at 10 percent of annual pay, with the employer contributing a ``matching'' amount on up to 6 percent. Our bill creates an additional safe harbor for these plans that would allow employees to receive an employer match on contributions of up to 10 percent of their pay. Employees would be able to contribute more than 10 percent, albeit without an employer match for contributions above 10 percent.

I recognize that businesses that choose to adopt a plan with this new optional safe harbor may face additional costs due to the increased employer match. That is why our bill helps the smallest businesses-- those with fewer than 100 employees--offset this cost by providing a new tax credit equal to the increased match.

I wish to emphasize that the new retirement plan options for businesses included in our bill are just that--options. No business, large or small, would be required to offer a retirement plan under the Retirement Security Act of 2014. Some firms, facing an uncertain economy and rising health care costs, may choose to spend their limited resources elsewhere. Accordingly, our bill ensures that current measures to encourage savings are functioning as they were intended. One such measure is the so-called ``saver's credit,'' which reduces the tax burden on low- and middle-income individuals who contribute to retirement plans, including IRAs and 401(k) plans. Yet this credit cannot be claimed on a Form 1040EZ, which is used by individuals with income under $100,000. A 2013 survey found that only 23 percent of people with household incomes of less than $50,000 per year, the group most likely to qualify, was even aware of the saver's credit. To address this, our bill directs Treasury to make the credit available on Form 1040EZ.

In light of the positive effects this bill would have in strengthening retirement security for millions of Americans, I urge my colleagues to join Chairman Nelson and me in supporting the Retirement Security Act of 2014. I am very pleased we have a number of groups that have endorsed our bill. I expect to have more to say about that next week. But at this point I encourage my colleagues to take a look at the hearing that Chairman Nelson and I held in the Special Committee on Aging that focused the spotlight on this problem. We simply have too many of our seniors who are in their retirement years without sufficient funds for a comfortable retirement, and that can and should change.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Retirement Security Act of 2014, legislation I am sponsoring with my good friend, the senior Senator from Florida and the chairman of the Special Committee on Aging. Our bill would encourage small employers to offer retirement plans, encourage employees to save more for their retirement, and ensure that low- and middle-income taxpayers are able to claim tax benefits for retirement savings already authorized in law.

I thought it was interesting last night that the President, in his speech, highlighted what is a growing problem in this country; that is, that people who have not saved sufficiently to have a comfortable retirement.

The legislation we are introducing today is an outgrowth of our work together on the Special Committee on Aging. Last fall, the committee conducted a hearing on retirement security, where we heard from witnesses that far too many American seniors have real reason to fear that they will outlive their savings. According to the nonpartisan Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, there is an estimated $6.6 trillion gap between the savings American households need to maintain their standard of living in retirement and what they actually have. That is an enormous gap that speaks to the fact that we need to shine a light on this problem.

Nationally, one in four retired Americans has no source of income beyond Social Security--in Maine, the number is one in three. Four in ten seniors rely on that vital program for 90 percent of their retirement income. Yet Social Security provides an average benefit of just $1,294 per month--less than $16,000 per year. It is hard to imagine stretching those dollars far enough to pay the bills--certainly a ``comfortable retirement'' is out of the question.

According to a Gallup survey published in 2012, more than half of all Americans are worried they will not be able to maintain their standard of living in retirement, up sharply from 34 percent two decades ago. They are right to be concerned: projections published in 2010 by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) show that nearly half of ``Early Boomers''--those between the ages of 56 and 62 when the study was conducted--are at risk of not having enough money to pay for basic costs in retirement, including uninsured health care costs.

There are many reasons for the decline in retirement security facing American seniors, including the severity of the recent financial crisis, rising health care costs, the need for long-term care, and the fact that Americans are simply living far longer than they did in the past. The shift from employer-based ``defined benefit'' plans-- pensions--to ``defined contribution'' plans like 401(k)s, also has played a role.

Another contributing factor we found is that employees of small businesses are much less likely to participate in employer-based retirement plans. According to a recent GAO study, more than half of the 42 million Americans who work for businesses with fewer than 100 employees lack access to a work-based plan to save for retirement. Cost and complexity are among the reasons plans are not more widely offered by small businesses.

