Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, last week 40,000 students in my State got some very bad news: The rates on new Stafford student loans doubled. Today, these students got bad news again. Today, our Nation's students once again wait in vain for relief.

These students work hard; they are ambitious. They know how important a college education is. They know what it means to their future and to our Nation's future. They expected more of us, and I share their disappointment.

We saw this coming. This bus has been approaching the cliff for a year. That ought to be time enough to turn it around, and turn it around without throwing students underneath it. I know many of my colleagues here are trying--trying to find a long-term solution, but today we failed. Our Nation's students pay the cost of that failure.

For so many in my State, grants and loans make the difference. Federal subsidized Stafford loans are absolutely crucial, opening a door to college, to opportunity, to investing in the future. We all know these students. Most have lower incomes and fewer advantages. We ask them to work harder, and now we ask them to pay more.

They are folks such as Lori Cole. Lori was quoted in the Las Cruces Sun News. She said:

I'm almost 50 years old and returned to school last year.

I've had to take out loans on top of my grants. I don't like

the rates going up but what can I do? I have a teen in

college and a mortgage. I have no choice but to continue with

my student loans if I ever want to make more than $10 an

hour.

They are folks such as Josh Dunne. Josh wrote the following on his Facebook page:

As a disabled combat vet, my wife and I who are both

students do not have a choice but to eat the increase . . . I

don't understand how they can continue to raise the rates on

us not only for tuition but now also the loan rate and expect

the amount of students to continue to go to school. Hope they

can figure it out for our future.

I say to Josh and to so many other students like him, I hope we can figure it out too.

These students are struggling. Our economy is slowly recovering. Now is not the time to set up more barriers. Now is not the time for interest rates to double, weighing down students, weighing down hard- working families, weighing down the middle class.

The Keep Student Loans Affordable Act of 2013 would have helped, keeping the interest rate at 3.4 percent for new Stafford loans for 1 year and giving Congress time for a broader solution. But the problem is not just interest rates, it is the growing burden of student debt.

Higher education is at a tipping point, and we need a long-term plan--a plan that is sustainable, that is comprehensive. These are complicated questions that require careful answers. But one principle should be clear. For fairness, for investing in our Nation's future, college should be within the reach of all American families, not just the privileged few.

Students know how to set goals, they know how to set priorities. They expect the same of us. And priorities come down to choices. The Keep Student Loans Affordable Act offered a choice--to help students to work toward real solutions, and we could do it by simply closing a tax loophole. No new tax, no new debt, just closing a tax loophole--not exactly a radical notion.

I will do all I can to ensure the Senate will find its way to long- term answers. We will not give up on this issue. Seven million students and their families are waiting, waiting for predictability, waiting for more affordable education, and control of spiraling costs. They and their families do the heavy lifting. Every day we should lend them a hand.

The average college senior has over $26,000 in debt at graduation. Some have much more. The burden is heavy enough. We should not be adding to it now.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank Senator Whitehouse very much--him and the other Senators who have been down here talking.

I would ask the Chair--Senator Cruz has been very generous. It was his turn to go, and I said I could finish this in 5 minutes. So I would ask the Presiding Officer to indicate when 5 minutes is up, and I will yield the floor, then, to him and ask unanimous consent that he get the floor after me so that there is not any issue there.

Madam President, I say to Senator Whitehouse, one of the things the Senator and I know--and we have been asking for this and talking about this--we need Presidential leadership. We saw that today. The speech that was given here in Washington really detailed a lot of the important work that needs to be done.

We both serve on the Environment and Public Works Committee. We know how important it is to get an EPA Administrator in place and to move forward with the greenhouse gas regulations the Supreme Court has now said we can move on.

So this is a big day, and I think there are many of us in the Senate who are willing to work on a bipartisan basis. We hope a lot of our Republican friends will step forward and see that there is a space here to talk about climate, to try to work with each other.

I applaud the President for what he did today, how specific he was in terms of the EPA and greenhouse gases, how specific he was about policies throughout the government.

I wanted to, in what is left of my 5 minutes, talk a little bit about the Southwest. Sheldon Whitehouse and the others have talked about their regions of the country, but really what we are talking about in the Southwest is that from the climate models--just business as usual that we see--if the temperatures go up 1 degree in other places in the United States, it is double that in the Southwest.

So essentially what you have is, if--and imagine a mouse and you are clicking on something on a screen and dragging it--what we see happening is New Mexico going 300 miles to the south, if you maintain business as usual and you get down the road about 75 years, although it is hard to look down that far--if you put New Mexico 300 miles to the south, you are down in the middle of the Chihuahuan Desert. It completely changes the landscape of New Mexico. Your forests are not going to hold snowpack anymore. Your temperatures are going to be much higher. Everything is going to change pretty dramatically.

Let me give an example. One of our communities in New Mexico has a watershed where they get 40 percent of their drinking water drawn from the snowpack and in two reservoirs. Many of our communities in New Mexico are like that. With snowpack gone, they will have to then go to another way of getting water. And making up 40 percent is very difficult, especially if the other areas--for example, the aquifers that are under that particular area or town--if those aquifers are also being drawn down because there is no snowpack. Then you just continually mine the waters. So that is the situation with the snowpack.

