[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 149 (Tuesday, December 9, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6437-S6442]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROTECTING VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS AND EMERGENCY RESPONDERS ACT OF 2014

  Mr. REID. I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate a message from the 
House with respect to H.R. 3979.
  The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate the following message 
from the House of Representatives:

       Resolved, That the House agree to the amendment of the 
     Senate to the bill (H.R. 3979) entitled ``An Act to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that emergency 
     services volunteers are not taken into account as employees 
     under the shared responsibility requirements contained in the 
     Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,'' with an 
     amendment.


                            Motion to Concur

  Mr. REID. I move to concur in the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment to H.R. 3979.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to concur in the 
     House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3979.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. There is a cloture motion at the desk. I ask that the Chair 
order it reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
     3979.
         Harry Reid, Carl Levin, Brian Schatz, Martin Heinrich, 
           John E. Walsh, Patty Murray, Jack Reed, Tom Udall, 
           Sheldon Whitehouse, Amy Klobuchar,

[[Page S6438]]

           Christopher A. Coons, Debbie Stabenow, Robert Menendez, 
           Tom Harkin, Richard J. Durbin, Charles E. Schumer, 
           Robert P. Casey, Jr.


                Motion To Concur With Amendment No. 3984

  Mr. REID. I move to concur in the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment to H.R. 3979, with a further amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to concur in the 
     House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3979 with an 
     amendment numbered 3984.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end, add the following:
       This Act shall become effective 1 day after enactment.

  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 3985 to Amendment No. 3984

  Mr. REID. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3985 to amendment No. 3984.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In the amendment, strike ``1 day'' and insert ``2 days''.


                Motion to Refer With Amendment No. 3986

  Mr. REID. I have a motion to refer the House message with respect to 
H.R. 3979 with instructions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to refer the House 
     message on H.R. 3979 to the Committee on Armed Services with 
     instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment 
     numbered 3986.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end, add the following:
       This Act shall become effective 3 days after enactment.

  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3987

  Mr. REID. I have an amendment to the instructions which is at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3987 to the instructions of the motion to refer the 
     House message on H.R. 3979.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In the amendment, strike ``3 days'' and insert ``4 days''.

  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 3988 to Amendment No. 3987

  Mr. REID. I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3988 to amendment No. 3987.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In the amendment, strike ``4'' and insert ``5''.

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum required 
under rule XXII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                     Tributes to Departing Senators

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to salute 
my colleagues who are departing the Senate at the end of this year with 
the conclusion of the 113th Congress: Mark Begich of Alaska, Saxby 
Chambliss of Georgia, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Kay Hagan of North 
Carolina, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Tim Johnson of 
South Dakota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Carl Levin of Michigan, Mark 
Pryor of Arkansas, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, Mark Udall of 
Colorado, and John Walsh of Montana.
  They have all worked hard, ceaselessly giving their energy and 
considerable time and service to their constituents, to their home 
States and to our country. I want to thank them for their service and 
for their kindness to me over many, many years in so many cases. In 
particular, I want to say a few words about these colleagues.


                              Mark Begich

  Mark Begich and I worked together to address the challenges facing 
the fishing industry, which is vital to both of our States. He has 
continually fought to address the unique challenges facing Alaskans, 
particularly with respect to access to VA health care. I salute him and 
wish him the best.


                            Saxby Chambliss

  I have served with Saxby Chambliss on the Armed Services Committee 
and joined him in his efforts to support the National Infantry Museum 
and Soldier Center. Saxby has been a strong supporter of our men and 
women in uniform. He has also been a leader on homeland security and 
intelligence matters. I wish him well.


                               Tom Coburn

  Tom Coburn has always been passionate on the issues he cares about. 
We have engaged in vigorous debate, demonstrating, I hope, that 
principled disagreement can lead ultimately to principled progress. My 
thoughts are with him, particularly as he battles health issues, his 
cancer. I hope and wish him success and much happiness as he moves 
forward.


                               Kay Hagan

  I have served with Kay Hagan on the Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs Committee and on the Armed Services Committee. We have worked 
together on a number of initiatives, including efforts to keep student 
loan interest rates low. We traveled together to Iraq, Afghanistan, and 
Pakistan in 2010. She has been a tremendous advocate, especially for 
our military families and for small businesses.


