Floor Statements

Thank you, Madam President. Let me first say how much I appreciate all of my colleagues coming to the floor and talking about this amendment. Senator Hirono is here. I know Senator Whitehouse is coming down. A number of Senators have come down and spoken very eloquently. The Presiding Officer has also taken a good strong position and we so much appreciate all of her good work.

An earlier speaker said that the NAACP is against this amendment. In fact, the NAACP is for this amendment.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement off their Web page of their endorsement of the constitutional amendment I am going to talk about.

Thank you, Madam President.

Some of our opponents have come down to the floor and asked: Why do this now? Why bother? I would answer: Ask the American people. I think they will tell you. People are listening--not just Democrats but Republicans too--all across the Nation. They are listening and here is what they are hearing. They are hearing that the Supreme Court has put a for sale sign on our elections. They are hearing our political process is on life support, drowning in cash, and most of it coming from just a few people.

Sixty percent of all super PAC money in 2012 was doled out by 100 billionaires and corporations. They are hearing about elections bought and paid for by shadowy outside groups given a green light by the Supreme Court. Special interests are shelling out at least $216 million in 2014 and likely $1 billion by election day. That is 15 times more money than in 2006 before Citizens United, before the Supreme Court defied common sense and said corporations are people. They are hearing that a lot of money is hidden when over half the money spent in this year's top nine Senate races is not fully disclosed, over half not fully disclosed. So in 2 months we will know the outcome of these elections, but we will not know who paid for them.

The result is not surprising. The American people have lost faith in us as they watch this merry-go-round, this constant money chasing, and very little else getting done. This is a vital debate about what democracy we will have and whether democracy will survive. Will we have one that caters to billionaires and the privileged few or one that listens to the American people; one that keeps chasing money from special interests or one that says it is the quality of our ideas, not the size of our bank accounts, that should matter; a democracy that answers to the middle class or to the moneyed class?

This debate is crucial. This debate is absolutely crucial to the future of our country, and I believe the American people are not only listening, they are demanding to be heard, because every voice counts, and that is why the majority of Americans support reform. They know the system is broken.

There is only one way to truly fix it. Give power back to the elected representatives of the people, to the Congress, and to the States. We have a job to do, but the Supreme Court has rendered us powerless to do it. There is one way to change this, one way for real reform; that is, a constitutional amendment.

That is what this debate is all about. The Supreme Court opened the floodgates. The American people want us to close them.

The Huffington Post published an article yesterday titled ``Is Washington The Only Place Where Campaign Finance Is A Partisan Issue?'' The answer is yes. Poll after poll shows this.

A strong majority of Democrats and Republicans outside of Washington want reform, Republicans such as my good friend former Senator Al Simpson from Wyoming. Yesterday The Hill published an op-ed that Al and I wrote together. As most people know, he has always been someone to speak his mind. When Al edited our draft he added that ``the playing field in our democracy is far from level, and that is driving cynicism, disgust, and mistrust of the political process to dangerous levels.''

Sadly, he is right. It is time for us to listen to our constituents. Over 3 million people have signed petitions in support of a constitutional amendment. There are 16 States, over 550 cities and towns pushing for reform, demanding a more level playing field and fairness, including 75 percent of the voters in Montana, a State where Mitt Romney won by a 10-point margin. So this is a partisan issue only in Washington and in the backrooms of billionaires determined to keep the money flowing and the influence intact.

So opponents have ramped up the noise and distraction about the First Amendment and free speech. I would not lose any sleep about billionaires and their free speech, but a lot of us are up late nights thinking about the rest of America.

As Justice Breyer wrote in his dissent to McCutcheon, ``Where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard.'' Too many Americans feel they are not being heard. The First Amendment has already been hijacked. Our amendment rescues it.

Congress has a long history of regulating campaign finance, of doing its job and standing up to Big Money and powerful interests. We can go all the way back to 1867, and later with the Pendleton Act, the Hatch Act, the Bipartisan Campaign Act of 2002--a long history and I would argue an honorable one, and without banning books, suppressing teachers, suppressing preachers or shutting down newspapers. Reforms have been modest, reasonable, and responsive, passed by both Houses of Congress, signed by the President.

The other side can talk about imaginary horribles. That is one way to go. But that argument is not supported by history, by logic or by the law. Our amendment is not radical. It is a simple idea. It will give power back to the elected representatives of the people, to Congress, and to the States. That is it, period.

What is so terrifying about this? Not one thing, except for wealthy special interests that have their place at the table bought and paid for and want to keep it. That is the bottom line. They oppose any reforms, any restrictions on campaign spending. They are listening too. Their message is very clear and unyielding: No reform. None. They want to keep writing their checks and staying at the head of the table.

This debate is about special interests trying to buy elections in secret with no limits. The Supreme Court says that is just fine. We say, no, in fact, it isn't. Our amendment has a long bipartisan tradition back to 1983 when Senator Ted Stevens, a Republican, was the lead sponsor. It is common sense. It is fair.

We do not dictate specific reforms. We do say Congress has a duty and a right to enact sensible campaign finance reform. Any specific proposals are debatable and answerable to the American people. This amendment has the support of most Americans because they understand beyond all the noise, beyond all the tortured logic of our opponents that we have a train wreck and we need to get the train back on track before yet another scandal, before we are back in the Watergate era.

The voice of Americans should not be drowned out by billionaires lobbying for favors, hiding in the corner with gold-plated megaphones. It is time to limit the power of Big Money, to give everyone a say, not just the rich, not just the powerful--everyone.

Americans are listening, they are watching, and they are waiting because they know and we know a simple truth: We cannot hand over our democracy to the biggest spender.

Thank you, Madam President.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the op-ed I mentioned authored by myself and Senator Simpson and that the Huffington Post article I referenced be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I say to my good friend the Senator from Texas that there are very important reasons for bringing up this issue now, and it is because of the elections that are going on. He makes it sound as though this is some kind of a political process. What is going on in our elections right now--and here are the nine top Senate races in the country. The blue on this chart indicates partial or nondisclosed money. This is the dark money. Nobody knows where this money is coming from. It could be billionaires or large corporations. It could be almost anyone with a secret agenda.

As an example, more than half the money in this race in Arkansas is dark money. In Georgia we can see that almost all of the money is in this category of partial or nondisclosure. In Kentucky and North Carolina almost half the money is in the category of partial or nondisclosed money, and there is a significant amount of partial or nondisclosed in the other nine States. This issue has to do with what is happening right now in our elections.

Just 6 months ago I went over to the Supreme Court and listened to the McCutcheon argument and the ruling--well, I went over there longer than 6 months ago. They made the ruling about 6 months ago. That ruling said one individual can give $3.6 million, and that is what this is about. We are trying to get to the bottom of what is happening in our elections and how our elections are being taken away from us and how they are being influenced in terms of dark money. This is a very good time to have this debate.

I will also say to my friend from Texas, this is a bipartisan amendment. This amendment started back in 1983 with Ted Stevens, a Republican. Ernest Hollings could not be more of a bipartisan figure in the Senate, and he picked it up. From 1983 to today, we have had 11 Republicans either vote for the amendment or a similar amendment or beyond the amendment. This is not anything that should be partisan. This dark money and the impact it is having is something the American people are very worried about. I will come back to this chart in a minute.

This is a crucial period in our history. Americans will go to the polls and vote. It is our heritage, it is something to celebrate, and it is something to protect. The integrity of our elections is crucial, but our campaign finance system is under siege, drowning in cash and record amounts of money. Much of the money is from outside groups and much of it is hidden. Our elections should not be for sale to the highest bidder. Money has poisoned our political system. The American people have lost faith in us as they have watched this merry-go-round and constant money chasing from special interests and very little has been getting done.