The other thing that is happening in our forests is they are burning much hotter, and they are burning out of control. We are seeing bigger and bigger fires. Every couple of years, we break the record from a few years back. With these fires burning so much hotter than they have ever burned before, the kinds of things you see is that the soil turns to almost dust. It cannot absorb water. It is not a natural forest environment. So this has a devastating, devastating impact, and it is overlain by a drought, which also has been going on about 12 or 13 years.

I want to point out and read from a recently issued report from one of our great national laboratories, Los Alamos National Laboratory, where they talked about the drought-stress for our forests. The drought-stress of forests in the Southwest ``is more severe than any event since the late 1500s megadrought''--the late 1500s megadrought-- that ``probably led to deaths of a large proportion of trees living at the time.'' Climate projections predict that ``the mean forest drought- stress by the 2050s will exceed that of the most severe droughts in the past 1,000 years.''

So there is no doubt that climate change is real, that the costs are real and the costs are not just monetary. This is a direct challenge to our way of life, and no one can really put a price on that.

America needs a ``do it all, do it right'' energy policy, taking on the twin threats of climate change and dependence on foreign oil. With policies that encourage innovation in energy technologies, we can create jobs in an advanced energy economy.

So I am pleased to hear the President commit to taking bold actions. It would be even better if Congress moved forward with bipartisan actions. But we have seen that option hijacked time and time again.

It is time for us--as a nation--to move forward. The science and facts are clear. It demands a response that matches the scale of the problem.

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act requires EPA to set public health standards for climate change pollutants. The Senate has defeated several efforts to block EPA's efforts.

The President has committed to put limits on carbon pollution from existing powerplants--powerplants that are the single greatest source of U.S. greenhouse gas pollution.

The President is instructing EPA to work with the States and industry. I agree. The EPA recently reached a major agreement with New Mexico and our State's largest utility, PNM. As a result, we are cleaning up the air in New Mexico, reducing carbon pollution, with more natural gas and more renewable energy.

This type of collaboration should continue. But we need strong leadership at the EPA. On March 4, the President nominated Gina McCarthy to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.

And now, almost 4 months later, Ms. McCarthy is still awaiting action, delayed by a filibuster threat.

We need Ms. McCarthy at the helm of EPA, working with stakeholders to find win-wins on the environment and our economy.

The President has signaled that the problem of climate change cannot wait. The delays must end. We can reduce emissions in a smart way.

I urge my Republican colleagues to help us confirm Gina McCarthy as the Administrator of the EPA without further obstruction.

The President's action today is one of many crucial steps to address the problem, and I applaud him. Government at all levels, business leaders, and people across the country--and around the world--need to work together.

We need to develop adaptation strategies for those most affected by climate change. We need to protect future generations, with transitioning to an energy economy that produces cleaner energy.

My State is a very special place. Throughout my career, I have committed to protecting its pristine landscapes, its special ecosystems. This environmental stewardship runs deeply in my family.

Climate change threatens our economy in New Mexico and across the country. It affects our security, and our way of life.

The threat of global warming is real, and so must be our commitment to future generations.

So let me conclude and say that once again I thank Senator Cruz for his courtesies.

With that, I yield the floor.

I say to Senator Isakson, I think I am next in order.

No problem. I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about comprehensive immigration reform. I believe the Senate is engaged in a crucial debate to see if we can fix the system that we all know is broken.

It has been a long road, not just because of the partisan climate here, but because of the complex challenges we face--the challenge of 11 million undocumented immigrants who live and work and raise families in communities across our Nation kept uncertain in the shadows; the challenge of children brought here through no fault of their own, who love this country as their own; and the challenge of securing our border.

The majority of Americans know these challenges have to be met. Immigration reform has to be comprehensive. That is the reality of any long-term solution.

It is also a reality that such reform will not be perfect, will not satisfy everyone in every case. That is what compromise means. That is what bipartisan effort requires. But the American people are not asking for perfection, they are asking for results; for an immigration system that works, that makes sense, that secures our borders, that strengthens families, and supports our economy.

I commend Chairman Leahy and the bipartisan authors of this bill for their leadership.

The committee made sure the process was open, was transparent, and was inclusive. Many of the amendments adopted had bipartisan support, and over two-thirds of the committee voted for this bill. I hope the full Senate will follow their example.

America has a rich history of immigrants helping to create a culture and economy that is the envy of the world. I am proud to come from a State where we celebrate our diversity. Native American, Hispanic, and European traditions define my State.

We are a border State, and New Mexicans understand what is at stake with border security. They know how important comprehensive immigration reform is.

This bill has the essential elements of that reform. It creates a pathway to earned citizenship for undocumented individuals. This is not an amnesty. Folks have to pass criminal background checks, pay back taxes and penalties, learn English, and must go to the back of the line behind those who came here legally.

This road to citizenship takes 13 years--not an easy road but one that will bring millions of people out of the shadows and into the hope and promise of the American dream.

This legislation also makes securing our border a priority. Much of the debate has centered on this issue. In my opinion, the record is clear. As Senators from a border State--and I know the Presiding Officer, Senator Heinrich, also from my great State of New Mexico and a border-State Senator--we have seen firsthand how things have changed.

Over the past 12 years we have made some real progress. Is the job finished? Of course not. But that is not a reason to oppose this bill. It is a reason, in fact, to support it.

