Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 152 (Friday, December 12, 2014)

[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 152 (Friday, December 12, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6701-S6739]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROTECTING VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS AND EMERGENCY RESPONDERS ACT OF 2014

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the message to accompany H.R. 3979, which the
clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate
amendment to H.R. 3979, 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.

Pending:

Reid motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the
amendment of the Senate to the bill.
Reid motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the
amendment of the Senate to the bill, with Reid amendment No.
3984 (to the amendment of the House to the amendment of the
Senate to the bill), to change the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 3985 (to amendment No. 3984), of a
perfecting nature.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

Farewell to the Senate

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, after 36 years as a Member of the United
States Senate, this is likely my last opportunity to address its
Members as colleagues, and to address the people of my State as
constituents, and to thank them for placing their trust in me.
The highest honor any citizen of a democracy can receive is to be
elected to represent his or her fellow Americans to be their fiduciary.
To the Senate staff, including the floor staff, the Capitol Police,
and those throughout the Capitol complex who work so hard to keep
things here moving, thank you for your service and support for us
through the long days and nights.
To my staff, thank you for your strong loyalty to the people of
Michigan, to our Nation, and to me. And thank you for believing in
public service. I am immensely proud of what the men and women who have
worked on my staff for the last 36 years have helped to accomplish.
My staff back in Michigan has helped make communities across our
State safer and more prosperous. Countless times they have helped
individual constituents resolve an issue, making a real difference in
thousands of lives.
The Armed Services Committee and Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations--PSI--staffs have worked tirelessly through long hours
and complex issues, sacrificing nights and weekends and vacations to
help address the pressing issues of our Nation.
My personal office staff has been instrumental in addressing a
breathtaking range of issues--from preserving our American auto
industry, to making our tax system fairer, to protecting our
irreplaceable Great Lakes, to making medicine available to fight
addiction, and much, much more.
As to my mentor, my big brother Sandy, Congress is keeping the better
half of ``Team Levin,'' as I retire to Michigan while Sandy remains in
Congress.
To Barbara, my wife of 53 years, to our three daughters Kate, Laura,
and Erica; to their husbands Howard, Daniel, and Rick; and to our six
grandchildren, Bess and Samantha, Mark,

[[Page S6702]]

Noa, and Ben Levin, and Beatrice and Olivia Fernandez--thank you for
your love and support, which has meant so much to me.
I have been asked many times if I am leaving the Senate out of
frustration with gridlock. The answer is: No. My family and friends,
and those of you with whom I serve, know how much I love the Senate and
that I will love my work until the last day here, and that I will leave
here with unabashed confidence in the Senate's ability to weather
storms and to meet the Nation's needs.
I know firsthand the challenges before this Senate. I believe one of
the greatest is the need to meet the fundamental economic challenge of
this era: the growing gap in our society between a fortunate few and
the vast majority of Americans whose fortunes have stagnated or fallen.
While I believe that the economists who tell us this inequality is
holding back economic growth are right, this isn't just about economic
data. It is about our Nation's heart and soul. This growing gulf
between a fortunate few and a struggling many is a threat to the dream
that has animated this Nation since its founding, the dream that hard
work leads to a better life for us and for our children.
To restore the connection between hard work and greater opportunity,
I hope the next Congress will act on many fronts, strengthening
education and worker training programs, making greater investments in
infrastructure and research that foster growth. And as I have said here
many times, it should pay for these needed investments by closing
egregious tax loopholes that serve no economic purpose, but enrich some
of the wealthiest among us and our most profitable corporations.
Many foresee a continuation of polarization and partisanship in the
Senate and say it is naive to suggest that the next Congress might come
together, break out of gridlock, and accomplish great things. But I
know the Senate can do better because I have seen it happen with my own
eyes.
The Senate has indeed demonstrated, even in our own era, that
bipartisanship is not extinct. The Senate Armed Services Committee has
upheld a more than 50-year tradition of bipartisan cooperation to
produce an annual Defense Authorization Act that advances the security
of our Nation. I am grateful to the members of the U.S. military and
their families for their selfless sense of duty. But I am also grateful
for the way they have inspired us, year after year, to come together
across lines of party and ideology to support them. They not only
protect us, they unite us. Congress has come together over the years to
make improvements in pay, benefits, and health care for the men and
women of the military; to reform the way in which we buy the weapons
they use to carry out their missions; to adopt policies to protect them
from sexual assault; and to provide improved education benefits through
a modern GI bill, and reform the way in which we care for our wounded
warriors. We are training and equipping the militaries of nations under
assault by extremists and religious fanatics so that those nations can
depend more on themselves for their own security and less on America's
sons and daughters.
We have passed a defense authorization bill to accomplish these
things each year for more than half a century by laying aside partisan
differences for the common good. We have never allowed disagreements
over policy to interfere with our duty to our troops and their
families, and I am deeply grateful to the many ranking Republican
partners I have been fortunate to work with in that endeavor: people
such as John McCain and John Warner and Jim Inhofe.
John McCain, my great friend, who has demonstrated extraordinary
courage in war and in this Senate, will take the gavel of the Armed
Services Committee, and my trusted wingman and friend Jack Reed will
become ranking member. At a pivotal moment for the Senate and for this
Nation, the Armed Services Committee will be in strong hands.
I have seen firsthand additional powerful evidence that the Senate
can work together to meet the Nation's needs, and that is in the work
of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations--PSI--which I have been
privileged to chair for 10 years, working with Republican partners--and
I use the word partners advisedly--such as Tom Coburn, John McCain, and
Susan Collins. Our subcommittee has exposed the tax avoidance schemes
of some of the most powerful corporations and wealthiest individuals.
We have shined a light on abusive credit card practices. We have
investigated wasteful and ineffective government programs. We have
confronted market manipulators and exposed conflicts of interest,
mortgage fraud, and reckless schemes by some of the most powerful
banks, schemes aided by some of the largest accounting and law firms.
We have demonstrated how those activities helped bring our economy to
its knees, destroying jobs, reducing the value of our homes, and
damaging our neighborhoods. The work of PSI has helped lead to reforms
that have strengthened our financial system and reduced credit card
abuses.
The power of PSI lies in the in-depth work of our staffs, and in the
willingness to confront powerful and entrenched interests. Like the
Senate Armed Services Committee, PSI is strengthened by a dedication to
bipartisanship and a respect for the rights of the Senate minority. We
have recognized the danger of using investigative power for partisan or
political purposes, and we have ensured that our great staffs, majority
and minority, participate together in every investigation.

Indeed it is protection of the minority that is the singular hallmark
of the Senate. The majority cannot always have its way. The Senate is
more than just a place where the hot tea is cooled in the deliberative
saucer that President Washington famously spoke of. Protections for the
minority make the Senate more than just a place to slow things down;
those protections make it a place where we work things out. It is those
protections that force compromise that is essential to unifying and
governing our country. Making progress in the Senate requires solutions
that while they may not provide everyone with everything they want, are
broadly accepted as in the common interest. When compromise is thwarted
by ideological rigidity or by abuse of the rights that our rules afford
us, the Senate can become paralyzed, unable to achieve the lofty task
that the Founders set forth before us.
Polarization is exacerbated by forces outside this Chamber. For
instance, we seem to make news more often these days by our responses
in the corridors outside this Chamber to reporters questioning us about
the latest breaking story or rumor than we do by debating or
legislating inside this Chamber. The viral nature of information and
disinformation and the expectation that public officials will be
immediately responsive to every news flash with but a few seconds to
think through the implications or consequences or pros and cons has led
too often to less thoughtful discourse, and that has helped drive
rhetorical wedges between us.
The incoming Senate has an opportunity to restore a greater measure
of bipartisan compromise by revisiting one of the most contentious
issues we face, one that we struggled with at the beginning of this
Congress; that is, the Senate rules.
I believe the excessive use of the filibuster to obstruct
confirmation of President Obama's nominees was damaging to the Senate
and to the Nation. Any President--Democratic or Republican--should have
the ability to choose his or her team. But the Senate majority
eliminated obstructions to Presidential nominations through the use of
the nuclear option, effectively accomplishing a rules change outside
the rules, a method I could not support. In doing so, a precedent was
established that the majority could effectively change the rules as it
wished by overruling the Chair and the Parliamentarian. That precedent
will not serve the country well in the future because it leaves the
minority with no protection, diminishing the unique role of the Senate.
I hope the Senate next year considers reversing that precedent while
simultaneously--and I emphasize simultaneously--amending the rules so
as to assure the President's ability to fulfill his or her
constitutional duties. Put simply, I believe the Senate should do the
right thing in the right way. It

[[Page S6703]]

should amend the Senate rules, as provided for in the rules, to adopt
the substance of the changes we made last year. I know my good friend
Senator Lamar Alexander, who was part of the bipartisan Group of 8 who
worked closely and successfully together on this issue in 2012, has
proposed something similar. Such action by the Senate next year would
be a welcome victory for comity and for compromise, and it would I hope
represent a step back from a precedent that leads to effective rules
changes by simple majority. It would be a step toward a better
functioning Senate.
No leader alone, no single Senator, neither party by itself, can
determine the Senate's course, but together the Members of this body
can move the Senate forward and in doing so help move forward the
Nation we all love. I will enjoy reading about the Senate's progress in
the years ahead as Barbara and I are sitting on a Lake Michigan beach
or showing the world to our grandchildren.
I thank the Chair, I thank my dear friends, the leaders of this body,
and I see my brother sitting here, and I am not allowed to refer to my
family in the Gallery, so I will not do that.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.

TRIBUTES TO CARL LEVIN

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, during his 36 years representing Michigan
in the Senate, Senator Carl Levin's character and expertise have been
described in many ways. He has been named by Time magazine as one of
the 10 best Senators. He has been hailed by our military as a leader on
national security. He is recognized by families in Michigan and
throughout our country as a dedicated champion for economic opportunity
and fairness.
But perhaps the best description of Senator Levin's philosophy of
public service is a word he himself used in an interview for the George
Mitchell Oral History Project at Bowdoin College in Maine. That word is
``fiduciary.''
It is the word that embraces the concepts of trust and confidence, of
ethics and responsibility. In that interview Senator Levin elaborated
on what the word means to him as a public servant. He said it meant to
be accessible and open, to listen to other points of view, and to be
well informed. Then when it is time to decide, to use his best judgment
and vote for what is best for his State and his country, even though it
may not be the popular choice at the time.
``Fiduciary'' may indeed be the best word to describe our colleague
Senator Levin; but to me, based upon decades of firsthand experience,
there is another phrase that also comes to mind. He is truly a
Senator's Senator. My colleagues may be surprised to learn that I have
known Senator Levin far longer than most of the Members of this
Chamber. You see, when he was first elected to the Senate in 1978, the
same year as Maine Senator Bill Cohen, for whom I was working at the
time, both of them served on what was then known as a Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee and also on the same subcommittee,
Oversight of Government Management, for which I was first the minority
staff director and then the majority staff director. So I have known
and worked with Senator Levin for the entire time he has been a Member
of this Chamber. From the very start, Senator Levin's diligence as a
watchdog for the American people impressed me.
Ten years after I left the committee, I returned as Senator Cohen's
successor and sought a seat on the Governmental Affairs Committee
precisely because, thanks to the example of Senator Levin and Senator
Cohen, I saw the importance of accountability in government and
business practices. As the chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations, it was my honor to begin my Senate service with Senator
Levin as our ranking member, who was a far more experienced Senator
than I was at the time.
So I have seen firsthand how deeply Senator Levin cares about the
Senate as an institution and its unique place in our Constitution and
in its role in our system of government. He is a person of
extraordinary integrity and has a sense of purpose that sets a high
standard for all of us in public service.
He works well with Senators across the aisle because he works hard.
From the very first time I saw Senator Levin in action back in 1978, I
saw the importance that he placed on extensive, exhaustive preparation
for our committee investigations and hearings. As many evasive or ill-
prepared witnesses learned to their chagrin, the eyes behind those
trademark reading glasses focused like a laser because he has always
done his homework.
If Senator Levin were to be remembered for his contributions to just
one area of policy, it would be our Nation's defense. He has been a
member of the Armed Services Committee throughout his time in the
Senate, including 10 years as both the chairman and the ranking member.
During our work together on that committee, I saw his mastery of such
complex matters as emerging global threats and advanced weapons
systems. Above all, his focus has always been on the men and women in
uniform and their families, from improving their standard of living to
better caring for our wounded warriors.
As a fiduciary of the principles that are our Nation's foundation,
Carl Levin has been a faithful trustee and truly a Senator's Senator. I
cannot imagine this body without him, without his wisdom, his
integrity, his insight. So I thank him for his years of extraordinary
service, and I wish him all the best in the years to come.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, Senator Carl Levin has been my Senator
for 36 years, and it has been one of the great honors of my life to
serve for the last 14 years as his partner, as well as his friend,
representing Michigan.
The year he was elected, ``Grease'' was the year's highest grossing
movie and ``Staying Alive'' was music's biggest hit, and you should see
Senator Levin dance. So Senator Levin has outlasted disco, the Soviet
Union, and all six of the people who challenged him in elections,
including an astronaut. That is because integrity never goes out of
style.
Senator Levin has never wavered in his devotion to Michigan and to
his country. As we heard today and as we each know, he has brought that
patriotism to the Armed Services Committee. No one has done more to
ensure that our men and women in uniform are battle-ready, with the
supplies and technology they need to be the best military in the world,
than Senator Carl Levin, or to make sure they receive fair pay and full
health benefits. Carl Levin puts his coalition together year after year
to make that happen.
He has never lost faith in government's capacity to be a force for
good, and we heard that again in his comments today. This was passed
down to him from his parents, who saw how the New Deal rescued families
from desperate poverty.
A young Carl Levin admired President Harry Truman--especially Truman,
the Senator who drove cross-country, stopping in cities where defense
contractors were committing fraud and waste at the expense of America's
wartime economy.
Truman himself would be very proud to see Senator Levin leading the
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. As a former civil rights
attorney, Senator Levin relished the chance to cross-examine those he
suspected of dishonesty toward taxpayers and the American people. It is
not literally a trial-by-fire, but that committee room has definitely
become a sweat lodge for unscrupulous executives or anyone who has
tried to get rich by getting one over on average Americans. They sweat
because they know Senator Levin has done his homework--boy, has he done
his homework. He digs so deep, he knows more about what they are going
to say than they do.
David used a slingshot to bring down Goliath, but Carl Levin can
topple a tycoon with nothing but a binder full of subpoenaed documents,
and we have all seen him do it. In 2007 he shined a light on abusive
practices of credit card companies, leading to laws that have brought
about more transparency. Thanks to Senator Carl Levin, your credit card
statement contains more disclosures so you know what is going on.
Those of us in Michigan also see a softer, gentler side. His heart is
in Detroit, where he was born and raised and now lives with his wife
Barbara. His soul is nourished by the tranquility he finds in northern
Michigan in the

[[Page S6704]]

Upper Peninsula--Isle Royale, a place to which he has made many trips.
If you have been to Detroit recently, you know the city is in the
midst of a spectacular comeback. I believe it is the most spectacular
comeback in modern history. Everywhere you look, you see evidence of
Senator Carl Levin's hard work. He led the way on getting Federal
funding for Detroit's International Riverfront, which is spectacular.
He worked with me and others in leading the effort to secure critical
funding for the M-1 Rail project, championing that every step of the
way--a streetcar that will inject even more vibrancy to the historic
Woodward Avenue, which is already attracting scores of entrepreneurs
and small businesses.
Five years ago I was proud to stand with Senator Levin as we
passionately worked to rescue our American automobile industry and give
them a chance to grow and move forward, and I saw his commitment and
fiery passion for making sure we did not let them down, the men and
women who worked so hard in Michigan and across the country. That
revival has done so much to lift the economy of greater Detroit and all
of Michigan.
Senator Levin knows that manufacturing is the backbone of our State's
economy, but he also knows that the landscapes, the soil, and the water
are all part of who we are, including our Great Lakes. It is in our
DNA, and I know it is in his. That is why he has pushed for years to
help Sleeping Bear Dunes be recognized as a national lakeshore, and we
are seeing the outcome of his work as we look at this beautiful
national resource. He fought for the Federal sanctuary at Thunder Bay
and for the creation of the Keweenaw National Historic Park. It has
been an honor for me to stand with him as he chaired our Great Lakes
Task Force, our bipartisan task force, and fight for funding for the
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, which has had a miraculous effect
on the quality of freshwater that is vital for Michigan and the Nation.
I could stand here for hours talking about his accomplishments, the
footprints and handprints and marks he has made on Michigan and, most
importantly, the people and communities of Michigan. But, as we heard
this morning from colleagues and will continue to hear, they are small
in comparison to the testament of his character, his compassion, his
humor, and the unassailable strength of his convictions.
Senator Levin, you will be missed in Michigan and certainly by me and
the Senate. I know you and Barbara and your daughters and
grandchildren, including your one grandson--who is kind of
outnumbered--will be grateful to have you so you can show them the
world from your perspective and show them the continued beauty of
Michigan. You have given so much, and we are grateful.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I wish to talk about Senator Levin
from a different perspective than my colleagues have. There is a
seduction that goes on around here. You can get lulled into a false
sense of security by excellent staff. Carl Levin is fortunate that he
has excellent staff, but what many of us are tempted to do at times is
to allow staff to do the arcane and tedious work of checking statutory
language.
I have been blessed to have a front-row seat to watch Carl Levin
work. From my seat on the Armed Services Committee and on the Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations, I have not only watched his excellent
staff, I have watched Carl Levin. This is a man who understands every
nook and cranny of statutory construction. He would never be lulled
into a false sense of security that he understood the bill just because
of what he was told.
I will think of Carl Levin fondly in one way: his shoulders slightly
stooped, his hand grasping a piece of paper, not an electronic device,
him walking quickly toward me with his head down, peering over those
ubiquitous glasses, saying: Claire, have you read the language? Claire,
have you read the language? Read the language. Read the language.
He understands the hazards of a misplaced comma. He understands the
danger of using an ``and'' instead of an ``or.'' He understands that
the essence of our work is to make sure we craft language that lives up
to our purpose and ideals.
Carl Levin is a Senator's Senator. There are no sharp elbows, no
heated rhetoric, and, frankly, there is no star power on cable TV. No
one is dying to get Carl in front of a camera because he will say
something incendiary or pick a fight, which all of our friends are
anxious for us to do--if we would only pick a fight.
Carl is methodically doing the grind-it-out work of legislating. He
has the tools of a great Senator: intellect, integrity, good manners,
and an unsurpassed work ethic. I will always call him my most important
mentor in the Senate. He has taught me more than I can ever say. I will
try desperately to live up to the ideal he has set for all of us.
I thank the Presiding Officer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator McCaskill for her comments. We are
talking about a Senator's Senator, a man who reads the language of the
legislation and knows how to legislate.
I came here 18 years ago and have served on the Armed Services
Committee that entire time, and my admiration and respect for Carl
Levin has grown every year. It has grown because it is deserved. He is
a remarkable leader. He never showboats and always wants to do the
right thing. He serves his country first, and he runs a committee that
is, in my mind, the best-run committee--according to the ideals of the
Republic of which we are a part--that exists in either House today. It
just works the way it is supposed to.
His subcommittees work. We have amendments in subcommittees that are
disputed. If you don't like the result, you bring it to the full
committee, and the full committee meets, and if it takes 2 full days,
it takes 2 full days; everybody gets to bring up their amendments.
Senator Levin is always brilliantly able to solve differences through
proper wording of the committee's legislation. As Claire suggested, he
has an extraordinary lawyer's ability to get the right words and make
the bill say what the committee wants it to say. I think that is
special, and I am pleased to have been a part of it.
The Armed Services Committee authorizes one-half of the discretionary
budget of the United States. It impacts the lives of men and women in
harm's way right now. We need to get it right. It involves a lot of
money and a lot of responsibility. It is a well-run committee that sets
an example for what we ought to see more of in the Senate.
There is a fairness about his work. Somehow we have always passed an
authorization bill, and somehow it is almost always unanimous or very
close to unanimous. There may be one or two issues that maybe should
not have been tacked on to the bill that causes someone not to vote for
it, but when it is over, normally every Member--Republican and
Democrat--is satisfied with the ability to have their voice heard and
their ideas put into the bill, if possible. But if you lose in
subcommittee and you lose on the floor and you have had your say in
both places, it kind of makes you feel like, what more can I do? If the
rest of the bill is OK, I will try to support it. These markups take
time because we are dealing with a large portion of federal funding.
Finally, I would like to say how much I appreciated his wisdom he
shared with us as we dealt with the nuclear option--the so-called
nuclear option that changed the rules of the Senate. Senator Levin, who
is a lawyer's lawyer, said something that was very profound, and it was
reflected again in his remarks today, and that is, if a majority can
change the rules, there are no rules. If a majority can change the
rules of the Senate at a given moment to overcome objections from the
minority, then there are virtually no minority rights--you have a pure
majoritarian body. I think that is what Carl was sharing with us in his
brilliant speech that all of us ought to read.
I thank our chairman for the leadership he has given and for the
courtesy he has shown to me and all our Members. I wish him great
success in his future endeavors, and I hope he will continue to
contribute his wisdom to the body politic.

[[Page S6705]]

I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, it has been summed up here, and I want the
Senator from Michigan to hear what has been summarized so meaningfully
by all of our colleagues, because this is the best of this institution
in terms of how it performs. It has been embodied here in the public
service of Carl Levin for 36 years. What we have heard from testimonies
on both sides of the aisle is that because of how he has conducted
himself as an individual and how he has conducted himself as a public
servant and how he has conducted himself as a leader in this Senate is
an example of exactly how this institution is supposed to function.
Isn't it rather symbolic that on the last couple of days of the
session, the bill that will be passed is the bill Senator Levin has
ushered through the Senate? He never broke tradition. He made sure the
defense authorization bill was going to be passed by hammering out the
differences with the House and shepherding it through the parliamentary
process. And it has happened every year because of his extraordinary
leadership.
I will close simply by saying that because he is all of the things we
have heard--the consummate gentleman, the humble public servant, his
razor-sharp mind, and the best lawyer, by the way, in the entire
Senate--because he is all of those things, he also is the embodiment of
a Senator because when he gives someone his word, that is it. A person
does not have to worry anymore.
The future Senate should take a lesson from the life and the
leadership of Carl Levin from Michigan.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise with honor and pleasure to be able
to say thank you to my dear friend. I am the most junior Member,
besides the Presiding Officer, in this body today. When I first came to
the Senate, I asked to be on the Armed Services Committee. West
Virginia has a proud heritage of an awful lot of people--percentage-
wise probably more than most States--having served in all of the
branches of the military. So that is very near and dear to me, and our
National Guard is very near and dear to our State. So there were many
reasons why I wanted to be on the Armed Services Committee.
When I got here, it was one of the most toxic times of the political
arena, if you will. It was not what I expected, to say the least. And
seeing the toxic atmosphere that I came into, people would say it
didn't used to be this way; it used to work. The process worked. The
whole aura of the Senate was there, and we are losing that. That was
their excuse for telling me that is why it is not working today, but it
used to work.
Then I became part of this committee called the Armed Services
Committee with this unbelievable chairman whose name is Carl Levin. I
watched and observed. I didn't say a whole lot at first because
freshmen aren't supposed to, but I watched and I learned and I saw the
system the way I imagined it probably was 20, 30, 40 years ago when it
did work. I saw the Senate, and I was thinking, Why can't the rest of
the Senate work the way the Armed Services Committee works? There is
one reason. We don't have enough Carl Levins. We just don't have enough
Carl Levins.
Carl Levin is practical, reasonable, and sensible. It made sense to
me what he would say.
Just recently I have had difficulties on a piece of legislation that
is very important. Carl spoke to me in terms that my father would have
spoken to me, and I understood very well: State your opposition, record
your opposition, and look at the whole situation as the betterment and
the good of the bill, which is better than basically this piece that
you oppose. He said I could explain my opposition.
Carl Levin would say this, too. He would say: Listen, I can't tell
you what to do. I can't tell you what to do. Really, you have to do
what you think is right, but let me give you some points to think
about. He has been an unbelievable mentor who will give us the ability
to kind of process this whole system we are in.
Let me say this, Carl. I am sorry that I didn't have the honor and
the opportunity and the pleasure to serve with you for many more years.
I really am. Or I am sorry I didn't get here soon enough, whatever the
case may be. But the Senator from Michigan has left an impression on me
as to how this place should work.
Robert C. Byrd, my predecessor, felt as passionately as you do. There
is a process here and there is a reason for the process, which is to
make us talk to each other, to make this place work. There should never
be a situation we would get into that is important to the American
citizen or this country where we can't work it out and can't get at
least 60 votes. There should never be a time that we cannot get 60
votes. If we do that, then basically just changing a rule is not going
to change the attitude and the atmosphere we create. I believe very
strongly in that. And I appreciate the Senator's fight.
In the hills of West Virginia, we have a saying: They are good
people. You meet somebody and someone says, They are good people.
Carl, you are good people. Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, one of the great honors of serving in the
U.S. Senate--and it is a great honor to serve in this body--is the fact
that I have had the opportunity to serve with Carl Levin. I think
Senator Levin represents the very best of our political system, the
very best of the U.S. Senate, and why I am so proud to be a part of
this institution.
I must tell my colleagues I came from the House of Representatives
and I had the great pleasure to have as one of my closest friends in
the House of Representatives Carl's brother, Sandy. Sandy is an
incredibly talented person who believes in public service, as does his
brother Carl, and the two of them have devoted their family reputation
to public service and they have given so much back.
Carl, what you have done for our national security, for our national
defense, the type of attention you have paid to make sure this country
is as well prepared as it needs to be, you have done that in an
exemplary way. I can tell you what you have done for the people in
Michigan, the type of Senator you have been. You have been a great U.S.
Senator for your State, as well as a great U.S. Senator for the United
States. That is not always an easy balance, but you have been able to
do it.