Folks want Congress to get to work and work together so we can find real solutions to real problems and spend our time raising hopes instead of raising cash. That is why Senator Bennet and I have introduced our constitutional amendment and that is what I wish to talk about today.

Total spending on Federal elections was over $6 billion in 2012. That is double what was spent in 2000, just 12 years before. That is a lot of money. Where does it come from? Most of it comes from a tiny fraction of the population, and there are billionaires and special interests writing checks--often in dark corners with a lot of the dark money, as I talked about at the beginning of my speech. Nobody knows who is behind that dark money, and that dark money is in our elections in a big way.

There are basically two questions: How did we get into this mess and how do we fix it? First, we need to look at the history, which is important to understand because folks can change the subject, but they cannot change the facts and the facts are very clear. Our campaign finance system is being destroyed by misguided Supreme Court decisions, one after another with narrow 5-to-4 decisions, giving a hammer to big money and chipping away at our democracy.

Normally the tradition in the Supreme Court has been that of Justices deciding on issues with a vote of 9 to 0 or 8 to 1 after trying to work things out, but these are narrow 5-to-4 decisions which are dividing the country and dividing the Court.

We can go all the way back to a Supreme Court decision back in 1976 in a case called Buckley v. Valeo, when the Court said money and free speech are the same thing. Four years ago in a case that involved Citizens United, the Court said corporations are persons and they can spend all they want.

Basically the Supreme Court put a for sale sign on elections. These elections and decisions opened the door and allowed a flood of money. They ignored political reality and drowned out the voices of ordinary Americans.

Most recently the McCutcheon decision knocked down aggregate contribution limits. What we are talking about in that case is that one person can dole out $3.6 million directly to candidates and parties in all 50 States. Let's put that in perspective for the average American working full time and making minimum wage. He or she would have to work 239 years to make that much money. Because of the McCutcheon decision, one person can dole out $3.6 million directly to candidates and parties in all 50 States. It would take the average American, working full time and making minimum wage, 239 years to make that much money. Look at the imbalance and inequality there.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in a recent interview in the National Law Journal:

I think the biggest mistake this Court made is in campaign

finance. . . . It should be increasingly clear how [money] is

corrupting our system.

Justice Ginsburg is right. It is clear to most Americans, which is why opponents of reform either change the subject or muddy the water, which I will get into in a minute. But the point must be made that the five conservative Justices on the Supreme Court are not done. If left unchecked, the hammering will continue and the destruction will go on.

Chief Justice Roberts made a troubling statement in the McCutcheon decision. He said preventing bribery is the only basis, the only justification for Congress to pass campaign finance laws.

What does this mean? It means more bad decisions from the Court, the floodgates stay open, and the money keeps pouring in. Short of prohibiting out and out bribery, Congress is powerless to act and the American people must step aside. Billionaires will stay at the front of the line. All of this, folks, defies common sense.

Senator McCain said after the ruling on McCutcheon: ``There will be scandals involving corrupt political officials and unlimited, anonymous campaign contributions that will force the system to be reformed once again.''

I am afraid my friend is right. There will be scandals. We are setting the stage for scandals. Just look at the millions of dollars of undisclosed money pouring into our elections.

How can there be reform? The Court has tied the hands of Congress. Until the Constitution is amended, we cannot enact real reforms-- reforms such as McCain-Feingold. The Court will just strike them down. We are headed back to the pre-Watergate era.

In 2012 outside groups spent $450 million to influence Senate and House races. In 2008, before Citizens United, they spent $43 million. That is a tenfold increase. There is an obvious trend and it is deeply troubling. Much of that money is hidden.

According to a recent report by the Brennan Center, over half the money spent in this year's top nine Senate races is not fully disclosed. So in 2 months we will know the outcome of these elections, but we won't know who paid for them.

This chart is a great indication. We have the top-most contested Senate races, and here in the red we have full disclosure of the money. So the red shows us what people know and that they know who the contributors are, but the blue, which is more than half if we average it through all of the elections, represents partial or absolute nondisclosure.

This clearly shows we have a broken system. There are only two ways to fix it. The Court can reverse itself--that is unlikely--or we can amend the Constitution, making clear in the Constitution that people have the right to regulate campaign finance. Until then, we will fall short of real reform. That is why a constitutional amendment is essential--because the time has come to give power back to the elected representatives of the people.

Opponents say this is just an election year stunt, but, again, this ignores history. Our amendment is similar to other bipartisan amendments introduced in nearly every Congress since 1983 when Ted Stevens--a Republican--was the lead sponsor. Many prominent Republicans cosponsored and voted for these amendments over the course of three decades, people such as John Danforth, Strom Thurmond, Nancy Kassebaum, Arlen Specter, John McCain, and Thad Cochran. This was always a bipartisan effort. And this was before Citizens United, before

McCutcheon, when things went from bad to worse.

It is not a radical idea. In fact, it is pretty simple. It would give back power to Congress to regulate campaign finance at the Federal level and to States at the State level. That is it, period. We do not dictate specific reforms. We can debate the specifics, and we should, but Congress has a duty and a right to enact sensible campaign finance reform.

The American people support reform because they know a basic truth: No matter how hard some may try to obscure it, when the Court says money is free speech, there is a great risk that special interests can drown out the voices of everyone else because we know we don't get something for nothing. Folks writing those checks want something in return. Whether they are Democratic billionaires or Republican billionaires, they want value for their money, which usually means less compromise and which usually means less compromise and more gridlock.

Opponents of reform are in full throttle by ignoring history and torturing logic. But let's be clear. Here is the bottom line: They oppose any limits, they oppose any restrictions on how big the checks are or even saying which billionaires are writing them. It is hard to defend that. Instead, they change the subject and talk about threats to free speech, which goes something like this: If Congress can regulate campaign finance spending, then it can also regulate free speech. I think this is a straw man argument not supported by history, logic, or the law. It isn't persuasive, and it is basically a scare tactic.

Congress has a long history of regulating campaign finance, often in the wake of scandal. Since 1867 Congress has been in the business of regulating campaign finance by banning solicitation of campaign funds from naval yard government employees. We have had the Pendleton Act, the Tillman Act, the Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925, the Hatch Act, the Federal Campaign Election Act of 1974, and the Bipartisan Campaign Act of 2002.

First scandal and then reform--that is the unfortunate pattern. Every generation has faced that challenge for ethical government, for standing up to the power of big money, and the Congress has acted. It has not banned books, suppressed preachers, or stopped printing presses. Reform has been modest, reasonable, and responsive, sensible enough to pass both Houses of Congress and get the signature of the President. We have to answer to our constituents, unlike Supreme Court Justices.

Further, our amendment does not give Congress free rein. There is still a reasonableness requirement in the Court's interpretation of any constitutional amendment. If Congress did pass extreme laws, the Court could still overturn them as unreasonable. The First Amendment is in full effect. So in the classic example, we protect free speech, but we cannot yell ``fire'' in a crowded theater. ``Reasonable'' is not a complicated idea--except maybe here in Washington or to billionaires who demand their way or the highway.

Opponents also argue that our amendment protects incumbents. This, again, misses the point. If anything, the current system favors incumbents. Raising $10 million, $15 million, or $20 million for a Senate seat is a tall order--one many qualified candidates will decline. If a person is elected, it is just the beginning of this endless campaign cycle to compete, to keep up, to raise more money. Every Member in this body can speak to the hours on the phone dialing for dollars when our time could be better spent meeting the real needs of our constituents and serving the folks who sent us here in the first place.

I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute to sum up.

Mr. President, this is not about free speech, and the American people know it. It is about the wealthiest interests trying to buy elections in secret, with no limits, period. That is it.