                               Tom Harkin

  Tom Harkin has been a great friend, a longtime advocate for students, 
for workers, for individuals with disabilities. As Chairman of the 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, he has worked to end 
the logjam and pass reauthorizations of our childcare programs and the 
workforce investment system, and he recently worked with me to pass a 
bipartisan bill I helped author to ensure consumers have access to the 
safest, most effective sunscreens available.
  He has been a steadfast advocate for increasing our investment in 
medical research at the NIH. An extraordinary Senator, we have so much 
to thank him for on behalf of every American. His legacy is going to be 
so profound. It is hard to pick one. But his efforts, along with Arlen 
Specter's, to double NIH funding was a landmark in terms of not only 
successful investment in programs that matter to Americans and the 
world but bipartisan efforts to lead the country forward.


                              Mike Johanns

  I have been proud to work with Mike Johanns, an extraordinary Senator 
and an extraordinary gentleman, on a number of issues. We were 
particularly happy--both of us--when the HAVEN Act was incorporated 
into the pending version of the National Defense Authorization Act. 
This legislation will allow disabled and low-income veterans the 
ability to finance improvements to their homes so they are safer and 
more accessible. We also worked together on healthy housing efforts and 
to reduce lead hazards. This is consistent with so many things he has 
done, particularly with respect to veterans. Again, I wish him the best 
as he goes forward.


                              Tim Johnson

  Tim Johnson and I served in the House of Representatives together. We 
came to the Senate together in 1997. As chairman of the banking 
committee, he has been an extraordinary leader. He has dedicated 
himself particularly to community banks and to rural housing, which is 
consistent with the interests of his constituents in South Dakota.
  He has worked to build bipartisan compromise on issues like TRIA and 
FHA reform, among so many other matters. As the chairman of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, 
and Related Agencies he has been a tireless

[[Page S6439]]

advocate for our military personnel. I thank him.


                             Mary Landrieu

  Mary Landrieu and I also came to the Senate together in 1997. We 
served together on the Appropriations Committee, where she has been an 
extraordinary advocate for Louisiana, particularly after Hurricane 
Katrina. In fact, her efforts have been so profoundly influential in 
her home State, she is one that we all look to as a model for what it 
is to be an advocate for your constituents. She has done it so well.


                               Mark Pryor

  Mark Pryor and I have worked together on the Appropriations 
Committee. We have worked together on a number of initiatives. I want 
to thank him particularly for his role in trying to help states like 
Rhode Island be included in the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. I 
thank Mark for that. I offer him my fondest wishes.


                            Jay Rockefeller

  Today, we are recognizing the work of Jay Rockefeller as chairman of 
the Intelligence Committee, along with Senator Feinstein. But he has 
been such a stalwart in so many different areas: as chairman of the 
commerce committee, someone who has championed the Children's Health 
Insurance Program, someone who has been in the lead with respect to 
advocacy for the E-Rate, which helps bring broadband connectivity to 
all of our libraries and schools, to EPSCoR. I can go on and on for a 
remarkable career by a remarkable individual, a real gentleman, someone 
whom I am proud to call a friend and am deeply indebted to his 
friendship.


                               Mark Udall

  Mark Udall and I served together on the Armed Services Committee. I 
am grateful to have traveled with him also to Afghanistan and Pakistan 
in 2011. Again, he is committed to our troops, committed to our 
national security, committed to his home State. He has been an advocate 
for clean energy, for natural resources, for things that will be a 
legacy for generations to come in Colorado and throughout the United 
States.


                               John Walsh

  John Walsh is a friend that I met and served with over the last 
several years. I want to salute him, not only as a Senator but as a 
combat veteran. He has had the greatest privilege that I believe any 
American has--the privilege to lead American soldiers. He did it well. 
I thank him for that.


