no matter how long it takes, no matter how much washington resists it. our opportunity to finally begin that work is almost here. we just have to know where to look for it. for not quite eastern windows only, when daylight comes into light, in front the sun climbs slow. how slowly. but westward look, the land is bright. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, first off, i commend the distinguished senior senator from connecticut, and i realize as presiding, he cannot respond. but i just want to say what a pleasure it is as a fellow new

englander to serve with him in the united states senate. and while it is not the most, sometimes you feel like you're in the graveyard shift on a friday night presiding over the senate. i must tell him after decades here, it is extremely important to have somebody of his integrity, his ability, his competence, his experience presiding over the senate should make every senator, republican and democratic, proud. mr. president, after late-night thee -- theatrics house yesterday i hope we'll soon vote on the spending bill. i support this comprehensive spending package.

chairwoman mikulski has done an outstanding job. she has been a giant of the appropriations process. she should be congratulated for her perseverance in bringing us to this point right now. now, mr. president, i spoke yesterday about the funds included in the bill for the state department and foreign operations. i commended members of my office who worked so hard on that. we put important funding for the environment, for aids prevention, treatment, for united nations peacekeeping, for emergency funding for ebola. and this bill will protect u.s. security, humanitarian and economic interests around the world. but it also funds many of the domestic priorities that face budget cuts. the people in our states depend upon it from law enforcement to transportation, health care to protecting our national parks.

mr. president, this congress and the past congress in what i feel is a terrible mistake voted to spend $2 trillion to $3 trillion in a war in iraq that we should not have been involved in. as a result, we did not fund our law enforcement, our transportation, our health care, our national parks, bridges and roads in america. i think most americans would think it might be good to take care of some of those things. so this omnibus, besides turning us back to the needs of the united states, includes critical investments in our rivers and lakes including an increase in funding for one very near and dear to my heart, lake champlain. that is done through the e.p.a.'s geographic program. lake champlain is a great treasure to this country. it is the largest body of fresh water outside of the great

lakes. it borders vermont, new york and canada, the province of quebec. some parts of it are hundreds of feet deep. it's especially important to me because my wife marcelle and i met on the shores of lake champlain. i want to thank the chair of the interior subcommittee for participating in assisting with the funding for all you see in this bill, not just lake champlain but all of them. we have critical investments to address the heroin crisis. the heroin crisis -- we think of rural states as being some kind of an enclave, they're not affected by what happens around the rest of the country. those of us who live in rural

america know differently. the heroin crisis has had a devastating impact on communities in small rural states like vermont. it doesn't make any difference whether they're a red state or blue state, they have been hurt. and with senator mikulski's support we provide federal assistance to law enforcement officers to investigate and combat the distribution of heroin. ensuring our local agencies have the tools they need is just one portion of our effort to deal with this crisis. but it's also unacceptable that americans face a waiting list when seeking help to recover from their addiction. and this legislation provides crucial funding to expand treatment services for those with heroin dependence. once again we're saying we have problems in the united states we should be facing. let's face them. the omnibus makes important investments in our students by providing funding to increase

access to a college education through the pell grant program. it increases funding for the trio program which helps low-income, first-generation students get a college education. they are the future of this country. mr. president, you and i know that our children have funding for college. we have a lot of first-generation students who wouldn't. with this program, they have it. think how much better this country will be a generation from now because they do. and the bill provides $30.3 billion for the national institutes of health. that's a treasure in this country. and funding for the development of vaccines against ebola. i'd like to see somebody be opposed to funding a vaccine against ebola. it raises the cap in the crime

victims fund to an historic $2.3 billion. it means more money for victims assistance grants at the state and local levels. mr. president, this was a program that i pushed for my early days here in this congress, in this senate, and i would compliment the presiding officer who has always voted in the judiciary committee to help the victims of crime. like me, he knows from his own past experience as a prosecutor, we'll have money to go after those who break the law, but we also have to start worrying about the people who are the victims of the crime. the compromise package invests in housing for veterans and seniors. this report helps purchase critical equipment for school lunch programs.

it provides funding for new food safety outreach program, helping the food and drug administration work with farmers and small businesses to understand complex new food safety laws. the bill protects our nation's forests through a strong investment in the forest legacy program. coming from a state that values its forests, i know i'm for this. the list goes on. so obviously, as i praise the chair of the committee, senator mikulski, on what she's done, i do intend to support this appropriations bill. she knows that i'm disappointed with some last-minute negotiations that forced the inclusion of several controversial riders which would have been a lot worse if she had not stood her ground. it had nothing to do with funding the operation of the

federal government. she knew that these provisions forced us into a choice between shutting down the government or enacting policy without the benefit of offering amendments. there is no doubt that congress has to do something to address vulnerable pension plans. we all agree on that. the 11th hour provision that we were forced to accept by the republicans in the house of representatives to reduce hard-earned benefits for retirees is shameful. for decades these retirees worked hard. they contribute to pension plans. they understand those benefits would be there when they needed them the most. now the game is being changed. you know, i could not but think, i wonder how the republicans in the house pushed this provision, would react if it affected their pensions. meanwhile, this legislation includes a particularly offensive rider that rolls back

an important provision in the dodd-frank act. it protects taxpayers from another wall street bailout. we know that elections have consequences. i worry this is the start of a pattern we can expect to see over the next two years of protecting the rich on wall street at the expense of hardworking americans on main street. frankly, like exphawl i ask, i stand with the -- like senator mikulski i stand with the hardworking people on main street. those are the people i feel comfortable with. those are the people i know. those are the people when i walk down the streets of montpelier or burlington, those are the people who call me by my first name, the people i know, the people who are paying the bills. those are the people who represent businesses like the one my mother and father ran. i'm also dismayed this spending package includes another body blow to what little remains of the campaign finance law by

increasing the amount of money wealthy donors can contribute to political parties, we further roll back finance limitations to protect the voice of every voter at the ballot box. not just those who pay to have their voices heard. it's unfortunate special interests prevailed having this happen. i also think it is unfortunate that when we had a chance in this senate to do something to restore part of what was then called mccain-feingold after the citizens united, we failed by one vote. every democrat, every democrat in this senate voted to restore many of the provisions of mccain-feingold. every single republican -- every single republican -- voted to

gut mccain-feingold, and it was gutted by a one-vote margin. finally while i'm pleased this omnibus bill will fund most of the government through fiscal year 2015, i'm disappointed programs and agencies funded through the department of homeland security will be only funded through february 2015. yet for months, for nearly 18 months the house republican leaders refused to bring to a vote the bipartisan, senate-passed immigration reform bill. we passed a bill here in the senate on immigration. we have had hundreds of hours of markups, hearings and debate on this floor. two-thirds of the senate republicans and democrats joined together to pass the immigration bill that came out of the senate judiciary committee. and now the political hypocrisy of the other side when they say

oh, look what president obama is doing on immigration. there should be a law to stop him. they had a law that trumped whatever the president might do. they refused to even vote on it because they were afraid it would pass. they wanted to talk about it. they wanted to talk about immigration. they wanted to talk about it. they wanted to do it, but they never wanted to vote one way or the other. nobody could point to them beyond their ret particular and say here's what you did. we stood up here in the senate. democrats and republicans together we passed an immigration bill. they refused to even vote on it so they could talk about what's wrong with immigration. that's not responsibility. some might use the word cowardice but we don't use those kinds of words here, so i'll let others use that word. i would say, however, it's political hypocrisy that's

worse. the bill would have passed and we wouldn't be where we are today. no bill is perfect especially one of this size. but this bill moves us away from governing by auto pilot. it takes off the table the threat of a government shutdown. senator mikulski and those on the appropriations committee kept us from a government shutdown. is there anybody in this country who thinks, can honestly and logically say we benefit from a government shutdown? and any resolution that punts these difficult appropriations decision into next year puts at greater risk important funding. i will say a parochial view would help vermont. a senator opposing this bill because of the riders to include to remember the continuing resolution. but omnibus spending bill passed next year will contain many more and some fireworks.

