[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]]
____________________