Let me finally say that I have had a great group of Senators working with me on this amendment over the years. One of them we are going to hear from right now--Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont. All of us-- Senator Leahy, Senator Durbin on the Judiciary Committee--have worked and refined this amendment to do everything we can to make sure that it is responsive to the American people and that it will make us responsive to the American people in terms of having a good, solid electoral system other than the one the Supreme Court is leading us down the path with.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am pleased that today we were able to put aside the partisan politics and vote for what was right for the American people. I hope my colleagues will also vote for the final bill. We must protect American jobs and eliminate tax loopholes for corporations that move jobs overseas. Creating and supporting well-paying American jobs should be our top priority.

The debate about jobs in America and New Mexico is not about politics; it is about people. This past weekend I visited with some New Mexicans who are facing a very real and personal

challenge as far as their future and their livelihood.

In Questa, NM, miners have worked for nearly a century. But that mine is now closing--less than 2 weeks from today--and 300 people will lose their jobs. For the workers, for their families, and for local businesses, it is a hard time, with tough questions and uncertain answers.

Just this past Sunday I met with the miners to talk with them and, most importantly, to listen about what has happened in Questa and the future of a great community.

This is about more than Chevron Corporation's decision to close the mine; it is about workers who feel they were kept in the dark, who worry that help will be too little and too late. My office is working closely with the community for trade adjustment assistance to get the training and help they will need.

Folks there are struggling, but they are committed to mapping out a new future for Questa, a post-mining economy, including ecotourism and renewable energy.

Families have lived and worked in Questa for generations. They know hard work, grit, and determination. No one needs to tell them about that. They helped build our country. They support their community, and they follow the rules. They ask for one thing in return: a fair chance--that is all, just a fair chance.

Let's be clear. For the Supreme Court, for those who seem to be confused on this point, these miners are people, their families are people. Corporations are not people. Super PACs buying our elections-- they are not people. They are special interests with a lot of money and a lot of demands, such as special tax breaks--tax breaks that make no sense to real people with real problems who are looking for real jobs.

We need to be doing all we can to create jobs, to keep building our economy. The Bring Jobs Home Act would help--a tax policy that brings jobs home, not one that rewards sending them away. Almost 2.5 million jobs have gone over the past 10 years, shipped overseas and paid for by the American taxpayers, by families such as those in Questa footing the bill.

The Bring Jobs Home Act would do two important things: First, it would end the tax loophole for outsourcing jobs. If corporations want to send a job overseas, they can do so but at their own expense, not at the expense of the American taxpayers. Second, it would create the right incentives, giving a tax credit for companies that bring jobs back home. This is a pretty simple idea. Let's reward what helps and stop rewarding what doesn't.

The Bring Jobs Home Act will do something else too. For the middle class in this country, for workers and families, it will say: We hear you. Your voice matters too. And all the super PAC dollars can't change that.

We can create jobs right here at home. We can keep growing our economy and help communities with a tax policy that builds them up and invests in the future. That is something to fight for. That is the kind of fairness folks want and deserve in Questa, in my State and in our country.

The mine will close in Questa. We can't change that. We can't bring it back. Some folks say that it will feel like a death the day that door closes, that it almost feels like a funeral, as if a part of them dies with the mine. And I am sure it does. It has been the lifeblood of the community for so many years and for so many generations of families. But folks there said something else too: When bad things happen, friends and family show up to do what they can to help.

We need to start showing up for the American worker, for the middle class, for towns all across our Nation where the factory closed, where the jobs went away. The Bring Jobs Home Act is a start to create jobs, to build our economy here at home, and to help communities in a world that is changing awfully fast. It is a step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, with deep regret I wish to speak about a very tragic event that occurred recently in my State. On Friday afternoon, May 23, a plane crashed in Arenas Valley, just outside Silver City. It is with great sorrow that we say goodbye to four New Mexicans: Ella Kirk; 14, Michael Mahl, 16; Ella Myers, 16; all of Silver City, NM; and Dr. Peter Hochla, 67, of Albuquerque.

Ella Kirk, Michael Mahl, and Ella Myers were talented, gifted students. They had just finished their sophomore year at Aldo Leopold Charter School in Silver City. They were not only fellow classmates, they were close friends, and they were also dedicated to protecting the environment. Each served on the Youth Conservation Corps ecological monitoring crew, which won first place at the New Mexico EnviroThon competition earlier this year.

On Sunday, June 1, friends and families gathered at a memorial service in Silver City. Their recollections, as reported in the Silver City Sun-News, recall the three remarkable young people taken so suddenly from our midst.

Ella Kirk, despite her youth, was a passionate advocate for protecting the Gila River. Her tireless work to save the Gila from a diversion project resulted in a petition of over 6,400 signatures from New Mexico and around the world. She delivered that petition to the Governor and she testified before the New Mexico State Legislature. Ella played the fiddle, loved dance and music, and was talented in both. At the memorial service, Patrice Mutchnick paid tribute to her daughter, saying, ``She thought every choice she made affected others, and that's the kind of caring individual she was.''

Michael Mahl was an honor student. He also was a musician. Michael performed at his first open mic night at Diane's Parlor in Silver City just 1 month earlier. Michael's father, John Mahl, also performed that night. He recalled later to the Sun-News that his son was a tough act to follow. Michael was also a student leader, and was elected by his classmates to be their next student body president.

Like Michael, Ella Myers was an honor student. She was a prolific writer and an athlete. Ella was looking forward to attending the summer arts program at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. At the memorial service, her father, Brian Myers, said simply, ``She was a remarkable, gifted, talented artist. She had poise, grace, and elegance.''

Jim McIntosh, a teacher at Aldo Leopold, noted the talents and distinction of these students. ``Michael had a little bit of Elvis in him. Ella Jaz was polite and razor sharp. Ella Myers wanted to know what she was made of and proved that when she rode the 31-mile Tour of the Gila with a borrowed bike with me.''

We remember these gifted young people, who left us far too soon. We honor who they were, and we mourn who they might have become and what they might have accomplished. But even in their tragically short time in this world, they touched many lives and inspired all who knew them.

We also remember Dr. Peter Hochla, and his legacy of service to our nation and our State. Dr. Hochla was born in Slovakia and immigrated to the United States as a child. He was a physician for the New Mexico Veterans Administration, and a retired Air Force colonel. As a psychiatrist with the Albuquerque VA hospital, he piloted his own plane to provide care to veterans throughout New Mexico. He leaves behind his wife of 35 years, Dr. Cheryl Greene Hochla, a son, and a daughter. Dr. Hochla dedicated his life to defending the freedoms that we hold dear and to caring for his fellow veterans.

The memory of those we have lost is ever with us, and so is the sorrow. We do not know why this tragedy occurred. We do not know why these lives were taken so suddenly. But what we do know is that in Silver City and in Albuquerque, there are families and friends whose hearts are breaking, who are dealing with grief that is so hard to bear, and almost impossible to comprehend.

Words cannot alter, cannot change, this profound loss. My wife Jill and I wish to extend our deepest condolences. We share in your sorrow, and we pray that you will find comfort in memories of your loved ones and in the mercy of time and God's grace.

Thank you very much, Madam President, and I thank my colleague from the Foreign Relations Committee for a very good speech on a critical issue that our Nation faces right now.

On July 16, 1945, the first atomic bomb was exploded at the Trinity site in New Mexico. For residents of the Tularosa Basin, it marked the beginning of decades of cancer, chronic illness, and suffering that continues to this day.

Next month there will be a candlelight vigil organized by the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium. Folks will once again gather as they have done now for each year for the past 5 years. They will stand shoulder to shoulder, they will light candles, and they will remember. They will remember that an injustice was done and has yet to be righted.