chairwoman mikulski has done an heroic job of getting us to this point. i hope we can build on this progress next year. i know senator cochran has been one of the closest friends i've had in this body since i've been here. from mississippi, he should become the incoming appropriations committee chairman. agrees that we should return to the regular order of debate and pass individual appropriations bills. i think we'll be well off, as senator cochran said and mikulski. these are people who know there is a big difference between rhetoric and reality. they are legislators. they believe in legislating. and the american people do, too. the real consequence of shutting down the government. so is this bill everything i want? no. is it everything the chairwoman would like?

no. is it everything any one of us would like? no. but it's a heck of a lot better than shutting down the government. i will support it. i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: i know the gentlelady from maiches wishes to speak, mr. president, and yield the floor to her, but before the gentleman from vermont leaves, i want to thank him, first of all, for his leadership in chairing the subcommittee on the state department and foreign operations. what he has done to make sure that we continue to be able to conduct public diplomacy, to ensure money for embassy security. there are many here who like to pound their chest and call for investigations, but he actually puts money in the federal checkbook, meets with the state department and the embassy security people so that if you

work for the united states government and you're in the embassies, you will at least have the security you need. the other is his work on foreign operations, making sure the poor, the dispossessed, the marginalized of the world have the united states of america as a partner, whether it's curing malaria, fighting aids in africa, fighting ebola. and also at the same time i remember the great honor and how touched i was for the -- to visit madagascar with him. when we looked at the children who were the victims of land mines, this man has done heroic work, not only to prevent the ghastly consequences of land mine but to make sure that the children who have been injured by this ghastly weapon have the means to recover their limbs and in that way livelihood. really, really, we owe you a debt of gratitude, and it's an

honor to serve with you. i now yield to -- i now yield to the gentlelady from massachusetts. ms. warren: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: thank you, mr. president, and thank you for yielding, the senior senator from maryland and the senior senator from vermont. you both show extraordinary leadership, and we learn from you every day. mr. president, i'm back on the ploor to talk about a dangerous provision that was slipped into a must-pass spending bill at the last minute solely to benefit wall street. this provision would repeal a rule called -- and i'm going to quote the title of the rule -- prohibition against federal government bailouts of swaps entities. on wednesday, i came to the floor to talk to democrats, asking them to strip this provision out of the omnibus bill and protect taxpayers. on thursday, i came to the floor to talk to republicans. republicans say they don't like bailouts either.

so i asked them to vote the way they talk. if they don't like bailouts, then they could take out this provision that puts taxpayers right back on the hook for bailing out big banks. today i am coming to the floor not to talk about democrats or republicans but to talk about a third group that also wields tremendous power in washington -- citigroup. mr. president, in recent years, many wall street institutions have exerted extraordinary influence in washington's corridors of power, but citigroup has risen above the others. its grip over economic policy making in the executive branch is unprecedented. consider just a few examples. three of the last four treasury secretaries under democratic presidents have had close citigroup ties. the fourth was offered the

c.e.o. position at citigroup but turned it down. the vice chair of the federal reserve system is a citigroup alum. the under secretary for international affairs at treasury is a citigroup alum. the u.s. trade representative and the person nominated to be his democraty which is currently an assistant secretary at treasury are citigroup alums. a recent chairman of the national economic council at the white house was a citigroup alum. another recent chairman of the office of management and budget went to citigroup immediately after leaving the white house. and another recent chairman of the office of management and budget is also a citi alum. but i'm double counting here because he's now the secretary of the treasury. that's a lot of powerful people, all from one bank, but they aren't the only way that citigroup exercises power. over the years, the company has

spent millions of dollars on lobbying congress and funding the political campaigns of its friends in the house and senate. citigroup has also spent millions trying to influence the political process in ways that are far more subtle and hidden from public view. last year, i wrote citigroup and other big banks asking them to disclose the amount of shareholder money that they have been diverting to think tanks to influence public policy. citigroup's response to my letter -- stonewalling. a year has gone by and citigroup didn't even acknowledge receiving my letter. citigroup has a lot of money. it spends a lot of money and it uses that money to grow and consolidate power, and it pays off. consider a couple of facts.

fact one -- during the financial crisis, when all the support through tarp and from the fdic and the fed is added up, citi received nearly half a trillion dollars in bailouts. that's half a trillion, with a t. that's almost $140 billion more than the next biggest bank got. fact two -- during dodd-frank, there was an amendment introduced by my colleagues senator brown and senator kaufman that would have broken up citigroup and the other largest banks. now, that amendment had bipartisan support and it might have passed but it ran into powerful opposition from an alliance between wall streeters on wall street and wall streeters who held powerful government jobs. they teamed up and they blocked the move to break up the banks,

and now citi is larger than ever. the role that senior officials played from the treasury department played in killing the amendment wasn't subtle. a senior treasury officials acknowledged it at the time in a background interview with "new york magazine." the official from treasury said -- and i'm going to quote here -- "if we had been for it, it probably would have happened, but we weren't so it didn't." that's power. mr. president, democrats don't like wall street bailouts. republicans don't like wall street bailouts. the american people are disgusted by wall street bailouts. and yet, here we are five years after dodd-frank with congress on the verge of ramming through a provision that would do nothing for the middle class, do nothing for community banks, do nothing but raise the risk that taxpayers will have to bail out

the biggest banks once again. you know, there is a lot of talk lately about how dodd-frank isn't perfect. there is a lot of talk coming from citigroup about how dodd-frank isn't perfect. so let me say this to anyone who is listening at citi -- i agree with you. dodd-frank isn't perfect. it should have broken you into pieces. if this congress is going to open up dodd-frank in the months ahead, then let's open it up to get tougher, not to create more bailout opportunities. if we're going to open up dodd-frank, let's open it up so that once and for all we end too big to fail, and i mean really end it, not just say that we did. instead of passing laws that create new bailout opportunities for too big to fail banks, let's pass brown-kaufman.

let's pass the bipartisan 21st century glass-steagall act, a bill i proposed with john mccain, angus king and maria cantwell. let's pass something, anything that would help break up these giant banks. a century ago, teddy roosevelt was america's trust buster. he went after the giant trusts and monopolies in this country, and a lot of people talk about how those trusts deserve to be broken up because they had too much economic power. but teddy roosevelt said we should break them up because they had too much political power. teddy roosevelt said break them up because all that concentrated power threatens the very foundations of our democratic system. and now we're watching as congress passes yet another provision that was written by

lobbyists for the biggest recipient of bailout money in the history of this country, and it's attached to a bill that needs to pass or else the entire federal government will grind to a halt. think about that kind of power. if a financial institution has become so big and so powerful that it can hold the entire country hostage, that alone is reason enough to break them up. enough is enough. enough is enough with wall street insiders getting key position after key position and the kind of cronyism that we have seen in the executive branch. enough is enough with citigroup passing 11th hour deregulatory provisions that nobody takes ownership over but everybody will come to regret.

enough is enough. washington already works really well for the billionaires and the big corporations and the lawyers and the lobbyists, but what about the families who lost their homes or their jobs or their retirement savings the last time citi bet big on derivatives and lost? what about the families who are living paycheck to paycheck and saw their tax dollars go to bail out citi just six years ago? we were sent here to fight for those families, and it is time, it is past time for washington to start working for them. thank you, mr. president. i yield. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you very much. i will be supporting this bill.

i will gladly support it even though i am not pleased with every aspect of it. but let me respond to my good friend from massachusetts. you're tired, you're frustrated, you're upset about a provision in the bill you don't like, i think takes the country down the wrong road. you have every right to be upset. you have every right to vote no and to argue to bring the bill down. you know what a lot of people on our side are tired of? the president changing the law whenever you would like, taking obamacare and changing it unilaterally to fit the political needs of the president and his party. by executive action turning the obamacare statute upside-down. you know what people on my side are tired of? a president who feels like he is more of a king than a president.