                               Carl Levin

  But let me say, especially, a few words about my dear, dear friend 
Carl Levin. For 18 years, Carl Levin has either been chairman or 
ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. The U.S. military, the 
most powerful and professional force in the world, has in countless 
ways been shaped because Carl Levin repeatedly helped form a new common 
ground to move us forward as a Nation for the benefit of our men and 
women in uniform and for the benefit of us all.
  Carl and I have traveled many times together--Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, 
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, Syria, Colombia. We were there to visit 
with commanders and local leaders, but especially to see our troops and 
to thank them. In the faces of those troops I saw the trust and respect 
they felt--some to their own surprise--when they met the chairman--the 
powerful chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He was there. He had 
traveled across the globe to listen to them, to work for them, and to 
thank them.
  It was profoundly moving to me to see this--inspiring indeed. As the 
chairman of one of the other major committees, the Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations, he has pursued the powerful on behalf 
of the powerless, on behalf of the people. He has not only uncovered 
abuse, but he has sent a powerful message to an increasingly 
discouraged America that there is someone who will fight for them, who 
understands that everyone deserves a fair chance at a better future.
  Carl Levin has been a friend, a role model. I will miss working with 
him.
  Along with all of my other colleagues who are leaving us at the 
conclusion of the 113th Congress, let me thank them for their service, 
their dedication to improving the lives of Americans, and on a very 
personal level for their friendship. I wish them all well.


      SSCI Study of the CIA'S Detention and Interrogation Program

  Let me conclude on a slightly different topic; that is, to commend 
Senator Rockefeller again and Senator Feinstein for their extraordinary 
leadership today in bringing forward to the American public the 
Intelligence Committee report on the CIA's interrogation program.
  But I particularly want to commend and thank Senator McCain. For many 
years, Senator McCain has spoken out, and many times alone, against the 
despicable and heinous actions that have been illustrated today. He has 
led our efforts. No one has led them more vigorously and more intensely 
and more successfully than John McCain--to prohibit the use of torture 
and abusive methods by the United States of America, to remind us that 
our highest ideals require us to do something else--something better--
and also to remind us that what is at stake--very much at stake--are 
the lives and the health of our soldiers.
  We cannot expect others to follow the law if we do not. We cannot 
expect our forces to be treated according to the conventions and laws 
that govern civilized society if we depart from them. That is a 
powerful message. It is no surprise coming from someone whose personal 
experience, whose personal courage lends incredible credibility, 
incredible support to these efforts.
  To these three colleagues, I extend my thanks.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                             Tax Extenders

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this week it seems that the Senate is 
finally ready to take up and pass a tax extenders bill. Congress' 
procrastination on tax extenders has been causing a lot of headaches 
and indigestion to many of my constituents back home in Iowa.
  Small business owners and farmers want to know whether the enhanced 
expensing rules under section 179 will be extended so that they can 
invest in new machinery. Retirees want to know whether they can make a 
charitable donation from their IRA to meet their required minimum 
distribution. The renewable energy sector wants to know what 
investments they should make to increase production.
  The Senate could have made strides towards answering these questions 
just this past spring. The Finance Committee acted in a bipartisan 
fashion to report an extenders package to the floor that would have 
extended all expiring provisions for 2 years. By all accounts, this 
package could have been passed by the Senate with broad support on both 
sides of the aisle.
  Unfortunately, movement of this package in the Senate stalled in May 
due to procedural maneuvering on the Senate floor. That maneuvering was 
meant to prevent votes on all amendments--even those with broad, 
bipartisan support. With the Senate failing to take action, the hopes 
of getting the extenders done in a timely fashion faded last spring.
  However, there were high hopes that a bipartisan deal could be worked 
out with the House that could provide individuals and businesses much-
needed tax certainty. Before Thanksgiving, House and Senate negotiators 
were making real headway towards a bipartisan agreement that would have 
extended most provisions for 2 years and made several provisions 
permanent. The President then thwarted negotiations by threatening to 
veto that package before it was even finalized.
  Why the President would threaten to veto a package that, by all 
accounts, recognized bipartisan priorities as well as priorities of the 
administration is beyond me. The President's stated complaint is that 
the deal was geared too heavily toward business. From an administration 
that has regularly been advocating business-only tax reform, this 
complaint rings hollow.
  However, all of the business provisions that would have been made 
permanent under the proposed deal have had strong support from both 
sides of the aisle here in the Senate as well as from the White House. 
For instance, the President's fiscal package that was in the 2015 
budget calls for both the research and development tax credit and the 
enhanced expensing rules under Section 179 to be made permanent.
  The bipartisan deal would have accomplished this. The proposed deal 
also