The Trinity explosion paid little attention to surrounding communities. Radioactive debris fell from the sky, killing cattle, poisoning water, poisoning food, the air we breathe. The damage was done and would remain long after the test was finished, for generations. The suffering it caused is very real and so is the sadness, disappointment, and anger. Attention was not paid then, but it must be paid now.

That is why I have introduced legislation in this Congress to amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to recognize the Trinity site, to include the New Mexicans who have suffered for decades, who still wait for justice, who still wait for compensation from the Federal Government for their injuries almost 70 years later--still waiting.

We cannot change the past. We cannot restore the lives of those who have passed away or erase the years of health problems, the years of suffering endured by too many and for too long, but fair compensation will make a difference and provide badly needed help.

The original RECA legislation required years of work on the ground. My father helped lay the groundwork for RECA a quarter of a century ago. Through his work with radiation exposure survivors and their families, compiling stories and records and histories of victims, the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium continues this critical work and I encourage them to keep up the fight.

This is a bipartisan effort and driven by simple fairness for American citizens who should have been helped but were ignored instead. Our bill would expand the downwind exposure area to include seven States from the Trinity and Nevada test sites and would include Guam from the Pacific side. It would also help post-1971 uranium miners to be eligible for compensation and it would fund a critical public health study of those who live and work in uranium development communities.

I will continue to push for this legislation. It is the right thing to do, and we should get it done.

When folks gather in Tularosa and stand together as candles flicker in the New Mexico sky, we will take a moment and remember those who have been affected by cancer, who have been brought down by radiation- related diseases, and we will remember those who passed away and those who continue to suffer. We offer our prayers and support to those who are still fighting. We stand with you. We know you have suffered. We know justice has not been done, and we will not rest until it is.

I wish to commend the Tularosa Downwinders Consortium, folks such as Tina Cordova and the late Fred Tyler, who will be greatly missed--great advocates, dedicated, committed, and refusing to give up. Thank you for making your voices heard, making your stories known, and for not giving up the fight. Together we will work for fairness until the day comes that we can stand together in Tularosa and light candles of celebration that justice has been done.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, my State of New Mexico has a great tradition of military service. When the Nation has called, New Mexico has always answered. Today I wanted to say a few words to remember Chester Nez, the last of the original 29 Navajo code talkers of World War II.

Mr. Nez passed away Wednesday morning in Albuquerque, NM. We are forever indebted to him and his fellow warriors. They turned the Navajo language into an unbelievable code, using the language they were forbidden to speak in school, as a weapon to defend our freedoms in war, freedoms they themselves did not always enjoy. This is a great story of courage, of love of country, of tremendous sacrifice. In battle after battle in ferocious combat, the Navajo code saved countless lives and helped secure the allied victory. In 2001, the original code talkers received the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest honor the Congress can give.

Our former colleague, Senator Jeff Bingaman, fought hard for this. I was pleased to push for it in the House. It was richly deserved and long overdue. Mr. Nez was there for the ceremony, and the Presiding Officer, who was in the House with me, may remember we had that ceremony in the Capitol Rotunda. It was a great and uplifting day to finally see the Navajo code talkers receive their medals.

I said then what I continue to feel now: Their service can never be forgotten and can never be diminished. Chester Nez was modest in his own life but proud of the code talkers and proud of the Navajo traditions. In his later years, he visited schools and colleges all across the Nation to tell the story of those Navajo code talkers.

In his memoir, written with Judith Avila, he said:

I recommended myself that my Navajo people had always been

warriors, protectors. In that there was honor. I would

concentrate on being a warrior, on protecting my homeland.

As we mark Chester's passing, we honor his memory with a renewed dedication to preserve our Native languages, to keep alive the story of our code talkers, the heroic story of the Navajo, and also of other Native American tribes, their codes and their commitment forever unbroken.

Today we say goodbye to this great hero, this humble man who served our country with such devotion. We say goodbye with sadness but also with appreciation for a debt that can never be fully repaid, for courage that will forever inspire, and for a life that truly made a difference.

Chester, you made a real difference in our lives. I would just say to Chester's family, we send them our heartfelt condolences.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on April 14, 2014, our Nation lost a great hero, Mr. Samuel ``Jesse'' Smith, Sr. Mr. Smith was one of the few remaining Navajo Code Talkers, who defended our country with such ingenuity and valor during World War II.

As the number of these legendary warriors decreases year by year, our respect and gratitude for their remarkable service only increases with time. My State of New Mexico is proud to be the home of many of these extraordinary men, and we mourn their passing.

Samuel Smith was a student at the Albuquerque Indian School on December 7, 1941, when news arrived of the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. He and two of his fellow students knew, very quickly, what they must do. They resolved, without hesitation, and despite their youth, to defend their country. All three joined the U.S. Marine Corps, determined to go wherever they were needed. Samuel Smith dreamed of being a pilot, but fate would have other plans. He would never fly a plane, but he would serve with particular distinction as a Navajo Code Talker.

Mr. Smith possessed the determination, intelligence, and language proficiency that was essential to the Code Talkers. He was assigned to the 4th Marine Division and was responsible for transmitting messages for Gen. Clifton Cates, the commander of the Marine landings in Saipan and Tinian.

In the course of his military service, Samuel Smith fought at the battle of Roi-Namur, the battles of Saipan and Tinian to retake the Marianas Islands, and the battle of Iwo Jima. He and his fellow Code Talkers turned their language into an unbreakable code. They used the language of the Navajo people as a weapon to defend our freedoms. In battle after battle, in ferocious combat, that code helped secure Allied victory. Their courage and patriotism is all the more remarkable in that they fought so bravely for freedom in a world that did not always accord freedom to them.

It would be many years after World War II before the story of the Navajo Code Talkers, and the pivotal role they played, could be told. The true purpose of their service was not revealed until over 20 years later. In 2001, Congress honored Samuel Smith and his fellow Code Talkers with Congressional Gold Medals. This recognition and honor was richly deserved. The simple words on their medals told the heroic story: ``The Navajo language was used to defeat the enemy.''

After the war, Mr. Smith returned home. He married Rena Smith, and together they started a family. They moved to the Pueblo of Acoma, where they raised ten children. Later, at Fort Defiance Navajo Nation, Mr. Smith served as a law enforcement officer and was appointed chief ranger of the Navajo Nation Rangers. He also served as director of Transportation and Water Resources for the Navajo Nation.

Samuel Smith lived a long and eventful life, until the age of 89. He leaves behind more than 150 direct descendants. His life is a testament of service to others, in war and in peacetime. For his family, his community, and his Nation, he set an example of courage and commitment. Those who knew him will long recall his steady presence. As his son Michael said:

We were very fortunate to have one of the wisest and

gentlest men in our lives. He

could warm your heart with his smile, let you know you had to

straighten up with his gaze, and always had something clever

to say He is our hero. He is our dad.

I extend my sincere sympathy to Mr. Smith's family. He will be deeply missed, and he will be forever remembered by a grateful nation.

Madam President, I applaud Senator Durbin for his comments on the fair-shot agenda and on an affordable college education for all of our kids. It is something parents and families and people in New Mexico talk to me about all the time. I want to join the Senator in his comments and say, let's get this done. Let's see if we can get Republicans to work with us in a bipartisan way. I applaud the Senator's speech.

Next Monday is Memorial Day, a day when we remember the men and women who gave their lives defending our freedoms, a day to remember our solemn obligation to veterans. I rise today to speak about that obligation and about very troubling allegations that should outrage all of us, of sick veterans desperate for care, of secret scheduling lists, of mismanagement at Veterans Affairs medical centers, and of coverups and misuse of taxpayer funds.