As so many colleagues have said, when we seek advice, when we need a
Senator to help us understand something, we go to Carl Levin. Some of
my constituents have a hard time believing that we read the bills
around here. Carl Levin reads the bills around here. He has found
typographical errors in some of my legislation. He has found ways to
correct us when we didn't express ourselves the way we should have. He
writes me notes all the time. I thank him for that dedication.
As several of our colleagues have pointed out, there is no one here
who has a greater love for the traditions--the best traditions--of the
U.S. Senate, a Senate that debates and respects each other. One of the
great opportunities I had was to sit in a room with Lamar Alexander and
Carl Levin and others and talk about that, and how we could restore the
best traditions of the U.S. Senate.
So, Senator Levin, I want you to know, I will always be indebted to
serving in this body with you and learning from you and recognizing
just what one person can do to carry out the honor and dignity of
public service. You really define public service. For that, I am very
grateful, the people of Michigan are grateful, and the people of
America are grateful. Congratulations on your great service.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, it is no surprise to any of us that the
first thing Carl Levin did when he spoke today was thank his staff. He
thanked them, and then he thanked the police force and the
groundskeepers and the food service people and the people who too many
in this world ignore. That was the first thing he did.
The second thing Carl did in his address was to talk about the gulf
between the fortunate few and the struggling many. That has been what I
most

[[Page S6706]]

admire about Carl Levin--that he is always aware of that and always
fighting the fight for people who have a lot less privilege than those
of us do who dress like this and get really great titles. And no one,
frankly--no one in this body--has stood up against special interests
for the most powerful interests in this town more effectively and more
energetically than Carl Levin. For that, I am grateful, and I know so
many in this country are grateful as well.
Thank you, Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, when I came here in 2009, we were in the
middle of an enormous meltdown due to high-risk trading inside our
major banks. I wondered whether we as an institution were capable of
undertaking this challenge of changing the circumstances around that in
order to not have another 2007, 2008 meltdown that would do so much
damage to families across this country. So I put out an email to
everyone that said, Is anyone interested in taking on this issue for
the future stability of our financial system? The next day I came to
the floor and Senator Levin said, the email you sent out, I want to
talk to you about that. I want to partner in taking this on.
Immediately, he basically said: ``We will work together. I am not the
senior Senator who wants to take over this effort,'' although I would
have been glad for that to happen. There was not the ego in it; there
was the intellect and the passion and the determination to fix a
problem. To me, the Senate should be about people coming together to
fix problems to make this Nation work better.
That event is deeply burned into my mind. The result, because of
Senator Levin's efforts, was the Volcker rule that said high-risk
trading should not be done on the banks' books, proprietary trading and
high-risk instruments. It will make a significant difference in the
years to come.
But what I want to thank my colleague for is the attitude of coming
together to solve the important problems for America, even if that
means taking on very powerful special interests. I hope we will see a
lot more of that from this Senate in the years to come, but it will be
a much bigger challenge without the Senator here. We will miss him
greatly.
Thank you so much, Senator, for your service to our Nation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the Senate at its best has been said to
be the one authentic piece of genius in the American political system.
Carl Levin is the Senate at its best. I thank him for his courtesy, his
decency, his scholarship, and his sense of public service. I thank him
for his reminder that if we are going to have the trust of the American
people to write rules for them, we should follow our own rules.
It has been a privilege to serve with Senator Levin.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I too want to spend a couple of moments
reflecting upon my long friendship and association with Senator Carl
Levin from Michigan.
Much has been said this morning about Carl the person and the
Senator. Let me say this: I don't know of anyone in this body who has
exhibited more of an intellectual honesty, a calm demeanor, and a sense
of fierce loyalty and perseverance. I don't know who exhibits those
qualities more than Carl Levin.
Carl embodies the best of what I think it means to be both a citizen
and a U.S. Senator. Barbara and Carl, Ruth and I have enjoyed many
meals together over the years, having great conversations about
everything. I want to say to my friend Carl, I hope that Michigan and
Iowa are not so far apart, and that we can continue to get together in
the future.
I will say, Carl, right now I hope you don't hold it against me for
all of the times the Hawkeyes will beat the Wolverines in the future.
Don't let that be a stumbling block.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I will be very brief because I know we
have some other things coming up before going on to the NDAA, and I
will be standing here with my good friend and brother Carl at that
time. I recall when I was first elected to the House of
Representatives--it is hard for me to believe that was 28 years ago--
and I became good friends with a guy named Levin. It was not Carl. It
was his brother. There was a real sincere, lovable attitude about him.
I can remember talking over some of these sitting by him during some of
the debate on very partisan things. I thought this guy is really neat.
It is the kind of thing where you can't dislike him. Then I came over
here 20 years ago, and there is another one. I have two major
committees, Environment and Public Works and the Senate Armed Services
Committee. I thought this is remarkable because while on occasion we
will differ--I am talking about the chairman and me--and I am the
ranking member of that committee--occasionally we will come up on an
issue where we don't agree. On two occasions, last year and this year,
we had to go into this process of the ``big four.'' That is where it
gets contentious because at that point you have to come up with a bill.
There was never a time that, yes, we have to give in. I don't know
whether he gave in more than I gave in. But whatever it was, it all had
to happen and it did happen and it happened because of Carl more than
me.
Chairman Levin and I can both say the same thing, and people will
hate me and they love him. I always wonder how you get by with doing
that, but you do. He is a lovable guy whom I will sincerely miss and
that relationship, and I hope you will be back often so you can be here
to remind other people what a real statesman is.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. I want to take a moment to thank Carl Levin for his
friendship. It has been previously noted that Carl is recognized as
having perhaps the greatest intellect in the Senate. Carl has been, for
so many years, a forceful fighter against waste in the military, and in
recent years he has led the Senate in telling us it is absurd that
large multinational corporations are able to avoid hundreds of billions
of dollars in taxes by storing their money in offshore tax savings.
He has been a leader on that and for those of us who are concerned
about the needs of our kids and elderly and infrastructure, all of the
terrible problems facing this country, this is an issue we have to
focus on.
I think Senator Carl Levin has been a Senator's Senator. He has been
a model of what a good Senator should be, and it is not surprising that
people from all political persuasions will come to the floor to thank
him for his service.
Senator Levin, thank you very much for your time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. FRANKEN. I want to echo what everyone has said. I had the honor
of traveling on a codel with Chairman Levin to Pakistan, Afghanistan,
when I had been here just a few weeks. So I was traveling with the
chairman of the Armed Services Committee. The respect he got from
everyone--from the generals down to the privates, especially in
Afghanistan--was remarkable. Carl fought to increase the ratio of our
troops to contractors. When we took the majority back in 2006, Carl
started doing the kind of oversight of the contracting that had led to
a lot of waste, fraud, and abuse in Iraq. He has used PSI in the way it
was intended by Harry Truman. I thank him especially for the work he
did on the credit rating agencies, Wall Street credit rating agencies.
Right now Standard & Poor's is being prosecuted by--or sued by the DOJ
for about $5 billion. Part of what they are using are emails the
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations obtained, in which basically
the credit rating agencies internally were saying we better give this a
AAA rating; otherwise, we are going to lose our business. That in no
small way led to the meltdown we had because all this junk was getting
AAAs and those were bets on bets on bets on bets and that is what led
to the meltdown.
Carl always seems to go to where that kind of top-down fraud or
malfeasance is going. When we talk about--as

[[Page S6707]]

he opened, as Sherrod mentioned when he talked about the disparities
and how this is rigged very often from the top down, talking about the
offshoring and the work they did in PSI, the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations--that is, on tax havens on inversions--and I hope to
take that up as Carl leaves.
Carl leaves a lot of unfinished business. Everything that has been
said is who Carl is. Everyone should know that. One thing that has not
been said is hamisha. Carl, you are one of the most hamish men I have
ever known. Thank you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Mr. KING. I wanted to speak very briefly, because as Senator Manchin
pointed out, I am the most junior person in the place.
I want to say a couple of things about Carl Levin. As has been said
here repeatedly, Carl is a man of immense intellect and character, and
I wanted to explain how that came to be. I thought that would be
important to lay on the Record.
It came to be because Carl Levin and his brother spent their boyhood
summers in the State of Maine. That imparts character to anyone who is
lucky enough to have that experience.
Secondly, I want to mention--because it has been mentioned several
times--about the travel. I had the great good fortune to travel after
having been here about 6 months. Carl and I--as members of the Armed
Services Committee--went to Turkey and Jordan to try to get some
insight into the situation in Syria. My only advice to anyone in this
body is if you are ever invited to travel with Carl Levin, spend the
prior 2 or 3 months in the gym. I have never been so exhausted in my
life, and we would be at 10 p.m., after all-day meetings and touring of
refugee sites, and Carl would say: Can't we have another meeting? Isn't
there someone else we can talk to? His absolute passion for information
and data upon which to make decisions is I think exemplary.
The final thing I want to note is--and it has been talked about how
he is a Senator's Senator, which is certainly true. My observation and
in fact my experience this year in the markup of the National Defense
Authorization Act is the highlight of my experience in this body. The
reason it is, is cause it worked like it is supposed to work. We had 2/
2 days of markup. They were about 10-hour days, as I recall. There were
over 200 amendments. Through Carl's leadership, most of those
amendments were compromised and worked out between the parties and
between the individuals who were moving the amendments, but we ended up
with about 20 we couldn't resolve in that way. I was so struck by this.
I went back and looked at the record of that markup. Of the 20
amendments that were voted on in the committee, not a single one of
those amendments was decided on a party-line vote. There were votes of
13 to 12 or 16 to 4 or whatever the vote was but not a single party-
line vote. I think that in itself is an extraordinary achievement in a
body that is often driven by partisan divisions. I think it is
attributable in large measure to Carl Levin's leadership.

Everybody had their say. Everybody had their opportunity to put their
thoughts forward. Everybody had an opportunity to get a vote if they
felt that was necessary. Of course, in the end, the bill came out of
the committee--I think it was 25 to 1--and that is what legislating is
supposed to be all about. That is a lesson for us because people felt
they got their amendments, they got their discussion, they got their
ideas out. Even if they weren't successful, at the end, they voted for
the bill because they were invested in the process. That is what I
learned from this man who I think has been an inspiration for those of
us who are coming along behind. Again, I am so honored. One of the
great joys of my life has been to serve with you for 2 years. One of
the great sadnesses of my life is it is only 2 years, but I deeply
appreciate what you have done for this body and for the United States
of America.
Mr. LEVIN. Thank you.
Mr. KING. Bless you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. My good friend from Iowa is waiting patiently, so I will
curtail my remarks. I would like to say to my dear friend Carl--whom we
will all miss--if we had to put a headline on what is happening today,
it is: ``Mr. Integrity Retires from the Senate.''
There is no one in this body on either side of the aisle whose
integrity is more respected than yours. At these times in America,
where people have such distrust of government and elected officials, to
have somebody who is so widely trusted by his constituency and by the
Members of this body who have worked with him closely over the years on
both sides of the aisle is a real tribute. You are Mr. Integrity. That
is one of many reasons we will miss you.
Again, I have more to say, but in deference to my dear friend from
Iowa, who I see is ready to roll, I will yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. I will be brief as well and say that I am going to miss
my colleague, and I told him that personally. I want to share a couple
of reasons. One, as a new Member on the other side of the aisle, when I
first got here, Carl--whom I had gotten to know a little bit through
his brother, who I see is on the floor today, who has fought many
fights with him on the squash court, but they remain dear friends. He
came to me and said: You ought to join the Auto Caucus. I am not a big
caucus guy. Most caucuses don't do much in this place, and then I saw
what he was doing with the Auto Caucus and he agreed to allow me come
on as cochair. We had an than opportunity to help fight for the
autoworkers in Michigan and Ohio and around the country make sure that
the renaissance of the auto industry is sustained. As I am sure has
been said by many here today, he went out of his way to make it not
just by bipartisan but nonpartisan. He does his homework.
We share some committee assignments. We don't always agree. Sometimes
we disagree on fundamental issues. He is always prepared and does his
homework and has the best of intentions. That says a lot for him and
the reason he is viewed as such a leader of the Senate. When I got
here, I was honored to serve on the Armed Services Committee. There we
were able to work together on a number of projects, including ones that
frankly he may not have normally thought were priorities but because I
was a new Member and interested in helping my State and on specific
projects, he stood up for me. I will not forget that. We have done
legislation together and had the opportunity to work together on
important projects that have to do with the Great Lakes, including
Great Lakes restoration, where he has been a nonpartisan partner. I
join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and say this is one of
those giants of the Senate who will be missed.
Although I have only been here for 4 of his many years of service, I
was privileged to serve with him.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the senior Senator
from Michigan, Carl Levin. I have known Carl for many years and am
grateful for his friendship. Throughout his career, Carl has always put
the needs of Michigan and this nation above his own.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

On page S6707, December 12, 2014, in the third column, there is
an omission following the language:I yield the floor. Mr.
President, I wish to pay tribute to the senior Senator from
Michigan...

The online Record has been corrected to read: I yield the floor.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the senior
Senator from Michigan...

========================= END NOTE =========================

Senator Levin was born in Detroit in 1934 and has called Michigan his
home nearly his entire life. As a young man, he left only briefly to
attend Swarthmore College and later Harvard Law School. After passing
the Michigan Bar, Carl worked for five years in private practice in
Detroit before beginning his career in public service. He first served
as General Counsel for the Michigan Civil Rights Commission from 1964
to 1967. Carl then entered elected office, serving on the Detroit City
Council from 1969 to 1977.
In 1978, Senator Levin successfully ran for a U.S. Senate seat and
has never looked back. He has since won five more elections to become
the longest-serving Senator in Michigan history. Carl chaired the Armed
Services Committee from 2001 to 2003 and again from 2007 to the
present. Whether it was pushing for higher pay or ensuring that our
veterans received proper medical treatment, Carl has always made sure
that our soldiers and their families were well taken care of.

[[Page S6708]]

Senator Levin has also served as chairman of the Senate Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations. He has never had any patience for
corruption or abuse, and so has been perfectly suited for this job. As
chairman, Carl launched numerous investigations into high-profile
issues, including the Enron scandal and abusive credit card practices.
The findings of these investigations were crucial in helping us draft
legislation to prevent future abuses.
Mr. President, Senator Levin has dedicated his life to public
service, and his retirement is well deserved. He is an honest man who
has served his country well. I wish him, his wife Barbara, and their
family the very best.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I know that Senator Harkin is waiting to speak. Senator
Harkin is truly one of the greatest Senators I have ever served with
and Senator Harkin is one of the greatest people I have ever known. He,
Ruth, Barb, and I have spent quality time, which is not always true for
many of us in the Senate to have that opportunity.
I thank everyone. The words have meant so much to me and my family
today.
I am going to join my family now. I know Tom will forgive me for not
listening, but I will be reading what you say. You, Ruth, Barb, and I
will have some more quality time together--perhaps not as much fun as
being in the Senate, but we will make the best of it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

Farewell To The Senate

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, almost 2 years ago I announced I was not
going to seek a sixth term in the Senate. That decision and that
announcement didn't seem all that difficult or hard at that time. After
all, 2 years was a long time off. Since then, I have been busy with
hearings, meeting constituents, getting legislation through the HELP
Committee, and working on appropriations.
But now, knowing this will be my final formal speech on the floor of
the Senate; knowing that in a few days a semitruck is going to pull up
to the Hart Senate Office Building and load hundreds of boxes of my
records of 40 years--30 in the Senate and 10 in the House--and haul all
of that off to Drake University and the Harkin Institute on Public
Policy and Civic Engagement in Des Moines, IA; seeing my office at 731
Hart Senate Office Building stripped almost bare and the shelves
cleaned; when I will soon cast my last vote; when I will no longer be
engaged in legislative battle; when I will no longer be summoned by the
Senate bells; and when I will soon just be No. 1,763 of all of the
Senators who have ever served in the Senate--now the leaving becomes
hard and wrenching and emotional. That is because I love the Senate. I
love my work here.
It has been said by a lot of pundits that the Senate is broken. No,
it is not. The Senate is not broken. Oh, maybe there are a few dents, a
couple of scrapes here and there--banged up a little bit--but there is
still no other place in America where one person can do big things--for
good or for ill--for our people and our nation.
I love the people with whom I work. This is a deaf sign. ``I-L-Y''
means ``I love you.''
To the Senators, staff, clerks, Congressional Research Service,
doorkeepers, cloakroom, police, restaurant employees, and, yes, the
pages--and especially to those who labor outside the lights, the
cameras, and the news stories--who make this Senate function on a daily
basis, I thank you.
I particularly thank my wonderful, dedicated, hard-working staff,
both present and past, both personal and committee staff. When I say
committee staff, I mean the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor,
Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, which I
have been privileged to chair or be ranking member of since 1989; also
the Committee on Agriculture, on which I have served since 1985 and
which I chaired twice for two farm bills, once in 2001 and 2002 and the
second one in 2007 and 2009; and the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions, which I have chaired since the untimely death of
Senator Ted Kennedy in 2009.
I first heard Pat Leahy say this, so I always attribute it to him: We
Senators are just a constitutional impediment to the smooth functioning
of staff. This is truer than most of us would probably like to admit.
Also in thanking my staff, I don't just mean those who work in
Washington. I would never have been reelected four times without the
hands-on, day in, day out constituent service of my Iowa staff. The
casework they have done in helping people with problems is every bit as
important as any legislative work done in Washington.
In 2012 our office marked a real milestone--100,000 constituent
service cases that we processed since 1985. I cannot count the number
of times Iowans have personally thanked me for something my staff has
done to help me.
There is a story out our way that I have heard for a long time. It is
a little story. If you are driving down a country road and see a
turtle--see that image of a turtle--sitting on a fence post, you can be
sure of one thing: It didn't get there by itself.
I can relate to that turtle. I didn't get here by myself. My staff
helped. I thank my staff, both past and present, who so strongly
supported me when I was right and so diplomatically corrected me when I
was wrong and who all labored in a shared commitment to provide a hand
up, a ladder of opportunity to those who had been dealt a bad hand in
the lottery of life.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a list of the names of my staff so they will be forever enshrined in
the history of the Senate.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

My Personal Office Staff: Brian Ahlberg, Elizabeth Stein,
Lindsay Jones, Lilly Hunt, Sonja Hoover, Mandy McClure, Kate
Waters, Susannah Cernojevich, Jim Whitmire, Richard Vickers,
Katharine Jones, Jayme Wiebold, Joseph Petrzelka, Eric Jones,
Elizabeth Messerly, Lauren Scott, Mark Halverson, Eldon Boes,
Tom Buttry, Michele Reilly Hall, and Richard Bender. Those
staffers serving me in Iowa: Robert Barron, Amy Beller,
Alexander Lynch, Pamela Ringleb, John Moreland, Jule
Reynolds, Omar Padilla, Robert Hamill, Ryan Helling, Kimberly
Taylor, Tamara Milton, Tom Larkin, Alison Hart, Jessica
Gordon, Suellen Flynn, and Sandi O'Brien. My LHHS Sub
Committee on Appropriations staff: Adrienne Hallett, Kelly
Brown, Lisa Bernhardt, Mark Laisch, Mike Gentile, Robin
Juliano, and Teri Curtin. Lastly my HELP Committee Staff:
Derek Miller, Lauren McFerran, Molly Click, Abraham White,
Jenelle Krishnamoorthy, Wade Ackerman, Andi Fristedt, Brian
Massa, Colin Goldfinch, Caitlin Boon, Mildred Otero, Aissa
Canchola, Amanda Beaumont, Brit Moller, Leanne Hotek, Libby
Masiuk, Mario Cardona, Liz Weiss, Michael Kreps, Sarah Cupp,
Zachary Schechter Steinberg, Kia Hamadanchy, and Lee
Perselay.