We spend a lot of resources on immigration and customs enforcement-- more than all other Federal criminal law enforcement combined. We have more Border Patrol agents on our southern border than ever before. Illegal crossings are near their lowest levels in decades. We have ramped up law enforcement and are deporting more criminals than ever before.

This legislation will build on that progress with a strong plan and with the money to pay for it. It does not just call for 90 percent apprehension of illegal border crossings, it provides $6.5 billion to do it.

Commitment to border security is real, and this bill will improve on it with new technology and targeted resources. It makes a difference. It changes the game plan. This is not conjecture, not pie in the sky. For example, Congress appropriated $600 million for emergency border security in 2010, and the effectiveness rate increased from 72 percent to 82 percent a year later.

So there is a proven record here, an impressive record. With border security, this legislation has clear goals, has committed resources, and builds on a demonstrated success. But for some on the other side, this is not enough. They demand absolute effectiveness or toss out the path to citizenship.

But let's be clear. No border can be completely secure--not ours, not anyone else's. So some may still cross illegally, may slip through.

We can do more. I believe additional border security should focus on violent drug and firearms traffickers and should do more at ports of entry. But most undocumented immigrants come here to work. This bill will change that dynamic with an effective universal employment verification system and crack down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants. This is as crucial as fences and checkpoints, as crucial as agents patrolling the border or drones scanning the horizon because the lure of illegal immigration is jobs, and the jobs will not be there.

There is still work to be done. No one is arguing this bill is perfect. I have filed and cosponsored several amendments. I will just mention a few of them. Several of them, I know, are on the list that Senator Landrieu talks about as noncontroversial amendments. I know Senator Heinrich, the Presiding Officer, has an amendment on that list also.

The first adds a Federal district judge in New Mexico. In the committee markup, a bipartisan amendment was adopted to add Federal judges to the southwest border States. Unfortunately, New Mexico was not included, even though it has a significant immigration caseload, one that will increase with the additional enforcement provided by the bill. My amendment remedies this oversight.

I have also filed an amendment to expand the Border Enforcement Security Task Force units in the four southwest border States. BEST units are teams of Federal, State, and local law enforcement focused on disrupting serious border-related criminal activity, such as drug smuggling and human trafficking.

Finally, I have filed an amendment that provides resources to all 20 border States for vital early warning infectious disease surveillance. This Federal funding program was created in 2003 to detect, identify, and report outbreaks of infectious diseases at the borders. But this important funding has ceased. We need to restore it.

I would urge the bill managers and authors to work with me on these amendments to improve this bill and to protect New Mexico's interests as a key border State.

I again commend the members of the Judiciary Committee. I saw Senator Grassley in the Chamber a moment ago. I want to congratulate him and our chairman, Patrick Leahy. This legislation arrived on the Senate floor with support from both sides of the aisle. I hope it will move forward in the same spirit of cooperation.

This bill is a historic moment for families, for our security, and it will benefit our economy. As the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office just reported on Tuesday, this bill would reduce our deficit by $197 billion over the first 10 years and by at least $700 billion in the second decade.

This bill speaks to the best of our traditions and our values. This is our opportunity to govern, to fix an immigration system that is broken, and to move our Nation forward in the 21st century.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to strongly support the confirmation of Kenneth Gonzales for U.S. district judge for the District of New Mexico.

Mr. Gonzales is an exceptional nominee with an impressive range of legal experience and expertise. He was unanimously confirmed by the Senate as the U.S. attorney for the District of New Mexico in 2010. But he is more than just his resume, remarkable as it is. He is also an inspiring American story.

Mr. Gonzales grew up in the Pojoaque Valley in the northern part of our State. He was the first in his family to graduate from college. With the help of scholarships and grants, he received his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of New Mexico, a school that I am proud to call my alma mater.

After graduating he was a law clerk to New Mexico Supreme Court Justice Joseph Baca, and he worked as a legislative assistant for Senator Jeff Bingaman.

He began his career as a Federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Mexico in 1999, prosecuting a wide range of Federal offenses, including narcotics and violent crime cases. He holds the rank of major as a judge advocate in the U.S. Army Reserve, which he joined in September 2001. He has provided critical legal assistance to hundreds of active and retired soldiers and spouses, both here and overseas. In 2008 he was called to Active Duty as a part of Operation Enduring Freedom, where he was stationed at Fort Bragg and served as a senior trial counsel.

Mr. Gonzales has been an exemplary U.S. attorney for the District of New Mexico. He oversees a broad array of criminal and civil cases.

I would also like to note that he has made Indian Country a priority in the U.S. Attorney's Office, making a real difference in prosecuting cases of violence against native women and children.

Not surprisingly, his advice and counsel are highly valued. He serves on the Attorney General's Advisory Committees on Native American Issues, on the Southwest Border and Immigration Issues, on the Environmental and Natural Resources Working Group, and is a member of the Tenth Circuit Advisory Council.

He is also a member of the New Mexico Hispanic Bar Association. If confirmed, he will join only 58 other Hispanic active district court judges--less than 10 percent of the country's 677 district court judgeships.

Mr. Gonzales is esteemed for his diverse experience, for his even temperament, and for his integrity. From a young man dreaming of going to college, to his life in public service, his story is one of great determination and commitment. He has shown a reverence for and dedication to the law throughout his career.