If true, this is a great disservice to our veterans. This is not quality care, it is betrayal. It is unconscionable, whether it is only one facility, such as the facility in Phoenix, or more, or in

New Mexico and other facilities. For many people this story began in Phoenix, AZ, but I do not think it ends there.

I asked Secretary Shinseki on May 8 to extend the investigation to cover the entire regional network, which includes Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. The next day Secretary Shinseki announced an audit of the VA nationwide. Today, the VA appropriations subcommittee marked up an important bill to fund the Department of Veterans Affairs and to address these allegations. I am thankful to Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member Kirk for including a key provision I requested to provide funding to expand the VA inspector general's investigation, and calling out New Mexico as one of the States that urgently needs the attention of the inspector general.

These secret waiting lists, according to whistleblowers, were efforts in deception and fraud, hiding management failures. They kept appointment requests out of the VA computer system in order to cover up a waiting list to see a doctor, preventing veterans from receiving necessary care.

At worst, this deception not only kept veterans waiting but may have contributed to the death of some who were very sick. There are also reports that allege these efforts to manipulate the schedule were taken to make managers look better to receive bonuses, bonuses that were supposed to have been awarded for meeting high-quality care standards, not for failing them.

If true, this is tragic and possibly a serious crime. Thankfully, the appropriations subcommittee has taken action to freeze this bonus system while the investigation continues. I hope the full Senate will move quickly to do the same, to eliminate bad incentives which hurt our veterans.

If managers hide the extent of the wait times at the VA, then Congress does not have the right information to allocate resources to address need. Lives are at stake. We are talking here about veterans' lives. VA Assistant Inspector General John Daigh testified before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs regarding a facility in South Carolina. He said, ``Over 50 veterans had a delayed diagnosis of colon cancer, some of whom died from colon cancer.''

GAO's Director of Health Care Debra Draper also testified about ongoing and past issues with the VA causing veterans to receive delayed care and delayed appointments. The GAO cited these shortcomings in a 2013 report and also made multiple recommendations to the VA on how to address them.

Ms. Draper noted that the VA has not yet enacted their recommendations and that the VA still has work to do to fix problems spelled out in the GAO report. The GAO concluded that:

Ultimately, VHA's ability to ensure and accurately monitor

access to timely medical appointments is critical to ensure

quality health care to veterans, who may have medical

conditions that worsen if access is delayed.

The GAO report speaks to a bigger picture, one we should not lose sight of, and that is the ongoing problem with scheduling gimmicks, with ways to game the system, first identified by the VA itself in an April 2010 memo. These practices have led to delayed appointments and care. This is not an allegation, this is a fact.

Congress and the VA need to continue to work together for transparency, for accountability, and for real solutions. The allegations being investigated are very disturbing. This is not just a failure to provide timely care--that is bad enough--but also an intentional effort to cover up that failure by creating separate scheduling lists and gimmicks and harming veterans as a result.

These allegations are serious and we take them very seriously for every veteran in this country. For every man and woman who puts their life on the line to defend this country, a full inspector general investigation is essential. In some cases a criminal investigation may also be needed. We need to find out what is truly happening at our veterans' medical centers. This investigation should be thorough. It should be exhaustive. It should uncover the truth and it should hold those responsible accountable.

I also want to commend those who brought these concerns to the public and send a clear message to them: Congress will not tolerate interference or harassment with public servants who simply are trying to get out the truth, trying to do their job, and doing the very best to serve our veterans. The Whistleblower Protection Act is very clear: If you retaliate against an employee who is trying to expose the truth, then you are in the wrong.

Congress and the President should speak with one voice: We will not tolerate actions to retaliate against VA employees or contractors who shine the light on the truth.

Similarly, no one in the VA should be destroying or hiding any evidence of these practices. Destruction of a Federal record can be a crime.

VA managers should come clean, not cover up. I urge any New Mexico VA patient, family member, current or former VA employee, to report serious management problems to the VA inspector general either directly or through my office.

To those employees who continue to provide quality care to our veterans, this is not about you. Overall, the VA does provide great health care. I have heard from veterans who have testified to this fact. Many veterans would not go anywhere else. We must act quickly and decisively to restore faith in the VA and provide the care our veterans deserve.

Today, the Appropriations Committee took a step in the right direction to expand the investigation and halt the bonus program. I look forward to continuing this work with the full Senate and also with the administration. All of us who work to support our troops and our veterans have a sacred obligation to make sure they have the care they have earned. They have been there for us; we have to be there for them.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to join my colleagues to urge support for increasing the Federal minimum wage.

Today's minimum wage of $7.25 falls short and working families are falling behind. It hasn't kept up with the rising cost of everyday life. In fact, it is $2 less than it was in 1968, when adjusted for inflation. A full-time worker earning the minimum wage in 2014 makes less than someone did in 1968, almost half a century ago.

Now, $7.25 may be just a number to some but not for so many families in my State struggling to get by. It means working two or three jobs just to put food on the table or fill the gas tank or buy clothes for their children and still not be able to climb out of poverty.

Our Nation was founded on a basic premise that no matter who you are, if you work hard, you can get ahead. You can make a decent living. We haven't always kept that promise. We have the opportunity to do so this week for millions of hard-working men and women, young and old, who are paid the minimum wage.

Working Americans are not moving forward. They are falling behind. Year after year, paycheck by paycheck, they work just as hard, but they earn less and less. This is a disturbing trend, not just for minimum wage workers but all across the board. Worker productivity is rising pretty dramatically--69 percent in the last 25 years--but real hourly wages are not keeping pace, up 26.5

percent in the last 25 years. For the top 1 percent it couldn't be better. Their share of earned income is the highest it has been since 1929. But the average worker has to run faster and faster just to stay in place.

This is not the promise we made. This is not the way to a better America for each generation, but this is the reality for too many workers in New Mexico and across the Nation. They are living it every day. They get up, they take care of their kids, and they go to work. They may run faster, they may work harder, but they cannot get ahead.

A full-time minimum wage worker makes only $15,000 a year, well below the $23,550 poverty line for a family of four with two children. New Mexico has too many families in poverty, working hard, doing their best but falling further and further behind. This bill would give them a chance to build a better future for themselves and for their children.

I have received many letters from my constituents because they know how important raising the minimum wage is. Here is a letter from Kathryn from Fruitland, NM. She says: ``Morally, raising the minimum wage is the right thing to do, because people working full time deserve to live decently.''

Barbara from Clovis, NM, told me: ``There are so many people who work for minimum wage and have a desperately hard time paying the bills.''

Liz from Albuquerque says: ``I hope you will do all in your power to assure that every working American will be assured of making a living wage, not just a `minimum' wage.''

Increasing the minimum wage helps families and helps the economy. It is one of the best things we can do to kick-start New Mexico's economy. It means workers in New Mexico would have over $200 million more to spend. It means boosting our State's GDP by $127 million, helping local businesses and generating 500 new jobs. It means moving forward, and it means that we honor an important idea that folks receive a fair day's pay for a hard day's work. That is the deal, and it is a big deal. Let's consider the alternative: When every year costs rise and the minimum wage stays the same, that is like a pay cut for families that can least afford it.

The bill before us increases the minimum wage in three steps. Six months after the bill is signed, it raises the minimum wage by less than $1. A year later it bumps up the minimum wage by 95 cents, and two years after the first increase, it would finally reach $10.10, which is about where it would be if it had kept up with inflation over the past 40 years. But this bill does more than just give hard workers today the chance to earn a decent wage. It also includes an important provision to allow the minimum wage to continue to keep up with every-day costs so that future generations who are working their way up can have a fair shot.

Our country has debated raising the minimum wage several times in the past. Opponents always paint a very gloomy picture, but we have been able to get bipartisan agreement to do it. Afterwards, families and the economy have been better off, and the pessimistic predictions haven't come true. We need to build an economy that works for everyone. Most Americans believe it is time to increase the minimum wage because it is the right thing to do, and it is the smart thing to do. It is time to keep our Nation's promise to reward hard work. It is time for all families to have a fair chance at the American dream.