[[Page S6440]]

included priorities specific to President Obama and many of my 
Democratic colleagues. For instance, the American opportunity tax 
credit enacted as part of the President's 2009 stimulus bill would have 
been made permanent. The President's other named priorities were the 
enhanced refundable child tax credit and the earned-income tax credit. 
But it was the President's own actions on immigration--using 
presidential edict--that made their inclusion a very tough sell. Many 
on my side of the aisle have long had concerns about fraud and abuse in 
both of these credits. The President's Executive action only served to 
enhance these concerns and added fuel to the fire by eroding 
established policy that prohibits undocumented immigrants from 
receiving their earned-income credit.
  The President may have a phone and a pen. He says he has it, and it 
seems as if he is always using it. But the last time I checked, 
Congress is still a coequal branch of government under the 
Constitution. When the President acts unilaterally, it should not 
surprise him when Congress responds.
  So it is true that the deal did not include everything the President 
wanted, but it didn't include everything Republicans wanted either. 
Nobody ever gets everything they want in bipartisan negotiations. The 
point of negotiating is to get something the majority of us can 
support.
  By cutting off negotiations, the White House has left us with voting 
on something that is barely better than nothing for individuals and 
industries. This includes industries the President claims to be a 
priority of his, such as the renewable energy sector, which is very 
much a high priority for me.
  Forward policy guidance is critically important to the renewable 
energy sector. The proposed deal would have provided certainty to wind 
energy through a multiyear phaseout that would have provided a 
glidepath to self-sustainability. Other renewable provisions would have 
been extended for 2 years. Instead, Congress is now faced with settling 
for a 1-year retroactive extension that fails to provide any meaningful 
incentive for the further development of renewable energy.
  It also fails to provide certainty to other businesses and to 
individuals as well. These are provisions that will once again expire 
almost as soon as they go into law. I think we all agree that making 
tax law 1 year at a time in retroactive fashion is not the way to do 
business. Yet that is the reality we currently face because of this 
administration's refusal to compromise.
  While I would prefer longer extensions of these provisions, that is 
no longer a viable option as we close down this Congress. As a result, 
I intend to support the House package. My only hope is that in the new 
Congress we can make strides toward putting some certainty back into 
the Tax Code.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                 Women Owned Small Business Contracting

  Ms. CANTWELL. I rise today to speak about an important piece of 
legislation that will be before the Senate shortly that will help women 
entrepreneurs across the country break through the glass ceiling.
  Earlier this year, as chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Small 
Business and Entrepreneurship, I released a report entitled ``21st 
Century Barriers to Women's Entrepreneurship.'' These barriers, 
according to our report, show that women entrepreneurs were not getting 
a fair shot at access to capital, not getting a fair shot at competing 
for Federal contracts, and needed more programs tailored specifically 
to their needs and certainly needed more access to capital and at 
smaller amounts of money.
  This chart shows the various things that were relevant from that 
report: equal access to Federal contracts, access to capital, and 
relevant business training.
  We heard an earful from women entrepreneurs all across America, and 
it spurred us to take action and make major changes.
  That is why we introduced legislation called the Women's Small 
Business Ownership Act of 2014, and this legislation did three things: 
It said, let's focus on sole-source contracting authority for women-
owned businesses when they are working with the Federal Government, 
let's improve the counseling to women, and let's make sure women get 
the access to capital that they deserve.
  Additionally, the issue of sole-source contracting was taken up by 
two of my colleagues, Senator Shaheen and Senator Gillibrand. I should 
say that my predecessor on the committee, Senator Landrieu, had worked 
on this issue of access to capital for women for a long time, and we 
certainly applaud all she did as chairwoman of the Small Business 
Committee.
  The sole-source contracting provision is in the Defense bill we are 
going to be taking up shortly.
  I thank all of my colleagues--as I said, Senator Shaheen, Senator 
Gillibrand, Senator Landrieu--and also the SBA Administrator, Maria 
Contreras-Sweet, for their support in getting more federal contracts to 
women-owned businesses.
  There are more than 8 million women-owned businesses in the United 
States, but they only get a tiny percent--about 4 percent--of Federal 
contracts. We want to make sure this is changed. I think we have a 
second chart that describes this problem.
  We have a Federal goal of making sure that small businesses get 
access to contracts at each Federal agency so that we are doing all we 
can to grow small businesses in America. If you think about it, many 
small businesses have the technological expertise to do the work. What 
they often don't have is the manpower to wade through the lengthy and 
complicated federal contracting process. So sole-source contracting 
allows the Federal Government to streamline the procurement process 
when selecting a company. So we want to make sure this is changed, and 
the FY 15 NDAA legislation will do just that.
  Twenty years ago, Congress established the goal of awarding 5 percent 
of all Federal contracts to women-owned small businesses, but we did 
not make sure there was fair representation in the marketplace to 
achieve this goal. Last year, the Department of Defense accounted for 
68 percent of Federal procurement opportunities; yet the Department of 
Defense only issued 3.6 percent of those contracts to women-owned small 
businesses. In my State, the State of Washington, women received only 
1.67 percent of Federal contracts. We heard from women across America, 
when they came to testify before the Small Business Committee this 
summer, exactly how challenging this process is.
  I want to point out a last chart, which shows that 28 percent of 
businesses in the United States are women-owned, and we certainly want 
to increase that. Part of our challenge economically is to make sure 
various groups are getting access to adequate capital, getting 
opportunities to compete for federal contracts, and getting the 
counseling and training they need, so they can participate in the 
economy as small business owners. But we can see on this chart that the 
percentage of federal contracts to women-owned businesses is minuscule. 
We want to make sure we are doing everything we can to help these 
women.
  Trena Payton, a business owner and veteran from my home state of 
Washington, is one of these voices fighting for this provision to be 
made into law. Trena testified at a Small Business Committee hearing on 
Veterans' Entrepreneurship. In 2003, Trena decided to open her own 
business. It took her more than a year to land her first contract. She 
said at the hearing:

       As the head of a women-owned small business, I can tell you 
     that access to the federal marketplace is a huge issue.

  Today, Trena's company, ABN Technologies, has grown to employ twelve 
people and last year generated revenues of 8.1 million dollars. On 
sole-source contracting, Trena said, this change ``would help millions 
of women break through barriers to accessing federal contracts.''
  I also want to talk about Charlotte Baker, who owns Digital Hands in 
Tampa, FL. Charlotte's company provides cyber security services and IT 
business to the government. Her company is developing new, innovative 
solutions to deter cyber threats. That is a service we need, but she 
may never win a contract through the regular process.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that is coming over 
from the House and give women the tools they need to be successful.

[[Page S6441]]

  I would like to thank the many organizations, small business 
advocates, and staff who have worked to get the women's sole-source 
provision enacted into law: Women Impacting Public Policy--especially 
Ann Sullivan, Barbara Kasoff, John Stanford, and Martin Feeney; the 
National Women's Business Council; the Women's Business Enterprise 
National Council; the Women President's Organization; the National 
Association of Women Business Owners; the National Women Business 
Owners Corporation; the U.S. Black Chambers; the U.S. Hispanic Chamber 
of Commerce; the Association for Enterprise Opportunity; the Business 
and Professional Women's Foundation; Enterprising Women; the Path 
Forward Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship; the REDC Center for 
Women's Enterprise; the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council; 
Women in Trucking; the Women's Business Development Council; the 
Women's Exchange; and the Association of Women's Business Centers. From 
staff, I'd like to thank Jonathan Hale, Alison Mueller, Nick Sutter, 
Ami Sanchez, Carl Seip, Jane Campbell, Kevin Wheeler and LeAnn Delaney.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Tribute to Carl Levin