I urge his confirmation. I know Ken Gonzales will serve New Mexico well on the Federal bench.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

I ask to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, like many others, I am deeply disturbed by the current situation in Syria, the appalling atrocities, the tragic loss of life, the reported use of chemical weapons. This deserves the clear condemnation of the international community.

I am also concerned by the push for intervention in this war, by the rush to judgment for the United States to yet again become entangled in a civil war. The President has decided to send arms to the rebels to fight the government of the Bashar al-Asad. The full scope of this intervention is not yet clear, but this path is dangerous and unnecessary.

The Asad regime is cruel and corrupt. We can all agree on that point. Many of the groups fighting against him do not share our values and could be worse. They may pose long-term risks to us and our allies. Asad's enemies may very well be America's enemies. The fact is that we do not know. A number of experts, including our military brass, have sounded alarms warning that the options to intervene in Syria range from bad to worse and could prove damaging to America's strategic interests. By flooding Syria with weapons, we risk arming those who ultimately may seek to do us harm.

We have been down this road before. Recent history tells a cautionary tale. In the 1980s the United States supported a rebel insurgency to repel the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Back then as now, many Members of Congress pushed for arming these rebels. The United States supplied weapons, intelligence, and training, with the goal to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Our short-term victory had tragic consequences for the future. Radical members of the insurgency formed the Taliban regime, giving safe haven to terrorist training camps, providing material support to Osama bin Laden and his fledgling al-Qaida movement. Through state- sponsored terrorism in Afghanistan, al-Qaida thrived and perpetrated attacks on the USS Cole and the World Trade Center on 9/11. The aftermath has been more than a decade of war, with tragic loss of American lives and treasure.

This is history to learn from, not repeat, and yet many who advocated for previously disastrous Middle East interventions are leading the charge to arm groups we know little about and to declare war through air strikes on another Middle Eastern country.

What little we do know about the Syrian rebels is extremely disturbing. The opposition is fractured. Some are sympathetic to the enemies of the United States and our allies, including Israel and Turkey. There are reliable reports that some of the rebels even include Iraqi Sunni insurgents--the same groups who killed many U.S. troops and still target the current Iraqi Army and Government.

We know American law currently considers some of the rebel elements to be terrorist groups. The United States has designated one of the key opposition factions, the Nursa Front, as a terrorist organization for being an al-Qaida-affiliated group.

The Syrian opposition is very unorganized. They lack a chain of command, they are subject to deadly infighting, and if they are able to defeat Asad, they may turn on each other or worse the United States or our allies.

Simply put, once we have introduced arms, neither we nor their fighters may be able to guarantee control over them. Such weapons could end up in the hands of groups and people who do not represent our interests, possibly including terrorists who target the United States, our allies, such as Israel and Turkey, and the Iraqi Army and Government--an Iraq that we spent billions of dollars and thousands of American lives to establish.

Given this reality, those who are pushing for military intervention should answer three basic questions: Can arms be reasonably accounted for and kept out of the hands of terrorists and extremist groups? Can they assure us those arms will not become a threat to our regional allies and friends, including Israel, Turkey, and the Government of Iraq? And if the answer to the two previous questions is no, can they then explain why transferring our weapons to the rebels, whose members may themselves be affiliated with terrorist and extremist groups, is a sensible option for the American people? What national interest does this serve?

I do not believe those questions have been answered. I think the majority of the American people agree. They do not see the justification of our intervention in this civil war. We need to slow down this clamor for more weapons to Syria and war and take a step back from this plunge into very muddy and dangerous waters.

Stopping radicalism and protecting our allies is of vital importance; however, we come to the ultimate question, one that has not been adequately answered: Will this hasty march to intervene in another Middle East conflict achieve these goals or will it ultimately harm the interests of the United States, leading to yet another bloody, costly, overseas conflict and, ironically, worsening the terrorist threat?

We should listen to the lessons of history. After over a decade of war overseas, now is not the time to arm an unorganized, unfamiliar, and unpredictable group of rebels. Now is not the time to rush headlong into another Middle Eastern civil war. The winds of war are blowing yet again, and we should be ever vigilant before we venture into another storm.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to speak today about an individual in my home State--a gentleman from Carlsbad named Ralph McGary. Because as we work for solutions to our Nation's challenges, I hope that we will always remember one basic thing. There are human beings behind these debates. There are stories of struggle and hardship and of inspiration. What we do here in Washington, DC, has real impact on real lives. What happens here matters in profound ways to millions of Americans, matters to fellow citizens like Ralph McGary, who have sacrificed and worked hard, and who depend on a government that will be there for them in return.

This is Ralph's story, as reported recently in Focus on Carlsbad magazine. Ralph worked in the oilfields. One day, in 2006, on his way home, he was almost killed in a traffic accident. In an instant, his life was changed forever. He spent 6 weeks in intensive care and then 3\1/2\ months at a rehabilitation hospital. He survived but was left a quadriplegic. Ralph McGary had to face tremendous loss, and then he had to decide how to move forward with his life.

It is impossible for any of us to fully realize what an ordeal that must have been for Ralph or what courage and determination it has required of him every single day just to keep going, just to find his way on a path that he never imagined he would be on. But move forward he did. Drawing upon his own valiant spirit and with the help of others, among his family and in his community. His is a classic American story of self-reliance and community support.