Mr. HARKIN. Most of all, I thank my wife, Ruth, the love of my life,
my wife of 46 years. You have been my constant companion, my soul mate,
my strongest supporter, and my most honest critic. You have been my joy
in happy times and my solace when things just didn't go right. So I am
looking forward to more adventures, love, and excitement with her in
the years ahead.
To our two beautiful, smart, caring, and compassionate daughters, Amy
and Jenny, I thank you for always being there for your dad, for giving
me such wondrous joy in being a part of your growing up. I am so proud
of both of you.
To my son-in-law Steve and to my grand kids, McQuaid, Daisy, and
Luke: Look out, because here comes grandpa.
There is so much I want to say, but I want to be respectful of those
who have come to share this moment with me--my staff, here and there,
my family, friends, and fellow Senators.
But I want to state as briefly as I can why I am here, what has
propelled me, and what has been my guiding philosophy for all these
years.
It has to do with that ladder of opportunity I just mentioned. You
see, there is nothing wrong in America with being a success. There is
nothing wrong with having more money, a nicer home, a nicer car,
sending your kids to good schools, having nice vacations, and a great
retirement. That is a big part of the American dream.
But I believe when you make it to the top, and you make it to the
top, and you make it to the top, and I make it to the top, one of the
primary responsibilities of our free government is to make sure we
leave the ladder down for others to climb. Now, mind you, I said a
ladder. I didn't say an escalator. An escalator is a free ride. Don't
believe in that.
If you follow my analogy a little bit more, with a ladder you still
have to

[[Page S6709]]

exert energy, effort, and initiative to get up. But, in order to do
that, there must be rungs on that ladder. That is where government
comes in, to put some rungs there--the bottom rungs--everything from
maternal and child health care programs, Head Start, the best public
schools, the best teachers, affordable and accessible college, job
training.
Sometimes people fall off that ladder. Sometimes, through no fault of
their own, they have an illness, they have an accident. That is why we
have a safety net, to catch them--programs like disability insurance,
workers' compensation, and job retraining programs to get them back up
on that ladder once again.
Thirty-five years ago we looked around America and we saw millions of
people who, no matter how hard they tried, could never climb that
ladder of success. No matter how hard they tried, they could never do
it.
These were our fellow Americans, our brothers and sisters with
disabilities. So what did government do? We built them a ramp and we
called it the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Again, we didn't build a moving walkway, did we? See, with a ramp,
people still had to show energy and initiative to get up. I have often
said there is not one dime, not one nickel in the Americans with
Disabilities Act given to a person with a disability.
What we did is we broke down the barriers. We opened the doors of
accessibility and accommodation, and we said to people with
disabilities: Now, go on, follow your dreams, and in the words of the
Army motto, be all you can be.
I can remember standing on the floor and leading the charge on the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Once again, I felt a lot like that
turtle, with a lot of people helping. When I think of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, I think of people in the Senate such as Senator
Lowell Weicker, Senator Bob Dole, and Senator Ted Kennedy; in the
House, Tony Coelho, Steve Bartlett, and Steny Hoyer; and in the
executive branch, at the head of it all, President George Herbert
Walker Bush, Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, and Boyden Gray. On the
outside, there are people like Ed Roberts, Marca Bristo, Bob Kafka, and
the indomitable Justin Dart.
Here the one person who worked his heart out to bring it together--it
is that staff again I tell you about--is Bobby Silverstein. It would
have never happened without him.
So I believe government must not be just an observant bystander to
life. It must be a force for good, for lifting people up, for giving
hope to the hopeless.
I have never had an ``I love me'' wall in the office. What I did have
were two items by my door when I walk out to vote or go to a committee
meeting or whatever. One is a drawing of a house in which my mother was
born and lived in until she was 25 years of age when she immigrated to
America. That little house was in Suha, Yugoslavia, and is now Suha,
Slovenia. That little house had a dirt floor and no running water. That
was my mother's house.
The second item on my wall is my father's WPA card. It says: Notice
to Report for Work on Project, WPA Form 402, to Patrick F. Harkin,
Cumming, IA. You are asked to report for work at once on a project as a
laborer for $40.30 per month. There is a signature by a supervisor. It
is dated 7/1939, 4 months to the day before I was born.
My father was then 53 years old. He had worked most of the time in a
coal mine in southern Iowa, was not in the best of health. There were
no jobs--no jobs. Life looked pretty bleak. Things looked hopeless. And
then my father, who only had a sixth-grade education--as he told me
later--got a letter from Franklin Roosevelt. He always thought Franklin
Roosevelt sent this to him personally. He always said: I got that
letter from Franklin Roosevelt, and I got a job.
That was important for a lot of reasons, not only for the money and
the dignity of work, but it gave my father hope--hope that tomorrow
would be better than today and that our family would stay together. You
see, there were five kids and a sixth one on the way--me. It gave him
hope that his kids would have a better future.
The project he worked on is called Lake Ahquabi. My friend Senator
Grassley knows about Lake Ahquabi. It is right south of Des Moines. It
is a State park now, with a lake and recreation, and people still use
it today.
Every Federal judge who is sworn in takes an oath to ``do equal right
to the poor and to the rich.'' Let me repeat that: to ``do equal right
to the poor and to the rich.'' Can we here in Congress say we do that,
that we provide equal right to the poor and the rich alike? Our growing
inequality proves we are not. Maybe we should be taking that oath.
There are four overriding issues I hope this Senate will address in
this coming session and in the years ahead:
No. 1, as I mentioned, the growing economic inequality in America. It
is destructive of lives, it slows our progress as a nation, and it will
doom broad support for representative government. When people at the
bottom of the economic ladder feel the government is not helping them
and, in fact, may be stacked against them, they will cease to vote or
they will turn to the siren song of extreme elements in our society.
History proves this to be true.
I don't have a cookie-cutter answer or a solution, but it must
include more fair tax laws and trade laws, more job training and
retraining, rebuilding our physical infrastructure, and manufacturing.
I believe it must include some things seemingly unrelated, such as
quality, free early education for every child in America.
The answer to closing the inequality gap must include rebuilding
labor unions and collective bargaining. If you traced the line over the
last 40 years of the growing economic inequality in America and also
put that over another line showing the loss in the number of union
workers, they are almost identical. I do not believe it is a stretch to
say that organized labor--unions--built the middle class in America,
and they are a part of the answer in strengthening and rebuilding our
middle class.
I believe another part of the answer is raising the minimum wage to
above the poverty line and indexing it for inflation in the future.
We need more flex-time laws, especially for women in our workforce.
We need to strengthen Social Security, as in Senator Brown's bill--
not cutting, not raising the retirement age, but strengthening Social
Security.
We need a new retirement system for all workers in America--not
another 401(k) but a system in which employers and employees contribute
and which can only be withdrawn as an annuity for life after one
retires. I ask you to look at what the Netherlands has, that type of
retirement system. Lack of a reliable retirement is one of the most
underreported, unexamined crises on our national horizon, and it is a
big part of our growing inequality.
Finally, we must continue to build on the Affordable Care Act. The
cost and availability of good health care has in the past widened that
inequality gap, and we are now starting to close that element of the
inequality. I believe we need to add a public option to the exchange as
another choice for people. We must continue support for prevention and
public health, moving us more and more from sick care to real health
care.

I believe that the second overriding issue confronting us is the
destruction of the family of man's only home--our planet Earth--through
the continued use of fossil fuels. We know what is happening. The
science is irrefutable, the data is clear, and the warning signs are
flashing in neon bright red: Stop what you are doing with fossil fuels.
We must shift massively and quickly to renewable energy, a new smart
electric grid, retrofitting our buildings for energy efficiency, and
moving rapidly to a hydrogen-based energy cycle.
The third issue I commend to the Senate for further development and
changes in existing laws is the underemployment of people with
disabilities. As you all know, ensuring the equal rights and
opportunities for people with disabilities has been a major part of my
work in the Senate for the past 30 years.
We have made significant strides forward in changing America to
fulfill two of the four goals of the American with Disabilities Act;
those two are full participation and equal opportunity. We have done
all right on those. The other two goals--independent living and
economic self-sufficiency--need more development.
I ask you all in the next Congress to do two things to advance these
two

[[Page S6710]]

goals of independent living and economic self-sufficiency: First, help
States implement the Supreme Court's decision in the Olmstead case to
more rapidly deinstitutionalize people with disabilities and provide
true independent living with support services. This will save money,
and the lives of people with disabilities will be better and more truly
independent. Second, we must do more on employment of people with
disabilities in competitive integrated employment.
We all get the monthly unemployment figures every month. Last month
unemployment held steady at 5.8 percent officially. My friend Leo
Hindery has better calculations to show the real rate is probably about
twice that figure. Also, we know the unemployment rate among African
Americans is about twice that--11.1 percent. How many of us know,
though, that the unemployment rate among adult Americans with
disabilities who can work and want to work is over 60 percent? Yes, you
heard me right, almost two out of every three Americans with a
disability who want to work and who can work cannot find a job. That is
a blot on our national character.
Thankfully, some enlightened employers have affirmative action plans
to hire more people with disabilities. Employers are finding many times
that these become their best employees; they are more productive, and
they are the hardest working, most reliable workers.
I ask you to meet with Greg Wasson, the CEO of Walgreens, and Randy
Lewis, who was the senior vice president there and is now retired.
Walgreens has hired many people with disabilities in their distribution
centers, and now Mr. Wasson has set a goal of 10 percent of all of
their store employees will be people with disabilities. This needs to
be emulated by businesses all over America. There are others making
strides in this area. I will mention a few: Best Buy, Lowe's, Home
Depot, IBM, Marriott. These are some of the other large companies that
are moving forward, hiring people with disabilities. We need to learn
from them what we, the Federal and, yes, maybe the State government can
do to help in this area. We also need to implement policies to help
small businesses employ more people with disabilities.
I dwell on this perhaps because I feel I haven't done enough on this
issue of employment for people with disabilities, and we have to do
better. I will say, however, that our HELP Committee passed this year
and President Obama signed into law a new reauthorization of the old
Workforce Investment Act, now named the Workforce Investment and
Opportunity Act. In this law there is a new provision I worked on with
others to get more intervention in high school for kids with
disabilities to prepare them for the workplace through things such as
summer jobs, job coaching, internships. However, this is just starting
and funding is tight, but it will do much for young people with
disabilities to enter competitive integrated employment. I thank all
members of the HELP Committee for their support of this bill but
especially Senator Murray and Senator Isakson for taking the lead to
get this bill done, along with Senator Enzi, Senator Alexander, and me.
While I am mentioning the HELP Committee, let me thank all members of
the HELP Committee for a very productive last 2 years, during which we
passed 24 bills signed into law by the President. These are important
bills dealing with things such as drug track and tracing, compounding
drugs, the Workforce Investment Act that I just mentioned, the Child
Care and Development Block Grant Newborn Screening Act, and many more.
I would like to publicly again thank Senator Lamar Alexander for
being such a great partner in all these efforts. Senator Alexander will
be taking the helm of this great committee in the next Congress.
Senator Alexander certainly has the background to lead this committee,
but he also combines that background with a keen mind and a good heart,
and I wish him continued success as the new chairman of the HELP
Committee.
The fourth issue I hope future Senates will take care of concerns the
U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities. I don't
think anything has saddened me more in my 30 years here in the Senate
than the failure of this body to ratify the Convention on the Rights of
Persons With Disabilities, or the CRPD, as it is known. It has been
ratified by 150 nations. It is modeled after our own Americans with
Disabilities Act. It has broad and deep support throughout our
country--supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business
Roundtable, veterans groups, every disability organization, every
former living President, every former Republican leader of this Senate:
Senator Dole, Senator Lott, Senator Frist. In November we received a
letter from the National Association of Evangelicals supporting it.
I would also point out that Senator Dole has worked his heart out on
this. If you remember, he was here on the floor 2 years ago this month,
right before we brought it up. I thought we had the votes for it. Under
our Constitution it takes two-thirds, and we failed by six votes. But
Bob Dole has never given up on this--never.
Well, I hope the next Senate will take this up and join with the rest
of the world in helping to make changes globally for people with
disabilities.
I came to Congress--the House--in 1974 as one of the Watergate
babies. But with my retirement and the retirement in the House of
Congressman George Miller and Congressman Henry Waxman, we are the last
of the so-called Watergate babies, with two exceptions. Among all of
the Democrats elected in that landslide year of 1974, there were a few
Republicans, and one is left--my senior colleague from the State of
Iowa, Senator Chuck Grassley.
I have the greatest respect for and friendship with Chuck. Several
weeks ago, here on the floor, he said some very gracious things about
me, and I thank him for that. I especially appreciated his observation
that even though he and I are like night and day when it comes to
political views, there is no light between us when it comes to Iowa. We
have collaborated on so many important initiatives for the people of
Iowa, and I think we made a heck of a good tag team on behalf of our
State. So, again, I salute and thank my friend and colleague of nearly
40 years, Chuck Grassley. Carry on, Chuck.

The other exception I mentioned is again my lifelong dear friend,
Rick Nolan, who was in the 1974 class who voluntarily left Congress
after three terms, returned to the House in 2012, and was recently
reelected.
So 40 years later, this Watergate baby has grown up, gray.
I came to the Senate 30 years ago as a proud progressive, determined
to get things done. As I depart the Senate, I can say in good
conscience that I have remained true to my progressiveness.
I have worked faithfully to leave behind a more vibrant Iowa, a more
just and inclusive America, and a stronger ladder and ramp of
opportunity for the disadvantaged in our communities.
You might say that my career in Congress is the story of a poor kid
from Cumming, IA--population 150--trying his best to pay it forward,
saying thank you for the opportunities I was given by leaving that
ladder and ramp of opportunity stronger for those who follow.
If I have accomplished this in any small way--if any Americans are
able to lead better lives because of my work, I leave office a
satisfied person.
So I am retiring from the Senate, but I am not retiring from the
fight. I will never retire from the fight to ensure equal opportunity,
full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency
for every disabled person in America. I will never retire from the
fight to give a hand up and hope to those who have experienced
disadvantage and adversity. And I will never retire from the fight to
make this a land of social and economic justice for all Americans.
Let me close with a single word from American sign language.
On July 13 of 1990, I stood here and gave an entire speech in sign
language. It confused Senator Kerry who was sitting in the Chair. He
didn't know what to do. And the recording clerks didn't know what to
do, either. But then I had to give it verbally. Well, I didn't want to
do that today.
But there is one sign I want to leave with you. It says something
powerful--powerful. One of the most beautiful signs in American Sign
Language. And might I teach it to you?
Take your hands and put them together like this, put your fingers
together, put your hands together like

[[Page S6711]]

that. You kind of close them, and it looks like an A when you do that.
Now move it in a circle in front of your body.
That is it, pages, you have got it.
This is the sign for America.
Think about it. Think about it. All of us interconnected, bound
together in a single circle of inclusion--no one left out. This is the
ideal America toward which we must always aspire.
With that, Mr. President, for the last time, I yield the floor.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaine). The Senator from Iowa.

Tributes To Tom Harkin

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, my colleagues who are waiting to speak
to honor Senator Harkin, I am not going to take the amount of time I
did on his birthday. I want to tell my colleagues that what I said on
his birthday, on November 19, I probably should have waited and said
today.
But I want to speak about our working relationship, and I want
Senator Harkin to know that I have enjoyed my working relationship with
him, together working for Iowa. I compliment him on the many
accomplishments he has made. I consider him a friend. And as he goes
back to Iowa, we will maintain that friendship, I am sure.
I would ask my colleagues if they would think about looking at what I
said before on his birthday, because I am not going to repeat that
here. But I think we ought to recognize that Senator Harkin worked hard
up to his last day in the United States Senate, because one of his
works over the last 25 years was on inhumane labor issues around the
world, and he traveled to Oslo very recently to honor a person who
received the Nobel Peace Prize for that crusade, as well as all the
good work that Senator Harkin has done on it. And probably that person
received the award because of Senator Harkin so long suggesting that
the individual deserved that attention.
I am going to be very brief today, since my prior remarks outlined
our friendship and his record in some detail. It is in the
Congressional Record for posterity.
Senator Harkin and I have been a duo from our home State of Iowa for
a long period of time. His voice is familiar. So is his point of view,
so is his work ethic for the people of Iowa.
He has been a champion for individuals with disability, for the
elderly, for early childhood education, nutrition, and wellness; for
conservation, renewable energy, and the environment. We could go on and
on about his passion for these causes, and many others.
Senator Harkin's legislative accomplishments are numerous. He leaves
a lasting body of work that improves the quality of life for people who
don't always have a high profile in the Halls of Congress.
One of Senator Harkin's greatest legacies is his ability to translate
his drive and passion into legislative accomplishments. As the saying
goes: He doesn't just talk the talk, he walks the walk.
Senator Tom Harkin lives and breathes the causes important to him,
and the United States and Americans have a better quality of life
because of it.
It will be a new era when the Senate doesn't see him rising to speak
in his characteristic fiery delivery. And it may not have been so fiery
today, but he did speak with emotion about the things he believes in.
I am grateful for his friendship and his long service to the people
of Iowa and the Nation. While I will miss him around the Capitol, I am
confident I will see him at home in Iowa. Senator Harkin is not one to
turn off his enthusiasm for important issues, and I feel sure--and he
has already told us today--he will continue his contribution to public
service wherever and whenever the spirit moves him. And we know by his
statement today it is already moving him. He has plans for the future
to continue these crusades.
With that in mind, I will say so long rather than goodbye. Thank you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I start by saying that as Senator Harkin
was so eloquently speaking today, it reminded me of a story of those
going by the casket of President Roosevelt.
A reporter stopped someone and said: Did you know President
Roosevelt?
And he said: No, but he knew me.
There are people across this country--people with disabilities,
workers, folks trying hard to get up that ladder--who want to know
there are rungs on it, or want to be able to stay in the middle class,
who may not be able to say they know Senator Tom Harkin personally, but
he knows them.
We are so grateful, and I am personally grateful, for your friendship
and your leadership and mentorship.
I want to speak for a moment as Chair of the Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry Committee, where I had to follow the tough act of Senator
Tom Harkin writing the previous two farm bills.
He has shaped agriculture and food and nutrition policy in the House
and Senate for 40 years, having a tremendous impact, more than we can
even imagine, in terms of not only advocating for Iowa farmers--and I
knew every day what Iowa needed; that is for sure--and having both
Senator Harkin and Senator Grassley on the committee gave the one-two
punch for Iowa. But I have to remind all of my colleagues that Senator
Harkin really is the father of modern conservation, of protecting our
water and our soil and our air, our wildlife habitat, our forests.
Senator Harkin is the father of modern conservation. He wrote the
conservation stewardship program that he created in 2002 and expanded
on in 2008, and we protected it in the last farm bill.
Mr. HARKIN. Thank you.
Ms. STABENOW. And he gave new strength to the farm safety net for all
of our growers. He has been at the forefront of an energy future that
he talked about today, driven by renewable energy and moving forward to
get us to cleaner sources of energy. That creates jobs, as I know has
happened in Iowa because of his leadership. So we thank you.
There are so many things--the fresh fruit and vegetable program in
schools where children in low-income schools have an opportunity to eat
an apple rather than something out of the vending machine that isn't
good for them, the opportunities for children to have healthier
choices. Senator Harkin has led over and over and over again. I can go
over every part of our agriculture and food policy improvements that
have been made that have been led by Senator Tom Harkin, and we are so
grateful.
Senator Tom Harkin has been a personal mentor for me. In the toughest
times of getting this last farm bill done, Senator Harkin gave me words
of advice and wisdom--and many times encouragement--and for that I am
very grateful, and have learned so much.
I secondly want to thank Senator Harkin for being a hero for
generations of people with disabilities, including people in my own
family, who have had doors opened because of what he has done. The
Americans with Disabilities Act revolutionized the possibilities and
the opportunities for people. And it is about opportunity; it is not
about giving people something for free, but opening doors which they
still have to walk through. Senator Harkin has done that in a way that
will be with us forever, when we look at building structures and
opportunities in workplaces for people who want to work but just need a
little different kind of opportunity and now have that available.
It was clear when Senator Harkin spoke about his family how it shaped
his sensibilities and passions. I remember his speaking about growing
up in a two-bedroom house in Cumming, IA, that he shared with his
parents and five siblings. That is pretty challenging. Growing up with
his brother Frank who was born deaf gave him an understanding of the
obstacles to those with disabilities and a commitment came from his
heart and soul about making life better--and he has. You have.
I recall also when he talked about his father losing his 40-acre
farm, and the New Deal giving him a chance to support you and to
support your family despite the fact that he had a sixth grade
education. He had the opportunity to move ahead and work hard because
somebody out there, who didn't know his name, gave him an opportunity
to do so, which is what is our job to do.

[[Page S6712]]

I know Senator Harkin's crusades to protect workers on the job was
influenced by witnessing his father struggle with black lung disease,
looking at him as a coal miner and what he went through.
I believe Senator Harkin is the definition of a self-made man. He
grew up taking advantage of opportunities as well as enduring the
challenges and the circumstances of his life, transforming and using
that experience to create better opportunities for everyone across the
country.
He is a patriot, having served in the Navy. He gained his education
through the GI bill and understands that is an important part of
creating opportunity and giving back to people who serve for us and lay
their lives on the line for us.
I know you are totally committed in your heart and soul to education
starting at birth right on through for the rest of our lives.
So I want to thank you, finally, for your leadership on the HELP
Committee, your hard work and your passion in health care, your support
working with me on mental health care, your efforts on education, your
efforts in pensions--which, by the way, are promises we need to keep.
All of the things you have done through the HELP Committee are things
that will last for a long time to come.
I know in Iowa, thanks to you, there are 8 times more community
health centers then there were 25 years ago--wow--so somebody can see a
doctor and they can take their children to a doctor, which will live on
in their lives.
I want to thank you for being someone who knows how to make laws,
somebody who wants to solve problems, who in his heart and soul is
passionately, lovingly concerned about our country. I know that you and
Ruth and your daughters and your grandchildren will have many more
opportunities to enjoy each other's lives but know there are people in
this country who are enjoying opportunities because of you, and we
salute you.

Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Senator Harkin's legacy is he stands as a champion of
Americans with disabilities. It will be a long time before there is a
greater champion of Americans with disabilities in this body and I
salute him for that.
I salute him secondly for his leadership and style of leadership. I
had the privilege of the last 2 years as ranking member of the HELP
Committee. Senator Kennedy used to say that we have 30 percent of the
jurisdiction of the Senate, and it seems like it sometimes. If you know
our committee, down one row is the murderers' row of liberals or
progressives who are of the Democratic persuasion; and down the other
side is a pretty good row of conservatives of the Republican
persuasion--12 on this side, 10 on this side. So we have plenty of
differences of opinions and we don't hesitate to express them. Yet
during these 2 years, Senator Harkin and his leadership style have
found a way for there to be 24 pieces of legislation, signed by the
President of the United States, many of them very significant, some of
which took several years to do, whether it was the compounding
pharmacy, which was so important in our State, the tragedy of
meningitis from unsterile products; whether it was the track-and-trace
legislation or the changes in workforce development that gave more
discretion to Governors and the citizens in their communities. His
style of leadership permitted that to happen and I am grateful to him
for that. I would suggest to the Senate as we look forward to a time
when the Senate might be more functional and more productive that one
way to earn the respect of the people of this country for this body,
which is supposed to be the one authentic piece of genius of the
American political system, is to look at the way the Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions Committee has operated over the last 3 years under
the leadership of Senator Harkin. I salute him for his service and I
thank him for that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. FRANKEN. I rise to talk about Senator Harkin. As the soon-to-be
Chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Alexander is right about the
HELP Committee, it is an important committee. Sometimes I say it is not
that important unless you care about your health, your kids' health,
your parents' health, your kids' education or your education, if you
want to work sometime in your life, and you plan to retire. Other than
that, it is not very important.
But I want to talk a little bit about Tom Harkin, not as a Senator
but as a staffer. We have seen today when the Senators give their final
speeches, they talk about their staff. Tom came in 1969 as a staffer
for Neal Smith from Iowa. The staffers, as much as we treasure our
staffers, they love this work for their Member and they love working in
this institution, and they love working in Congress--at that point he
was in the House. So at this point he is, I believe, 29 or 30 years
old. This was during the Vietnam war, and there was something called
Vietnamization. President Nixon asked a congressional delegation to go
to Vietnam to look at how Vietnamization was working and what was going
on. While Tom Harkin was there as a staffer, a couple of Congressmen
were told about some conditions on an island called Con Son where there
were prisoners that the South Vietnamese Government was abusing very
badly. The Congressmen requisitioned a plane to go to Con Son, about
100 miles off the coast of the mainland of Vietnam, and I believe the
supervisor of the group who was there to talk about the Vietnam prison
system said this was sort of like a Boy Scout recreational camp--that
is exactly what he said.
So when they landed there, Tom took a couple staffers and Members,
got a map from someone who had told him about this secret prison, and
found it, where there were people being horribly abused. Tom took
pictures. Tom was told to turn over the film. Tom didn't turn over the
film. Tom was then told that his employment in the Congress depended on
him turning over that film--a 30-year-old staffer at the beginning of
what most staffers hope is a career. That film showed up in ``Life''
magazine and had a profound effect, and Tom's career was over.
That takes a lot of guts. That takes courage. That takes the courage
of your convictions, and that is what I have seen in Tom Harkin. I
learned about this when Franni and I went with Ruth and Tom on a codel
to Vietnam. I just spoke about Carl Levin and talked about a codel with
him, and I talked about this codel with Tom. I have got to go on more
codels, I just figured out.
This is what I observed, because this was the Chairman of the HELP
Committee, and I got to watch that courage and that courage of his
convictions, as well as what Lamar talked about, working well across
party lines.
I hold the seat that Paul Wellstone formerly held. I would say that
Tom was Paul's best friend. Tom every once in a while talks about his
brother and the experiences behind Tom's signature achievement, the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Paul Wellstone led on mental health
and mental health parity, and that was because of his brother. And that
is the legacy I want to carry on. I have not had Paul here to be a role
model, but I have had Tom Harkin, and it has been a privilege.