unilaterally reaching out and conferring legal status on four million to five million people without coming to the congress because he's frustrated. i have been working on immigration since 2006. i will put my frustration up against yours, mr. president. but democracy's democracy. you can be frustrated all you like, but there are rules to play by that keeps us all safe. so there are people on my side, mr. president, who want me to bring this bill down because they have had enough. they have had enough of president obama going on his own, taking the laws that we pass, ignoring some, rewriting others, and the executive action is the straw that broke the camel's back. it's one thing to defer prosecution on people in terms of your discretion. it's another thing to reach out to four million or five million people and say you now have a legal status without going to the congress. that should care every

republican, democratic, libertarian, independent and vegetarian. you will hear people saying this is an outrage, and we should shut this government down and defund all the parts of the government that would be used to implement this illegal executive amnesty. i understand where they're coming from, and i understood a year ago when people in my party said obamacare is bad for the country and we need to stop it, and i am willing to shut the entire government down or at least that part of the government that depends on funding obamacare, because i am upset with this law. i've been on the side of listening to this on my side and understanding the frustrations but always rejecting that temptation because we do have a country to run. as much as i'm upset about the executive action, i am not going to heed the call of not passing

this bill because i'm mad. because within this bill we have money to fight isil and god knows we need to fight them. in this bill we have money to contain and fight ebola. god knows we need to do that. in this bill we have infrastructure improvements that god knows are long overdue. so to my good friend from massachusetts, there's something in here you don't like -- welcome to democracy. and you have absolutely the same right as people over here on my side to blow up the whole place and i hope that some of us or most of us will listen to your concerns and not follow your lead and listen to what the senator from massachusetts said when the shoe was on the other foot. when people on my side were willing to take it all down because they were mad, i was one of a handful who said, no, i

would like to repeal and replace obamacare but i don't believe defunding the government is going to make the president repeal his signature issue and we don't have enough votes to override a veto. it takes a long time to say that and the people that i was responding to were mad and emotional because they thought they were wronged. i understood they were mad. i understand they were emotional. but i thought i had a duty beyond just worrying about me. now, if you follow the lead of the senator from massachusetts and bring this bill down and do a c.r., which is the worst possible way to run the government, i'll tell you what comes your way -- it's what came our way -- people are not going to believe you're mature enough to run the place. 70% of the democrats in the house voted against this bill and three out of four

republicans voted to get it over here. a level of maturity and judgment i haven't seen in my party in whitquite awhile. speaker boehner and your team, well done. to the 70% of the democrats, i'm sure on msnbc you're going to be well thought of and on the liberal version of talk radio you're a hero and you'll have your moment with that crowd. i can promise you this. there are people on our side that are having their moment on other channels. but one-third of the almost democratic party resisted that temptation and i know how they feel. some of them will get a primary. i had six primary opponents. i am glad i did not follow the lead of people who were trying to get me to shut down the government because i felt i was wronged. that's not the way to run a country. so here's what the senator said.

"for these right-wing minority hostage taking is all they have left. a last gasp for those who cannot cope with the realities of our democracy. the time has come for those legislators who cannot cope with the reality of our democracy to get out of the way." those were good words then and you should read them now. and apply them to yourself. what you're offering, there's plenty of people on our side would serve it up, too. what you're offering is to take one part of a complicated bill and try to convince people throughout the country that some horrible wrong has been done and the rest of us who want to get on with governing, we're the problem. my advice -- don't follow her lead. she's the problem. there are people on my side that are the problem. we will address the executive amnesty action in a responsible

way next year, attack it on every front, but we will not deny our troops the money they need to fight the war to protect us all. we will not deny those who are working to contain ebola and doing heroic things the money they need to protect us all. we will not deny the infrastructure improvements that have long been overdue. so to my democratic colleagues, welcome to my world. it may seem tempting to go the road of least resistance but you will regret it. it hurt our party. it will hurt yours. if you do what's best for the country, over time it will work out for you. to my colleagues on this side, remember last year? did we learn anything? i hope so. i'll make a prediction. the voices on my side that say "burn it down, blow it up, start

all over again" because they're mad at president obama's executive amnesty, the voices coming from this side, mainly through the senator from massachusetts, saying "blow it up because we've done something for wall street that we shouldn't have done," most of us will put this in context. most of us will understand there are things in this bill we don't like but we do have an overriding duty to our country to govern. i hope next year we can do appropriations process in a normal course of business, that we don't find ourselves in these messes. but all i can say about democracy, it is messy. it is emotional. it requires give and take. it requires some people not to follow the hottest person in the room. and there will always be somebody running hot.

123 so abouso, about democracy? as bad as it is, i can't think of a better idea. i've seen the other way of doing business in the mideast and throughout the world. i certainly don't want any part of that. so tonight and tomorrow or whatever that day comes, to my democratic colleagues who have put this bill together with my republican colleagues on appropriations, i applaud you. i will vote for your effort and for the product you created knowing it's not perfect. to the people on my side who want us to tear this down because you're mad at president obama, that's not the rest -- that's not the way to do business. to people on the other side who want to have the same result for a different reason, don't follow their lead. mr. president, i will now speak very briefly about my retiring colleagues and turn it over to the senator from florida. i promise you i'll be brief.

everybody will face retirement, voluntarily or involuntarily. there will be a last vote to cast and a last speech to make. and only god knows when that day comes because we're all one car wreck away from ending our careers. to the retiring members, i've had the pleasure of serving with you and i know you all and you did what you thought was best for our country and your state and what more could anyone ask? my good friend, mark pryor, who tried to find common ground in a time when it was hard to find. to mary landrieu, who was -- mary would drill under the capitol if she thought it would help american energy independence. so we've got good friends on the other side and i will miss you and i wish you well. but i would like very briefly to speak about four. saxby chambliss and julie anne and the chambliss family have become my family.

if you're lucky in politics you'll make a few friends. i've been very lucky, but i've made lifelong friends in the chambliss family, not just saxby. saxby represents i think the best in being a united states senator. he looks the part. he acts the part. and to the people of georgia, he worked very hard on your behalf. he protected our country against terrorism. he helped the farmer. he did everything he knew how to do to serve the people of georgia and i will miss my friend. mike johanns. he introduced me to bono and i said, "who's bono?" don't follow that music that much but i actually did know bono. and he introduced me to africa. he was the secretary of agriculture for the bush administration and he has a passion for the developing world, particularly africa. and through mike i got to know the one foundation in the gates foundation through mike and stephanie, i've been to africa

many times. you represent the best in our country. you're absolutely wonderful people. you'll be missed. and my way to repay you is to stay involved in the developing world. to tom coburn. when i grow up i want to be like tom. i don't see that happening an anytime soon -- me growing up. tom coburn has been at this for 20 years. we came in together. he was one of the first people i met in the freshman class of 1995, the 1994 "contract with america" class. he was full of ideas and determination from the first day i met him until the very last day he leaves. ry cannot tell you, tom, how proud i am to call you my frie friend. you and carolyn have become dear friends and you, my friend, have changed this body for the bett better. you had an awesome staff and you will be missed. but what you contributed to the senate will last long after i'm

gone and we will all be the better. the last person is carl levin. if i had to describe to somebody from a foreign country what a good senator was like, i would pick carl. carl understands the details of the government, very studious. he was the chairman of the armed services committee and ran it very evenhanded. had a disposition that i don't know how he held on to in these fcactious times but he was a gentleman. and i can promise you, working with carl levin, we both resisted the temptation to go down some very dangerous roads on this detainee contentious issue. all i can tell the men and women in uniform and the people of michigan, you never had a better friend. to all of you, godspeed. i wish you nothing but the best.