I urge my colleagues to support increasing the minimum wage. It is long overdue for millions of working families who continue to struggle, who continue to wait, and who have waited long enough.

I yield the floor, Madam President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, thank you very much, and let me first of all congratulate my chairman, Chairman Boxer, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Schatz for organizing this effort and what we are calling an up-all-night conversation.

New Mexico is in the bull's-eye when it comes to climate change. Everyplace else, if it goes up 1 degree, New Mexico and the Southwest go up 2 degrees, so we know we are hit really hard. I am going to talk later in this conversation about all of the impacts.

It is clear, forest fires, as my cousin talked about, droughts, huge die-off in terms of trees, extreme rain events after fires, and flooding are devastating. But New Mexico has been at the forefront of the solution. When it comes to renewable energy, we are out there-- solar energy, wind, bio, advanced biofuels such as algae. We are working in the direction we need all of us to be working in together in this country, to make sure we orient toward renewables and tackle this problem. I will be able to expand on this later.

I would yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Boxer for her very kind words. She is the chairman of the committee which deals with climate change legislation and has been ever present in terms of trying to see if we can come up with a bipartisan solution and get legislation. I was very proud to serve on her committee when the Obama administration came in and the Senate sat down to work and was trying to do something about climate change. Unfortunately, we ran out of time.

But as we can see by the number of Senators who have spoken--we are up to 30 now--we still have incredible passion about this issue. We know it is a serious problem, the American people know it is a serious problem, and we want something done.

What have we learned? I have watched my colleagues over the night. I am No. 30 and I have watched what they have been talking about. The tradition here in the Senate is normally if we are talking like this and our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle want to come down and exchange with us, they can do that. That is our tradition, to say we speak and then they speak. What we have ended up seeing is one Republican Senator show up in this 12-plus-hour period is my understanding. I think I am right. This is what was reported on NPR this morning. To me, this is tremendously sad, because in the glory days of the Senate in the 1960s and 1970s major environmental legislation, major conservation organization legislation--remember the Wilderness Act, the Clean Water Act, Clean Air, Endangered Species--was passed with significant bipartisan support. We don't see that effort today. It makes me very sad. We are here all night trying to engage and say: This is something the American people believe is serious, and we need to engage on this issue.

Today I am going to talk a little bit about New Mexico, and how New Mexico and the Southwest are at the bull's-eye when it comes to climate change.

What do I mean by that? If New Mexico is at one temperature and we compare it with the rest of the country--let's say in the rest of the country we have a 1-percent rise--New Mexico is going to be 2 percent, so there is a doubling effect in the Southwest. This is a map of New Mexico, but we are talking the Southwest.

First let me talk a little bit about the drought we have had. Here we are from June 2011 to the present, a drought of epic proportions. The U.S. drought monitor shows more than 90 percent of New Mexico is in extreme drought. Northern and western New Mexico got some precipitation last year, but several other areas of the State remain mostly dry. We can see this is extreme; the other is moderate. Added together, it is a significant impact. These are the kinds of challenges we are going to face with climate change.

To talk a little bit more about these impacts, I would now like to go to chart 2 and look at the snowpack in the northern New Mexico and southern Colorado watersheds. They only range from one-half to three- quarters of what normally would be there.

This is a winter picture. Normally in northern New Mexico at this time of year we would see a massive snowpack. Why is that important? Because in the summer when we start using the water, we start irrigating, the farmers start doing things, they recharge the aquifer. So if we don't have a snowpack, we don't have that kind of recharge and we don't have the storage levels of drinking water.

Just to pick one of our communities, Santa Fe, NM, gets 40 percent of its water from the ground and it gets another big chunk of the water from reservoirs. Those reservoirs are fed when we have a snowpack and when the ground gets recharged and it flows off and flows into those reservoirs, so this is something which makes a huge impact when we don't have a snowpack and when we have a decreasing amount of precipitation. We are going to see more and more of this as we move down the road, when we look at the modeling which has been done by the experts who are working on this issue.

This next slide is particularly disturbing in terms of water. I remember it being roughly at this place on the Rio Grande just last year in the middle of the summer. This photo is showing a very meager amount of water. When I was there last summer, there was no water. It was completely dry. So here, the river which flows the whole length of the State of New Mexico down to southern New Mexico--El Paso, TX, relies on it; Mexico, our neighbor to the south, relies on it--there was no water to be seen. Once again, it dramatically shows the impacts of climate change and the impacts as we see this move down the road.

One experience with ranchers and farmers I think really brings this home in terms of water. There was a flood control project in Tucumcari, NM, created in the middle of the Great Depression. Everybody in the community invested in it. The Federal Government invested in it. These projects have a dual purpose. One is, if there is a big flood, to try to control the flood. The second thing is to hold the water, so when we get to the irrigation season we can have irrigated farmland. They did this in the 1930s. I think about 600 or 700 farmers and ranchers rely on this project and have been relying on this project since the 1930s.

I visited this community recently and learned from the people who run the project and from the farmers and ranchers, in the last couple of years, zero water. No water at all. They had never seen this since the 1930s, even though when we went through very serious conditions in the 1950s it was thought to be one of the biggest droughts and no water. The last 10 or 12 years, this particular project, the same thing: very, very little water.

What ends up happening as a result? Farmers and ranchers cannot plant. Ranchers sell off their herds. Just to show how dramatic it is, in New Mexico we saw 50 percent of our cattle herds sold off this last year. People are hurting so badly in terms of this drought, they are unable to keep their livestock on the land and they end up having to pull the livestock off. This has a devastating impact to people who live closest to the ground.

I have been out on the land in New Mexico with conservationists and scientists and talked to them about climate change. One of the things I try to describe in what I have learned--and I think this is what Chairman Boxer is talking about--when I made a presentation in one of the committees, is if we take the modeling which has been done on climate change in the Southwest, and particularly focusing on New Mexico, what we do with that modeling is ask ourselves: Where are we going to be 50 years down the line?

We just had a study at Los Alamos National Laboratory which says by 2050--in less than 50 years--we are not going to have any forests in New Mexico. So much of this area of northern New Mexico and down here, the forests throughout this area, they are saying it looks like no forests and much less water, as I have just talked about. If we don't get snowpack, we can't charge the system back.

The most dramatic description to me is what happens here 50 years from now. These are conservative numbers. These aren't the ones many of the scientists nowadays are saying we have. We are taking conservative numbers, and many scientists are saying it is happening quicker, it is moving faster.

What they tell us is--imagine on a computer screen how we can drag things. New Mexico is over 300 miles. If we click on New Mexico and drag it 300 miles to the south--so we are moving the top of New Mexico down 300 miles to the south--what do we get? We are in the middle of the Chihuahuan desert in Mexico. So what was a dramatic forested area, what was an area which was very acceptable to farming and ranching: Devastating impacts.

So those are the kinds of things. I could go on and on here. But the thing about the impacts--and we could talk about how one of our reservoirs at Elephant Butte has the lowest level in 40 years. This is a great recreational lake which people used. This is a picture of the reservoir in June of 1994. Here is the picture today--dramatically different.

I wish to highlight as I close here--because I know we are trying to wrap up after we have been going for many hours--New Mexico has been focusing on solutions. One of the solutions sitting right in front of us is renewable energy. We know we are going to have to deal with this problem one way or another. It is much better to deal with it earlier. In New Mexico we are doing everything we can to foster the solar power industry. This slide shows solar power to beat coal prices in New Mexico. Right now, the solar installations going up are very competitive in terms of coal.