I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, we are going to continue with the
Minnesota theme, and I think Senator Harkin knows that our two States,
Minnesota and Iowa, share more than just a border. We share a lot of
people with relatives on either side of the border. I cannot tell you
how many of my friends have their roots in Iowa and how many people in
Iowa have their kids in Minnesota.
We also share citizens who have a strong sense of involvement. We
have some of the highest voter turnouts in the country. We both have
notorious caucus systems where people like to turn out and make their
views known, and our States have produced politicians such as Tom
Harkin and Hubert Humphrey, who came up through that tradition and
understand that you are there to represent the people of your State
because when you go home, they actually come up to you in grocery
stores, on the street, call you by your first name, and understand that
you are there to represent them.
We also share farming and we share this enormous belief in science.
We actually share Norman Borlaug. There is

[[Page S6713]]

a new statute--the Presiding Officer must go see it--of Norman Borlaug
in Statutory Hall. He was born in Iowa and studied in Iowa, but also
studied at the University of Minnesota. He created the Green
Revolution, which has helped so many impoverished people in countries
all over the world by reducing hunger.
Tom Harkin has followed in that tradition. He believes in science,
believes in investing in agriculture research, and believes in
investing NIH.
The other thing about Tom and me that I knew no other Senator would
address is our Slovenian heritage. When Tom leaves--and I see Senator
Brown is here--and with the former Senator from Ohio, Senator
Voinovich, no longer here, I will remain, I think, as the only
Slovenian Senator here. I am hoping someone will come forward and tell
me they have Slovenian blood. For a while 3 percent of the U.S. Senate
had roots in Slovenia, which is very interesting given how
infinitesimal the population of the country is compared to the rest of
the world.
Tom loves his Slovenian roots. Like Tom, my ancestors came from
Slovenia to America to work in the mines. It is a big part of our lives
and what we believe in.
One time Tom came to my Minnesota Morning breakfast and saw that
every Thursday I serve potica to my constituents, and that is unique to
Slovenians. It is a rolled dough with either apples or walnuts in it.
My grandma used to make it. She would literally borrow card tables and
roll the dough throughout her entire kitchen.
I found a number of places on the Iron Range of northern Minnesota,
where my dad grew up, that make this potica, and we bring it in.
Tom came and tried it and decided that for Christmas he would send a
potica to every Member of the Senate for Christmas. He called my office
and said they don't make it in Iowa. I said, let me give you the name
of a baker on the Iron Range. He personally called this woman and said:
This is Tom Harkin. I am the Senator from Iowa. I am calling to order
100 poticas from you, one for every Member of the Senate for Christmas.
And in very gruff Slovenian fashion, she said: I am sorry, it is
Christmas, and we are booked. We do not have the poticas to send to
Washington, DC. Then he said: I don't know if you know who I am. I
chair the Agriculture and Forestry Committee--big forestry area--of the
Senate. And she said: I know exactly who you are, but we do not have
the poticas to send to Washington.
So at that moment, he called me. I gave him the names of a number of
other bakers, he found one, and every Senator got a potica for
Christmas.
The last thing I will say about Tom that we share in common--we both
represent States that believe in helping people who are the most
vulnerable. He did that with his support for small farmers with the
farm bill, and he did that in his support for the disability community.
I was at the House this week talking about the ABLE Act with some of
the Members, and to a tee, every Republican brought up--because Tom
could not be there--Tom's work on the ABLE Act. They knew we would not
have the bill that Senator Casey worked on without Tom Harkin, and, as
you know, this is just the next step for the disability community. It
will allow parents and grandparents and friends and neighbors to set up
funds so that if they are not there when this young person grows up,
there will be money set aside for them.
Tom Harkin was Paul Wellstone's best friend in the Senate. Paul would
say: Politics is about improving people's lives. That is what Tom has
done every day in the Senate.
Thank you, Tom.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, in January of last year, I walked onto the
Senate floor for the second time in my life. The first time that I got
to be on the Senate floor was in 1995 when I was an intern for my
Senator, Chris Dodd. Back then it was a little bit easier for interns
to come here, and he brought me down to the Senate floor one afternoon.
I knew what I wanted to do. I had a small handful of people I wanted
to meet. I don't know if I ever told this to Tom, but I wanted to meet
Tom Harkin, and I got to do that. Twenty years ago he was a giant in
the Senate. The one point I wish to make is this--I had the chance to
serve with Tom on the HELP Committee and I have seen his legislative
ability and the respect he commands here, but I have only known him for
2 years.
Anyway, the point I want to make is that the effect he has had on the
legislative process stands as an achievement in and of itself. I would
argue that I am one of tens of thousands of public servants who decided
to go into this line of work, decided to care about the kind of things
I care about because I watched Tom Harkin on TV growing up.
I came from a family that was nonpolitical. My parents were both
registered Republicans. There is no genetic reason why I do this other
than seeing people like Tom fight on behalf of the disabled and the
disenfranchised and the dispossessed. He gave me the idea that there
was some worth to being in this line of work. If you grew up after
Vietnam, you were taught this was crooked or not worth being a part of,
and then there was a handful of people like Tom Harkin who told you it
was worth being a part of.
The legacy that Senator Harkin will have--whether it is the farm
bill, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the Workforce and
Investment Act, that is all you need to leave this place fulfilled. But
to think there are tens of thousands of people who, like me, are doing
this kind of work and trying to keep up the legacy you are going to
leave is something to be proud of as well. I feel lucky to be a Member
of this body in part because I got to meet Tom Harkin 20 years ago, I
was able to follow his lead, and I was able to be inspired by him.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Tom Harkin is my hero. Tom Harkin has never shied away
from a fight when it comes to workers rights not only for Iowa but for
workers all across the country and workers around the world.
He has come to many of us repeatedly and said: Don't forget what our
obligation is to the community of men and women around the world who
labor with their hands, who fight challenges every day, who are abused
in the workplace, who are abused as children in the workplace, and Tom
Harkin has been the single strongest voice for as long as I can
remember for those workers.
Tom comes from a right-to-work State. It is not always easy to stand
up for labor unions and organized labor. We have a press and media in
this country which is consistently anti-labor.
We have a political class in this country at every opportunity that
tries to undermine organized labor and undermine the rights of human
beings to organize and bargain collectively, and Tom recognized that is
one of most important rights that human beings have.
Tom Harkin, being from a right-to-work State, knows he will face a
difficult election darn near every 6 years. One of the little-noted
historical facts about Tom Harkin--and I have not heard anyone else
mention--is that Senator Harkin has defeated more incumbent Members of
Congress than any elected official in United States history, and that
is not because of the luck of the draw or some lottery in Des Moines or
Iowa City or Davenport. It is because Tom Harkin doesn't shy away from
his strong beliefs in the rights of humanity--organizing and collective
bargaining rights. When you are willing to stand up day after day--not
just in quiet groups in the Democratic Caucus--on this floor and you
are willing to stand up in Dubuque and the more conservative parts of
southwest Iowa and argue for labor rights, you are saying to the other
side: Bring them on. Bring on big money, bring on anti-labor forces. He
expected to have tough elections, and that is why Tom Harkin is my hero
and always will be.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I too rise to share a few comments about
my friend Tom Harkin who has contributed so much to this fight and to
put rungs on the ladder so ordinary people across America have a fair
shot to thrive.
When I first came out here as an intern in 1976, you were already
over on

[[Page S6714]]

the House side--no, not yet. It was about 1974, and I was working away,
so I didn't get to meet you then. But there were a series of speeches
by Senators when I was an intern here on the Senate side, and one of
them was by Hubert Humphrey.
Hubert Humphrey was well known for saying that a society should be
judged by how they treat those in the dawn of their lives, children,
the twilight of their lives, seniors, and those who are in the shadow,
the sick and disabled. When I think of that vision, I see Tom Harkin. I
see Tom Harkin fighting for children who are oppressively working
around the world under unacceptable circumstances. Tom Harkin carries
out the fight for those children and for children's health care.
I have seen him fight for our seniors, and just this week he was
speaking passionately about the obligations we have to honor the
retirement strategy so people can serve their senior years in dignity.
He fights for those who are disabled, which we have heard about so much
today.
I thank Tom Harkin for taking his years on this planet and dedicating
them to this battle for those in the dawn of their life, for those in
the twilight of their life, and for those in the shadows. No one has
done a better job.
I also wish to thank Tom for the recent battles I have had a chance
to be a part of--the fight to end discrimination in the workplace for
our LGBT community, which you shepherded through your committee and got
to the floor for the first time in which this bill has been enforced
since 1996, and proceeded to pass by a 2-to-1 bipartisan majority
because of that firm foundation laid out in the committee.
I wish to thank you for your minimum wage bill and for saying to
America: Here is a vision: No one who works full time should live in
poverty. That is absolutely right. We didn't win the battle over
minimum wage, but we advanced the conversation--you advanced the
conversation. I thank you for doing so, and for carrying out battle
after battle, and in so many cases, succeeding. And in those cases when
the circumstances weren't yet all lined up, you continued the fight,
carried the voice so we would find that moment in the future when we
could secure a victory for ordinary working people, for those who are
disabled, for our children, and for our seniors.
I thank you for your service in the Senate. Well done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. The Senator from Oregon has thanked Tom for his service
in the Senate. I wish to thank him for his service before he was in the
Senate when he and I were kids--well, not exactly--but when we served
in the United States services. We spent some time in airplanes--not in
the same airplane, but roughly at the same time. A lot of times people
come up to me and thank me for my service in the Navy--and I am sure
they do that with you--and I tell them that I loved it. I loved the men
and women I served with, I loved the missions, and it was an honor to
do that. I wanted to start off by thanking you for that, and to say
that is one of the bonds which has drawn us together as friends right
from the start.
The Senator from Oregon mentioned your strong effort to raise the
minimum wage, which ultimately was not successful. I want to mention a
couple of issues I have had the privilege of working on with you that I
think have been very successful. There is a battle that needs to
continue to be fought, and I plan to continue to do that, and my hope
is that you and others will do it too.

As veterans, I know how important the GI bill was for me and for you
as well. I think we got about $250 a month on the GI bill, and I was
happy to have every dime of it. I moved from California to the
University of Delaware when I got out of the Navy, got an MBA, and I
still flew for the Navy and the Reserves, and it was a huge help for
me.
The folks who get the GI bill today come back from Afghanistan and
Iraq or wherever, and if they have served for 3 years they get the GI
bill, as you know, and that means they get full tuition. If they go to
the University of Iowa, Delaware State, Iowa State, they get free
tuition. They get free books, fees, tutoring. In my State they get a
$1,500-a-month housing allowance. That is the GI bill today.
There are a bunch of colleges around the country that--just as they
did when my dad came back from World War II or when my Uncle Ed came
back from the Korean war, others have come back from Vietnam and so
forth--there are scam artists involved with postsecondary training
schools, sometimes colleges, and they see the GI with that benefit, and
they see it as if it were a dollar sign on their back, and they want to
go after the dollar sign and separate the value from the benefit.
The Senator from Iowa has worked on this so hard, trying to make
sure--there are plenty of for-profit postsecondary schools and such
that do a good job, and there are some that don't. Nobody has been as
active in trying to make sure that we clean this up as you have been,
my friend, and my friend from Illinois, Dick Durbin, and I am pleased
to be the wingman on this. I promise that Senator Durbin and I aren't
going away. The folks who do this job right, the for-profits that are
doing a good job by veterans and taxpayers, we salute them; and those
who do not, we are going after them. So I thank you and your staff for
standing up for veterans consistently.
The other thing I wanted to mention is that many people are having
lunch right now across the eastern part of our country, maybe getting
ready, over in Iowa, to have some lunch. If people go into a chain
restaurant where there are 15 or more restaurants in that chain across
the country--I think it is 15 or 20--they look at the menu to order,
and right there they see the calories. If they want more information
about the fats, trans fats, the amount of sodium in the food--all kinds
of information--they get it.
We are a nation where obesity is a huge problem, a huge cost driver
in health care. I thank the Senator for leading the charge on menu
labeling, which is the reality in our country, and you should feel good
about that. I feel very good about that.
It has been a blessing knowing you and serving with you, Tom. There
is an old saying: Flattery won't hurt you if you don't inhale. You are
having a lot of flattery thrown at you here today, so don't breathe too
deeply and you should be OK.
We thank and salute you and your wife Ruth and your family. In the
Navy, when people have done a really good job, we say words like
``bravo zulu,'' and I say bravo zulu to you. When people are ready to
weigh anchor and sail off into the sunrise, we say things like ``fair
winds and following seas,'' and I say that to you as well. God bless
you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I will speak briefly because I put a statement in the
Record, but I just want to say, Tom, that next to the State of
Illinois, I spend more time campaigning in your State of Iowa than any
other State. Obviously the Presidential caucus brought me over there,
and I have come to know your home State of Iowa and to appreciate that
even though there is an extraordinary Iowa-Illinois democratic
organization, it is a tough State and there are elections that are
hotly contested.
I recall that when I was running for the Senate in 1996, you called
into our headquarters and spoke to my campaign manager, who said: How
is it going, Senator Harkin?
And you said: I am besieged.
It was a tough campaign, but you survived it and many others. I think
it is because of two things: No. 1 is your dogged determination, and
No. 2 is your commitment to values that you have never given up on.
I think there is an authenticity to Tom Harkin that has saved him in
tough years. People who disagreed with you respected you because you
stood up for what you believed in. Some of the ideals you and I believe
in may not be as fashionable politically as they once were. There was
once a time when I worked for a man named Paul Douglas who called
himself in the Senate ``a good liberal.'' You don't hear that word much
anymore, do you? But the fact is, those of us who believe there are
moments in our Nation's history and in the lives of ordinary people
where the American family, through our government, needs to step in and
help--and you have done it. You have done it so

[[Page S6715]]

many times. I won't repeat all that has been said, but whether you were
fighting for working families, fighting for the poor, fighting for the
disabled, fighting to make sure every family had peace of mind when it
came to food safety--I am not sure that has been mentioned, but the
Senator from Iowa worked on that, and I thank him for that leadership
and inspiration.
Finally, let me say I have been happy to team up with you on this
issue involving for-profit schools.
I will tell my colleagues that the Senator's hearings set a standard
in terms of asking the right questions and hard questions of an
industry that by and large exploits young people and their families,
sinking these kids deep in debt at the expense of American taxpayers
and doing it many times with the promise of nothing but a worthless
diploma when it is all over.
I know, because I have tried, that the industry--the for-profit
colleges have friends in high places in Washington, DC. I can promise
you this: As long as I can do it physically, I will continue to wage
this battle in your name and in your memory because of all your
leadership in this area.
Thank you for being a friend. Thank you for being a neighbor. And
thank you for really standing up for the right causes over the course
of your public service.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I am going to be brief. The truth is that
the Senator we are honoring right now, Tom Harkin, will go down in
history as one of the great Senators of this particular period in
American history. Not many Senators, if any, have a list of enormous
accomplishments anywhere close to what Senator Harkin has accomplished.
I would like to tell my colleagues a little story. It turns out that
coincidentally, really, I have traveled with Senator Harkin to a number
of places around the world as part of congressional delegations. Like
most congressional delegations, we meet with the leadership of the
country, the President and so forth. But what was interesting in
traveling with Senator Harkin is wherever you go, he gets honored by
ordinary people in those countries.
We went to Vietnam a number of years ago. Many people will not
remember, but the truth is that one of the very first people ever to
expose the terrible prison conditions that the South Vietnam Government
had established was Tom Harkin. So we go there and we meet people who
had been imprisoned in tiger cages, and they said: Senator Harkin,
thank you very much for exposing those conditions and improving our
lives.
There was a very emotional response.
Then I go with him to Ghana, and it turns out that in Ghana and in
countries in Africa, Tom Harkin had been a leader in fighting against
child labor. There were kids 8 or 9 years of age who should be in
school who were out picking crops. And Tom Harkin, working with people
all over the world, had a real impact on getting those kids into
school.
We went to a school, a beautiful school which is partially funded by
the U.S. Government. We have bright kids who are in school, and they
were so proud of the assistance we had given them, where they were in
school and not working in fields.
Then we go to Chile. We go to Chile and we meet with the President of
Chile, all the dignitaries of Chile. Who knew this? We go to Chile, and
Tom Harkin gets an award from the government.
In the very dark days of the Pinochet government, when the
democratically elected President of Chile, Salvador Allende, was
overthrown in a violent coup by Pinochet--with, unfortunately, the
assistance of the U.S. Government--and people were rounded up and put
into prison camps and tortured and killed, Tom Harkin goes knocking on
the door to one of the prison camps. He goes knocking on the door--
pretty crazy, but that is what he did. He was met with soldiers with
guns. But he exposed that particular prison camp and played a role in
facilitating the ending of some of the more barbaric actions of the
Pinochet government.
Those are three trips I made with him. That is about all. I am sure
he has gone on other trips. That is a pretty good record,
internationally.
Then, back home, in terms of disability issues, I can remember and
others can remember that 30, 40, 50 years ago, families had kids born
with disabilities, and often those kids were institutionalized, they
were hidden, they were an embarrassment to the family. Something bad
happened; there was a child with a disability--Down syndrome, whatever
it may be. Think about the revolution that has taken place, the
mainstreaming of those kids. I know in Vermont and all over this
country, kids with disabilities who are sitting in classrooms right
now, loved and respected by their fellow students, educating their
fellow students, making them more human, more compassionate. I think
many of us have been to high school graduations where people with
disabilities get their diploma and people stand up and applaud those
kids.
There has been a transformation of the culture in terms of how we
deal with people with disabilities through the Americans with
Disabilities Act. That didn't happen by accident. Tom Harkin wasn't the
only person who did it, but he helped lead the effort here in the U.S.
Congress to say that people with disabilities are part of the human
community and we are going to treat them with the dignity they deserve.
Then we have all the other issues that people have talked about.
Probably nobody in the Congress has been a stronger fighter for working
people and organized labor than Tom Harkin.
I think people come here, regardless of political persuasion, to try
to make a difference and do what they think is right. We disagree about
what is right, but I think when we look at the list of accomplishments
and the enormously hard work that has gone into those accomplishments,
this man, Tom Harkin, will go down as one of the great Senators of our
period.
Tom, thank you so much for all you have done.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to recognize a dear friend, Senator
Tom Harkin. Senator Harkin will be retiring at the end of the month,
but his influence will be felt long after he leaves this Chamber. I
speak for all of my colleagues when I say he will be sorely missed.
I consider myself lucky to have worked with Tom, and even luckier to
call him a friend. Tom has devoted his life to public service.
Like any good statesman, Tom is humble about his achievements.
Humility is a trait so often lacking in accomplished men, but Tom is an
exception. The allure and glamor of Beltway life never held sway over
Tom, and his years spent in the Nation's capital have only shown that
he is an Iowa man through and through.
The only thing that runs deeper than Tom's Iowa roots is the corn
that grows there. Tom still lives in the very same house in the very
same town where he was born--Cumming, IA, population: 383--a far cry
from this bustling metropolis. His family still keeps a farm in
Cumming, and I am sure he looks forward to spending many peaceful days
there in his retirement.
Tom grew up in a family of modest means. His father was a coal miner
and his mother a Slovenian immigrant who passed away when Tom was just
10 years old. From an early age, Tom developed his signature work ethic
by taking various odd jobs on farms, at construction sites, and even in
a bottling plant.
Tom's service to our Nation began long before he came to Congress. He
attended Iowa State University on a Navy ROTC scholarship and served as
an active-duty Navy pilot for 5 years after graduation. Even after his
full-time military service, he continued to serve as a pilot in the
Naval Reserve. Tom is a man who always has and always will put our
country first. Even though he and I often disagreed on matters of
policy, I always knew that Tom had the best interests of our Nation and
those of his constituents in mind.
Tom and I first became good friends when I joined him in sponsoring
the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1989. At the time, Tom was a
first-term Senator approaching reelection, and to support the ADA was
politically risky. But true to form, Tom bucked political expediency to
champion a law that the