Chairman Nelson and I believe that making it easier for smaller businesses to provide access to retirement plans for their workers would make a significant difference in the financial security for many Americans. That is why the bill we are introducing today focuses on reducing the cost and complexity of retirement plans, especially for small businesses, and on encouraging individuals to save more for their retirement. Let me describe some of the provisions of our bill:

First, our bill would allow small businesses to enter into multiple employer plans (MEPs) to jointly offer retirement programs to their employees. This allows small companies to share the administrative burden of a retirement plan, which helps to lower costs. Current law discourages the use of MEPs because it requires a connection, or ``nexus,'' between unrelated businesses in order to join a MEP, such as membership in the same trade association. Our bill would waive the nexus requirement for businesses with fewer than 500 employees. So as not to discourage growth, our bill provides a long phase-out, under which businesses are not automatically disqualified from a MEP when they hire their 500th employee.

Second, our bill makes joining a MEP a more attractive option for small businesses. Under current law, if one employer in a MEP fails to meet the minimum criteria necessary for retirement plans to obtain tax benefits, all employers and their employees could lose their tax benefits. These benefits are substantial. For employees, they include delaying the taxation of income contributed to a plan until funds are withdrawn. For employers, plan disqualification could result in limited

deductions and a higher tax burden. Our bill directs Treasury to issue regulations to address this uncertainty, and protect members of a MEP from the failure of one bad apple to meet its obligations.

Third, our bill reduces the cost of maintaining a retirement plan. Current law requires that participants in a retirement plan receive a variety of notices. Our bill would direct Treasury to simplify, clarify, and consolidate these required notices, which creates savings that can be passed on to employers.

As ranking member of the Special Committee on Aging, I have heard countless stories of retirees whose savings did not go as far as they anticipated. Adequate savings reduce poverty among our seniors during what should be their golden years. As the HELP Committee noted in a July 2012 report, elder poverty also increases Medicare and Medicaid costs and strains our social safety net. Giving those not yet at retirement age more opportunities to save, and to save more, may help to ease this additional burden on entitlement programs that already are projected to be unsustainable.

The Retirement Security Act of 2014 encourages those still in the workforce to save more for retirement. Retirement plans are often designed to comply with existing safe harbors to prevent the IRS from challenging the tax benefits that flow to employees and employers. The existing safe harbor for so-called ``automatic enrollment'' plans effectively caps employee contributions at 10 percent of annual pay, with the employer contributing a ``matching'' amount on up to 6 percent. Our bill creates an additional safe harbor for these plans that would allow employees to receive an employer match on contributions of up to 10 percent of their pay. Employees would be able to contribute more than 10 percent, albeit without an employer match for contributions above 10 percent.

I recognize that businesses that choose to adopt a plan with this new optional safe harbor may face additional costs due to the increased employer match. That is why our bill helps the smallest businesses-- those with fewer than 100 employees--offset this cost by providing a new tax credit equal to the increased match.

I wish to emphasize that the new retirement plan options for businesses included in our bill are just that--options. No business, large or small, would be required to offer a retirement plan under the Retirement Security Act of 2014. Some firms, facing an uncertain economy and rising health care costs, may choose to spend their limited resources elsewhere. Accordingly, our bill ensures that current measures to encourage savings are functioning as they were intended. One such measure is the so-called ``saver's credit,'' which reduces the tax burden on low- and middle-income individuals who contribute to retirement plans, including IRAs and 401(k) plans. Yet this credit cannot be claimed on a Form 1040EZ, which is used by individuals with income under $100,000. A 2013 survey found that only 23 percent of people with household incomes of less than $50,000 per year, the group most likely to qualify, was even aware of the saver's credit. To address this, our bill directs Treasury to make the credit available on Form 1040EZ.

In light of the positive effects this bill would have in strengthening retirement security for millions of Americans, I urge my colleagues to join Chairman Nelson and me in supporting the Retirement Security Act of 2014. I am very pleased we have a number of groups that have endorsed our bill. I expect to have more to say about that next week. But at this point I encourage my colleagues to take a look at the hearing that Chairman Nelson and I held in the Special Committee on Aging that focused the spotlight on this problem. We simply have too many of our seniors who are in their retirement years without sufficient funds for a comfortable retirement, and that can and should change.

Thank you.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. President, 50 years ago today, on January 27, 1964, Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine announced her candidacy for President of the United States. The following July, at the Republican National Convention in San Francisco, the great lady from Maine became the first woman in history to ever have her name entered into nomination by a major party for our Nation's highest office. I rise to commemorate this remarkable leader and this significant milestone in our history.