Wind power. Once again, in New Mexico we have installed wind capacity of 778 megawatts. New Mexico ranks 19th for the total megawatts installed. So all over New Mexico, up on our mesas, as we can see here, we have wind turbines collecting the energy from the wind. The number of wind turbines: 575. New Mexico ranks 17th for the number of utility- scale wind turbines. Current wind generation in New Mexico is 6.1 percent.

Just a few years ago when we put in place a renewable electricity standard, we had a lower level and we have been pushing that up. This is one of the things we need to do at the national level. My cousin and I worked in the House of Representatives before we were in the Senate to get a national renewable electricity standard. This is something we have to do which is a solution.

As I laid out all of the things earlier, the devastating impacts, one of the things we should realize is there are solutions; they are here today; the technology is perfected; and we are able to put those into place.

The final area of renewable energy I wish to talk about and we have huge potential here in the Southwest is called advanced biofuels. I have been to this facility and seen the experimentation they are doing. They have taken land and are farming algae. What eventually happens with this algae is it is refined and the algae becomes a very good fuel. So this is something which is, once again, a solution to this problem.

We shouldn't despair when we look at the impact of climate change and when we look in the future as to what people are going to predict, because we know we have the ability to cultivate solutions.

I am very proud of my State and how we have really worked to cultivate these sources of renewable energy, and we are moving it up with our renewable electricity standard higher and higher every year. I am very proud to have been a part of this effort, the 30th Senator to stand and speak about this. I guess we have been going about 13 hours, 14 hours.

Once again, I can't close without mentioning I wish we had our friends and colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle down here to engage us. I don't know what to conclude but that either they don't care about this or don't want to engage with us. We only had one Republican Senator in this 14-hour period show up. This sure isn't like the glory days of the Senate when so many Republicans participated with Democrats to tackle the big problems which faced our country. This is a problem which faces the entire world, so we need the U.S. Senate and the entire world working together in a cooperative way to solve this.

I thank the Presiding Officer, who was a key person in terms of organizing this, Senator Whitehouse from Rhode Island, and I yield for my good friend from Massachusetts.

Madam President, I rise today to talk about health care for veterans. This is a critical issue for many veterans who have been left behind and to the many who are not getting the care they need.

First, I want to say how important it is that we have reached an agreement to restore the cut to pensions for working-age military retirees. This cut in the cost-of-living adjustment for military retirees should never have been included in the budget bill.

Let's be clear. The bipartisan budget agreement was critical to New Mexico and our Nation because it rolled back damaging sequestration cuts--cuts that hurt our military and military families.

Working-age military retirees should not have to bear the burden. Many of these men and women have given decades of service to our Nation. They

were willing to give everything for us. They should get the benefits they have earned. From the beginning I have been working to restore this cut to their COLA benefits. I have been very happy we have a bipartisan agreement to move forward and ensure we keep our promise to them.

I come to the floor today to also talk about rural veterans and a rural veterans improvement act. I was proud to introduce this bill with Senator Heller from Nevada earlier this week. When it comes to veterans' health care, we know there are challenges. We know we can do better, and we know we have to do better.

Over 6 million veterans live in rural areas, including approximately one-third who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq. Three million of those rural veterans receive health care through the VA. Our veterans have fought halfway around the world for our freedom. We should go the extra mile for them.

Senator Heller and I both come from rural western States. We know the difficulties veterans face when distances are too far and choices are too few. Our legislation would do four things: improve access to mental health services, expand transportation grants, hire and retain more medical professionals in rural areas, and give Congress and the VA tools to improve the quality of rural facilities.

First, let me start with mental health care. This is crucial. Veterans are struggling when the help they need is not available or is very far away.

One of my constituents lives in a rural area in northern New Mexico. He fought in Vietnam and was diagnosed with post-traumatic distress disorder. He required therapy 2 full days a week for 2 years. This vital care probably saved his life. The VA was there for him, and he is grateful, but he had to drive to Albuquerque, over 3 hours away, to get that essential care.

The veterans in my State are clear: They need better access to treatment and more mental health options. One size does not fit all. Conventional therapy does not work for everyone. Veterans groups, such as the Wounded Warrior Project, have long supported alternative treatments and more holistic methods. Tribal governments are also working with the VA to use traditional Native American healing techniques, helping their veterans with PTSD and other diagnoses.

These veterans are in pain. They are at increased risk of suicide. Help has to be there when they need it. Our bill would enable the VA to work with non-VA fee-for-service providers for veterans with service- connected mental health issues when conventional treatment is not available or where alternative treatment is not an option.

Second, even the best health care is useless if you cannot get to it. I have talked with many veterans in my State about this issue, and it is a big problem across New Mexico. Veterans in Carlsbad face a 6-hour drive to the VA hospital in Albuquerque, 300 miles away one way. One such veteran fought bravely in World War II. He is now in his eighties. He has to get up at 5 a.m. and make the trip to Albuquerque to see medical specialists. Sometimes he doesn't get home until midnight. Thanks to the great volunteer drivers at Southeast New Mexico Veterans Transportation Network, he is able to get there, but it is an exhausting day.

Another of my constituents recently retired to Chama, NM, a rural community in the north. He and his wife built a home there, looking forward to retirement. The VA outreach clinic was nearby, but its contract was not renewed and it closed. His only option now is the VA clinic in Espanola, 80 miles each way through the southern Rockies. When winter storms come, as they do in northern New Mexico, he may not be able to get there at all.

The VA offers transportation grants to help, but only for veterans in what they call highly rural areas with fewer than seven people per square mile, not for those in rural areas and small towns such as Chama, and the small towns in Nevada and so many other States. They need help too. The miles are just as long and the journey is just as hard.

Our bill will help by expanding VA transportation grants to include rural communities, and it will not require matching funds for grants up to $100,000, making it easier for these communities to apply for assistance.

Third, rural VA clinics, as their private counterparts, have trouble getting staff and keeping staff. This is not news to veterans who see constant turnover of doctors and nurses and other health care professionals or who have to travel long distances to see anyone at all.

Our bill will establish a VA training program, working with university medical centers to train health care professionals, serving rural veterans at outpatient clinics. Those who complete the program and a 3-year assignment will receive a hiring preference for jobs with the Veterans Health Administration.

We also propose a pilot program for housing incentives for health care professionals to work in rural VA facilities. We are proposing that the VA streamline the hiring of military medical professionals, transitioning to the civilian world into the VA system.

Rural VA health centers have a big job. They do their best. We have to do all we can to help them to get and keep staff with incentives, training, and innovation. It is not easy, but it is essential.

Fourth, we call for a full review of VA community-based outpatient clinics in rural and highly rural areas so we can prioritize expansions and improvements, making sure dollars are well spent and resources go as far as possible. We also call for a report to Congress on whether to add polytrauma centers in rural areas to help veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan recover from multiple major injuries such as serious burns and traumatic brain injuries.

Every day, American servicemembers wake up far from home, and every day, they stand watch. They do the job they promised to do--and not only if it is easy or only if it is convenient. We owe them the same promise. Rural veterans should not be left behind. They should get the care they need and deserve.

Again, I thank Senator Heller for working with me on this bill. He understands the problem. He is committed to finding solutions.

Our bill is a step forward for the health and well-being of our veterans. This is about essential care, about access, about honoring our commitment to the men and women who have sacrificed so much for our community. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin be recognized to speak immediately after me.

I see Senator Durbin on the floor.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me first thank Senator Shelby and Senator Mikulski for their very hard work on this Omnibus appropriations bill. That is what I am down here to speak on. The American people sent us to make choices, sometimes very tough choices. They do not expect perfection, but they do expect us to be fair and to get the job done.