[[Page S6716]]

late Senator Ted Kennedy would describe as the ``emancipation
proclamation'' for those with disabilities. Although the ADA faced
serious opposition, passing this legislation was personal for Tom,
whose brother, Frank, grew up deaf, and whose nephew was quadriplegic.
In the lives of these loved ones, Tom saw how lack of opportunities for
persons with disabilities could make their lives all the more
challenging.
My friendship with Tom was forged in the battles we fought to move
the ADA through both chambers of Congress. I will never forget the day
the Senate passed the bill in 1989. After the vote, Tom and I left the
floor and walked into the anteroom, where there were hundreds of
persons with disabilities in wheelchairs, on crutches, and with various
other disabilities waiting to receive us. Overcome with emotion, both
of us broke down and cried. It was a moment I will never forget.
I am not exaggerating when I say that Tom's work on this hallmark
legislation will have resounding effects for generations to come.
Because of the ADA, millions of Americans with disabilities can now
pursue the American Dream.
Throughout his Senate career, Tom has always been there to help those
who could not help themselves. His work has affected the lives of
millions. Senator Harkin deserves not only our recognition, but also
our gratitude. I want to wish him, his wife Ruth, and their family all
the best.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry. It is my
understanding that we were to begin at 12 o'clock for 3 hours until the
first motion on the NDAA, and that would begin now, it looks like,
about an hour late; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 3
hours of debate, with 1 hour each for the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr.
Coburn, and the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, and with 30 minutes each
for the Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski, and the Senator from
Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, or their designees.
Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. President. Before the Senator from Iowa
leaves, let me make one comment. I look at him and all of those who are
saying nice things about the Senator from Iowa--and I am from Iowa, so
I can say this. My colleagues need to remember that even conservatives
can love Tom Harkin. I think it is important for people to understand
that.
I have to say that I have been to I think at least 10 of the
airshows, and spending 90 percent of my time--my wife and his wife, the
four of us together, because we are both pilots--sitting around and
lying about airplanes, we got real close to each other.
I can say the same thing about my good friend Senator Sanders, and I
have said this on the floor before: The two of you are two of my
favorite in-the-heart liberals because you are not ashamed of it. You
stand up--exactly what the Senator from Vermont just said. The things
that I have seen you do, you have a big heart. You have your own
philosophy. You are not a demagogue. You live your philosophy.
So I just want you to know there are a lot of Republicans who love
Senator Harkin just as much as the liberals do. All right. Thank you.
We should have started with Senator Levin and myself kicking this
off. I think we were a little bit late in starting, so Senator Levin is
not here now. He will be here in about 30 minutes.
Let me make one comment about Senator Levin. I did so this morning.
This person chairing these committees--and he has been through 16 of
the NDAAs in the past, and no one else can say that. No other Member
has ever done that. Over his 36 years of service, he has concentrated
on his concern for the defense of America. This is interesting because
as the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, he and I
have worked together. We even participated in two of the events called
the Big 4.
The Chair knows this, but some of my colleagues may not. When it
comes time and the committees are unable to pass a bill, then the
ranking member and the chairman of the House and the ranking member and
the chairman of the Senate--the Big 4--get together and they draft a
bill. That is what happened this year and last year.
Last year I was getting panicky because we didn't pass that bill
until December 26. What would happen if we didn't, then it would be a
crisis on December 31. So I want to say, Senator Levin, I have
enjoyed--I regret we won't be able to have the same positions because,
of course, Senator Levin is--such as our friend from Iowa--retiring
after this term.
Let me mention the NDAA bill is the most important bill we do every
year. I don't think anyone is ever going to debate that. We had the 52
consecutive years--and this is going to be the 53rd consecutive year we
have been able to pass it. It seems as though each year it is always
hard to do, because at the last minute there are other people who want
to get things in the bill that were not there. But we have to keep in
mind, in defense of the big-four approach to this, we passed this bill.
We passed it out of the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 23. We
have been wanting to get it on floor since May 23.
Senator Levin and I have come down countless times and begged our
colleagues on the Democratic side and the Republican side to get their
amendments down so we could consider their amendments. We had a lot of
amendments that did come down. Of the amendments that came down, I am
very proud to say that we incorporated almost all of them. Forty-seven
of those amendments are a part of this bill. So it is not as if the
amendments were considered.
I know some people who are opposed to this bill may come along later
and say we didn't consider all the amendments. We considered almost all
of them but adopted 47 of the amendments which is a record. In spite of
the pushing for months on the NDAA--I don't know what the reasons were
and I am not going to point the fingers, but we didn't get it on the
floor--we have to do it at the last minute. I want to just say, in my
heart I believe--I know the House wound up most of their business--but
if we don't pass this bill, there is no other train leaving this
station. There is no other way to do it, because in this bill, when
people stop and think about it, there are some things I don't like
about the bill. I have to admit that, but there are so many good
things. If we go through December 31, and this is the reminder we have
to have in our own minds, we have right now 1,779,343 enlisted
personnel who are in service right now. They will lose their benefits
if we don't pass this bill. I am talking about reenlistment bonuses.
I asked the chair, do you realize--I think he does but not many
people do--just flight pay. There is a huge pilot shortage right now
because the private sector is hiring them up and we are having a hard
time keeping them. We have a flight pay incentive. That incentive would
go way.
Does it mean anything? Yes. It is a $25,000 incentive, and it lasts
for--it goes for 10 years each year. But if they wake up on January 1
and find out they don't have their flight pay incentive, how many of
these existing warriors in the sky are going to drop out and go to work
for one of the airlines? I don't know. But a lot of them will, I can
assure you of that.
I think we need to remind people how much it costs to train a new
one. Instead of a $25,000 bonus to reach the standards of the level of
an F-22 pilot, it costs $17 million. Stop and think about the millions
and millions of dollars that would be lost just from the flight pay.
These things are happening.
A lot of good things are in this bill and some are controversial. The
housing starts are in this bill--none of the housing starts. I am
talking about military construction for our kids that are out there.
One of the controversial areas is in Gitmo. This is one of the very few
areas where Chairman Levin and I disagreed with each other. Gitmo is a
resource that can't be replaced. He would be for closing it.
We are now keeping the restrictions we have right now and keeping it
open for another year so we can look at it next year and spend more
time on it.
We have the counterterrorism partnership funds, and so many of these
things are in this bill that I think are very significant. We are
supporting the needed Aircraft Modernization Program. You hear a lot
about the F-35. The F-22 was terminated by the President and terminated
6 years ago. So

[[Page S6717]]

what we have in the fifth-generation aircraft, that is it, the F-35.
What we are doing is continuing with that modernization program, a
controversial area. The support for ground support is the A-10. The A-
10 is probably the ugliest airplane in the sky, but you ask any of our
troops on the ground what they want to see coming when they are in
danger, it is the A-10. That is going to continue. There is not going
to be one reduction in that.
I know the Armed Services Committee next year will look at that
freshly and maybe make changes. AWACS, the President wanted to take
seven of the AWACS planes out, and that would be 25 percent of the
AWACS fleets. That is a great big plane that has a circle on the top
that goes out and brings back information to save lives. That is there.
The authorizing the military construction of family housing projects
that has been started, they would come to a stop without this bill.
That means we would have paid the contractors. There are going to be
breach-of-contract lawsuits and everything else.
I will only mention one other thing--the Russian-made rocket engines.
A lot of people hear about that and they say: Why in the world, with
all the problems with Putin, with what is going on in the Ukraine,
around the world--I just got back from Lithuania, and I also went over
to Ukraine. I am seeing things with our allies over there that they
would ask the question: Why are you buying Russian-made rocket engines?
We are, but those are being fazed out. We have directed the Secretary
of Defense to develop a U.S. rocket to replace that rocket. That is
going on right now.
By the way, I have to say this. I mentioned Ukraine. I can't tell
you, when we look and see what is happening over there--I had a great
experience. I was over there just 3 days before our elections. It
happened to be 3 days after their elections. In the Ukraine, President
Poroshenko was so proud, and he sat there and told me: In Ukraine, we
have to get 5 percent of the vote to have a seat in Parliament. The
Communists, for the first time in 96 years, didn't get 5 percent. So
there will not be one Communist in Parliament in Ukraine. That is
incredible. Those are our friends over there. They are the ones we need
to keep our defense strong, and we directly address that in this bill.
I will only say one thing about the lands package. It is the
most controversial part of this bill because it is something which has
nothing to do with Defense. On the other hand, when we are in
negotiations and there are some things that should not perhaps come in,
in this forum, and I thought--I even characterized it as outrageous at
the time that that was made part of this bill. I have to say this--any
changes in the bill, by the way, are going to result in not having a
bill, and all the things I just mentioned would happen. But I started
reading some of these provisions from a conservative Republican's
perspective, getting in and being able to produce and drill in some of
the public lands, let some of our public lands rejoice in this
revolution that we are having out there with shale. The ranchers in
Oklahoma tell me the grazing rights issues that are in these land
packages are good. I hear some people saying, well, there is something
to do with a women's committee starting or something like that.

Let's keep in mind, I say to my fellow conservatives, that if Marsha
Blackburn's bill that became a part of this bill--now, it shouldn't
have happened, but nonetheless it did. It is so overriding we pass a
bill and not allow something like that to actually kill the bill.
I would say we are still a nation at war right now. We will be back
to discuss this further, and I do want to have an opportunity to
respond to some of the critics of this bill. Keep in mind. This is the
last opportunity we have before December 31--before January when we
come back in--and on December 31 it would be a crisis. I say to my good
friends on the left and on the right, we have to have the bill. This is
the last bill we can pass.
I would like to recognize Senator Ayotte, the very courageous Senator
who has been a major part of the provisions to this bill, and I will go
so far as to say as the most active member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I want to thank the senior Senator from
Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, for his leadership, along with Senator Levin,
working hand in hand to get the Defense authorization done this year.
This is so important. I know all of us would like to have a process
where we can have an open amendment process here, but I know that
Senator Levin and Senator Inhofe worked very hard. We had this ready to
go a long time ago. I thank you for your work and your commitment on
this, and I thank you for the way you and Senator Levin have run this
committee in a respectful bipartisan manner.
As we look at the importance of the Defense authorization, making
sure that we get this done before we go home, we have to understand
with the threats we are facing around the world right now, now would
not be the time for the first time in over 50-plus years not to pass
the Defense authorization, given what it means to support for our men
and women in uniform, their readiness, their equipment, the training,
the support for their families, military construction, investment in
technology that they need to keep us safe.
So I want to thank Senator Inhofe for his work on this. I also want
to take the opportunity to thank Senator Levin, who is retiring this
year, for being an incredible chairman of this committee. I have to say
this has been one of the best experiences I have had since I have
gotten to the Senate. I have been here for 4 years, and Senator Levin
has conducted this committee and treated everyone with respect. He has
gotten us all to work together, where almost every year we passed out
the Defense authorization almost unanimously--how often does that
happen--and most times unanimously in a divided Congress.
I wish Senator Levin the best, because he has been so knowledgeable
and so committed to ensuring that our Nation is safe and committed to
our men and women in uniform.
On a personal note, he has been so respectful to me and someone who I
think has run the committee so very well and has served our country
with such dignity and such dedication. I wish he and his wife Barbara
the best in the future.
He is someone whom this body will miss. Certainly as the chairman of
the Armed Services Committee, he has treated everyone on both sides of
the aisle with incredible respect and given us opportunities to raise
issues that are important to us. I think he is a model of how we should
conduct ourselves. We can disagree with each other but still find ways
in common ground where we can work together to get things done for the
American people.
I come to the floor to discuss the Defense authorization and the
provisions in it that are so important to not only my home State of New
Hampshire but to the country and also to address some of the provisions
I want us to keep an eye on as we go forward. With skill and courage,
our men and women in uniform are doing their job. It is essential we do
our job as well. In a time of war, we cannot neglect our constitutional
duty to provide for the common defense.
As a member of the Armed Services Committee I have been privy to many
briefings, as the Presiding Officer has, as a member of the committee
about the threats facing our country and the needs of our men and women
in uniform, the concerns we have of ensuring our troops are ready and
that we are prepared to address potential threats to the country.
In this bill, my home State of New Hampshire, we are a State that is
very dedicated to serving, just as the Presiding Officer's State of
Virginia is very dedicated to serving. There are many provisions in
this bill that I have introduced and supported that I am proud of that
will make a difference to our national security and to our men and
women in uniform.
I would like to talk about some of those provisions. In terms of
supporting our troops and our families, it is very important that we
pass this bill every year because it authorizes expiring benefits for
our troops that if we don't reauthorize, they would expire, including
dozens of specific special incentive pays for our troops and their

[[Page S6718]]

families, particularly those who are serving us overseas and facing
great danger as we stand here today.
The Defense bill also authorizes more than one dozen provisions to
enhance protections for victims of sexual assault and extends to the
Secretary of the VA the authority to provide rehabilitation and
vocational benefits to servicemembers with severe illnesses and
injuries.
It also strengthens the Department of Defense's suicide prevention
efforts. Unfortunately, suicide is happening to too many of those who
have served our Nation and is an issue that we are so concerned about
on a bipartisan basis.
The bill also authorizes $6.3 billion for needed military
construction and family housing projects. Included among that
authorization are military construction projects at Pease Air National
Guard Base in New Hampshire to prepare for the arrival of the KC-46A,
not to mention a very important energy conservation project at the
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. The shipyard has continued to invest in
energy conservation and to save taxpayer dollars while doing so, and I
am pleased it is included in this bill.
The Defense bill also maintains critical close air support capability
in the Air Force, which our troops need, in that it ensures that the
Air Force cannot prematurely retire the A-10 aircraft in fiscal year
2015.
Having traveled to Afghanistan and hearing directly from the men on
the ground, I know how important it is they have the very best air
support to keep them safe.
The bill also authorizes continued funding for the Virginia Class 10-
boat multiyear procurement program, including two in fiscal year 2015,
which is very important because keeping the 10 boat multi-year
production and procurement program on track--and I know the President
shares this concern--will help achieve savings in excess of 15 percent,
compared to purchasing only one per year. It makes cost sense, and we
need to continue to invest in our attack submarine program.
With the help of the skilled workers at the Portsmouth Naval
Shipyard, these submarines will protect vital shipping lanes and U.S.
national security interests around the world for decades to come. With
the administration's discussion of a shift to the Asia-Pacific and the
importance of that area of the world to our economy and our interests,
our attack submarine fleet is so critical in meeting our needs around
the world.
These measures, which are included in this bill, will help ensure
that Portsmouth and Pease will remain valuable national security
assets. I am so proud of the members of our National Guard, everyone
who serves at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, and the incredible workers
there who do the maintenance of our attack submarine fleet.
The bill also includes provisions of ``never contracting with the
enemy'' legislation. This is legislation which I have previously
introduced which has allowed our military to ensure that dollars don't
flow to our enemies. So when we are contracting in places such as
Afghanistan, we have given them tools to cut off contracts sooner to
make sure the contracts aren't going to the wrong people.
This legislation will extend those authorities across the Federal
Government, to USAID, and to the State Department to ensure that our
taxpayer dollars don't go to people who are acting against our
interests. So I appreciate USAID and the State Department working with
me on this legislation, and I am very pleased it is included in these
provisions.
These are a few of the positive examples of the importance of this
Defense authorization bill. There are many other important provisions
in this bill. That is why it is important that we get this done today
or tomorrow.
There are two areas of issues that I want to address briefly which I
am a little concerned about on this bill. As a Member of the Senate
Armed Services Committee--and I am also married to a veteran--I plan to
vote for this bill because of the positive components. But one of the
areas with which I am concerned is that we are again looking at
compensation and we are looking at housing allowances of our men and
women in uniform. It reminds me a little bit--it is not an exact
analogy--of when we had the budget agreement over 1 year ago. There was
an adjustment made to the cost-of-living increases. It was a cut,
really, in the military retirement of some of those who have served our
country.
I was someone who came to the floor to reverse this reduction to the
cost-of-living increases, which for some of our men and women in
uniform, who had served so admirably, would have cost them up to
$80,000 a year in their retirement. We are talking about enlisted
people who worked so hard, and it would make such a big difference for
them.
One of the reasons I came in that regard to fight against what was
included in the budget agreement was because there seemed to be a
disconnect.
That budget agreement made changes to civilian retirement but only
prospectively to those who were just joining the retirement program.
When it came to making the cuts to the military retirement and to their
cost of living, it was affecting current recipients. So there seemed to
be a disconnect. How could we ask those who have given the most--have
sacrificed so much to defend us--to make a sacrifice when we were
treating other civilian employees differently. I am pleased Congress
reversed that.
What came out of that is that we need to have a greater understanding
of the unique sacrifices our men and women in uniform make. The
sacrifices they make are different than that of other workers--the
traveling they do, the danger they face. Often their spouses can't have
second careers because they are constantly moving.
Since 2000, collectively as a Congress, we worked hard to correct the
pay-and-benefit structure for those who wear the uniform to close what
was a 13.5-percent gap between the private sector and what our men and
women in uniform were getting. We eliminated out-of-pocket housing
expenses--that used to be 20 percent--and expanded health care for
retired military personnel over the age of 65.
But as I look at the provisions of this bill, I don't want us to
erode the work we have done to recognize our men and women in uniform
and the positions and the danger they face. In this bill, generally,
the dollar amounts associated with the provisions about which I am
concerned are much smaller than those involved with the COLA debate
earlier this year. Again, we are back looking toward our men and women
in uniform in several areas.
These problematic provisions relate to the compensation and health
benefits for our servicemembers and their families. More specifically,
they relate to the basic allowance for housing or BAH, TRICARE pharmacy
copays, and basic pay for our servicemembers.
BAH is currently designed to cover 100 percent of servicemembers'
monthly housing costs. The BAH provision in this NDAA will allow the
Secretary of Defense to reduce BAH payments so they only cover 99
percent of a servicemember's monthly housing costs.
Obviously, that is a small reduction. But it is the significance of
the reduction I am concerned about. We can't keep going down this road,
where we are trying to choose between military readiness and making
sure our men and women in uniform have the compensation they need in
terms of compensation and support for their families. That is why I am
concerned about this provision.
In terms of pharmacy copays, while the Pentagon's budget request is
important to understand, they requested a much greater increase in
future years in copays than this body would accept--than the Armed
Services committees would accept. The negotiated NDAA would still
permit a $3 pharmacy copay increase for non-Active-Duty TRICARE
beneficiaries who fill prescriptions outside of military treatment
facilities.
Congress has worked hard to close the military-civilian pay gap, but
this year's NDAA is once again only set to give our military a 1-
percent pay raise for the second straight year.
I believe our military servicemembers deserve a higher pay raise. I
will continue to push for that in the future, and I hope it is
something we can work together on because we have to keep up with
inflation for our men and women in uniform. It is very important.
One of the reasons it is important is that they are our greatest
treasure. The reason we have such a wonderful

[[Page S6719]]

military--we can have the very best equipment, we can have the greatest
technology--but the reason we have the best military in the world is
because of our great men and women in uniform.
We can never lose sight of that. We can never lose sight of the
importance of our all-volunteer force. As we look at where we are with
defense spending, one thing that very much concerns me is the incoming
impact of sequester again in 2016 and 2017. It is my hope this body
will understand and work together in addressing sequester for our
defense because I see us continuing to be in a situation where our
military leaders come to us and ask us to take from the men and women
in a way that is unacceptable because they are worried about sequester,
they are worried about the readiness of our troops, and they are
concerned they won't be able to provide the training and equipment our
troops need to meet and face the threats around the world and to ensure
that our men and women in uniform never become part of a hollow force.
The Presiding Officer serves on the Armed Services Committee with me.
It is my hope as we look at this NDAA that we don't set a precedent
where we are continuing to take from our military, that we continue to
look to how we can work together to address sequester in the coming
years, because there is a big disconnect of where we are now. If we
impose the sequester in 2016 and 2017 with the threats we face around
the world, with what our men and women need to address those threats to
keep this country safe, what they deserve in terms of our support,
given what we are asking them to do--they are the very best, and they
go out and do it on our behalf every single day. It is my hope we can
work together.
I have addressed these issues in my additional views to the 2015
Defense authorization, and it is my hope we will recognize the treasure
that is our men and women in uniform going forward, that we will cut
through the partisan politics, that we will address sequester, and that
our men and women in uniform will know that we will continue to stand
by them.
This Defense authorization is important, but it also prefaces the
challenges we face coming forward in 2016 and 2017, which I believe we
will not be able to fully meet unless we come together and address
sequester.
We do need to get the Defense authorization done today. There are
provisions that are very important for our national security. The
issues I have addressed as concerns today I hope we aren't addressing
them again next year. I hope we can correct them and make sure that we
are giving the men and women in uniform a pay raise that is better than
this year. I hope that together we can continue to work on a bipartisan
basis in the Armed Services Committee, as Chairman Levin has
championed, as Senator Inhofe, as the ranking member has done as well,
and I look forward to doing that in the future.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

Omnibus Spending Bill

Mr. SANDERS. Later today or tomorrow, we are going to be dealing with
the $1 trillion omnibus bill, and I will explain why I will be firmly
voting against that bill.
But before I do, I think it is important to put the budget in the
broader context of what is happening in America. We can't look at a
budget in the abstract; we have to see it in the context. The context
is that right now most Americans understand the middle class of this
country is disappearing.
Median family income has gone down by $5,000 since 1999. Today the
median male worker is making $700 less in inflation-adjusted dollars
than he made 41 years ago. The median female worker is making $1,300
less than she made 7 years ago. Meanwhile, while the middle class
disappears and we have more people living in poverty than at almost any
time in modern American history, the gap between the very rich and
everybody else is growing wider. We have massive wealth inequality in
America. One family, the Walton family, owns more wealth than the
bottom 40 percent of the American people. The top one-tenth of 1
percent owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent of the American
people. Today, unbelievably, 95 percent of all new income is going to
the top 1 percent and corporate profits are at an all-time high. That
is the overall reality of what is going on with the American economy
today. And in the midst of that, we have the budget. So let's talk a
little about this $1 trillion budget and how it addresses or doesn't
address the problems facing our country.

Are there good things in this budget? The answer is: Absolutely. I am
chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, and I want to thank
Chairman Mikulski and others for making sure that our VA gets the kind
of budget they need. Included in that budget, by the way, is also a
provision called advanced appropriations for the VA, which will mean
that in the event of a government shutdown, veterans will still be able
to get the disability benefits they desperately need. And there are
other provisions in there that are very good.
But overall, if you look at the budget in the context of contemporary
American society, this is simply not a good budget. Let me pick up
three points where I have strong disagreements.
I think the vast majority of the American people understand that we
have huge unmet needs in this country. I expect in the Chair's State of
Virginia, in Vermont, and all over this country we all know our
infrastructure is crumbling--our roads, bridges, water systems,
wastewater plants. Our rail system is falling behind Europe, Japan,
China. We have enormous work to be done. The American Society of Civil
Engineers tells us we have to invest $3 trillion into rebuilding our
infrastructure.
In terms of college, we know there are hundreds of thousands of
bright young people who can't afford to go to college. Others are
graduating school saddled forever with these terrible debts from
college or graduate school.
This budget doesn't address those problems. It doesn't address the
crisis of childcare, and the fact that in Vermont and around the
country it is very hard for working-class families to get quality,
affordable childcare.
But what this budget does do--people don't know it--roughly 60
percent of the budget goes to defense spending. It goes to defense
spending. Sixty percent of the discretionary budget goes not to our
kids, not to our elderly, not to students, not to working people, not
to the infrastructure, not to all of the huge unmet needs we face as a
country, but it goes to the military.
Does anyone here deny we need a strong military, a strong National
Guard? I don't. We do. But sometimes, in tough times, you have to make
tough decisions. And I think spending $554 billion on the military is
too much.
I would point out, Mr. President, what I am sure you know; that it is
clear--it has been admitted--that the military can't even audit itself.
We don't even know effectively and appropriately how the military is
spending its money. They do not even have the computer technology to
tell us where they are spending.
What we also know is that cost overruns in the military are
extraordinary. Time after time after time an agreement is reached about
how much a weapons system will cost, and it turns out the contractor
was just joking because there is a huge overrun. And then we have
fraud. Fraud. Virtually every major military contractor has been
involved in fraud resulting in either convictions or settlements with
the government.
So we have folks here who last year were talking about cuts in
nutrition programs, education, health care--you name it, programs that
are life and death for working families--yet when it comes to the
military, we can spend $554 billion. I think that is too much.
Second of all, when you look at the global economy and you look at
our international partners, I find it interesting that every other
major country on Earth provides health care for all of their people as
a right except the United States; yet in terms of their defense
spending, they are spending a heck of a lot less than we are. We are
spending now almost--almost--as much as the entire rest of the world
combined.
So I object in this bill to the significant amount of money being
spent on the military, and I would have hoped

[[Page S6720]]

there would be more opposition to this large military expenditure.
The second point I want to make, and it has not gotten a whole lot of
attention, is the impact this legislation will have on working people
in terms of cuts in pensions. There are provisions in this bill,
written in secret, which allow significant cuts in benefits for
retirees who are members of multiemployer pension plans.
Let me quote from a recent Washington Post article regarding the
change in this bill:

The change would alter 40 years of federal law and could
affect millions of workers, many of them part of a shrinking
corps of middle-income employees in businesses such as
trucking, construction and supermarkets.

Reuters mentions this:

The centerpiece is a provision that would open the door to
cutting current beneficiaries' benefits, a retirement policy
taboo and a potential disaster for retirees on fixed incomes.