At the time of her announcement, Senator Smith was in her 24th year in Congress and was an established groundbreaker. She was the first woman elected to both the House and the Senate and the first to serve on the Armed Services Committee. She was the woman who gave other women the opportunity to pursue careers in the military. Due to her early and energetic support for the space program, she has been called the woman who put a man on the Moon.

Her courageous ``Declaration of Conscience'' delivered in the Senate on June 1, 1950, turned the tide against McCarthyism and reminded all Americans of our Nation's core values of free expression and independent thought.

Senator Smith made her Presidential announcement in a speech at the Women's National Press Club in Washington. Yes, Mr. President, there was a separate press club for women in those days. It was an important address in which she described both the progress that America had made against bigotry, prejudice, extremism, and hatred as well as the challenges that remained, but Margaret Chase Smith saved the best for last. After telling her audience of the flood of letters she had been receiving from all over the country urging her to run for President, Senator Smith described the reasons offered by her supporters, such as she had more experience at the national level than any of the other confirmed candidates, she had the stature that could break the barrier against women being seriously considered for President, she would provide a moderate, middle-of-the-road option in an election that was shaping up as one between a very conservative and very liberal philosophy.

Then she described the reasons she should not run: The widespread contention that the Presidency was a man's job, her lack of financial resources, and a professional political organization, and the fact that the odds were stacked heavily against her. Senator Smith said she found the reasons offered against running far more compelling than those in favor. So imagine the surprise of her audience when she said that because of those very reasons, she had decided to enter the New Hampshire primary.

Senator Smith's campaign was off and running, and what a campaign it was. Senator Smith accepted no money from anyone. All contributions-- whether they were large or small--were returned to sender. She took to the campaign trail only when the Senate was not in session in order to preserve her perfect record of never missing a rollcall vote and to keep the pledge of dedicated service she had made to the people of Maine. Her campaign motto was: ``There is nothing more effective than a handshake and a little conversation.''

As a consequence of her self-imposed financial and time restraints, Senator Smith did not win a primary. But in the one primary where she was able to campaign somewhat extensively--the State of Illinois for all of two weekends and a total expenditure of $85--she finished a strong second in a field of six. She lost only to the eventual nominee, Barry Goldwater. With 25 percent of the vote, she came in far ahead of such well-known candidates as Richard Nixon, Nelson Rockefeller, and Henry Cabot Lodge. It is intriguing to think what she might have done with a more traditional campaign.

At the Republican National Convention in San Francisco that year, Senator Smith's name was entered into nomination by Senator George Aiken of Vermont. He told the delegates that Senator Smith's integrity, ability, common sense, and courage made her ``the best qualified person you ever voted for.'' On the first ballot, 27 delegates did vote for Margaret Chase Smith from the great State of Maine.

Unlike the other candidates, Senator Smith did not release her delegates to the landslide victor, Senator Goldwater. That was not done out of spite. Indeed, she campaigned earnestly for him in the general election. It was done because she wanted to demonstrate--she wanted the historical record to show that a woman had been given serious consideration for the Presidency of this country.

Many words have been spoken over many years in attempts to describe the character of Senator Margaret Chase Smith. Perhaps the best were offered by the candidate herself on that campaign trail a half century ago. She said:

I have few illusions and no money, but I'm staying for the

finish. When people keep telling you, you can't do a thing,

you kind of like to try.

On this milestone anniversary, I am honored to celebrate an extraordinary woman from Maine who tried and failed in one endeavor but in doing so inspired generations of Americans with her strength and determination and demonstrated, as she once said, that a woman's place is ``everywhere.''

Today, the Senate has a record 20 women Senators. In a sense each of us owes a debt to Senator Margaret Chase Smith, but none more so than I. You

see, I first met Senator Smith when I was a high school senior from Caribou, ME. I was selected as one of two students to come to Washington as part of the Senate Youth Program sponsored by the William Randolph Hearst Foundation, a program that still exists today. I remember how excited I was to see Senator Smith and her graciousness in inviting me into her office and spending nearly 2 hours with me.

As the Presiding Officer can appreciate, for any of us to spend 2 hours with anyone is remarkable nowadays, but Margaret Chase Smith carved out that time to talk with me. Recently her library sent me copies of her appointment book for that day so I could see that my appointment with her was listed and preserved for all time.

She talked to me not about what it was like being the only woman in the Senate, she talked to me instead about her service on the Armed Services Committee, about what we could do to create more jobs in this country and, most of all, about her famous ``Declaration of Conscience'' in which she stood up against the smear campaign and the excesses of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Through that speech she taught us all to stand tall for what we believe in and to speak out against injustice and bigotry.