He found valuable allies at the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation in Carlsbad. Despite his severe physical impairment, Ralph still wanted to work, still wanted to be as productive as his condition would allow. DVR is a State-Federal organization. Its mission is to work with folks like Ralph to find employment, to help them overcome their disabilities.

DVR provided Ralph with a computer and a special voice recognition software. His counselor at DVR, Barry Jolly, explained:

We worked with him to develop a plan. That included going

back to school and completing his degree. We don't just

identify employment. We identify a strategy to get from where

you are to where you need to be.

Ralph is still on that journey getting from where he has been to where he needs to be. He requires 24-hour care. His family, like so many others, tried to provide that care at home for as long as they could. For now, Ralph resides at a local nursing care facility. Most of his disability income pays for his nursing home care. He keeps about $60 a month. But his dream of greater independence continues. He dreams of some day being able to adapt his home to accommodate his needs.

In the meantime, he earned his associate's degree from the New Mexico State University-Carlsbad. Last year, he obtained a part-time job at the Jeff Diamond Law Firm. The firm had helped him obtain his Social Security disability benefits, and SSA allows him to earn a certain amount of money each month without reducing his disability income.

In his work at the law firm, Ralph calls himself the ``reminder guy.'' He calls clients to remind them of their appointments or other matters relating to their disability claims. He knows their struggles. He understands what they are going through. His job not only provides some extra income, it boosts his morale and his connection to his community, and the McGary family is very much a part of the community. His wife, Susan, has taught at Carlsbad schools for over three decades.

Jolly told Focus on Carlsbad that:

Ralph is a determined man and a sharp individual. I used to

work in the oilfields too, so I think we speak the same

language. I think one of his strengths is his ability to get

along with other people and his understanding of how things

work.

Those are admirable qualities--getting along with others. Understanding how things work. We need more of that here in Washington, DC. People like Ralph McGary should expect no less of us. Ralph faced his challenges. We should face ours.

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

Mr. President, I have been watching today as various speakers have come to the floor. I want to join in the outrage about what has happened at the IRS, the idea that the IRS would pick specific groups and target them. In this case, apparently they used the name ``patriot'' and they searched through incoming applications for 501(c)(4)s--and the term ``tea party''--and they were obviously focusing on one side of the political spectrum. They should not have done that.

There is no doubt that the people who are writing me, that people in America have watched this and feel a sense of outrage. They should be outraged. They are outraged, and I am outraged.

One of the things we have to understand as a result of this is that the IRS has tremendous power. It has the power to audit. It has the power to request information. It has the power to refer for criminal conduct. I think in many cases the IRS is probably more feared than the prosecutor's offices, which also have tremendous power. As many know, I have had some real experience there, having been a Federal prosecutor, having been a State attorney general. That is power that should be used in a very careful way. You do not pick one part of the political spectrum and target people when you are entering a phase of a prosecution or an audit, as the IRS was doing. I think our President, who is a lawyer, understands that. President Obama has called for the resignation of the top IRS official. That official has resigned. That is the right thing to do. Such action is inexcusable. No one disputes that. More disciplinary action is likely. The FBI is investigating, and I hope they do a full, thorough, and complete investigation. Of course, as I said before, the IRS should not be targeting specific sides of the political spectrum.

But in thinking about this, there is another failure, and we should talk about that at the same time. The IRS does not have clear rules for nonprofit groups and political activity. We need transparency about what is allowed and what is not allowed. Those rules should be applied to all groups across the board on all sides of the political spectrum. Front groups for huge amounts of campaign money are continually allowed to file false statements with the IRS and get away with it. Over and over again, they do this. This is wrong whether the group is liberal or conservative, Democratic or Republican. This is wrong across the board.

How does this happen? We know that lots of secretive groups want to funnel cash to influence elections, to get their candidates elected. But campaign finance rules are supposed to have transparency. How do these groups, left or right, keep their money secret? They hide behind an organization that is listed with the IRS called a 501(c)(4). They ask for permission under the IRS to be a 501(c)(4) status organization. That is a tax-exempt, nonprofit corporation regulated by the IRS.

These groups have one big hurdle to jump through. The 501(c)(4) has to be set up ``for the promotion of social welfare.'' In fact, the law says it must be exclusively--the law Congress wrote says it must be exclusively for social welfare. That is the law Congress wrote. It seems pretty clear, doesn't it? It seems as though Congress was saying what it intended. But the IRS muddied the water by deciding ``exclusively'' actually means ``primarily.'' ``Primarily engaged in social welfare activity'' means at least 51 percent of the time--not 100 percent of the time, 51 percent of the time. This is baffling, and it is completely misguided.

To make it more confusing, the IRS regulations state that ``the promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation, or intervention, in political campaigns on behalf or in opposition to any candidate for public office.'' To establish a 501(c)(4) corporation, the organizers must file a form with the IRS pledging that they do not plan to spend money

to influence elections. It appears that many of these groups have lied on their applications for nonprofit status. It also appears that they are allowed to get away with it. That is corrupt, and it is also a crime--and nothing appears to be done about it. That is a scandal right there. As the IRS stands by, these groups, whatever their political affiliation, mock Federal tax laws.