What does that mean? When you go to work for a company, you get
wages, you get benefits, but you also, in some cases, get a promise in
terms of a pension--what you will get when you retire after 20 years,
30 years, 40 years of work. What this bill does is allow companies to
renege on that promise. It is my understanding that, in some cases, the
cuts in pensions could be draconian. I am talking about a 50-percent
cut.
Imagine somebody who has worked his or her entire life, expects to
retire with a certain level of income, and suddenly, after 20, 30, 40
years of work, wakes up in the morning and finds out that promise has
been cut in half. Wow. That is awful. That is totally awful.
I remember back, as the American people do, that Wall Street--the
CEOs of Wall Street--engaged in illegal and reckless behavior, which
drove this economy into the worst recession in modern history,
impacting millions and millions of people's lives. And what happened to
Wall Street? Well, Congress bailed them out. Congress bailed out the
folks on Wall Street whose criminal action caused the recession. Yet
now we have working people who have done nothing wrong except work
their entire lives--10, 20, 30 years--and through no fault of their
own, they are not getting bailed out. They are going to see a 50-
percent reduction in their pensions.
That is unacceptable and that opens--it just opens up a future in
terms of pensions which I think is very frightening for the American
people. So I can't support that provision as well.
The last point I want to make is getting back to Wall Street. In my
very strong opinion, we have reached the stage with Wall Street where
the major financial institutions are just too big, they are just too
powerful. Anyone who thinks that Congress regulates Wall Street has got
it backwards. The reality is that Wall Street, with their incredible
wealth and lobbying capabilities and campaign contributions, regulates
the United States Congress. You cannot see a better example of that
than what is in this legislation.
This is the headline from a recent article in the New York Times:
``Banks' Lobbyists Help in Drafting Financial Bills.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
this article.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the New York Times, May 23, 2013]

Bank's Lobbyists Help in Drafting Financial Bills

(By Eric Lipton and Ben Protess)

Washington.--Bank lobbyists are not leaving it to lawmakers
to draft legislation that softens financial regulations.
Instead, the lobbyists are helping to write it themselves.
One bill that sailed through the House Financial Services
Committee this month--over the objections of the Treasury
Department--was essentially Citigroup's, according to e-mails
reviewed by The New York Times. The bill would exempt broad
swathes of trades from new regulation.
In a sign of Wall Street's resurgent influence in
Washington, Citigroup's recommendations were reflected in
more than 70 lines of the House committee's 85-line bill. Two
crucial paragraphs, prepared by Citigroup in conjunction with
other Wall Street banks, were copied nearly word for word.
(Lawmakers changed two words to make them plural.)
The lobbying campaign shows how, three years after Congress
passed the most comprehensive overhaul of regulation since
the Depression, Wall Street is finding Washington a
friendlier place.
The cordial relations now include a growing number of
Democrats in both the House and the Senate, whose support the
banks need if they want to roll back parts of the 2010
financial overhaul, known as Dodd-Frank.
This legislative push is a second front, with Wall Street's
other battle being waged against regulators who are drafting
detailed rules allowing them to enforce the law.
And as its lobbying campaign steps up, the financial
industry has doubled its already considerable giving to
political causes. The lawmakers who this month supported the
bills championed by Wall Street received twice as much in
contributions from financial institutions compared with those
who opposed them, according to an analysis of campaign
finance records performed by MapLight, a nonprofit group.
In recent weeks, Wall Street groups also held fund-raisers
for lawmakers who co-sponsored the bills. At one dinner
Wednesday night, corporate executives and lobbyists paid up
to $2,500 to dine in a private room of a Greek restaurant
just blocks from the Capitol with Representative Sean Patrick
Maloney, Democrat of New York, a co-sponsor of the bill
championed by Citigroup.
Industry officials acknowledged that they played a role in
drafting the legislation, but argued that the practice was
common in Washington. Some of the changes, they say, have
gained wide support, including from Ben S. Bernanke, the
Federal Reserve chairman. The changes, they added, were in an
effort to reach a compromise over the bills, not to undermine
Dodd-Frank.
``We will provide input if we see a bill and it is
something we have interest in,'' said Kenneth E. Bentsen Jr.,
a former lawmaker turned Wall Street lobbyist, who now serves
as president of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association, or Sifma.
The close ties hardly surprise Wall Street critics, who
have long warned that the banks--whose small armies of
lobbyists include dozens of former Capitol Hill aides--
possess outsize influence in Washington.
``The huge machinery of Wall Street information and
analysis skews the thinking of Congress,'' said Jeff
Connaughton, who has been both a lobbyist and Congressional
staff member.
Lawmakers who supported the industry-backed bills said they
did so because the effort was in the public interest. Yet
some agreed that the relationship with corporate groups was
at times uncomfortable.
``I won't dispute for one second the problems of a system
that demands immense amount of fund-raisers by its
legislators,'' said Representative Jim Himes, a third-term
Democrat of Connecticut, who supported the recent industry-
backed bills and leads the party's fund-raising effort in the
House. A member of the Financial Services Committee and a
former banker at Goldman Sachs, he is one of the top
recipients of Wall Street donations. ``It's appalling, it's
disgusting, it's wasteful and it opens the possibility of
conflicts of interest and corruption. It's unfortunately the
world we live in.''
The passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, which took aim at
culprits of the financial crisis like lax mortgage lending
and the $700 trillion derivatives market, ushered in a new
phase of Wall Street lobbying. Over the last three years,
bank lobbyists have blitzed the regulatory agencies writing
rules under Dodd-Frank, chipping away at some regulations.
But the industry lobbyists also realized that Congress can
play a critical role in the campaign to mute Dodd-Frank.
The House Financial Services Committee has been a natural
target. Not only is it controlled by Republicans, who had
opposed Dodd-Frank, but freshmen lawmakers are often
appointed to the unusually large committee because it is seen
as a helpful base from which they can raise campaign funds.
For Wall Street, the committee is a place to push back
against Dodd-Frank. When banks and other corporations, for
example, feared that regulators would demand new scrutiny of
derivatives trades, they appealed to the committee. At the
time, regulators were completing Dodd-Frank's overhaul of
derivatives, contracts that allow companies to either
speculate in the markets or protect against risk. Derivatives
had pushed the insurance giant American International Group
to the brink of collapse in 2008. The question was whether
regulators would exempt certain in-house derivatives trades
between affiliates of big banks.
As the House committee was drafting a bill that would force
regulators to exempt many such trades, corporate lawyers like
Michael Bopp weighed in with their suggested changes,
according to e-mails reviewed by The Times. At one point,
when a House aide sent a potential compromise to Mr. Bopp, he
replied with additional tweaks.
In an interview, Mr. Bopp explained that he drafted the
proposal at the request of Congressional aides, who expressed
broad support for the change. The proposal, he explained, was
a ``compromise'' that was actually designed to ``limit the
scope'' of the exemption.
``Everyone on the Hill wanted this bill, but they wanted to
make sure it wasn't subject to abuse,'' said Mr. Bopp, a
partner at the law firm Gibson, Dunn who was representing a
coalition of nonfinancial corporations that use derivatives
to hedge their risk.
Ultimately, the committee inserted every word of Mr. Bopp's
suggestion into a 2012

[[Page S6721]]

version of the bill that passed the House, save for a slight
change in phrasing. A later iteration of the bill, passed by
the House committee earlier this month, also included some of
the same wording.
And when federal regulators in April released a rule
governing such trades, it was significantly less demanding
than the industry had feared, a decision that the industry
partly attributed to pressure stemming from Capitol Hill.
Citigroup and other major banks used a similar approach on
another derivatives bill. Under Dodd-Frank, banks must push
some derivatives trading into separate units that are not
backed by the government's insurance fund. The goal was to
isolate this risky trading.
The provision exempted many derivatives from the
requirement, but some Republicans proposed striking the so-
called push out provision altogether. After objections were
raised about the Republican plan, Citigroup lobbyists sent
around the bank's own compromise proposal that simply
exempted a wider array of derivatives. That recommendation,
put forth in late 2011, was largely part of the bill approved
by the House committee on May 7 and is now pending before
both the Senate and the House.
Citigroup executives said the change they advocated was
good for the financial system, not just the bank.
``This view is shared not just by the industry but from
leaders such as Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke,'' said
Molly Millerwise Meiners, a Citigroup spokeswoman.
Industry executives said that the changes--which were
drafted in consultation with other major industry banks--will
make the financial system more secure, as the derivatives
trading that takes place inside the bank is subject to much
greater scrutiny.
Representative Maxine Waters, the ranking Democrat on the
Financial Services Committee, was among the few Democrats
opposing the change, echoing the concerns of consumer groups.
``The bill restores the public subsidy to exotic Wall
Street activities,'' said Marcus Stanley, the policy director
of Americans for Financial Reform, a nonprofit group.
But most of the Democrats on the committee, along with 31
Republicans, came to the industry's defense, including the
seven freshmen Democrats--most of whom have started to
receive donations this year from political action committees
of Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo and other financial
institutions, records show.
Six days after the vote, several freshmen Democrats were in
New York to meet with bank executives, a tour organized by
Representative Joe Crowley, who helps lead the House
Democrats' fund-raising committee. The trip was planned
before the votes, and was not a fund-raiser, but it gave the
lawmakers a chance to meet with Wall Street's elite.
In addition to a tour of Goldman's Lower Manhattan
headquarters, and a meeting with Lloyd C. Blankfein, the
bank's chief executive, the lawmakers went to JPMorgan's Park
Avenue office. There, they chatted with Jamie Dimon, the
bank's chief, about Dodd-Frank and immigration reform.
The bank chief also delivered something of a pep talk.
America has the widest, deepest and most transparent
capital markets in the world,'' he said. ``Washington has
been dealt a good hand.''

Mr. SANDERS. And let me quote from that article:

In a sign of Wall Street's resurgent influence in
Washington, Citigroup's recommendations were reflected in
more than 70 lines of the House committee's 85-line bill. Two
crucial paragraphs, prepared by Citigroup in conjunction with
other Wall Street banks, were copied nearly word for word.

In other words, it is not even Members of Congress writing these
bills, it is Wall Street writing the bills and getting them into this
legislation.
Now what does this legislation do? Well, we suffered the worst
economic crisis since the 1930s because of the greed, recklessness, and
illegal behavior on Wall Street. What Wall Street did is engage in
absolutely reckless speculation, and then the chickens came home to
roost. People could not pay back the debts they incurred on subprime
mortgages, and the entire financial system of the United States of
America and the world was on the verge of collapse. So Congress, a few
years ago, passed Dodd-Frank. It didn't go anywhere near as far as I
would go. I believe we should break up these major financial
institutions. I don't believe you can control them. I don't believe you
can regulate them. They regulate the Congress. But Dodd-Frank took some
steps toward that, and there was one provision I will quote--section
716.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
this section I am going to quote from.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

SEC. 716. PROHIBITION AGAINST FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BAILOUTS OF
SWAPS ENTITIES.

(a) Prohibition on Federal Assistance.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law (including regulations), no Federal
assistance may be provided to any swaps entity with respect
to any swap, security-based swap, or other activity of the
swaps entity.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Federal assistance.--The term ``Federal assistance''
means the use of any advances from any Federal Reserve credit
facility or discount window that is not part of a program or
facility with broad-based eligibility under section 13(3)(A)
of the Federal Reserve Act, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation insurance or guarantees for the purpose of--
(A) making any loan to, or purchasing any stock, equity
interest, or debt obligation of, any swaps entity;
(B) purchasing the assets of any swaps entity;
(C) guaranteeing any loan or debt issuance of any swaps
entity; or
(D) entering into any assistance arrangement (including tax
breaks), loss sharing, or profit sharing with any swaps
entity.
(2) Swaps entity.--
(A) In general.--The term ``swaps entity'' means any swap
dealer, security-based swap dealer, major swap participant,
major security-based swap participant, that is registered
under--
(i) the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.); or
(ii) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et
seq.).
(B) Exclusion.--The term ``swaps entity'' does not include
any major swap participant or major security-based swap
participant that is an insured depository institution.
(c) Affiliates of Insured Depository Institutions.--The
prohibition on Federal assistance contained in subsection (a)
does not apply to and shall not prevent an insured depository
institution from having or establishing an affiliate which is
a swaps entity, as long as such insured depository
institution is part of a bank holding company, or savings and
loan holding company, that is supervised by the Federal
Reserve and such swaps entity affiliate complies with
sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and such
other requirements as the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission or the Securities Exchange Commission, as
appropriate, and the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, may determine to be necessary and
appropriate.
(d) Only Bona Fide Hedging and Traditional Bank Activities
Permitted.--The prohibition in subsection (a) shall apply to
any insured depository institution unless the insured
depository institution limits its swap or security-based swap
activities to:
(1) Hedging and other similar risk mitigating activities
directly related to the insured depository institution's
activities.
(2) Acting as a swaps entity for swaps or security-based
swaps involving rates or reference assets that are
permissible for investment by a national bank under the
paragraph designated as ``Seventh.'' of section 5136 of the
Revised Statutes of the United States ( 12 U.S.C. 24), other
than as described in paragraph (3).
(3) Limitation on credit default swaps.--Acting as a swaps
entity for credit default swaps, including swaps or security-
based swaps referencing the credit risk of asset-backed
securities as defined in section 3(a)(77) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(77)) (as amended by
this Act) shall not be considered a bank permissible activity
for purposes of subsection (d)(2) unless such swaps or
security-based swaps are cleared by a derivatives clearing
organization (as such term is defined in section la of the
Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. la)) or a clearing agency
(as such term is defined in section 3 of the Securities
Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c)) that is registered, or exempt
from registration, as a derivatives clearing organization
under the Commodity Exchange Act or as a clearing agency
under the Securities Exchange Act, respectively.
(e) Existing Swaps and Security-based Swaps.--The
prohibition in subsection (a) shall only apply to swaps or
security-based swaps entered into by an insured depository
institution after the end of the transition period described
in subsection (f).
(f) Transition Period.--To the extent an insured depository
institution qualifies as a ``swaps entity'' and would be
subject to the Federal assistance prohibition in subsection
(a), the appropriate Federal banking agency, after consulting
with and considering the views of the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission or the Securities Exchange Commission, as
appropriate, shall permit the insured depository institution
up to 24 months to divest the swaps entity or cease the
activities that require registration as a swaps entity. In
establishing the appropriate transition period to effect such
divestiture or cessation of activities, which may include
making the swaps entity an affiliate of the insured
depository institution, the appropriate Federal banking
agency shall take into account and make written findings
regarding the potential impact of such divestiture or
cessation of activities on the insured depository
institution's (1) mortgage lending, (2) small business
lending, (3) job creation, and (4) capital formation versus
the potential negative impact on insured depositors and the
Deposit Insurance Fund of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation. The

[[Page S6722]]

appropriate Federal banking agency may consider such other
factors as may be appropriate. The appropriate Federal
banking agency may place such conditions on the insured
depository institution's divestiture or ceasing of activities
of the swaps entity as it deems necessary and appropriate.
The transition period under this subsection may be extended
by the appropriate Federal banking agency, after consultation
with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the
Securities and Exchange Commission, for a period of up to 1
additional year.
(g) Excluded Entities.--For purposes of this section, the
term ``swaps entity'' shall not include any insured
depository institution under the Federal Deposit Insurance
Act or a covered financial company under title II which is in
a conservatorship, receivership, or a bridge bank operated by
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
(h) Effective Date.--The prohibition in subsection (a)
shall be effective 2 years following the date on which this
Act is effective.
(i) Liquidation Required.--
(1) In general.--
(A) FDIC insured institutions.--All swaps entities that are
FDIC insured institutions that are put into receivership or
declared insolvent as a result of swap or security-based swap
activity of the swaps entities shall be subject to the
termination or transfer of that swap or security-based swap
activity in accordance with applicable law prescribing the
treatment of those contracts. No taxpayer funds shall be used
to prevent the receivership of any swap entity resulting from
swap or security-based swap activity of the swaps entity.
(B) Institutions that pose a systemic risk and are subject
to heightened prudential supervision as regulated under
section 113.--All swaps entities that are institutions that
pose a systemic risk and are subject to heightened prudential
supervision as regulated under section 113, that are put into
receivership or declared insolvent as a result of swap or
security-based swap activity of the swaps entities shall be
subject to the termination or transfer of that swap or
security-based swap activity in accordance with applicable
law prescribing the treatment of those contracts. No taxpayer
funds shall be used to prevent the receivership of any swap
entity resulting from swap or security-based swap activity of
the swaps entity.
(C) Non-FDIC insured, non-systemically significant
institutions not subject to heightened prudential supervision
as regulated under section 113.--No taxpayer resources shall
be used for the orderly liquidation of any swaps entities
that are non-FDIC insured, non-systemically significant
institutions not subject to heightened prudential supervision
as regulated under section 113.
(2) Recovery of funds.--All funds expended on the
termination or transfer of the swap or security-based swap
activity of the swaps entity shall be recovered in accordance
with applicable law from the disposition of assets of such
swap entity or through assessments, including on the
financial sector as provided under applicable law.
(3) No losses to taxpayers.--Taxpayers shall bear no losses
from the exercise of any authority under this title.
(j) Prohibition on Unregulated Combination of Swaps
Entities and Banking.--At no time following adoption of the
rules in subsection (k) may a bank or bank holding company be
permitted to be or become a swap entity unless it conducts
its swap or security-based swap activity in compliance with
such minimum standards set by its prudential regulator as are
reasonably calculated to permit the swaps entity to conduct
its swap or security-based swap activities in a safe and
sound manner and mitigate systemic risk.
(k) Rules.--In prescribing rules, the prudential regulator
for a swaps entity shall consider the following factors:
(1) The expertise and managerial strength of the swaps
entity, including systems for effective oversight.
(2) The financial strength of the swaps entity.
(3) Systems for identifying, measuring and controlling
risks arising from the swaps entity's operations.
(4) Systems for identifying, measuring and controlling the
swaps entity's participation in existing markets.
(5) Systems for controlling the swaps entity's
participation or entry into in new markets and products.
(l) Authority of the Financial Stability Oversight
Council.--The Financial Stability Oversight Council may
determine that, when other provisions established by this Act
are insufficient to effectively mitigate systemic risk and
protect taxpayers, that swaps entities may no longer access
Federal assistance with respect to any swap, security-based
swap, or other activity of the swaps entity. Any such
determination by the Financial Stability Oversight Council of
a prohibition of federal assistance shall be made on an
institution-by-institution basis, and shall require the vote
of not fewer than two-thirds of the members of the Financial
Stability Oversight Council, which must include the vote by
the Chairman of the Council, the Chairman of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Chairperson
of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Notice and
hearing requirements for such determinations shall be
consistent with the standards provided in title I.
(m) Ban on Proprietary Trading in Derivatives.--An insured
depository institution shall comply with the prohibition on
proprietary trading in derivatives as required by section 619
of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act.

SEC. 717. NEW PRODUCT APPROVAL CFTC--SEC PROCESS.

(a) Amendments to the Commodity Exchange Act.--Section
2(a)(1)(C) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C.
2(a)(1)(C)) is amended--
(1) in clause (i) by striking ``This'' and inserting ``(I)
Except as provided in subclause (II), this''; and
(2) by adding at the end of clause (i) the following:

``(II) This Act shall apply to and the Commission shall
have jurisdiction with respect to accounts, agreements, and
transactions involving, and may permit the listing for
trading pursuant to section 5c(c) of, a put, call, or other
option on 1 or more securities (as defined in section 2(a)(1)
of the Securities Act of 1933 or section 3(a)(10) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on the date of enactment of
the Futures Trading Act of 1982), including any group or
index of such securities, or any interest therein or based on
the value thereof, that is exempted by the Securities and
Exchange Commission pursuant to section 36(a)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with the condition that the
Commission exercise concurrent jurisdiction over such put,
call, or other option; provided, however, that nothing in
this paragraph shall be construed to affect the jurisdiction
and authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission over
such put, call, or other option.''.

(b) Amendments to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.--The
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is amended by adding the
following section after section 3A (15 U.S.C. 78c-1):

``SEC. 3B. SECURITIES-RELATED DERIVATIVES.

``(a) Any agreement, contract, or transaction (or class
thereof) that is exempted by the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission. . .
Mr. SANDERS. This is the title of the provision, 716, that this bill
repeals: ``Prohibition Against Federal Government Bailouts of Swaps
Entities.''
Now to quote from that section:

(A) Prohibition on Federal Assistance--notwithstanding any
other provision of law (including regulations), no Federal
assistance may be provided to any swaps entity with respect
to any swap, security-based swap, or other activity of the
swaps entity.

That is what is being repealed. So Wall Street, as a result of the
work of Citigroup and the other Wall Street companies, can now continue
to engage in reckless derivatives speculation. And when they make a
whole lot of money, they get richer. But when they lose money, because
of the repeal of this provision, it is the taxpayers of this country
who have to bail them out.
Does anybody--anybody--think that makes any sense at all? That is in
this bill.
So for those reasons and more, I would hope very much that the Senate
rejects this agreement and that we renegotiate. No one wants to see the
government shut down, but we must negotiate an agreement that is much
fairer to the American people and to the working families of our
country.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I inquire of the Senator from Wisconsin
how much time she is going to need to take.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Ms. BALDWIN. Senator, less than 10 minutes.
Mr. COBURN. I would prefer she go ahead and I will do all mine in
consequence, if I may.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his
courtesy, and I am delighted to rise today to mark the passage of the
Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act. This bill is a
product of bipartisan negotiations between the House and Senate Armed
Services Committees, and I thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member
Inhofe, Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Adam Smith in the House for
their hard work.
This critical bill establishes our national security policy and
supports our dedicated men and women in uniform and their families. I
am particularly pleased that the legislation supports Wisconsin
manufacturers and workers who build ships and engines and military
vehicles that help our Nation meet its national security needs.
On the eve of his retirement from the Senate, I want to offer a
special thank

[[Page S6723]]

you to Senator Carl Levin for his magnificent work as chairman of the
committee on this bill and for working with me to include a military
land transfer in Wisconsin at the site of the former Badger Army
Ammunition Plant. I have been working on this project since my election
to the House of Representatives 16 years ago, and I am extremely
grateful to Chairman Levin and his staff for helping me push this
legislation across the finish line.