I remember when I left her office I was so thrilled and inspired. I remember thinking women could do anything. This was back in 1971, and although I came from a family with wonderful role models in both my mother and my father, who were so active in their community and in their State, there were a lot of other messages about that time that raised doubts in the minds of growing girls about whether we could, in fact, be whatever we wanted to be. So that message that I learned from Margaret Chase Smith was so important in shaping who I am today.

Although I did not know it at the time at all, that meeting with Margaret Chase Smith shortly after I had turned 18 as a high school senior taught me I could achieve my dream, and in many ways it was the first step on a journey that led me to run for her seat in the Senate 25 years later.

Today I am so proud that the desk at which I stand--the desk that I use and is assigned to me on the Senate floor--once belonged to the legendary Senator from Maine Margaret Chase Smith. What a wonderful role model she was to me the entire time I was growing up when she was representing the State of Maine with such integrity, skill, and courage. I feel so fortunate to hold her seat in the Senate.

So today it gives me great pride as well as great pleasure to inform my colleagues that this is the 50th anniversary of the day that Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine became the first woman in history to announce her candidacy for President of the United States and later that year to be the first woman to have her name placed in nomination by a major political party. Let us celebrate this day as we also celebrate the presence of a record number of women in the Senate. I believe that would have made Senator Smith very proud.

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

Madam President, I first want to congratulate Chairwoman Mikulski and Vice Chairman Shelby for their leadership in bringing these appropriations bills to the floor for final consideration. While I would have preferred these bills to have been brought to the floor individually so that they could be amended, this nevertheless is a noteworthy achievement.

The 2-year budget agreement negotiated by Senator Murray and Congressman Ryan provided the framework for the bill we are considering today, allowing the Appropriations Committees to begin our work of developing bills that will responsibly fund the government.

Since passage of the budget agreement, the Appropriations Committee members have worked tirelessly to craft a true compromise.

As the ranking member for the Transportation and Housing Subcommittee, I worked with Chairman Murray to negotiate a bipartisan Transportation and Housing bill. While this bill makes prudent spending reductions--it is $3.2 billion below the original Senate bill and nearly $1 billion below the fiscal year 2013 enacted level--it continues to invest in important transportation and housing programs. I would like to mention a few highlights:

First, the TIGER program, which supports transportation infrastructure and economic development in our local communities, is funded at $600 million. Given the current state of our Nation's highways and bridges with so many being structurally deficient, we included additional resources to help eliminate some of the backlog of vital construction projects.

Second, while the overall funding level for the FAA is reduced by $167 million from the fiscal year 2013 enacted level, we worked to provide sufficient funding to ensure air traffic controller and safety inspector staffing losses are made whole. The bill also fully funds the Contract Tower program to prevent administration officials from arbitrarily closing towers as they attempted to do last year.

Further, the bill includes program reforms for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which will streamline program requirements, increase oversight, and reduce costs to the taxpayer.

I am proud that the THUD bill strikes the right balance between fiscal responsibility and meeting our Nation's housing and infrastructure needs.

The other divisions of the bill are equally important--from national security, to energy, to health and human services--and I would also like to acknowledge the work of the other subcommittee chairs and ranking members in completing action on their bills.

For our military and our Nation's security, I particularly appreciate that this bill includes $100 million for the procurement of the fifth DDG-51 from Bath Iron Works, which Senator King and I advocated. This funding will allow the Navy to send a tenth DDG-51 to sea that is capable of performing many roles and missions in support of our national defense. Not only will it add stability to the workforce at Bath Iron Works in Maine, but it also will result in significant savings for the taxpayers. The multiyear, 10-ship procurement will save approximately $1.5 billion--that is the equivalent of an extra destroyer at no cost. I thank Chairwoman Mikulski, Vice Chairman Shelby, Subcommittee Chairman Durbin, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Cochran for this important funding.

I am also grateful to see the $11.5 million in military construction funding that will go toward the consolidation of structural shops and improve the efficiency of operations at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. While the Department of Defense has delayed or cancelled $4.1 billion in military construction projects during the next five budget years, this project was accelerated to 2014 due to efforts by members of the Maine and New Hampshire delegations to increase investments to address long overdue modernization needs at PNSY.