The Center for Responsive Politics noted that in the 2012 election, 501(c)(4) groups spent $254 million to support or oppose candidates. Why would someone donate to a 501(c)(4) instead of giving money to the parties or to the campaigns of candidates they support? Simple--to avoid disclosure. If someone gives $1,000 to a political campaign, that is required to be reported and the donor is known. It is out there. It is in the public. But if someone gives $1,000 to a 501(c)(4) that is improperly engaging in political activity, the public remains in the dark. So if someone gives $1,000 to a 501(c)(4), nobody knows about it, but it can go out under these rules and engage in political activity.

This secret money is a bipartisan outrage. They are seeking to influence elections, not promote social welfare. This has to change. I have long argued that it must change. Since 2010 many of us have come to this floor calling for vitally needed reforms, demanding that we change the way we do business. I believe that requires a constitutional amendment overturning the disastrous Buckley and Citizens United decisions by the Supreme Court, restoring to Congress and the States the authority to regulate elections.

We have also pushed for the DISCLOSE Act. That legislation would have taken the IRS out of the business of investigating these groups--a job it is failing to do anyway. It would have required open reporting with the Federal Election Commission. The DISCLOSE Act doesn't ban any group, but it does say the American people have a right to know who is trying to influence their vote, who is paying for all those ads on television.

There is a saying in Washington from the Watergate era: ``Follow the money.'' That is what I am trying to do. Where does the money come from and where is the money going? Not a single Republican voted for the DISCLOSE Act--not one. In fact, they filibustered it, blocked it from an up-or-down vote.

Partisan bias and abuse by the IRS cannot be tolerated. President Obama is not tolerating it. But Americans are also fed up with the deception by shadowy groups that continue to drown our elections in anonymous cash. The fact that these secret political money groups also serve as tax breaks for extremely wealthy people adds insult to injury.

We need clear rules from the IRS. Exclusive means exclusive, in my book. When the Congress says ``exclusive,'' it means exclusive, and we need to enforce those rules equally on all applicants for tax-exempt status, every single one. If you are a charity or true social welfare organization, you should not pay taxes. There is no need to publicize your donors. But if you are looking to influence Americans' votes and how Americans vote, the voters should know who you are. There must be disclosure at the very least.

We have to change the way we do business. The failure of IRS bureaucrats--billionaires writing political checks but hiding in the shadows and avoiding taxes--this has to change. The time has come to change this.

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

Madam President, my amendment would sunset the so-called project acceleration provisions in 5 years. These provisions are untested. They were not the subject of any hearings of our committee. They were added at the last minute, before the markup, and they changed what I think is the bedrock National Environmental Policy Act. They set arbitrary deadlines. Rushed decisions lead to delays later and mistakes in litigation. Haste makes waste, both for taxpayer dollars and for natural resources.

The administration doesn't want these changes. Yesterday, the chairwoman heeded our call and changed the bill. The provisions will now sunset in 10 years. I believe this is a step in the right direction, but make no mistake, these provisions are still a very risky move. If this gets worse, these provisions could risk a Presidential veto.

I know the chairwoman has committed to me that we could have a hearing on the provisions that are in the law, the MA-21 provisions; that EPA--I ask for 30 seconds.

The chairwoman committed the relevant Federal resource agencies on MAP-21 that have similar provisions here. They are in the law. The resource agencies can come before our committee. We can have questioning. The chairwoman will be there. We can have the CEQ or whomever be a part of that.

I very much appreciate the chairwoman working with me. Because she is working with me, I am not going to move forward. I am not going to offer the amendment at this time.

Madam President, I am reserving my right to object.

I say to the leader, through the Chair, I am on the floor, as is Senator Nelson, to speak to the WRDA bill and to offer two amendments. I ask that I be allowed to do that before we move to executive session so the amendments can be offered.

Madam President, I totally respect the leader and the discussion he has had with the chairman. I have tried today to contact the chairman. I have called her. I wanted to talk to her about this issue, and I want to get these amendments in.

I know Leader Reid has been encouraging us throughout this debate to wrap this up and try to get amendments in. So I am here to offer my amendments, and I would like to do that.

Madam President, as you may have noticed a minute or so ago, I had a discussion with the leader, and he was moving to executive session. I have been down here--along with Senator Nelson and other Senators--to try to move the WRDA bill forward. Leader Reid said that was the business of the day. We are trying to move this forward, and we are trying to get our amendments in. I hope we can do that and do it in an efficient order.

I am going to speak to both of my amendments. Senator Bennet is here, and I know he has a statement he wants to make on immigration. I ask that the Presiding Officer give me notice when I am in the 5-minute range so I can wrap up and get everything in at that point.

My message is simple on the NEPA and WRDA process. Despite what we hear, environmental reviews protect people, taxpayers, and the environment.

On average, it takes the corps just 2 to 3 years to complete a feasibility study once funding is available. Studies of complex and highly controversial projects may take longer, but these are exactly the projects that require more indepth review.

The administration has warned that the streamlining provisions in S. 601 ``may actually slow project development and do not adequately protect communities, taxpayers, or the environment.''

The real causes of project delays are, No. 1, limited funding; No. 2, poor project planning that does not focus on national priorities or identifying the least possible damaging solution to a water resource problem.