Americans are tired of shutdowns and sequestration and stopgap funding. Today we are making decisions we were sent here to make. The annual appropriations process is the right way to do the people's business. Instead of kicking the can and passing the buck, lurching from crisis to crisis, I think we are making some significant progress.

This was my first year on the Appropriations Committee. I especially wanted to thank Chairman Mikulski for her leadership, her unfailing support, and for doing such an amazing job. She once said, ``It is not how long I serve but how well I serve.'' Senator Mikulski has proven once again on both counts she is truly exceptional.

This bill returns some sanity to the budget process in Washington. I am pleased that for the most part it does well by New Mexico. New Mexico plays a unique role in our Nation's national security. This bill provides strong funding levels for the safety and security of our Nation's nuclear deterrent, including the important B61 project at Sandia National Labs. The President's request of $537 million is fully funded. The highly qualified employees at Sandia will continue their vital mission making sure these weapons are managed safely and securely. This is not something we should shortchange.

This bill also provides equally important funding for Los Alamos National Laboratory in northern New Mexico. The workforce there has been reduced in recent years. This bill will stabilize things for 2014. Both of these labs are critical for nuclear security. But they are much more than that. They are also engines for the innovation in aerospace, biotech, cyber security, and new energy technology.

New Mexico is proud to host both of these labs. But the Department of Energy also has an obligation to our State and other States on legacy cleanup. The funding levels do not fully meet our request, but they do provide strong increases over 2013 for cleanup at Los Alamos and at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, NM. These cleanup activities are a serious obligation of the Federal Government and are a source of skilled, well-paid jobs for man New Mexico families.

New Mexico is also home to three Air Force bases and the Army's White Sands Missile Range. This bill contains nearly $150 million in construction and infrastructure projects, including $60 million for a TRICARE facility at Holloman Air Force Base. These projects will benefit national security, they will create jobs, and will meet our obligations to the men and women who are serving their country.

The Federal Government also plays a very important role in New Mexico's water infrastructure. We are an arid, Western State. Prudent water management is crucial for our economy. We cannot afford the waste that comes from neglected infrastructure. This bill contains over $120 million in funding for Federal water assets in our State and includes the Navajo-Gallup pipeline, and the Middle Rio Grande Project.

We have been struggling with intense drought. Rural areas and small towns in particular have been deeply affected. Some small communities are seeing their wells run dry. They need help and they need it now. The $1.7 billion in USDA rural development water funding is absolutely essential. This historic drought requires that we rethink how we use water throughout the West. We need to be smart about our strategy. We need strategies that work for individual communities. That is why I advocated for greater funding for the WaterSMART grants, helping local governments and water districts improve water efficiency.

The conference report promotes an innovative drought water-sharing arrangement along the Rio Grande, where we are facing difficult tradeoffs between agriculture, the environment, and urban uses.

This bill also helps meet our obligations to our Nation's veterans. The backlog at the VA is unacceptable. Frankly, it is an outrage. No veteran should wait 1 year or more on their claim. This bill funds a 10-part plan to resolve this problem: improving IT infrastructure, better training, and hiring additional personnel. We dedicated $250 million specifically to carry out the VA's rural health initiative to ensure that veterans in rural and remote areas are not left behind, utilizing telehealth solutions and mobile clinics, bringing veterans the care they deserve without long drives.

I will keep fighting for veterans in New Mexico, including those in rural areas, making sure they have access to the health care they have earned. Many veterans are understandably upset with the recent change in the COLA for working-age military retirees. I am outraged too. This cut was included in the recent 2-year budget agreement passed in December. I did not support this provision and I am working hard to repeal it. Thankfully, this bill ensures disabled veterans and spousal benefits will not be subject to the cuts. Congress has the rest of 2014 to do the right thing. We need to fix this mistake for good for all veterans.

This year, I have had the privilege to chair the Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government. I am proud of the work we have done to safeguard our financial system, protect consumers and support job creation and to strengthen our Federal courts.

The bill provides $112 million for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, fighting terrorist financing, money laundering, narcotics trafficking, and other illicit financial activity.

To protect the public and consumers, the bill fully funds three key agencies. For the CPSC, $118 million to help protect the public against risk from injury of consumer products; for the FTC, $298 million to combat consumer fraud, fight identity theft, and promote consumer privacy; for the FCC, $340 million to maintain robust networks for emergency communications, political debate, social interaction, and business transactions.

To support job creation, the bill provides $929 million for the Small Business Administration. It also supports the Small Business Development Centers to provide critical guidance to small businesses and emerging entrepreneurs. The bill supports community development in underserved areas, including tribal nations, providing $226 million for the CDFI Fund.

For the Federal courts, the bill provides a much needed increase, $6.5 billion in discretionary funding, 5 percent above the fiscal year level of 2013. Budget cuts have forced the courts to downsize and furlough staff. This bill provides the judiciary the staffing and resources it needs for court offices, probation, pretrial services, and in particular Federal defender offices will be adequately staffed.

The bill also calls for significant investments in the government's capital projects. For the first time in 3 years, it provides the General Services Administration a total of $1.653 billion for construction and repair of Federal buildings and courthouses. I would like to thank my ranking member Senator Johanns for his effort this year. He was friendly, honest, and straightforward. It has been a real privilege to work with him.

Finally, I must thank our subcommittee staff, Marianne Upton, Diana Hamilton, Emily Sharp. Like all the committee staff, they have spent time over the holidays, on weekends, and uncounted long hours to help complete the final bill.

In closing, I am very happy to be here talking about the good work of the Appropriations Committee and that good work that has been produced in this bill that is before us for New Mexico and for the Nation.

But I must mention one problem that remains. It is a great concern for many of us from the West. Funding for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program, known as PILT, has expired. These funds compensate counties in New Mexico and throughout the country where the Federal Government owns a good deal of land, land that cannot be taxed, cannot be developed, cannot be used to help pay for services such as roads and schools and public health and public safety.

PILT is a lifeline to my constituents in many rural communities in New Mexico. I joined with my friend Senator Enzi of Wyoming urging that this crucial funding be included in this bill. Unfortunately, it was not. I realize PILT has not been in the appropriations bill for several years. In fact, it is preferable for it to receive mandatory, long-term funding. But we must find a solution and we must find that solution soon. I am calling for PILT to be included in the upcoming farm bill conference report.

It is a commonsense solution to this very real problem. PILT is a long-term funding program. Our rural communities across the West need consistency. They need to be able to plan for long-term projects. Mandatory long-term funding is the only real solution.

I hope my colleagues will work with me.

With that, I would urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on the Omnibus appropriations bill.

The Senator is absolutely correct. In some of our counties, 70 percent of the land in the county is Federal Government land. So what happens, as the chair pointed out, is the Federal Government says because that cannot be developed and it cannot be taxed, we are going to pay you in lieu of taxes.

No. The program which has been in place a very long time has expired. We have run out of money. These counties need to be able to plan for their projects. So that is where we are.

That is exactly my perspective. In these counties, the programs run out. The counties have planned on this money because they have been getting it year after year, and we have to find a way to do this.

I wish to applaud Chairwoman Mikulski. They are our people, as the Senator knows--there are Western Senators, Democrats, Republicans, and they have all talked with the chairwoman. We have been talking to the authorizing committees. We have talked to Senator Stabenow in Agriculture in terms of the farm bill. We think there is a way this can be worked out.

I am very encouraged to hear that the chairwoman also believes it can be worked out, is willing to look at this next year in the appropriations process, and work with the authorizers to see this gets done.

I wish to tell the Senator how much all of the Senators on this issue appreciate the chairwoman's hard work. I think we need to stay focused. What happens with these counties is they wish to know early on whether the money is coming and how much. If they don't know, they aren't able to spend it wisely.

Please.