For our veterans, I am pleased this bill restores the full cost-of- living increase for disabled military retirees and for survivor benefits, rectifying provisions in the recently-passed budget agreement that unfairly singled out current retirees. Unfortunately, this will not protect all military retirees from a decreased cost-of-living adjustment on their pensions. We must continue to work on behalf of our retired servicemembers and their families to ensure that they receive the full benefits they have been promised and have earned by their service to this country. Congress should act quickly to pass legislation I have cosponsored that completely restores the COLA for all military retirees.

This bill also provides several million dollars in additional funding for medical research, including for Alzheimer's Disease research, treatment, and caregiver programs. This is an important initial step toward the goal of doubling funding for Alzheimer's research and eventually reaching the level of $2 billion over five years, as recommended by the Alzheimer's Advisory Council. We must continue our efforts in 2015 to increase Alzheimer's research given the tremendous human and economic price of this devastating disease. We are spending $142 billion annually in Medicare and Medicaid costs on caring for people with Alzheimer's.

I also want to thank Agriculture Subcommittee Chairman Pryor and Ranking Member Blunt for addressing the needs of our Nation's farmers and growers, providing critical support for research, and making important nutrition and food security investments during difficult economic times. In particular, I am pleased that the agreement expects USDA to amend its arbitrary decision to exclude the fresh white potato, the only fresh vegetable or fruit to be excluded, from the Women, Infants and Children, or WIC program. Fresh white potatoes are a healthy, affordable, and delicious food choice, and it only makes common sense to include this nutritious vegetable in the WIC package.

This bill also makes important commitments to our energy infrastructure. I would like to thank Subcommittee Chairwoman Feinstein and Ranking Member Alexander for recognizing the potential for creating jobs by providing robust funding for the Department of Energy wind program, which funds the offshore wind demonstration projects. Federal seed money is helping overcome barriers to the development and implementation of new and innovative technologies, such as deepwater offshore wind, which can position the U.S. as a global leader in this promising clean energy field.

To help address the high cost of residential energy, particularly for those living in northern, rural states such as Maine, funding is provided in this bill for the weatherization program. This program plays an important role in permanently reducing home energy costs for low-income families and seniors and training a skilled workforce.

Moreover, for our most vulnerable families and seniors, the increased

funding for LIHEAP will help ensure that recipients do not have to choose between paying their energy bills and paying for other necessities such as food or medicine. LIHEAP continues to be an indispensable lifeline for many Americans during these challenging economic times and exceptionally cold winter.

Helping to meet the water infrastructure needs of smaller States and regions is another vital piece of our national infrastructure. I am pleased this bill includes funding for the operation and maintenance of Army Corps projects at ``small, remote, or subsistence harbors.'' Ports and harbors are the economic lifeblood for many rural communities--a fact not fully accounted for under the Corps' budget metrics, which tend to favor larger ports.

The bill also continues to support our Nation's fisheries, which are so important to the economies of our coastal communities, particularly in Maine. In September 2012, the Commerce Department declared a disaster in the Northeast groundfish industry. A vital $75 million is included in this bill to help fishermen in Maine and in other areas of the country who have had their livelihoods affected by fisheries disasters in recent years. This funding could be used to provide both immediate economic relief to Maine and the region's struggling groundfish industry, and to make targeted investments that will allow the fleet to survive and become more sustainable in the years ahead.

The American people are weary of watching a Congress that can't work. We saw the result of this dysfunction when the government shut down in October. We simply must avoid another shutdown and put our Nation back on sound financial footing. That is why I urge my colleagues to support the compromises the Appropriations Committees worked so hard to achieve.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill addressing an issue important to Maine veterans who served at Canadian Forces Base, CFB, Gagetown. Veterans who served there may have suffered from adverse health impacts due to exposure to the herbicide Agent Orange, which was used at CFB Gagetown in 1966 and 1967. This bill would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, VA, to establish a registry of U.S. veterans who served or trained at CFB Gagetown between 1956 and 2006 and have subsequently experienced health issues, which may have resulted from exposure to these chemicals. It also directs the VA to commission an independent study investigating any possible linkage between the spraying of Agent Orange at CFB Gagetown and subsequent health problems among the American soldiers who served or trained there. The legislation I am offering with Senator King is similar to another bill that has been introduced by Congressman Mike Michaud in the House of Representatives.