The extraordinary piece of land I am talking about consists of some
7,500 acres. It is bordered by the rolling Baraboo Hills, which hosts
the largest flock of upland forest of oak and maple and basswood still
standing in southern Wisconsin. It is bounded also by Wisconsin's
beautiful Devils Lake State Park and a segment of the Ice Age Trail,
which is part of the National Trails System. To its east it is skirted
by the mighty Wisconsin River that flows toward the Mississippi.
For the better part of the past century, it has been the site of a
bustling manufacturing plant, once the largest munitions plant in the
world which produced munitions for American troops that they used from
World War II through Vietnam. We can see a historic aerial photograph
to my left of what that property looked like with the Baraboo Bluffs
and the Wisconsin River. Before that, the site was home to 90
landowners who farmed the land, and well before that, the land was
cherished ground for the Ho-Chunk Nation, whose people grew traditional
crops and gathered medicinal plants from the land. This land is revered
by the Ho-Chunk Nation and is connected to their ancestral history,
with oral history of the land dating back hundreds of years.
In 1997 discussions began on the future of this land after the Army
closed the plant, declaring it to be surplus to its needs, and began
the process of remediation of the contaminated soil at the site. Some
thought it should be sold for commercial development, but the local
community opposed that option, understanding that the land's unique
attributes needed to be preserved and wishing to see it restored to its
natural beauty.
I always felt that the community--and not bureaucrats in Washington--
should be empowered to make decisions about the future of this site. I
regarded this as a once-in-a-generation and maybe a once-in-a-lifetime
opportunity for this community. So as a freshman Member of Congress, I
secured a Federal grant to establish a community consensus process to
recommend a reuse plan. This process brought every stakeholder to the
table.
In 2001, after nearly 2 years of hard work, the Badger Reuse
Committee issued a report supported by all the participating parties--
including State and Federal and tribal entities--outlining agreement on
future uses. Some said that consensus would be nearly impossible, but
we proved that local stakeholders, working together, could achieve a
visionary future for this incredible property. What was that consensus?
The consensus was that the property should be comanaged in perpetuity
as one property for agricultural, recreational, educational, and
conservation purposes.
The photo to my left shows a stark contrast to the photo you just saw
of the Badger Army Ammunition Plant, as the property has been gradually
restored over time. Since that time, most of the parcels at this site
have been transferred--one parcel to the U.S. Department of Agriculture
for dairy forage research, another to the State of Wisconsin to provide
opportunities for low-impact recreation. But one major parcel essential
to the community's vision at this site has been caught in bureaucratic
disagreement for nearly a decade.
This legislation will finally allow that parcel to be transferred
from the Army to the Department of the Interior, which will hold the
land in trust for the Ho-Chunk Nation. This transfer has been stalled
by an interagency dispute over which Federal agency would have
responsibility for future environmental cleanup at the site. The
legislative intent of this provision follows the legislative intent of
our environmental superfund laws: The polluter must pay for
contamination they caused.
As to future uses, the Ho-Chunk Nation participated in the consensus
process that culminated in the Badger Reuse Plan, where they expressed
interest in holding the lands in trust in order to preserve native
prairie habitat and graze bison. Since that time, the Ho-Chunk Nation
has reaffirmed their interest in receiving this land for prairie
restoration--a reuse that reaffirms the vision of the Badger Reuse
Committee that all the new holders of these lands--the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, the State of Wisconsin, and the Ho-Chunk Nation--would
manage the property in coordination with one another, reflecting the
site as a whole.
In October of this year the tribe updated its land use plan for the
parcel in this transfer. I ask unanimous consent to have that document
and a technical description of this transfer printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From Ho-Chunk Nation, Oct. 2014]

Land Management Plan for Former Badger Army Ammunition Plant Parcels

1.0 Master Plan

1.1 Executive Summary

The Ho-Chunk Nation (HCN) has requested the transfer of an
estimated 1552.71 acres of the Badger Army Ammunition Plant
(BAAP) declared as surplus pursuant to 25 U.S.C.
Sec. 450j(f)(3). This transfer would be for the use and
benefit of the Ho-Chunk Nation and their people. The BAAP
land has very important historic and cultural significance to
the Ho-Chunk people, as it lies within their aboriginal
territory and includes a number of historic and pre-historic
sites of significance to the tribe.
The transfer of a portion of the BAAP land to the Nation
would allow for the restoration of the natural habitats
including prairie, wetlands and oak savanna. Habitat
restoration activities would complement the reintroduction of
a bison herd onto the BAAP property. The bison program will
be vital to combating diabetes and other health problems
which are common among the Ho-Chunk People. Lastly, the
transfer would allow for an increased level of protection and
preservation of the historical and cultural elements found on
the property.
The purpose of acquiring the BAAP parcel is, as reflected
in the mission statement of the United States Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs ``to enhance the
quality of life, to promote economic opportunity, and to
carry out the responsibility to protect and improve the trust
assets of American Indians, Indian Tribes and Alaska
Natives.'' In accord with those objectives and the Indian
Self-Determination Act, acquisition of this property for the
benefit of the Ho-Chunk Nation would provide, promote and
enhance the Ho-Chunk Nation programs for historic and
cultural resource protection, natural resource enhancement,
education, employment and economic development. The property
would be used to strengthen and expand these programs that
are supported, in significant part, by contracts between the
Nation and the Department pursuant to the Self-Determination
Act, and will primarily benefit the Nation's 7,415 enrolled
tribal members.

1.2 Introduction

The Badger Army Ammunition Plant occupies 7,354 acres in
the predominantly rural countryside of Sauk County,
Wisconsin. The Badger Plant was constructed in 1942 following
the United States entry into World War II. The Plant provided
ammunition propellant for the duration of the war effort, and
was again operative during the Korean and Vietnam Wars. In
late 1997 the U.S. Army determined that the BAAP facility was
no longer needed to meet the United States defense needs.
Subsequent efforts to define a future for the Badger
property have proved challenging due to the site's unusually
rich natural and cultural history, the wide range of
potential reuse options, and the complexity of local, state,
national, and tribal interests involved. The current scenario
would result in the Ho-Chunk Nation acquiring 1552.71 acres
with the remaining acreage being divided amongst several
landowners including the WI Dept. of Natural Resources, U.S.
Dept. of Agriculture-Dairy Forage Research Center, Bluffview
Sanitary District, WI Dept. of Transportation and the Town of
Sumpter.

1.3 Goals and Objectives

The resources of BAAP will be managed by the Ho-Chunk
Nation to promote, preserve, and enhance its unique natural,
scenic, and cultural features. Management activities are
intended to:
Protect the aesthetic, cultural, scenic, and wild qualities
as well as the native wildlife and plant communities. Special
emphasis will be placed on designated federal and state-
listed species, species of special concern, and other unique
biotic features.
Protect, conserve, and maintain all significant cultural
sites.
Provide for and manage the use and enjoyment by visitors
and maintain a diversity of low-impact recreational
opportunities for people of all abilities.
Utilize sound natural resource and agriculture management
practices to improve water quality, maintain soil
productivity, and protect wildlife habitat.
Develop a bison program to support HCN nutritional programs
and provide educational opportunities.
Strive to operate a self-supporting project through grants,
donations, bequests, and possibly fee-based recreation that
is consistent

[[Page S6724]]

with the overriding commitment to preserve Badger's natural,
historical and cultural features.
Ultimately establish and maintain a visitor's center that
includes information and exhibits on Badger's geologic and
natural uniqueness, bison management, cultural significance
and history of the ammunition plant. The center would also
provide information and exhibits on the history of Native
Americans and Euro-American habitation of the Sauk Prairie,
as well as an educational classroom.

2.0 Land Management Plan

2.1 Overall Ecosystem Management

Ecosystem is a term that has crept into the nation's
collective vocabulary and is commonly used in regard to
environmental issues; but what does it really mean, and how
is it relevant to the management of the Badger Army
Ammunition Plant? Ecosystem is derived from ecology, the
branch of biology that studies the relationships between
living organisms and their environment, and their dependency
upon each other for survival. When the organisms and the
environment interact, an ecosystem is formed. The
exploitation or neglect of any organism can upset the
delicate balance such that the system is forever changed.
An ecosystem not only encompasses water, land, air and
wildlife, it also includes people. Of all the organisms in an
ecosystem, Homo sapiens have the most impact and the greatest
influence in preventing the loss and exploitation of other
species. The demise of species and their habitat is all too
often the unfortunate consequence of humans trying to conquer
their environment for the sake of development and economic
gain. Natural and cultural resources, and the environmental
processes that affect them, are fundamentally influenced by
society and vice versa.
Understanding the complex interrelationships within an
ecosystem and a commitment to their maintenance are essential
in ensuring a vital ecosystem--a high quality of life,
healthy environment, and a productive, sustainable economy.
The National Park Service states that ``The long-term
sustainability of the environmental, societal, and economic
systems on which public lands and their surrounding human
communities depend, requires a collaborative approach that
integrates scientific knowledge and maintains flexibility in
order to make adjustments over time.'' (Sustainability can be
defined as a contract among the people, the land, and future
generations which maintains and renews resources for the
long-term.) Therefore, the knowledge and skills of natural
resource professionals will be used to preserve the Badger
Army Ammunition Plant as a distinct resource, rather than
relying on nostalgia and politics to make management-related
decisions.
The primary goals of ecosystem management are to conserve,
restore, and maintain the ecological integrity, productivity,
and biological diversity of natural landscapes. The
overriding objective is to ensure the ecological
sustainability of the land. The Ho-Chunk Nation will adapt an
ecosystem management approach that will encompass the natural
environment, society, and economy--the entire system. This
vision is based on the awareness that the resources protected
within Badger are not isolated from the surrounding
communities and environment but are inextricably linked to
them. Any upcoming strategies that the Ho-Chunk Nation
embarks upon to preserve and protect the property will work
towards providing a balance between human needs and long-term
environmental protection.
Ecosystem management will strive to restore and sustain the
health, productivity, and biological diversity of ecosystems
and the overall quality of life through a natural resource
management approach that is fully integrated with social and
economic goals. Although the ecosystem management approach is
more effective than species-by-species management, the needs
of certain key species must receive priority attention as
part of ecosystem management.
For every action there is an equal or greater reaction. The
activities of the visitors, though they may be low-impact,
will inevitably affect the ecosystems of Badger, adjacent
land, and local communities. It will be the Ho-Chunk Nation's
primary responsibility to balance the repercussions of all
activities with the health of the ecosystems while
contributing to the local economy. Education and information
are the keys to the preservation and protection of the Badger
property and its resources. In addition to providing
ecosystem management, the Ho-Chunk Nation will strive to
include education in all management activities. The more
visitors and the local community understand the dynamics of
the ecosystem of which they are a part, the greater their
respect will be for the many elements comprising the system.
Providing a deeper understanding of the web of life will be
beneficial to the visitors of today, as well as to the future
generations who will be the ultimate caretakers of the land.

2.2 Land Management

2.2.1 Mission

Land Management will ensure protection of the soils,
waters, flora, and fauna that comprise the Badger property
through sound management techniques and consideration of the
human influence.

2.2.2 Management Goals

Provide resource-based research opportunities for
educational purposes.
Explore both traditional and innovative land and water
management practices.
Improve and maintain wildlife habitat.
Preserve and protect biological diversity.
Restore and develop the native ecosystems.
Improve aesthetic views.
Improve and maintain the health of the natural ecosystems,
especially where recreation activities are likely to be most
intense.
Develop monitoring programs for wildlife, vegetation, and
water quality.
Control and eradicate invasive species, such as garlic
mustard, buckthorn, reed canary grass, olives and
honeysuckle.
Monitor management and visitor impacts on the natural
features of the Badger property and use gathered information
to modify management actions when necessary.
____

Statement for the Record

[Senator Tammy Baldwin, Dec. 11, 2014]

Technical description of Section 3078 of H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015

I am offering this statement to clarify the legislative
intent of Section 3078 of H.R. 3979 and to detail the
intended use of the land which will be transferred as a
result of Section 3078.
Earlier this year, when Congress first began its
consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for
FY 2015, I drafted this provision for inclusion as an
amendment to S. 2410, the Senate Armed Services Committee-
reported version of the bill. I then successfully worked with
numerous Congressional committees of jurisdiction to ensure
that my amendment--numbered 3393 and filed on June 26, 2014--
would be considered in scope for an eventual conference
committee between the Senate and House. That amendment text
served as the framework for the ultimate transfer language
included as Section 3078 in H.R. 3979, the final conference
committee reported defense bill.
Section 3078 of H.R. 3979 transfers approximately 1,553
acres of land located within the former Badger Army
Ammunition Plant to the Department of Interior in trust for
the Ho-Chunk Nation.
The transfer has been stalled by an interagency dispute
over the federal government's responsibility for
environmental cleanup at the site. The legislative intent of
this provision follows the legislative intent of our
environmental superfund laws--the polluter must pay for
contamination they caused. For many decades, the Department
of Defense operated the Badger Army Ammunition Plant on this
property. Among other things, this legislation makes clear
that the Army retains responsibility for environmental
contamination from Department of Defense conduct or
activities prior to transfer and is responsible for taking
any necessary remedial actions related to environmental
contamination in the future.
This responsibility for environmental remediation applies
to activities of the Department of Defense, which includes
activities conducted by contractors on behalf of the
Department of Defense. Most of the activities conducted on
the 1553 acres of land to be transferred to the Ho-Chunk
Nation were performed by independent contractors or other
contractors for the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, or
both. Section 3078(c)(2) of H.R. 3979 is intended to ensure
that the Secretary of the Army remains responsible for
remediating hazardous substances resulting from the
activities of the Department of Defense, and that the
``activities of the Department of Defense'' includes
activities undertaken by the officers and agents employed or
contracted by the Department of Defense; but nothing in this
section is intended to diminish or increase the liability of
any third party or otherwise affect the liability of any
third party as established under any other provision of law.
While this legislation transfers the land to Interior in
trust for the Nation, it also makes clear that Interior does
not take on liability or responsibility for certain conduct
or activities that took place on the land before the
transfer. The Department of Interior's Indian Affairs budget
should not, now or in the future, be tapped to remediate
environmental contamination on the property that was caused
by the Department of Defense. Those funds are intended for
the benefit of all federally recognized Indian tribes.
Therefore, this legislation seeks to clarify that the
Department of Defense, not the Department of Interior, is
responsible or liable for any environmental contamination
that occurred from the activities of the Department of
Defense prior to the transfer.
This legislation will quickly transfer the lands and allow
the Ho-Chunk Nation to quickly make use of them. This
acquisition will be expedited by a number of things,
including that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is not
required to conduct any additional processing before the land
is placed in trust. Instead, the acquisition of the land in
trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs is effectuated by this
legislation. The structures on the property will be
transferred to the Ho-Chunk Nation in fee as soon as the
Nation provides the Secretary of Interior with a tribal
resolution authorizing the transfer.
I would also like to explain the intended use of the land
following the transfer. In 1997, the Army declared they would
no longer use this site and stakeholders gathered together to
recommend future uses for the property. The Ho-Chunk Nation
was one of multiple stakeholders, including representatives
of local governments, the State, the

[[Page S6725]]

federal government, and citizen groups that participated in
this process. In 2001, these stakeholders issued their
recommendations in the Badger Reuse Plan, which set forth a
vision that the land would be co-managed by three main
property owners, and that those property owners would manage
them in coordination that reflects the site as a whole.
During the reuse process, the Ho-Chunk expressed interest in
holding lands at the site in trust in order to preserve
native prairie habitat and graze bison, and the Badger Reuse
Plan recommended they receive the land accordingly. Since
that time, the Ho-Chunk Nation has reaffirmed their interest
in receiving the land for prairie restoration. In October of
this year, the tribe updated its Land Use Plan for the parcel
in this transfer, further affirming their prairie restoration
goals for the site--goals that will be able to turn to
actions now that this long-stalled transfer is finally
resolved.

Ms. BALDWIN. These 1,553 acres represent the last major parcel at the
Badger Army Ammunition Plant site to leave Army management. The
resolution this transfer will bring is long overdue, and I am proud to
have played a role in defining the community's vision and bringing it
to a reality.
The action we take this week--hopefully later today--will benefit
many generations to come.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I first congratulate my colleague from
Wisconsin. There is a lot of controversy over lands packages, and her
very pleasant example is what isn't controversial.
The reason we have a discussion about what is going on is the very
mundane--the very things we can get done have never been brought
forward on the floor without being brought forward with a very
controversial land project. So I agree with her 100 percent that what
is happening for her and the people of Wisconsin and her tribal nation
is absolutely appropriate.
The question we ought to ask and the question that causes all the
trouble is, Why in the world does the Federal Government own 640
million acres of our land and have all sorts of rules--of our land--
that say we can't utilize it in a way that is best for our citizens,
best for our States, best for our region, best for the ecology, and
best for preservation of history? Until Congress solves that problem,
we are going to continue to have these battles.
What is disappointing to me is we spent 1\1/2\ years looking at the
National Park Service--which nobody in this body read. It is quality
scholarship. It is scholarship that the Park Service agrees with. It is
scholarship that the historians of the Park Service agree with. It is
scholarship that the people who write about the parks agree with.
So today we have before us a bill that has 68 separate land items in
it, of which 40 are totally noncontroversial, which could have been run
across the floor 2 years ago, I would tell my colleague from Wisconsin,
but they were chosen not to because the desire is to get recognition at
home and expand the National Park Service.
If we were to happen to just take the couple hours to read this, we
would see right now why expanding the National Park Service is a
disastrous idea. The reason it is a disastrous idea is our parks are
falling apart--a $12 billion backlog on our most pristine, greatest
national monuments and parks with which we have set the pace for the
rest of the world in terms of recognizing and valuing such wonderful
natural landscape and creation. But we have ignored that because the
desire to please a parochial benefit at the expense of harming these
most precious resources cannot be resisted by most of our colleagues.
So I find myself on the floor today. I know I won't win this battle,
but I won't quit fighting. We should fight for what we have already
invested in. We should preserve what we have already invested in. We
are falling behind $250 million a year.
It is ludicrous to say this bill doesn't cost anything. It costs $320
million a year, the ``no cost park program'' that we are putting out
and saying it doesn't cost anything.
I was born in Wyoming. I love Yellowstone. I love the Great Rocky
Mountains national forest. I love our wonderful programs. But the vast
majority of the parks we have created in the last 20 years are nothing
but drains on the National Park Service. We have the data--this has the
data to show that. We are going to do the largest expansion of national
parks since 1978 in this bill, and we don't have the money for it.
So what will happen as this goes through? And I say to my colleague
from Wisconsin, you are absolutely right--yours should fly through
here. It is not a significant cost. You are absolutely right. But
fixing the real problem is restoring the right to the States to the
lands that are there, taking it out of the hands of the Federal
Government, and letting the States make the decisions about what
happens to the land within their confines.
So it is disappointing to me that when great scholarship is done and
is recognized, parochialism trumps even the reading of the information
with which to make good decisions. And it is a blight on the Senate. We
don't have to agree with everything in this, but we can't deny the
facts that are totally documented in this. We can't deny the statements
of the National Park Service. We can't deny the people we are actually
charging to do this--we can't deny their concerns about what we are
getting ready to do.
Let me read for a moment what Harry Butowski, a historian who
recently retired from the National Park Service, said about this bill.
He summed up how Congress is out of touch with National Park Service
needs and priorities when he was expressing his opposition to the lands
package in the national defense authorization bill, of all places.
He said:

I think it is irresponsible for Congress to create so many
new parks, heritage areas and expansions of existing units
and not provide the funding and manpower necessary to manage
what we now have.
I think the National Park System should not be added to or
expanded until we can fund and staff all of our parks and
programs. To add more units at this time is just not
responsible. It is the opposite of good management.

Here is the historian for the Park Service telling us as Members of
the Senate: You are irresponsible in what you are doing.
I know we will blow that off. That doesn't mean anything. But this is
somebody who has had his eye on the Park Service for years.

. . . Perhaps what Congress should do is an analysis of the
entire National Park System and start getting rid of marginal
units that cost many dollars and have few visitors.

That is exactly what this report recommends. But nobody read it,
studied it, considered it, to try to solve the problem. And it doesn't
mean we cannot have new national parks--we can--but we ought to have a
plan to take care of the ones we have now before we add additional
national parks and put at risk the most fantastic National Park System
in the world.
Here is what the first National Park Director stated--the first one--
and we ought to pay attention to him.

The national park system as now constituted should not be
allowed to be lowered in standard, dignity, and prestige by
the inclusion of areas which express in less than the highest
terms the particular class or kind of exhibit which they
represent.

Let me tell you, this is exactly what he is talking about.
Hinchcliff Stadium in Patterson, NJ, is going to add $100,000 to the
Park System. Does it have historical significance? Yes. Should it be
part of the Park System? Absolutely not. Does it look good for those
who sponsored it back home? Yes. Get the attaboys back home. But what
damage do you do to Yellowstone, Yosemite, Rocky Mountain National
Park, Grand Mesa, Grand Canyon? What pain, what lack of maintenance,
comes across from that?
I have stated before, I have no problem with land swaps and
conveyances. I think we ought to make them easy, and the best way to
make them easy is to get the Federal Government out of them, and return
the land that is in Wisconsin that the Federal Government owns to the
people of Wisconsin. They will be the best stewards of that land. Same
thing in Oklahoma, in Colorado, in California, in Washington State, and
Arizona, and in Nevada, where it has the largest percentage ownership
by the Federal Government. We have to kowtow to a bunch of bureaucrats
in Washington for the people in the State of Nevada to do what is in
the best interests in the State of Nevada of the land that is there?
That makes no sense.
I have mentioned the bill is not deficit neutral--$310 million,
including

[[Page S6726]]

more than $200 million in cost to the National Park System, is going to
come through with this bill, and unless you assume that nothing is
going to happen that is authorized in this, there is no way you can
deny this doesn't cost another half a billion dollars a year. As a
matter of fact, I found it interesting listening to the chairwoman of
the energy committee this past week when she was excited about this
land package because we are clearing all the old land pieces of
legislation.
So we are taking care of the politicians, but are we taking care of
the parks? Are we doing what is in the best long-term interest of
preserving the pristine, unique aspects of our country as we add
ballfields or the old Colt manufacturing facility in Connecticut?
Really, a national park? Does it meet the requirements as set out in
parks? No, it doesn't come close to meeting requirements for a national
park, but it is in there, because it is going to look good to a
politician back home.
I kind of used the commonsense test. The country is broke. We had a
$460 billion deficit last year. We are going to add a half a billion
dollars on to a park system that has a $12 billion deficit in terms of
backlog of repairs of what we already have. Most people with any
semblance of common sense would say that is really stupid. It is really
destructive of the whole goal of the National Park System in the first
place.
The final point I would make is the NDAA. Even though it is a
necessary bill, I want it to pass, I want us to have what we need for
our military, this bill represents the worst of Washington; because
what we have added to a must-pass bill are measures that are very low
priority in terms of the long-term priorities of the country and fiscal
soundness of the country, but are really high priorities for the
politicians in this body. It is amazing how we can take something as
important as the Defense authorization bill--the measure that is going
to give our military leaders what they need to make the decisions to
defend this country in this very dangerous world today, and lard it up
with things that don't need to be happening right now--shouldn't be
happening right now, and can be happening in other ways.
The reason I will assuredly lose this vote is because it has already
been bought and paid for, because 35 States have something in title
XXX, and most politicians up here don't have the courage to vote
against their State interests when it harms the national interest. It
is just not there.
Alaska: Two provisions, $3 million; backlog on Alaska parks, $121
million. Arizona: Two provisions worth $2 million; backlog, $592
million in terms of their national parks. California: Four provisions
that reduce the deficit by $225,000, but a backlog of $1.6 billion at
Yosemite and other parks throughout California. Colorado: A provision
worth $500,000, backlog, a quarter of a billion dollars. Connecticut:
One provision, $9 million, backlog, $6.2 million. This is the
Coltsville National Historic Park.

But none of that--none of that--meets the requirements as set out by
the National Park Service of meeting the requirements for a park. So we
just violate the rules--to heck with the rules--because we are going to
do it.
Georgia: $400,000--they have a $100 million backlog. Idaho: $17
million backlog. Kentucky: $112 million backlog. Maryland: One
provision worth $12 million, and a $363 million backlog on our parks in
Maryland. Massachusetts: Quarter of a billion dollars in backlog.
Maine: $72 million in backlogs. Mississippi: A $26 million provision--a
quarter of a billion dollars in backlog in our battlefield parks in
Mississippi. Montana: Five provisions--great parks out there--$348.8
million in backlogs. But we are going to spend this money. North
Carolina: One little small provision--6 million bucks, but a backlog of
a half a billion dollars in our pristine parks.
I won't continue.
I understand the frustration of my colleagues in terms of trying to
get land conveyances. We can do them, but not if we always hijack them
with something that is of better parochial and political benefit for
the Member, and that is why they don't go through. The land conveyances
aren't hard to get through. We always add them with something that is
controversial that shouldn't be there, to the benefit of a politician.

Motion to Refer

Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). The clerk will report the motion.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] moves to refer the
House message to accompany H.R. 3979 to the Committee on
Armed Services with instructions to report back forthwith
with changes to strike title XXX, the nondefense related
lands portion of the bill.