Project studies take the longest when the project developers insist on pushing outdated, damaging, and extremely costly projects instead of adopting low-impact modern solutions that could quickly gain broad- based support.

I have two amendments that go to the heart of making sure we have a good WRDA bill. The first is Udall amendment No. 581. Streamlining is an empty promise if the backlog is not addressed. The corps currently has an estimated backlog of more than 1,000 authorized activities, costing an estimated $60 billion to construct. WRDA 2013 will add to this backlog. It authorizes more than 20 new projects and increases costs by $3.4 billion over the next 5 years.

The plate is full. Cutting corners on environmental reviews will not change that. It will just hurt communities. The plate has been full for over 25 years. Project authorizations far exceed the money to pay for them.

According to the Congressional Research Service, between 1986 and 2010 Congress authorized new corps projects at a rate that significantly exceeded appropriations. In 2010 dollars, the annual rate of authorizations was roughly $3.0 billion and the rate of appropriations for new construction was roughly $1.8 billion.

Completing project studies is not the problem. A newly authorized project will still have to wait. It has to compete for funding with 1,000 other projects already on the books.

This amendment would go directly to that process and solve it.

Udall amendment No. 853 talks about the value of a pilot project. The current environmental review process has been used successfully for decades resulting in better and less damaging projects. It saves taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

There is no evidence that the process proposed in S. 601 would actually speed up project planning, there is no evidence that the process will speed up project construction, and there is absolutely no evidence that the process would produce better projects. It is quite the opposite.

The evidence shows that the streamlining provision will lead to more damaging and more costly projects and will hurt communities, taxpayers, and the environment. The corps does not want Congress to enact these changes. The resource agencies don't want these changes, the environmental community does not want these changes, the legal community does not want these changes, and the public does not want these changes.

Once again, I wish the floor managers were here on this bill. I am here, as Leader Reid has requested us to be, to put in amendments. As soon as we get back, I want to bring up these amendments, make them pending, and continue with this procession. I am very discouraged that we can't move forward as our leader has said. This is a bill that is on the floor. The managers need to be here to manage this process. I am here to meet with the leaders and try to move this along.

Thank you.

I will yield to the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Bennet, but I want to say one thing. He has done such great work on immigration. He has been a marvelous Senator ever since he has been here. This Gang of 8 has contributed something that is very important to this country. So I hope everybody listens very carefully to his words because he is giving us very wise advise as to how to proceed.

I yield for the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Bennet.

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

Madam President, today I wish to remember Gifford Phillips, who passed away on April 17 at the age of 94. Over the course of a long life, Gifford was a truly great champion of the arts. He was also a friend to all who had the good fortune to know him. My wife Jill and I count ourselves among that very fortunate number.

Gifford was born on June 30, 1918, in Chevy Chase, MD, into a prominent family. He began life with great advantages, but also with a great loss. His father, James Phillips, died that same year from the influenza epidemic when Gifford was just 4 months old.

The Phillips family has long been a dedicated benefactor of the arts in our country. The Phillips Collection in Washington, DC, was begun in 1921 by Gifford's uncle, Duncan Phillips. Duncan founded the museum in memory of his brother, James, and their father, who had died in 1917. Mourning these profound losses, Duncan Phillips found solace in art. ``Sorrow all but overwhelmed me,'' he later recalled. ``Then I turned to my love of painting for the will to live.''

Gifford no doubt also learned these lessons well: that privilege without generosity is hollow, that life brings the pain of grief but also the joy of art. He lived his life in a way that reflected that understanding. In doing so, he was a credit to a renowned family, and he helped enrich the culture of our nation.

His life as an art philanthropist began early, when he donated a painting by Cezanne to the Phillips Collection in memory of his father. Gifford and Joann, his wife of 60 years, were not just avid collectors of art but tireless advocates for art. Richard Diebenkorn. Mark Rothko. Claire Falkenstein--these are just a few of the contemporary artists they championed.

Gifford was a successful businessman, but it was his passion for the arts and his political activism that seemed to most animate his life. As a patron of the arts and as a political activist, he wanted to share his advantages with others. And he had a great deal of fun along the way. He was a prominent supporter of George McGovern's Presidential campaign in 1972 and, to his delight, earned a place on President Nixon's enemies list.

Like his Uncle Duncan, the words ``founded by'' often precede his name. Gifford founded Frontier magazine, a west coast political monthly, with editor Phil Kirby in 1949. He published it until 1966, when it merged with the Nation magazine. He was the founding chairman of the Contemporary Art Council at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art in 1961.

In 1989, he and Joann began the Chamiza Foundation in Santa Fe to support Pueblo culture. The Chamiza Foundation was recognized by the New Mexico Legislature in 2009 for its efforts to sustain the cultural continuity of New Mexico's Pueblo tribes.

Gifford Phillips will be remembered for his generous spirit, for his passion for the arts, for his commitment to social justice. Gifford found joy in art, in those lasting creations that inspire us, that move us, and that make us more fully human. He wanted others to share that joy, and it is his great legacy that people from all walks of life, for generations to come, will do so.

Jill and I were proud to call Gifford Phillips a friend. We extend to Joann and the Phillips family our sincere condolences.