Protecting the health of those who have served our Nation is a solemn responsibility. I have heard from veterans in Maine about how they have suffered from diabetes, cancers, and respiratory illnesses. Many of these veterans fear their illnesses are linked to the use of Agent Orange in the 1960s. These veterans, however, have had difficulty in persuading the VA that their health problems are related to this chemical exposure.

By requiring the VA to establish a registry of these veterans, we recognize these widespread concerns and provide veterans with a way to make their claims known to the VA and to identify commonalities among their shared experiences. It also provides the VA with the ability to reach out to veterans on this issue of critical importance.

Last month, I personally raised this issue with the Canadian Minister of Defence. Many Canadian veterans who served or trained at CFB Gagetown voiced similar concerns with their government. He described how the Government of Canada found a way to appropriately compensate service members affected by the toxic chemicals used at Gagetown. Ultimately, the Canadian government approved one-time ex gratia payments of $20,000 for qualifying veterans who demonstrated that they were at CFB Gagetown during the days when the toxic agents were sprayed.

A crucial provision in this legislation requires the VA to commission an independent study that investigates the connection between health problems and exposure to Agent Orange at CFB Gagetown. Previously, I requested that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry conduct an investigation into whether Maine veterans were exposed to toxic chemicals while training at CFB Gagetown. A significant deficiency with the CDC report, however, was that it relied solely on existing Canadian government studies on this subject rather than conducting interviews of those who trained there. Many Maine veterans feel strongly that they suffered negative consequences from exposure to Agent Orange while training at Gagetown. The United States Government should conduct its own independent study with interviews.

This legislation keeps faith with our veterans by demonstrating that our government takes the allegations of exposure to Agent Orange seriously. The bill will help identify and bring together the shared experience of those who trained at CFB Gagetown. This bill will make it easier for the VA to conduct outreach on this issue pending any new developments. I look forward to working with Senator King and all of my colleagues to pass this important bill.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill addressing an issue important to Maine veterans who served at Canadian Forces Base, CFB, Gagetown. Veterans who served there may have suffered from adverse health impacts due to exposure to the herbicide Agent Orange, which was used at CFB Gagetown in 1966 and 1967. This bill would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, VA, to establish a registry of U.S. veterans who served or trained at CFB Gagetown between 1956 and 2006 and have subsequently experienced health issues, which may have resulted from exposure to these chemicals. It also directs the VA to commission an independent study investigating any possible linkage between the spraying of Agent Orange at CFB Gagetown and subsequent health problems among the American soldiers who served or trained there. The legislation I am offering with Senator King is similar to another bill that has been introduced by Congressman Mike Michaud in the House of Representatives.

Protecting the health of those who have served our Nation is a solemn responsibility. I have heard from veterans in Maine about how they have suffered from diabetes, cancers, and respiratory illnesses. Many of these veterans fear their illnesses are linked to the use of Agent Orange in the 1960s. These veterans, however, have had difficulty in persuading the VA that their health problems are related to this chemical exposure.

By requiring the VA to establish a registry of these veterans, we recognize these widespread concerns and provide veterans with a way to make their claims known to the VA and to identify commonalities among their shared experiences. It also provides the VA with the ability to reach out to veterans on this issue of critical importance.

Last month, I personally raised this issue with the Canadian Minister of Defence. Many Canadian veterans who served or trained at CFB Gagetown voiced similar concerns with their government. He described how the Government of Canada found a way to appropriately compensate service members affected by the toxic chemicals used at Gagetown. Ultimately, the Canadian government approved one-time ex gratia payments of $20,000 for qualifying veterans who demonstrated that they were at CFB Gagetown during the days when the toxic agents were sprayed.

A crucial provision in this legislation requires the VA to commission an independent study that investigates the connection between health problems and exposure to Agent Orange at CFB Gagetown. Previously, I requested that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry conduct an investigation into whether Maine veterans were exposed to toxic chemicals while training at CFB Gagetown. A significant deficiency with the CDC report, however, was that it relied solely on existing Canadian government studies on this subject rather than conducting interviews of those who trained there. Many Maine veterans feel strongly that they suffered negative consequences from exposure to Agent Orange while training at Gagetown. The United States Government should conduct its own independent study with interviews.

This legislation keeps faith with our veterans by demonstrating that our government takes the allegations of exposure to Agent Orange seriously. The bill will help identify and bring together the shared experience of those who trained at CFB Gagetown. This bill will make it easier for the VA to conduct outreach on this issue pending any new developments. I look forward to working with Senator King and all of my colleagues to pass this important bill.