and i am fortunate enough to go into my third term. to my colleagues as we go into the next congress, let's try to do better. i know we can. and if we do, all votes rise. i yield. -- and if we do, all boats rise. i yield. mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: one of the great things about america is that two senators of different outlook, from different states can come to the same conclusion as we have on this legislation. and what the senator from south carolina has just said is not only my hope and my prayer but i hope will be the hope of the whole of the united states senate as we embark on the nation's business next year. and let's see if we can get along. let's see if we can work

together in a civil way. let's see if we can find that illusive consensus that has been so illusive in the course of these past very contentious and highly partisan and highly ideological years. let's see if we can get it done. there's a lot to be done. i'm going to have the privilege of serving with the new chairman of the commerce committee, john thune of south dakota. i will be the ranking democrat on that committee. john and i have already started having personal and private conversations about working together and getting things done. and i'm looking forward to it. so in the words of the senator

of south carolina, of which he is very sincere, i want to echo those words and i'm not only sincere, i'm very determined. now, we'll see if it works. but this we know -- that the people of this country want it to work and they want us to work together. and they're tired of this nonsense that they see. so we come here late on a friday night and we have in front of us our responsibility to spend taxpayers' money, hopefully wisely and responsibly. it's one of our chief duties. and so the appropriations bill is in front. us. i will vote for it. there are a lot of good things in it.

previous speakers have mentioned those things. and we've got to be prepared to take on the nation's enemies, those that we identify and those that we don't identify. they're all lurking out there in many different ways. and we've got to help -- help the health of this country by continuing to try to give the appropriate amounts to institutions like the national institute of health. there was a time a few years ago that they were being cut. that didn't make sense. the head of n.i.h., dr. francis collins, came to us and said i have to stop dead in the tracks 700 research grants going out the door to universities and

hospitals across this country. research grants for trying to find a cure for diseases. that doesn't make sense. and so we're beginning to correct that in this bill. in this bill across the spectrum of government we'll be able to fund the needs of government. but, mr. president, we have before us what is nothing more than a blatantly partisan attempt to undermine the legislative process and ram through a number of provisions that have no business being in there. and you can hear the note of sadness in my voice that in the process of making legislative

sausage, some owe differrous differrous -- odiforous got into the sausage. because tucked into this spending bill is a provision to once again bail out big banks and undo some of the reforms we made after the financial crisis of 2008. have we forgotten just six years ago hour economy was on the verge of collapse? do you remember when the republican secretary of the treasury got on his knees in front of the congressional leadership and begged them to pass the troubled assets relief program to try to buoy up the financial institutions so that the entire country would not into a death spiral, a

financial death spiral? have we forgotten the lessons that we learned from that crisis? have we forgotten what happens when we allow banks to make extremely risky bets and tell them that if they win, they can keep the profits, but if they lose, the u.s. government will bail them out? in this case, this bill would undo part of the financial reforms that say the government isn't going to cover or to subsidize the so-called credit default swaps. this is no way to legislate. well, there's also a provision in -- also in here a provision that would allow truck drivers to drive even longer hours withouting to stop to rest overnight. so eliminating this rule, this

rule that simply requires truck drivers to stop for some rest once in a while, it's a direct threat to public safety. it endangers motorists on america's highways. so what we've seen is what happens when truck drivers make a mistake because of the lack of sleep. that lack of sleep increases risk. we enacted these rest requirements to protect folks, to make traveling on our highways just a bit safer. they're common sense. but this safety provision is reversed in a spending bill, of all places. and i intend to raise this issue in the commerce committee next year and hope to have the support -- and i know i

will -- of the senator who is now presiding in the senate. but, mr. president, it doesn't stop there. look what they're trying to do to health care. there's a provision in here that would gut part of the new health care law that helps to keep insurance premiums stable. now, why would you want to make people pay more for health care? you want to score some political points with your base? do you want to do it on the backs of millions of hardworking americans already struggling to make ends meet? well, the american people deserve better, and if you want to change policy, let's have an open and honest debate on the issues, not some backroom deals

tucked into a spending bill. but we're down to the moment of truth, and it's either this spending bill, which in large part is very, very good. the alternative is uncertainty, and a stop-start kind of appropriations process that will do no one any good. and it's essential for there to be financial fiscal certainty in the funding of the government for the remainder of this fiscal year. and so i'm going to vote for the bill. mr. president, as i conclude, i, too, want to say a word about the senators that are retiring

and i will make this very short. i'm glad that the chairman of appropriations is coming back on the floor and i happily will yield to her very wise stewardship and having already spoken about the extraordinary measures, i would just mention one thing while she's here. she's heard me tell this to her privately. today i spoke to former senator kay bailey hutchinson of texas. kay bailey and i had the privilege of being in the right place at the right time when this nation's human space program was at a crossroads. there was no direction. there was uncertainty and debate

in the administration as to what direction it would take. and the task fell to senator hutchinson and me to try to give that direction with the passage of the nasa authorization act of 2010. that act has served as the template for the direction of nasa. it needs to be updated with other authorization bills because that was four years ago, and yet there are senators in this senate that have prevented us when there is no other objection from getting unanimous consent to pass the nasa authorization update. but there's a safety valve. and the safety valve is the

senator from maryland and the senator from alabama. as they have taken the template of the 2010 nasa authorization bill and flesh it out, put flesh on the bones of the structure each year, including this bill. i will speak at length at another time about our colleagues who are all such personal friends of mine that are departing -- senator hagan, senator pryor, one of my best friends in the senate, someone with whom i have met in private prayer sessions each week that we're in session. senator begich, senator udall, that mighty fighting force known

as landrieu of louisiana as well. some of our other retiring senators i have had the privilege of speaking to at the time that they gave their farewell speeches on the floor. i look further -- i look forward to further comments. mr. president, i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i ask that the call of the quorum be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: to give an update which is the usual update in the senate. the leadership on both sides of the aisle is negotiating the time and method by which we will continue to proceed in this bill. the omnibus spending bill for fiscal 2015. but what i've been happy about is that people have actually come to the floor to make presentations on the substance of the bill, both pro and con, and sometimes in the same speech and i think that that's been both enlightening and informative and i think all of my colleagues including the presiding officer for coming. i want to make a comment about my subcommittee on financial services and general government.

this is a subcommittee that has been chaired by the very able senator from new mexico, senator tom udall. and he's done an outstanding job. now, much has been discussed about dodd-frank, wall street bailouts, are we throwing our soul into the fires of greed, and i can appreciate the passion. and the concern because i too remember, as the presiding officer said, that grim day when the leadership in the bush administration who kept telling us fundamentals were okay, fundamentals were okay, well, there was nothing fundamental about our american values being thrown under the bus. and more than that, really we were very concerned that the

entire economy of the united states of america could be at risk. now, i come from a family that are roosevelt democrats. my dear father and mother opened a small neighborhood grocery store the year that they were married in baltimore. that year was 1935. it was the height of the depression, and this young couple, second-generation immigrants, opened a business. and years later when i had the opportunity to have conversations with my father about the decisions made, what he did and why, i said, dad, why did you open a business in the middle of the depression and we lived in a neighborhood where there were all these working-class people, men -- it was that time primarily men who worked at general motors, worked at the famous bethlehem steel

making steel, or at least hoped they would have jobs to make steel. the shipyards. we were a blue-collar manufacturing town, and all those jobs were at risk and high unemployment and just the travesty of the great depression. i said, dad, how did you -- why did you do it and how did you have the verve to do it? and he said, i did it because i believed in roosevelt. i believed that roosevelt was going to lead us forward and roosevelt was doing it in a way, things with the bampg where if you put -- banks where if you put a dollar in you could get a dollar back out, the famous fdic, and because roosevelt was leading the way and i believed in roosevelt and roosevelt believed in me, which he they believed then, that a president believed in them, i went forward. that wonderful grocery store was

open to lots of people in good times and bad. when there were good times, we were there. when there were rough times in the community, my father dealt on credit. and when my father passed away of the ravages of alzheimer's, over 700 people came to his funeral and they all had a story for my two great sisters and myself. so we are roosevelt people. we do believe in the public institutions and the safeguards that were created so many years ago to protect the little guy and the little gal against gouging. and i believe in this bill by and large and far from perfect we have continued to do this. this bill does protect public and consumers by focusing on five priority areas. it protects investors from fraud