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to offer a few words of tribute to 
my departing colleague, Senator Carl Levin--a model of serious purpose, 
firm principle, and personal decency, and whose example ought to 
inspire the service of new and returning Senators. We could not aspire 
to better service than what he has given our country.
  Carl and I have served together on the Senate Armed Services 
Committee for the better part of three decades. He is my senior in this 
body by 8 years and has been my chairman for more than 10 years in 
total. It has been a privilege to serve under his very able, honorable, 
and fair leadership.
  Carl and I sit on opposite sides of the aisle. The difference is 
quite obvious on any number of issues, but I hope it is also obvious 
how much I admire and respect my friend from Michigan.
  We have had our moments on the committee. Debate there can get a 
little passionate from time to time, perhaps a little more passionate 
on my part than Carl's, but that, as all my colleagues would surely 
attest, is my problem, not Carl's. We are, however, both proud of the 
committee's tradition of bipartisan cooperation which Carl has worked 
diligently to preserve and strengthen. We both know how important that 
tradition is to faithfully discharging our responsibilities to help 
maintain the defense of this country and do right by the men and women 
of the U.S. Armed Forces. We both feel their example of selfless 
sacrifice would shame us if we let the committee descend into the 
partisan posturing that often makes it hard to get important work done 
in Congress.
  When Members disagree in committee--often heatedly--it is because we 
feel passionately about whatever issue is in dispute. Even then we try 
to behave civilly and respectfully to each other, and we do not let our 
disagreements prevent us from completing the committee's business. Carl 
won't let us. That we have managed to keep that reputation in these 
contentious times is a tribute to Carl Levin. He has kept the committee 
focused on its duties and not on the next election or the latest rush-
to-the-barricades partisan quarrel. He does so in a calm, measured, 
patient, and thoughtful manner. He seems, in fact, to be calmer and 
more patient the more heated our disagreements are. As members' 
emotions and temperatures rise, Carl's unperturbed composure and focus 
bring our attention back to the business at hand. You could safely say 
he and I have slightly different leadership styles. I am gentler and 
less confrontational. But Carl's style seems to work for him. It works 
well for the committee too, for the armed services, and for the 
country.
  The committee has a heavy workload every year, and Carl manages to 
keep us all in harness and working together at a good pace and with a 
constructive, results-oriented approach that is the envy of the dozen 
or so lesser committees of the Senate. Our principal responsibility is 
to produce the Defense authorization bill--one of the most important 
and comprehensive pieces of legislation the Senate considers on an 
annual bases. The committee has never failed to report the bill, and 
the Senate has never failed to pass it. That is not an accomplishment 
that some of the lesser committees I just referred to can claim every 
year, and no one deserves more of the credit than Carl Levin.
  When Carl Levin first joined the committee, he explained his reason 
for seeking the assignment this way:

       I had never served, and I thought there was a big gap in 
     terms of my background and, frankly, felt it was a way of 
     providing service.

  He might never have served in the military, but he has surely served 
the military well, and he has served the national interests our Armed 
Forces protect in an exemplary manner that the rest of us would be wise 
to emulate.
  More recently, I have had the honor and privilege of serving 
alongside Carl on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. His 
tireless efforts and steadfast dedication to exposing misconduct and 
abuse by financial institutions and government regulators have set a 
new standard for thoughtful and thorough congressional investigations.
  Whether the topic was the 2008 financial crisis, Swiss banking 
secrecy, or JPMorgan's ``London Whale'' debacle, professionals in the 
industry and the public at large knew they could count on Carl Levin to 
get to the bottom of it with authoritative reports and hearings. Carl's 
tenacity in uncovering wrongdoing sparked significant changes in the 
financial sector.
  I also commend Carl Levin on zealously and effectively pursuing his 
investigations in a way that has furthered the subcommittee's 
longstanding tradition of bipartisanship. While Carl Levin and I may 
have had our disagreements, we never let them get in the way of finding 
common ground where we could.
  While Carl's retirement may come as a relief to some of those on Wall 
Street, his patience, thoughtfulness, and commitment to bipartisanship 
will be deeply missed on the subcommittee and in the Senate.
  Indeed, from Carl Levin's long and distinguished service in the 
Senate, Carl has obtained the respect of his colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle. We all listen to him, and we listen closest to him on the 
occasions when we disagree with him. That, in my view, is a great 
compliment from one Senator to another. It is a tribute paid to only 
the most respected Members.
  Of course, the greatest compliment one Senator can pay another is to 
credit him or her as a person who keeps his or her word. That has 
become too rare in Washington but not so in my experiences with Carl 
Levin. He has never broken his word to me. He has never backed out of a 
deal, even when doing so would have been personally and politically 
advantageous. When we are in agreement on an issue, Carl usually argues 
more effectively than I can, and when we disagree, we usually find a 
way to settle our dispute without abandoning our responsibilities. Carl 
Levin deserves most of the credit for that too.
  One of the great satisfactions in life is to fight for a common cause 
with someone you haven't always agreed with, someone whose background, 
views, and personality are different from yours. Yet you discover that 
despite your differences, you have always been on the same side on the 
big things.
  Thank you, Carl, for the privilege and for your friendship and 
example. The committee is going to miss you, the Senate is going to 
miss you, the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces are going to miss 
you, and I will miss you a lot.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S6442]]



                          ____________________