Mr. President, let me just say that I very much appreciate the help on this amendment from both Senator Wyden, who is here and is the chairman of the committee, and also Senator Murkowski, who has been working with me on this amendment.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

I thank the chairman, and I rise to speak briefly in support of the Senate budget resolution and four amendments that I will be offering. I believe these amendments will improve the underlying budget resolution and they deserve broad support.

First, Udall amendment No. 192 addresses the need to increase access to care for rural veterans.

Many of these veterans, including those in New Mexico, travel long distances between their homes and Veterans' Administration medical centers. Many other States have rural veterans who face the same challenges. I am glad to be joined by Senator Moran from Kansas as a cosponsor of this bipartisan amendment. Expanding access to health care in rural areas helps our veterans get the care they need.

The second Udall amendment, No. 311, would ensure that the 113th Congress can strengthen and reform the National Nuclear Security Administration. During the past decade NNSA has shown repeated failures in managing and planning projects. The result is costly overruns, deferrals, and, in some cases, security lapses. These failures are not only a threat to our national security, they pose threats to the safety of the scientists, engineers, and other workers employed at the National Labs.

I cosponsored an amendment to the 2013 Defense Authorization Act with Senator Kyl to form an advisory panel and to take a look at this to make bipartisan recommendations to improve the governance and structure of the NNSA. It is vital that necessary reforms would be completed.

The third Udall amendment, to lay the foundation, is for future hard rock mining reform in the 113th Congress. I have just filed this amendment so it does not yet have a number. We should correct a longstanding fiscal loophole and establish a royalty on hard rock minerals mined on Federal lands. Since 1872, the Federal Government has literally been giving away our gold, silver, uranium, and other hard rock minerals, handing over these public resources for free. A royalty is long overdue. It could be used for the reclamation of thousands of abandoned hard rock mines across the country, as well as for budget deficit reduction.

Oil and gas and coal all pay Federal royalties when extracted from Federal land. All other developed nations apply royalties to hard rock minerals. This amendment does not prejudge what type of royalty Congress might agree on. The mining industry supports one type of royalty. We have worked with Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski, and Majority Leader Reid on the text of this amendment, and I hope it is acceptable to a broad range of the Senate.

Lastly, I have also filed an amendment to allow for full funding of the Impact Aid Program. This program is one of the oldest Federal elementary and secondary education programs, going back 63 years. Impact Aid supports school districts that lose local revenues, such as property taxes, when educating pupils who live on Federal lands, such as military bases and Indian reservations. Impact Aid funding has been flat for many years, but the costs of education have gone up significantly, shortchanging many Indian communities.

I am pleased to be joined on this amendment by Senator Baucus of Montana who faces many of the same issues as we do in New Mexico and throughout the West. Finally, let me thank Chairman Murray for the work on this budget. She has shown real courage and leadership on this budget and pulled together a very diverse committee.

I think this is a budget bill that is good for the middle class, and it is going to be a fair and sensible budget. The budget is critically important to my State of New Mexico. It replaces the devastating sequester cuts with a balanced approach that will save thousands of jobs in my State. At home in New Mexico, sequestration is not just another political issue, it is a bread-and-butter issue for our family budgets: smaller paychecks, lost contracts, real economic harm.

Not only does the Senate budget resolution put a stop to the sequester, it also helps rebuild our economy with $100 billion for jobs and infrastructure investment. It will help spur job creation and rebuild the outdated infrastructure on which American businesses depend.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendments and support this budget.

Mr. President, I yield the floor to Ranking Member Murkowski from Alaska.

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

Mr. President, I would like to speak today on the Toomey amendment, No. 115. I rise to argue against the Toomey amendment.

This is an amendment about energy. As we all know, energy is a strategic resource for us. Every member of our Armed Forces understands this, and they understand it well. Energy is essential to our national security mission. Everybody knows you do not go out there and move in an aggressive way without good, solid energy supplies behind you. Having access to reliable energy supplies to protect our men and women in uniform is absolutely essential. No matter where they may be in the world, it is critical to our Nation that we have these good energy supplies.

Each branch of the Armed Forces recognizes the importance of biofuels as a critical part of its energy needs. Our military faces numerous logistical challenges with its dependence on fossil fuels. Increasing diversification through investment in alternative fuels will help the military carry out its mission safely and without the need to rely exclusively on foreign sources of fuel from countries that do not share our interests overseas.

The amendment offered by Senator Toomey, the Senator from Pennsylvania, trades some short-term benefits at the cost of our long- term needs. Reducing the Department of Defense's ability to procure biofuels by $60 million is a step in the wrong direction. Biofuels are an American industry, growing energy right here in our own backyard-- energy at home, made in America.

In my own State, the Los Alamos National Lab is growing the next generation of algae feedstocks for future biofuels. We are doing some great research in this area of biofuels. We also have a biorefinery facility operated by Sapphire Energy near Columbus, NM. This facility is up and running and can produce 1.5 million gallons per year of fuel. That is fuel derived from these advanced-generation algae. This story is not unique to New Mexico. Texas, California, Missouri, and Iowa lead the United States in the number of biorefineries per State.

This amendment limits opportunities for bioenergy companies across the United States. Biofuels are a significant source of energy for the Department of Defense. We should provide as many opportunities as possible to grow this industry. We should maximize the long-term economic and national security benefits of U.S. biofuels.

It is for those reasons that I urge a ``no'' vote on the Toomey amendment.

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