and manipulation and i'll elaborate on that. it safeguards the financial system from abuse and illegal practices such as money laundering, deciphering complex tax code provisions so that the taxpayer can accurately file a return,. promoting a fair and robust safe marketplace by preventing fraud and enforcing it against unfair business practices. and also by working with small business and being able to make sure that our agencies that are in charge with enforcing the rules to protect against abuse are funded. now let's go to the securities exchange commission. without enforcement, you could have every law on the books. you could have every good intention on the books. you could say we're going to stop it. but unless you fund the securities and exchange commission and the commodities futures trading commission and

unless you also make sure that the now consumer protection agency is protected against being defunded, you don't have a law. so what did we do? we actually worked on a bipartisan basis. it took a little shove from some of us democrats, but both sides of the aisle want to look out for the little guy. so guess what? this legislation that is being so scrutinized needs to also take a look at the fact that it includes $1.5 billion so that the securities and exchange commission can actually do its job. this funding level is $150 million more than it was in fiscal year 2014. this will help protect investors, promote capital formation and maintain fair,

honest and efficient stocks and security. we funded the securities exchange commission. that's not being bad in today's world. then there is the commodities future trading commission. farmers and businesses use the futures market to manage risk as well as pensions and endowments. they rely on the cftc to properly monitor markets to guard against fraud, manipulation and systematic risk. they work to bring more transparency into that futures and into that derivative market that everybody's been talking about for several days. so i don't want the derivatives market to go wild. this is not the wild west. so we made sure that we put money in the federal checkbook to have the communities future trading commission, the cftc

have the money that it needs to do for enforcement. the funding level is actually $35 million more than the fiscal year 2014. it is more money than 2014 to make sure that the needed staffing and sufficient technologies are in place to foster open, competitive and financial sound futures and the swap markets. so, mr. president, a lot has been said about that swap market; right? a lot has been said about the swap market. and what with we did is we're worried about it too. we are absolutely worried about it. we are worried about derivatives. we're worried about the exploitation and manipulation of derivatives. you can have section 1716, 15,

545, whatever that is -- and i'm not minimizing or trivializing it. people worked very hard to create that legislation. but unless you fund the enforcement agency, what does it mean? now, for whatever we did or we didn't do, we actually put money to keep these agencies functioning. i'm real proud of that. i'm absolutely proud of that. a lot has been said about backroom deals, secret negotiations. why can't we do this in the open? guess what? every single rider that we faced, 98 riders that came over for us to deal in our conference report all passed the house of representatives. all passed the house of representatives. they had markups in full committee. they had debate on the floor. they passed them. the so-called 716 problem that

has everyone concerned, and it has me concerned, passed the house of representatives. it supported it by passing 292-122. there was nothing secret about it when they passed the house. 70 democrats voted for it. it was dumped in our lap. it was also dumped in our lap with several other riders in that area. we had a total of 98. so when people say middle of the night, every rider that came over that was so controversial had come over from the house. very few came from the senate. very few. and we had to deal with them. in the financial services aging subcommittee alone that mr. udall was the subcommittee

chairman, we had six of these. six. they were tough. but you know what? we were able to deal with them. there was a whole rider to make the consumer financial protection bureau weaker by taking away its mandatory funding. we stopped the weakening of the consumer financial protection bureau that the wonderful gentlelady from massachusetts had stood up for and had stood up the agency. but we protected it. we protected the agency and we protected its money. also there was this whole attempt on a rider from the house to stop i.r.s. from implementing the affordable care act. we were able to deal with that and eliminate that. then there was the s.e.c. where

there was an attempt to make sure that legislation would have affected the investors by making sure we prevented the security exchange with the fiduciary standard of care for brokers. we also prevented the treasury from -- a rider that would have prevented the treasury or stopped the treasury from designated certain insurance companies as too big to fail. it's not like beeper asleep at the -- it's not like we were asleep at the switch here. it is not like we were saying wall street, our dear friends. these were hard fights. so what did we do? this is the appropriations committee. we would have preferred to do individual bills, open in debate. but guess what? it wasn't meant to be. we had to fund it. we had to do it all, 11 committees with the homeland security on a continuing

resolution. and we worked, we debated, we argued, we fought. we won some and we lost some. one we did lose. this is the subject of great controversy and debate here. but i want everybody to know it was one out of six. one out of six. it's a big one, but it's one out of six. and i want everyone to know we added 11% more for the securities and exchange commission to do their job in enforcement. and we added 15% more for the commodities future trading commission to do their job. and that every one of those poison pill riders to shrink the effectiveness of dodd-frank was voted on in the house and came over, just like the

controversial one on gutting section 716. and i will repeat that passed the house 292 with 122, with 70 democrats voting for it. that doesn't make it right. that doesn't make it right, but it's not like we invented it. it's not like we brought this up in a secret back room deal. so i want everybody to know when they look at what we did in the financial services, we did what i think my father would have wanted me to do. make sure that these institutions that were created to enforce the law against fraud and gouging investors, taking advantage of the taxpayers, i think we have done our job by making sure they were funded adequately to do the enforcement job that we asked them to do. second, out of six poison -- or

six riders that would have really limited our handicapped the enforcement to protect investors or to implement other laws like the affordable care act, we were able to achieve, i think, some significant victories. so i just want the trord -- the record to show? are we a quiet committee? yes. did we work? we did work. you know those secret meetings everybody likes to talk about for the last several days, you know when they occurred? they occurred like this summer when we were trying to get the bill ready to come to the floor and we were stopped in september, when everybody worked on weerkdz, -- weekends when everybody went out on thanksgiving, the senate and republican staff worked through the weekend. everybody else was having a good time with pumpkin pie.

they worked up to thursday night and were back on the job friday so we would not have a government shutdown, so we would not have a government on auto pilot. if you don't like what we did and the way we did it, then let me, and in a few weeks with senator cochran, whom i have so much respect for, then let us get back to a regular order. i need everything who is cranky about this -- and i don't dispute the validity of their concerns because i share them myself, but i won some, i lost some, but i sure fought for them all. that if they don't like the process, then why did they stand for this process? i wanted to bring up individual bills. i had the vice chairman, the gentleman from alabama, senator shelby wanted to bring up individual bills. we were bringing them up. we held 60 hearings in 60 days on these topics so that we could

have a regular order that the senate could consider them one at a time. so for everyone who is concerned, i'm ready for due process. i have been trying to do this for a couple of years now. and i would like to be able to bring up -- well, now it will be under senator cochran's watch. so i will talk more about the process, but i would like -- and there are other senators waiting to talk. i would like to say a word to senator cochran. i have been informed that his beloved and dear wife of so many years, rose, has passed away. i personally want to express my condolences. and i want to do it for several reasons. one, just as a part of being in the senate, we should be concerned about one another and what one another are going through. but i also would like to express my gratitude to rose herself.

when i came to the united states senate, now many years ago, there were only two women in the senate, senator nancy kassebaum, a wonderful senator, a republican from kansas, and myself. and when i came, i was welcomed in the senate. as the democratic woman, i often said although i was by myself, i was never alone. i had senator paul sarbanes, i had senator ted kennedy, senator bob byrd who helped me learn the ropes of the appropriation committee that i now chair. but i also had some other special help, from the women of the senate, the spouses of the senate. there was only senator nancy and myself in those days, but the spouses of the guys in the senate really reached out to me, and particularly the southern women were so gracious to help me learn the ropes, even learn what the building was, how to

even maneuver here in so many ways. senator hal heffron's wife, mike. sam nunn's wife colleen. and then there was rose -- vivacious, charming, fun and savvy. we often were traveling, we took trips together, we were on a nato committee with thad and myself. it was always rose who said come on, barb, come with us. and she made sure i was not only -- i was both included, that i was ok'ed, and it was this sense of hospitality that i thought my gosh, what a wonderful institution. we're not democrats or republicans. we're working together. and the senator is working and we're working together, the spouses are welcoming. this might not be the club that's really a family. and i wish we could get back to that, but tonight -- rose died of alzheimer's.

i spoke earlier about my father. my father died of alzheimer's, so i know what senator cochran went through. and even when illness, so ravaging, so cruel that you hope that either death is anticipating or part of your heart even hopes for it, but when it comes, you just can't believe it. i know he is going through his own grief, but i want him to know that in his grief, there are many of us on this side of the aisle not only who express our condolences, but i want to express my gratitude. to rose who made me feel so welcome and made me feel that the senate was a family, and i hope that we could get back and honor her memory and act more that way. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: mr. president, i rise to speak tonight in support of this omnibus appropriation package that senator mikulski, the chair of our appropriation

committee, has spoken at great length about and that senator cochran has also dedicated so much of his time and effort and energy to and that so many members of this chamber have contributed to, but where there are questions, questions on the minds of my constituents from the home state of delaware, questions on the minds of colleagues who have spoken earlier this evening about this very large package, this $1.014 trillion spending bill appropriation package. there have been questions raised about some specific provisions. an issue here about pensions, an issue there about dodd-franks and swaps, an issue there about environmental concern. there are a few provisions that have members, particularly of my caucus, very concerned and have messages coming in to me and my office from social media and on email, saying why on earth would you support this? my senator, chris coons from delaware, why would you support

this they have been asking. we're going into the holiday season, and i want us to take a few minutes here and look at what is actually in this package, to unwrap it a little bit and to better understand why on earth i would stand on this floor and speak in favor of this package. you've heard the hard work of our appropriation committee chair. what you don't know is the tireless and determined and dedicated work of all the appropriation committee members and staff who across 12 different subcommittees held more than 60 hearings to hammer out provision after provision, department after department, and it's difficult sometimes to know what that means, so let me put this in some context. first in terms of bad, avoid it and good, invest it. in terms of bad, avoid it, the version of this that came over from the house, 11 full appropriation bills out of 12 that had within it all sorts of

provisions. we call them here riders because they are provisions that ride on top of the underlying appropriation bill. and you've heard some of these riders that have been defeated and beaten back. it's not one or two or three. and they cover all the same areas where concerns have been raised by colleagues in my caucus. the environment, protections for organized labor and labor concerns, protections for the safety of our communities related to firearms, protections for the safety and soundness and transparency of our financial system through preserving the dodd-frank act, preserving a woman's right to choose and protecting the implementation of the affordable care act. dozens and dozens of riders came over in the bill from the house which our committee chair and her dedicated staff worked tirelessly to remove from this bill. and you heard some of them in the speech just concluded by chair mikulski.

everything from fish and wildlife rules to fiduciary rule making. from issues around union elections to concerns about the strength and ability of the a.t.f. to keep our communities safe. strengthening and supporting the cfpb and the s.e.c. and their ability to enforce dodd-frank or assuring the woman's right to choose. the actions of our committee chair ensure that these dozens and dozens of bad from our perspective riders were removed from the bill. and now we stand here on the verge of the end of the authority of the government to continue to function, and we have a package in front of us and we have two choices, and the choices are simple and clear. if we do not pass this omnibus, we will continue government by crisis, government by continuing resolution, government by chip shot down the lane, and we will fund the government for a temporary three-month extension,

and then this entire package will be put back together not by a democratic senate and a republican house but by republicans on both sides of this capitol. and we won't have one or two or three riders from the perspective of my caucus to be concerned about. we will have dozens and dozens. all of this that's been removed, that's been taken out of the package by the hard work of our committee chair and her staff will be right back in the mix. so if we turn away from enacting this package, we will do two things -- we will fail to give the certainty and clarity and predictability to our government agencies and entities that they will have authorization and funding through next september, and we will face a package toxic far more difficult for us to accept with dozens and dozens of problems riddled throughout it and frankly ultimately every one of my caucus i expect will vote against it and perhaps the president even veto it.

we cannot let the perfect or the ideal be the enemy of the good. so let me take a few minutes and talk about what there is in this package that is good because you have only heard speeches tonight that have highlighted concerns, that have focused in on the three or four provisions that cause great alarm or concern to all of us who are on my side of the aisle. but i don't think there has been quite as much exposition as there should be about what there is in this package that i'm hoping to unwrap for you that is actually good. why would i be standing here, as the senator from delaware, defending this hard craft, hard wrought, hard-won package if it weren't for things that are important for the working families of delaware, for our community and our country and that didn't advance our core values? well, let me take just a few minutes and touch on a couple of things that i think bear your

consideration. infrastructure. the bridges, the roads, the rails, the ports, that from the very founding of our nation have been the work of the federal government and that are woefully behind where we are not competitive globally and where we could put people to work right away by infusing more responsible investment and upgrading our infrastructure, in rebuilding american infrastructure, this package includes $54 billion for transportation programs and housing programs that communities and states like delaware care deeply about. $1.8 billion more than passed in the house package. this covers things from the tiger grants program that encourages and incentivizes and leverages cutting edge investments in infrastructure to funding for amtrak, amtrak which for the east coast of the united states is such a vital means of transportation, to the funds for harbor maintenance and dredging, so vital to our maritime industries.

this is just one of dozens of areas we could talk about this evening. it will put americans back to work. it will make our country more competitive, and it will give us more resources in these areas than we would ever get from renegotiating this package from the ground up. second, there was an unfortunate story about my hometown of wilmington in just the past week that drew real alarms about the murder rates and the violent crime rate. this is a pressing issue in my hometown of wilmington. and there is real concern because we have a record murder rate and a record gun violence rate in my town. this omnibus package includes resources, financial resources that will help communities large and small all over this country to keep themselves safe with the sort of targeted and wise federal investments in state and local law enforcement that we have come to rely on and that we need.

something called the burn justice assistance grants that in my former role as a county executive, my county police department relied on, critical. there is $2.3 billion, and it's $55 million more than last year in burn justice assistance grants that will affect states and localities all over this country. something that i have fought hard for on this floor and i care about, the bulletproof vest program that has saved lives of law enforcement officers in the small towns of delaware and in our biggest cities, that have made possible the funding of state-of-the-art vests, that are correct and are appropriate and current and save officers' lives. a regional information system called risk that provides current intelligence and data so that law enforcement can be more effective regionally. implementation of violence against women act programs. all of these are at least sustained or increased over previous years and make the sort of investments that are vital

for our communities and their safety. there is $1.1 billion in this omnibus package to help the a.t.f., the f.b.i. and the d.o.j. fight gun violence. that matters to my hometown. that matters to the families who wonder whether what we're doing here is relevant to them. and to turn back from this omnibus and turn away from those investments in keeping our community savvy think is unwise. there is more money for criminal enforcement by the a.t.f. to fund straw gun purchases and their investigation and their prosecution, to fund keeping guns away from traffickers and criminals, to improve interstate background checks, to train law enforcement for the responsible carrying out of their public responsibility, to intervene and stop active shooter situations in schools or in particularly facilities. and last, the sort of resources we need for the victims of

crime. there is $2.3 billion in this omnibus for helping the victims of violent crime and their families to get access to badly needed services. i could g -- i could go on, but there are investments that matter to me in law enforcement and that matter to my hometown as we work together to fight violent crime. let me last take on two other areas -- wurntion one, i'm on n reels committee, and i am concerned that if we turn away from there package, the vital investment in our central ally, israel you and in the iron dome program, which has been shown to keep israel safe, will not be made and the multibillion-dollar investment in fighting the scourge of ebola in west africa at this moment when the tide is turning and we have a chance to heal three nations and contain this plague, which may get out

otherwise and become a global pandemic, to not do so now is a major concern. imagine if you could go back to time where aids was just beginning to spread around the globe and with a smaiferlts, you could have contained it instead of the thousands of communities across dozens of countries that have suffered through hiv-aids now for nearly 25 years. if we fail to invest in turning the tide in the fight against ebola now, we put at risk the future public safety of not just a continent but the world. we also have to be mindful of what this omnibus makes possible for our health and our safety and our future. entities that most americans don't think about or haven't heard of, that perform basic

science research or advanced research, from the national science foundation to the national institutes of health, institutions that are doing cutting-edge, world-class science and developing the cures and treatments for everything from alzheimer's to cancer. we continue to sustain and support investmen investment wis of dollars in these areas in this bill and, again, to walk away from this package means to wrap back up and put away the poe teption for enormous progress -- the potential for emore must progress. there's $172 million more for basic science research programs in this bill over last year. it raises up to $7.3 billion the level of n.s.f. funding, and that may sound abstract and disconnected from our lives at home. but in my state of delaware, that funds education, training, and research. the university of delaware, delaware state university, in public schools across our state, at a time when we need science education and when we need the

outcomes, the fruits of our labors in research more than ever -- i think that is vital funding. last, there is an thaifer spoken about on this floor many times in this congress and that i'm passionate about because it's how i came up. i spent years in the manufacturing sector. as a young man working in the private sector for a family manufacturing business, i saw its power to create good, high-wage, high-skill jobs. manufacturing is an area where most of the research and development of this country that's privately funded is done, and manufacturing is an area that many mistakenly think we've lost our edge in and can never regain t but the trut it. but the truth is quite different. we've grown more than 750,000 new manufacturing jobs in this economy and those are great jobs. jobs you can raise a family on, jobs that provide a renewed road back to the middle class. and if we fail to invest into things that will make manufacturing grow in this

country, we miss a vital opportunity. there's something called the manufacturing extension partnership, and in the scope of all this, a tiny little program. but for the dozens of small and medium-sized manufacturers that i have visited in delaware that the program has helped, it makes an amazing difference. it helps them understand how to compete internationally, it helps them with upgrading the skills of their workforce, it helps them with deciding what capital equipment to buy. i have stood on manufacturing floors from bridgeville to lewis, from do yo dover to clayt and heard stories changed by this program, a public-private partnership that really genuinely makes a difference. and last, in this provision of the bill, there isn't just renewed funding for the national institutes of standards in

technology, or nist. there's also renewed opportunity for the funding and sustainment of something called hubs, manufacturing hubs, a strategy that our competitor germany has used very well and very wisely to have double the g.d.p. in manufacturing that we do, a strategy that this administration has led on and that we hope to emulate and where i think the investments made in this bill are wise and lay the foundation for middle-class job growth and prosperity. mr. president, there are a dozen other areas that i could speak to this evening where throughout this bill the investments made have been cut in some areas that needed to be reduced and increased in others that are wise for our states and our communities, some from my home state, watching the speefs on -- watching the speeches on this floor earlier have contacted me and said, why on earth would you vote for a bill with this or

this or this concerns me. i hope i've helped you hear that our choice is not between a perfect bill from the perspective of democrats in the senate or the country and a terrible bill, but a choice between a great bill and no bill at all. a choice between returning to regular order and ending what has been a nearly four-year pattern of government-by-crisis, by short-term steption, by chip shot and by near default and instead respect and honor the very hard work of the dozen subcommittees of this great appropriations committee and move forward a package that strengthens our country, that honors our veterans, that invests in our future, that lifts manufacturing, that makes us safer and healthier, and that does the job of bringing america into the future. that's why i will be voting for this package and that's why i hope all of my colleagues will

consider doing the same. thank you, mr. president. with that, i yield the floor. mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i will not be voting for the bill. i am frustrated. we've gone through now eight years of domination by the majority leader in the senate, denying even simple amendments to be allowed to be voted on as a part of the entire funding of the discretionary accounts of the united states of america. over $1 trillion in spending, not one amendment, refusing to bring up the bills individually, as they should have been, refusing to pass the bills by september 30, when the fiscal year ends and appropriations should be done before that date to fund the next fiscal year.

so what do we do? well, we don't want to vote because an election is coming up. well, they didn't want to vote the previous year when an election was coming up. i guess 18 months later. so always some excuse. but the fundamental thing that has occurred in this senate is the majority leader, through the device of filling the tree, places him in control, places him in a position to block amendments to any bill. and that's what he's done, to a degree never before been done in the united states senate. and chairman mikulski says she looks forward to getting on a better path next year under republican leadership, so we'll have a more regular process. maybe the republicans will allow the minority democratic party next time to have rights that

have been denied us for all these years. this is fact. you can spin it any way you wat to. i've been here 18 years, and i know what's happening. we have demolished the collegiality in the senate. and it's caused the kind of frustration and tension that has resulted in these fail our failo pass bills. so what do they do? they cobble the entire funding of the united states together in one omnibus bill, bring it up at the last minute and say, if you don't agree to vote it out without getting any amendments, why, we'll accuse you of shutting the government down. we'll accuse you of shutting the government down. it's all your fault. and for some reason, our friends in the media seem to think that's true.

and if anybody has the gumption to stand up to this abuse of process, they're shutting the government down. what plannest are we on here? -- what planet are we on here? i want to offer this bill. it would simply say that congress is going to fund the united states of america. we're going to fund the entire discretionary account in this country, but we're not going to provide money to allow the president of the united states to execute an unlawful, illegal amnesty. he's already established a building across the river in crystal city and they've got ads out to hire 1,000 people, salaries up to $150,000, and they're going to process people who are here unlawfully, give them a photo i.d., a social security number, and a work

authorization and allow them to participate in social security and medicare, and allow them, if their incomes are low and statistics tell us their incomes are lower, they're entitled to child tax credits of $1,000 per child, and they're entitled to earned-income tax credit. combined, the recent article by david frum in atlantic said, that's almost $5,000 if you are a he a working person with a family of four under $40,000 a year, up to $40,000 a year, you'll be entitled to a direct check, a tax credit is not a tax deduction; it's a direct check from the treasury for an average of nearly $5,000. it's a stunning thing. it should not be happening. so i just wanted to have an amendment that funds the government, allows the country to go forward but just say to the president, mr. president, we

don't -- we don't authorize any funding for this project. it can easily been done. it's been done hundreds of times. and in fact that's why guantanamo prison in guantanamo, cuba, where the terrorists are being closed, that's why it's not been closed, because congress has told the president, who wants to close it, we're not going to allow us to spend a time to close that prison. and it has been successful. because presidents can't spend money not authorized by congress, not appropriated by congress. he cannot spend that money. it's wrong. it's actually a criminal offense to spend money. anti-deficiency act says that anyone that pretends to represent the united states government and spends money not appropriated by the congress of the united states, not authorized by the congress to be spent, violates a law, because

the congress has the power of the purse. we don't have to fund everything the president asks for. we don't have to fund programs that we think are bad, that are unworthy of funding. what is congress for? otherwise, is it a rubber stamp? qunts makcannot make an indepent judgment in and we absolutely have a duty not to fund a -- a responsibility not to fund programs that violate law, violate the constitution, allow the president to eviscerate and fail to enforce huge chunks of our immigration law and, at the same time, allow him to create an entirely new scheme of immigration law. so what the president's executive amnesty -- "executive"

means by his act. he says, i'm not going to enforce the law with regard to 5 million people, and not only that the law says, if you're here unlawfully, you can't work, and the law say, if you're a businessperson, you can't hire somebody who's here unlawfully. i'm not going to enforce that either. and in fact i'm going to go even further. i'm going to get an office in crystal city, i'm going to bring in 1,000 people and we're going to give the people that are here unlawfully, as defined by the american people through their congress, i'm going to give them a certificate, an i.d., a photo i.d. that says you are lawfully here, and i'll going to say, despite the fact that you're not supposed to work here, if you're here unlawfully, i'm going to give you the right to work. and, by the way, you're not entitled to social security and medicare. i'm going to give you that, too.

and, by the way, when you file your tax return using that social security number, if your income falls in this range -- $20,000 up to $40,000 -- you can get a tax credit and a child tax credit. and for people making -- a typical family of $44,000 and down with two children will not owe any income tax. they're not going to pay any income tax. what they're going to do is file their return and wait for their $5,000 check from uncle sam. i'm on the budget committee, ranking republican at this time on the budget committee, and we're going broke. the last thing we need to do is put social security and medicare in worse condition. the last thing we need the

country to do is for our treasury department to be sending out billions of dollars in tax credits to people who've come to the country unlawfully. we have to borrow money. do we not know? we borrow money every day in huge amounts to keep this government afloat. and all this is going to do is add more. and i'm not happy about it. i don't think the american people are happy about it. poll after poll, election after election in november, people said they were going to come to washington and do better. people who've been complicitous in this kind of activity are not going to be here next year, many of them. and so i think congress needs to listen to the american people. what's wrong with what they're telling us, colleagues? what's wrong with them saying,

we want a lawful system of immigration? we don't care what big business wants. we don't care what special activist groups want. we want a lawful system of immigration that's fairly applied, that we can be proud of and that serves our interest, that helps my child, my husband, me have a job. we'd like to see wages rise and we expect you in congress to look after us not people that violate our laws. let me share some thoughts with you, colleagues, that i believe are important. a lot people are ignoring this. they don't want to hear about it. they don't believe it. they just have taken the view that they're going to dismiss it. but i -- i want my colleagues to be aware of this and i intend to stay -- continue to press this

issue. the united states department of commerce informs us that -- quote -- "today's typical 18- 30-year-old earns about $2,000 less per year adjusted for inflation" -- and that's the way you should score it -- "than a counterpart in 1980." so a young adult today starting out to work, college graduate or non-college graduate, their incomes are $2,000 less than in 1980. this is not good, i would submit. and it's a painful and sharp decline for young americans. so what's happened to the labor market since 1980? data from the u.s. census bureau offers this insight -- quote -- i'm quoting the census bureau -- "from 1930-1950, the foreign-born population of the

united states declined from 14.2 million to 10.3 million. but since 1970, the foreign-born population of the united states has increased rapidly due to large-scale immigration." let me just stop here and say, america has been generous in its immigration policies. we have the largest number of people enter our country on lawful immigrant status than any country in the world by far. but what i want you to do, colleagues, is to understand that we need to ask ourselves how many people the united states can absorb without damaging the wages and job prospects of unemployed, underemployed americans. so the united states census bureau statistics report that in 1980, the foreign-born population stood at 14.1 million. but from 1980-2013, the

immigrant population tripled from 14 million to more than 41 million. the large increase in the size of the immigrant population is a direct product of policies in washington, creating both an expanded lawful system and an expanded unlawful system. so legal immigration during the 1980's averaged around 600,000 people a year. 00,00600,000. but since 1990 through today, it has averaged about a million annually, meaning the rate almost doubled. the sustained large-scale flow of legal immigration, overwhelmingly this group are lower wage or lower-skilled persons coming to america, it has placed substantial downward pressure on wages. i don't think there's any doubt about that. so don't try to ignore it, talk around it, but i think the facts

are clear, as i'll document. so we have right now a very slack labor market with more job seekers than jobs. the white house has itself estimated that there are three unemployed americans today for each one job opening. we don't have a shortage of workers. we have a shortage of jobs. the economic policy institute estimates that in the construction industry, there are seven unemployed persons for each available job opening. huge. some of the construction people say they need more foreign workers. this large-scale immigration flow paired with the forces of globalization and automation and mechanickization and robotics has made it ever more difficult for american workers to earn a wage that can actually support a

family. consider this report just published in "the new york times." i'll quote now. "working in america is in decline. the share of prime age men, those 25-54, who are not working has more than tripled since the late 1960's to 16%. more recently, since the turn of the century, the share of women without paying jobs has been rising, too. the united states, which had one of the highest employment rates among developed nations as recently as 2000, has fallen toward the bottom of the list." continuing to quote from "the new york times" -- "at the same time, it has become harder for men to find high-paying jobs. foreign competition, technological advances have eliminated many of the jobs in which high school graduates,

like mr. walsh, could earn $40 an hour, even more." so that's what "the new york times" is telling us, and it's not a recent thing, it's a trend of some years. since the end of the 1960's, the time frame identified by the article, since the 1960's, during this period we've seen this decline, the share of the united states population that is foreign born has increased from less than 5% to more than 13%. as a total number, the size of the foreign-born population has quadrupled over the last four decades. so due to current washington policy, these figures are only going to rise. the congressional research service, our service for the congress, estimates that the foreign-born population could reach as high as 58 million within a decade based on recent trends.

well, again, let's be frank and talk honestly here. prime minister david cameron in the u.k., united kingdom, recently said, look, it's not -- it's not wrong to talk about this. it -- a nation needs to talk about the wages of its people, the financial status of its people and it's all right and proper to ask the question of whether or not immigration can impact that in an adverse way. so i just say that to say i'm not being antiimmigrant. people here are good people here who want to come to america. i'm not denying that. i'm just saying at this point in history, it's pretty clear we don't have jobs for the immigrants who just came. we don't have job for american native born. now we're bringing in millions more? we need to ask ourselves honestly, is this a good policy for the republic which we're supposed to serve?

so only an adjustment in policy, i suggest, will change this directory, just as policy was changed early in the 20th century to allow labor markets to be restored and tightened and wages go up. so this is an issue that affects all residents, our foreign born that are here today wanting to work and the u.s. born. in fact, among those most affected by the size of these large immigrant flows are the new immigrants themselves who want to get a good job that pays a good salary. by continuing to admit these large numbers over such a sustained period of time, many immigrants themselves are unable to find jobs. for instance, less than half the immigrants who entered california since 2010 are participating in the labor force. they're not finding jobs.

there are not enough jobs. so half the entire number of immigrants who entered the country in california since to 10 are not working, according to "the los angeles times." and in los angeles, where 4-10 residents are immigrants, one-third of them are -- live in poverty. so we have an obligation to those we lawfully admit not to create a circumstance by admitting more than can find jobs, not to admit so many that wages are pulled down. a sound immigration policy must serve the needs of people who are lawfully here and people who are native born. that has got to be the primary focus of what we're doing. this discussion has got to be had, colleagues.

we can't ignore this. we can't make like we can absorb an unlimited number of workers when we don't have jobs for the workers we have. immigrants and native born workers are competing with a large flow of temporary guest workers in addition. temporary guest workers are brought into the united states from abroad for the explicit purpose of taking a job. not on a path to green card and citizenship. they come just to work for a limited period of time. each year the u.s. admits roughly 700,000 guest workers to fill jobs that otherwise might go to people here. of those 700,000 guest workers, roughly about 10% are in agricultural work. now, a lot of people think the

guest workers are all working on a farm somewhere. that's not so. only about 10% are. the 90% take jobs in almost every industry in america, from good-paying construction jobs to coveted positions at technology firms in silicon valley. so the pressure's on the middle-class -- so the pressures on the middle-class pocketbook are great. you have a large flow of permanent immigration and contrary workers, the elimination of many good-paying jobs at factories and plants due to advances in robotics, the shedding of manufacturing jobs due to overseas competition, a sluggish and overregulated economy that is growing too slowly to keep pace with population growth and the high cost of energy, health care and household goods. policy-makers in washington need to be reducing the burdens on working families not making

their lives more difficult. that's exactly what we've been doing. harvard professor george borjas, who's perhaps the premier student of these economic matters, as he's worked on them for decades, estimates that high immigration flows from 1980 to 2000 based on data reduced the wages of lower-skilled american workers by 7.4%. $20,000, that's $130 a month as a direct result of the size and flow of immigration from 1980-2000. don't -- i don't think it's defensible, colleagues, for people to say that it will help wages to bring in more people. in fact, our own c.b.o. scored

if the immigration bill that cleared the senate but died in the house had become law, wages would be down for a decade. professor borjas estimates that current immigration rates produce a net loss, current rates, of $402 billion for american workers who compete with foreign labor. $402 billion. as documented by the center for immigration studies relying exclusively on government data, all net employment gains among the working age since the we're 2000 -- the year 2000 have gone to immigrant workers. net gains when you look at how many came in and how many jobs were created and how many jobs were taken, the number of people that came in matches the number of problems that have been created. this remarkable trend occurred even as