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I will be asking for a vote on this
motion. I am sure it will be tabled, and I understand that, but I hope
the American public has gotten a flavor of what we are doing.
Here in the end of December, we are trying to get one of the most
important pieces of legislation out, which is the Defense authorization
bill. We are trying to get the appropriations bill through December 30
of next year, and what we do is put the politicians' interests first.
Maybe that is too harsh. Let me take that back. Maybe we put the Park
Service's best interests last, which is even worse.
I have asked direction from the Chair. I have three other areas that
I need to speak on today. I will hold those or follow the direction of
the Chair in terms of bringing forth both motions and discussions.
I would also ask unanimous consent to have an article by Kurt
Repanshek, dated December 9, 2014, entered into the Record, the
``Traveler's View.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the National Parks Traveler, Dec. 9, 2014]

Traveler's View: Senate Should Either Fund New Parks In Defense Bill,
or Strip Them Out

(By Kurt Repanshek)

There are at least 75 million reasons why the U.S. Senate
should either fully fund the national park projects contained
within the defense authorization bill, or strip them out.
For the National Park Service, already billions of dollars
in the red with its maintenance and operations budget, and
cutting staff in crucial areas such as cultural resources, to
be asked to add seven new national park units, adjust the
boundaries of nine units, and redesignate two of those units,
without any new funding, is incredibly poor legislating by
Congress and will not enhance, but rather degrade the overall
system.
This is not to judge the worthiness of the prospective
units as part of the National Park System, but rather to
point out the fiscal absurdity in play. Congressional Budget
Office figures show it would cost the Park Service at least
$75 million over a five-year period to get these units up and
running, and millions more to operate them on an annual
basis. At the same time, the Park Service's maintenance
backlog has crept up to $11.3 billion, and some of those
needs are critical.
According to the Park Service, 90 percent of the roads in
the system are considered to be in ``fair'' or ``poor''
condition; ``28 publicly accessible bridges within the parks'
transportation system are ``structurally deficient'' and in
need of rehabilitation or reconstruction;'' ``approximately
36 percent of all trails throughout the National Park Service
(6,700 miles out of a total of 18,600) are in a ``poor'' or
``seriously deficient'' condition'' and; ``since 2005, the
number of national parks in regional air quality non-
attainment areas has more than doubled; 128 parks now are in
non-attainment areas, where air pollution levels regularly
exceed the national ambient air quality standards.''
We like to view the national parks as ``America's best
idea,'' and members of Congress certainly like to point to a
unit in their home districts. But if we can't afford the 401-
unit park system we have today, how can we possibly justify
new units?
There's no urgent need to add the sites listed in the
defense bill at this time. The Blackstone River Valley has
been part of the park system as a heritage corridor since
1986; Valles Caldera National Preserve currently is under the
U.S. Forest Service; the Coltsville Historic District in
Connecticut is under the aegis of the Hartford Preservation
District; the proposed Lower East Side Tenement National
Historic Site is currently a museum; the Harriet Tubman
Underground Railroad National Historical Park actually exists
today as a national monument President Obama designated in
2013; the Atomic Heritage Foundation currently is preserving
sites that would fall into a Manhattan Project National
Historical Park, and; public and private efforts currently
are at work to protect the fossil-rich landscape of Tule
Springs near Las Vegas.
Congress would be much wiser, and the National Park Service
much better off, if it simply added $100 million to the
agency's budget in an effort to chip away at the maintenance
backlog. While $100 million would

[[Page S6727]]

barely dent that staggering sum, it'd be money better spent
at this time than forcing the Park Service to decide where to
further cut its existing budget to manage these additions.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. I thank Senator Reid for coming to the floor. Since we
last asked this unanimous consent on the Taxpayers Right to Know, I
have had a conversation with the administration and Shaun Donovan, the
head of OMB. When Shaun came to see me in our committee of jurisdiction
over his nomination, one of the things he assured me is that he would
try with all due haste to move forward on the things for transparency
for the Federal Government, one of President Obama's key projects. He
assured me he had the capability to lead that organization, even when
things are hard and difficult.
So I would like to describe for a minute what the Taxpayers Right to
Know is. President Obama, myself, John McCain, and Tom Carper passed a
bill when President Obama was in the Senate, which was the Federal
Transparency and Accountability Act. It made it so that Americans could
start seeing where their money was spent. We have since then passed the
DATA Act which would be an improvement on that, and the third and final
step in that is the Taxpayers Right to Know.
Now what does that mean? That means the taxpayer has the right to
know where their money is being spent. The taxpayer has the right to
know what programs are out there. The taxpayer has the right to know
what is working and what isn't.
So we hear from the administration in a long conversation that this
is too hard. You know, we didn't tell that to our troops in Afghanistan
or Iraq, that this is too hard. And their real complaint is under the
definition of a program. Well, most of us know what a program is. We
know it when we see it. But the fact is, we will never control spending
nor will we accentuate what is working well until the Taxpayers Right
to Know Act is implemented.
What I told the Director of OMB is there is one agency already
totally compliant with this. It is called the Department of
Education. If they can do it, why can't everybody else? They know what
the definition of a program is. They figured it out. I see this as an
excuse not to be transparent with the American public. This has 38
bipartisan cosponsors in the Senate, and it passed the House
unanimously. There is only one objection in the Senate, and that is
from the OMB. Everybody else recognizes this is commonsense, good-
government transparency.

I recognize the important role the majority leader has in terms of
representing the administration's views. I just happen to say he ought
to tell them to take a hike this time because the American people will
benefit greatly, and it really is not that much more work.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2113

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of Calendar No. 531, S. 2113. I ask that the committee-
reported substitute be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third
time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and
laid upon the table.
I wish to also note that this bill is going to pass next year. The
President is going to get it anyway. Either he is going to veto it or
he is going to make Shaun Donovan implement it. Why don't we get after
good government now rather than wait 3 or 4 months?
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. COBURN. I reserve the remainder of my time and suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, earlier there was a lot of discussion
about the NDAA--the Defense authorization bill--and the very important
provisions which are contained in that which will provide for our men
and women who serve us so honorably. I concur with all who have spoken
today about the importance and significance of this bill and why we
should pass it and why we should pass it today.
An area of controversy that has certainly come up--and my colleague
from Oklahoma has pointed it out very clearly--is the public lands
package that has been attached to the NDAA. I will speak a little bit
about where we are today and why we are dealing with this issue and why
it is important that the Senate and Congress advance these public lands
provisions for our country.
I had an opportunity to speak in greater detail yesterday, but I felt
it was important to let colleagues know why we deal with public lands
bills traditionally in a package.
The Presiding Officer comes from a Western State, but Hawaii does not
have large portions of land held by the Federal Government.
In the 12 Western States, which includes Alaska--93 percent of the
Federal lands that are held by this country are contained in these 12
Western States. What does it mean when you are a State like Alaska
where some 68 percent of your lands are Federally held? What does it
mean when you are a State like Nevada, where our majority leader is
from, where 85 percent of your State is held in public lands? It means
that when you want to do a conveyance, a conveyance doesn't come about
just because you are able to get a real estate attorney and you have a
transaction; it literally requires an act of Congress.
We are dealing with one provision in this public lands bill that
Senator Franken, from Minnesota, has been working on. It is a
conveyance of one acre of land that is currently held by USGS, and it
is a conveyance to a school district. Most people around this country--
or certainly on this end of the country--would say: Wow, that really
requires congressional action? That really requires a vote? That really
requires the President to sign it into law? The answer is in the
affirmative.
We have been processing, as a committee--on the Energy Committee and
committees on the House side--public lands bills throughout this
Congress. We have been working on some of these public lands measures
not for months, not for years, but in several instances a decade. It
has taken a decade to bring about some of these conveyances and these
exchanges.
I believe it is important to set the record straight--for those who
are suggesting that somehow or other this was conjured up in the dark
of the night or that there has been no process for these bills--and let
colleagues know about the procedural process that has led to its
inclusion in the NDAA.
For the record, I will note that the process included not only the
committees of jurisdiction for the lands bills but the committees who
crafted the NDAA bill, leadership from both sides, and individual
Members who all agreed to cobble together a package that was fair and
balanced, bipartisan, bicameral, revenue neutral--which is
exceptionally important--and also addresses the need for conservation
on one end and economic development and jobs and prosperity on the
other end. With this package of bills, one can see that compromise come
together.
It has been noted that these public lands bills have nothing to do
with defense authorization, but I will say that this is not without
precedent. Adding lands to an NDAA bill has been done in the past. We
have seen it in the past several NDAAs. What we did here was to amend
the existing lands package within the House-passed NDAA--which is
hardly out of balance or unusual.
As I said before, I would much rather have us move individual bills
through the floor as we process them, but many Members have said to me:
Well, your small lands transaction is important, but does it really
rise to the level of occupying floor time? It is tough to win the
undivided attention of the Senate on some of these measures.
Just because this issue doesn't rise to a level of keen interest in
this body doesn't mean these issues are not critically important for
individuals, communities, and States around our country, and so it is
hard to put that together. But just because it is small or more
localized or perhaps more parochial--like this one acre of land we are

[[Page S6728]]

trying to convey to this school district--doesn't mean we should
disregard it or overlook it or not try to enact it because somehow or
other it is not as important as the other things we do around here.
So knowing how valuable and precious floor time is around here, we
worked together. We have been working together for months--again, in a
bicameral and bipartisan way--to combine many of the bills that are in
the package. The result of what we have in front of us is provisions
that will help boost natural resources and community development while
we are also advancing conservation. We are moving toward economic
development in certain areas, creating jobs. We have opportunities in
both Nevada and Arizona to create thousands of good-paying jobs and
will increase our resources and our minerals security.
Other aspects of the bill focus on conservation. There are additional
wilderness provisions that are in there, but again, as we attempt to
achieve that balance, what we have in front of us is a good structure.
I want to make sure colleagues recognize that when we are discussing
the concern my colleague from Oklahoma has raised, the concern he has
so well articulated that within our National Park System we have a
maintenance backlog that is awful--and in many cases it is
overwhelming. To his credit, he has given keen attention to this
maintenance backlog we have and has pressed us to do more to improve
that situation. He put together a very considerable report that we are
using in the energy committee to help build a series of necessary
reforms that will be required to deal with our issues within the
National Park Service. Thanks to Senator Coburn's good work on this
issue, we will be able to see some true reforms.
I met yesterday afternoon with Director Jarvis in my office, and I
made it clear to him as the head of Park Service that this is going to
be an area on which we must be focused. Our national parks are a
national treasure, but when we can't attend to their needs and ensure
that they are maintained to the level that, as Americans, we all want,
then we are failing on that.
He has a very good point when he says we need to be doing something
about maintenance and backlog. I agree. We actually have a couple of
provisions in this public lands bill that will help us with that, and
one of them is the bill Senator Coburn has sponsored which will allow
for donors to have discreet recognition within our parks. So if you
want to give a private donation, there is a way for recognition. We
also have a provision in here that will allow for minting of a coin,
which again will help with private dollars. Those private pieces are
very important, but we need to do more, we will do more, and my
commitment is to help do that.
One of the things that I think are important to recognize with the
park provisions that are included in title XXX is that it is critically
important to recognize the local support these park provisions have
that will encourage economic development, tourism, and recreation. The
agreement includes five new national historic parks, and it transfers
management of two existing Federal areas to the Park Service. All of
the new historical parks have been formally studied and have been
recommended for inclusion in the National Park System. They focus on
specific historic sites of national significance.
Studies have also been done--and my colleague has referenced that--on
potential additions to the National Park System. These study
authorizations have previously passed the House under suspension or
gone through the Senate by unanimous consent. Again, we are not trying
to go through the backdoor. The study that has been conducted and the
process that has taken place in both the House and Senate is to ensure
that there is that local support and that this is not just something a
Member wants to attach his or her name to, that this has local support,
and that in turn will help us with some of the funding issues we are
going to need to address for our park systems.

I wish to conclude my remarks quickly because Senator Flake was asked
for a few minutes and I would like to defer to him. First, the issue
has also come up about existing national heritage areas. I think it is
important for colleagues to know that we do provide for limited
extensions for existing heritage areas, but there are no new heritage
areas that are created. I think it is important to recognize that when
we talk about extensions, it is extensions of existing heritage sites.
So with that, if I may, I wish to yield to my colleague from Arizona,
Senator Flake. We have been working not only with Senator Flake but
with Senator McCain on a provision that will certainly not only benefit
his State, but it will benefit the United States in terms of jobs,
economic opportunity, and a mineral resource; namely, copper, that is
extraordinarily important to us.
With that, I turn to Senator Flake.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for
yielding, and I wish to thank her also for her hard work on this lands
package. These are difficult pieces of legislation to put together. It
is particularly living the West, when we have States such as Arizona
that are about 87 percent publicly owned by either the Federal
Government, State government or tribal governments. To have access and
to have rural communities have access to economic development when we
are dealing with resources that are often on these lands, and when land
exchanges need to be done, it is extremely difficult to do that because
it is often seen as a parochial interest, and it is difficult to get
support from around the country for something that is needed in Arizona
without putting a package together that has other items that are needed
in other States, particularly in the West. So I wish to compliment the
Senator from Alaska and others who worked so hard to put this complex
package together that has many beneficiaries and also to put it
together in a way where we are not contributing or increasing the size
of the Federal or State, that we are promoting economic development in
States such as Arizona.
As the Senator mentioned with regard to Arizona and what this does,
it allows land exchange to happen that will allow a copper mine to be
developed that will ultimately produce, likely--or can produce--about
25 percent of the copper needed for manufacturing, for use in this
country. That is not just an economic development issue; that is a
national security issue as well, to make sure we are more independent
with regard to our source minerals.
In terms of economic development of the State, it is huge. We are
talking about thousands of jobs over the next several decades that will
be produced and will continue economic development for rural
communities in Superior, Globe, and Miami, that have had a tough time
and that will be good for those communities and for the entire State.
So I commend again those who have put this together. It is never good
to see a big package with so many things in it; that is what we want to
get away from, and hopefully we can in the new Congress. But it has
been very difficult to move individual pieces of legislation over the
past couple of years. So unfortunately we are often saddled with trying
to put together a package and attaching it to a larger bill, which is
the case here. But again, kudos to those who worked so hard to put it
together. I appreciate the indulgence of this body to have a package
such as this in the NDAA bill. I plan to vote for it and I encourage my
colleagues to do the same.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank my colleague from Arizona. As he has pointed
out, not only is this measure important to the State of Arizona, but
the State of Nevada will also gain the benefit of being able to access
copper resources in that region as well, bringing jobs and bringing a
resource.
So contained in this package--and again a balanced package--we are
talking about the Federal land conveyances for economic and community
development. We have mentioned the opportunity for mineral production
with two copper mines, one in Arizona, one in Nevada; an opportunity
for increased timber production in my State. We will finally realize
the obligation to settle the land claims with the Native people of the
southeastern part of the State in

[[Page S6729]]

the Sealaska region, 40-some years after the promise for their lands
conveyance. They are still awaiting their conveyance. This measure we
have in front of us will not only fulfill that decades-old promise, but
it will allow for a continuation of timber within their region, albeit
very, very, very reduced.
But in order to move to that second growth transition the Forest
Service is always talking about, we have to have an industry that is
just staying alive, and this Sealaska lands provision will help with
that. But it was also crafted in a way that took into account the
concerns of the fisheries, the stewardship for other lands, placing
additional lands in a conservation area--so again a key balance.
The other provisions that relate to our Federal lands and our ability
to access them I think are important, making them productive. The
provision allows for land management agencies with the needed authority
to renew and process grazing permits and leases. This is a measure that
my colleague from Wyoming and my colleague from New Mexico have been
working on, and in terms of something that provides certainty to
America's ranching community, this is so key, this is so important.
We also worked to expand the successful BLM permit streamlining
program to boost oil and gas production from the Federal lands. So it
is kind of the economic development piece, but the conservation piece I
think is equally important. It does designate wilderness. It designates
approximately 245,000 acres of wilderness in total. But I think what is
important for colleagues to recognize is that just about half of those
acres are already managed as if it were wilderness. In other words,
they are in wilderness study areas or roadless areas. So again we
looked at those measures where there was support at the local level, at
the State level, represented by the Members of Congress who had worked
over the years to gain the level of support for these provisions. There
is no cram-down. There is no designation from the executive as to
monument status. This is how the process is designed to work.
We also returned 26,000 total wilderness study areas to multiple use,
again for greater activity on those lands.
We protect private property rights in all of our special land
designations. There is no private property that can be condemned or
acquisitions through eminent domain. Private activities taking place
outside of the special land designation are not going to be precluded
by such designations, and we have insured that there are no buffer
zones or protective perimeters that would encroach on personal and
public rights.
I have been asked about the impact on hunting and fishing on our
public lands, because that is something that particularly those of us
in the West care a great deal about. I have heard some concerns that
there may be negative impacts. But I want to be clear that the
wilderness bills in this agreement actually affirm the responsibility
and the authority of the States for the management of fish and
wildlife.
In the wilderness bills that we have in New Mexico and in Nevada,
they have incorporated restating the law--this is section 302 of
FLPMA--to provide assurances that the wilderness designations do not
give the Secretaries any new authorities to close Federal lands to
hunting, fishing or trapping that they don't already have.
So we have put in place protections again trying to find the balance
between the conservation and the development, providing for access,
ensuring that private rights are respected, ensuring that our
opportunities for use and enjoyment as well as economic activity are
preserved; trying to find a package that is balanced from the
bicameral, bipartisan perspective, making sure we are not imposing
costs; again, a revenue-neutral proposal. I think that is also worth
stressing.
I have seen something out there that suggests there is an impact on
direct spending from title XXX. The fact is it is revenue neutral over
these next 10 years. We do not take anything from the Defense
authorization perspective within this bill with this lands package.
That was never the intent. It was not the design, and it will not
impact that.

With that, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the lands
package. I wish to congratulate the Senator from Alaska as well as the
Senator from Louisiana for their work, and particularly in support of
adding Hinchliffe Stadium to Great Falls National Park in Paterson, NJ.
It has a special place in the hearts of many New Jerseyans, and it has
played a vital role in the story of America's fight against
institutionalized segregation.
Critics of this legislation are using a mixture of the stadium
showing overgrown shrubs and graffiti on the walls--asking, What does a
stadium such as this have to do with this and should it be in with our
national park system?
Unfortunately, the picture being circulated only shows a side of the
story at a different time. What it fails to show is the dedicated work
of the surrounding community to clean up Hinchliffe Stadium. So I
brought three photographs that I think illustrate the work being done
in Patterson and to put to rest this notion that the stadium is an
abandoned place that the community doesn't care about.
The first is a picture of dozens of local residents working together
to clean up the stands, paint the walls, and begin the process of
restoring this vital community center. The second is a closeup picture
of just a handful of these volunteers. These are young people taking
the time to improve their community and honor the history that was
behind the stadium. The third shows the final product--much different
than what my colleague showed--of their hard work. These pictures were
taken earlier this year at an event where 700 volunteers worked to
clean up Hinchliffe Stadium.
The argument that we are dumping this land on the National Park
Service is simply false. The legislation specifically prohibits the
Park Service from directly purchasing this land, meaning that the
community of Paterson will continue to be intricately involved in the
management and preservation of the stadium.
I think these photographs illustrate the dedication of the residents
that Paterson and the surrounding area have to protecting Hinchliffe
Stadium. There is a reason for this dedication. Hinchliffe Stadium has
the designation of being one of the few remaining sites that hosted the
Negro League Baseball. In the 1930s and 1940s, Hinchliffe was the home
of the Black Yankees, and in 1933 the stadium hosted what was called
the Colored Championship. In 1936, the field was home to the New York
Cubans, a team made up of players from Cuba, the Dominican Republic,
Mexico, and Puerto Rico.
Some of baseball's greatest stars, including Satchel Paige, Josh
Gibson, and Larry Doby all took the field at Hinchliffe Stadium. Doby
went on to become the first African-American player joining the
American League, helping Jackie Robinson break down the color barrier.
Contrary to the negativism and misrepresentations we are hearing
today, Hinchliffe Stadium should be part of the Paterson Great Falls
National Park. I know it, everyone who knows about its history knows
it, and America should know it as well.
I am proud to be a sponsor of the legislation adding Hinchliffe
boundaries to the national park. This bill has been championed by
Congressman Pascrell in the House of Representatives, where it was
passed by a House vote earlier this year.
I want to read briefly from a guest columnist editorial Congressman
Pascrell wrote with another individual. He said that Hinchliffe Stadium
in Paterson is one of the last remaining stadiums associated with the
Negro League Baseball.

It is where sports and racial history coalesce. Hinchliffe
Stadium is the only National Historic Landmark in baseball
and only one of two professional Negro League venues
considered nationally significant.

Cal Ripken, 2007 Hall of Famer, when he talked about Hinchliffe,
said:

Not only does it deserve recognition for its place in
history, but it deserves the opportunity to be restored into
a place where tomorrow's youth will be able to walk in the
footsteps of yesterday's legends and experience the history
of this community firsthand.

[[Page S6730]]

I am also pleased with this legislation that is cosponsored by
Senator Booker and formerly by Senator Jeff Chiesa, a Republican who
served in the Senate for a period of time after the passing of Senator
Lautenberg. And speaking of Senator Lautenberg, he was one of
Hinchliffe's greatest champions, and he was proud to count Paterson as
his hometown.
The version of the legislation that we consider today includes
amendments suggested both by the Parks Service and by House
Republicans. That is why it passed by voice.
Some critics cited the previous National Park Service study opposing
the inclusion of the stadium in the national park. The study was
discredited by 25 distinguished scholars at the time. Since then, the
Park Service has completed an additional study and designated the
stadium as a national historic landmark.
I believe strongly that the story of our fight against
institutionalized segregation is a story worth telling.
Critics of this legislation may look at Hinchliffe Stadium and see a
rundown sports field. Not me. When I look at Hinchliffe Stadium, I see
a field of dreams, an enduring reminder of how far we have come since
the days of separate but equal, when institutional segregation
marginalized the works, the dreams, and the achievements of African
Americans. I see a community coming together decades after Hinchliffe
first earned a place in the canon of American history to preserve the
legacy it represents. I urge my colleagues to join me in standing up
for this legacy and supporting the inclusion of Hinchliffe Stadium in
the Great Falls National Park as part of the national lands package.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, first, let me thank Senators Landrieu
and Murkowski for their work on this legislation. I was listening to
Senator Murkowski go through how this process came together. I also
listened to Senator Coburn's concerns about the process that has been
used.
Let me share with my colleagues why I strongly support the inclusion
of the lands package in the National Defense Authorize Act and
encourage my colleagues to support the vote later today. I reference
specifically the Harriet Tubman National Historic Park. Talk about
frustration. This park, although approved through studies and it went
through all the appropriate ways for its designation, was held by one
Senator on a hold for 3\1/2\ years, and that is despite the fact that
since 2012 there was an offset to make sure it did not cost any
additional resources--a requirement that I was told I needed to satisfy
to remove the hold.
There is a lot of frustration here. I appreciate what Senator
Murkowski did and the history she went through. She is absolutely
right. If we tried to bring these bills to the floor on an individual
basis, we would never get done the work of the Senate. These land
issues have been vetted, and I can tell you in regard to the Harriet
Tubman National Historic Park, it is very much needed.
This Senate did pass this particular designation earlier this year,
so this has already been passed by the Senate. In the House, I worked
with Congressman Harris and Congressman Moffett dealing with some of
the same issues that Senator Murkowski mentioned a few moments ago, and
that is to make sure we have the right balance between the lands that
are designated as part of the historic park and the landowners' rights
in the community. The balance that Senator Murkowski said generally in
regard to the provisions applies in regard to the Harriet Tubman park.
I thank Congressman Harris and Congressman Moffett for their help.
I also want to acknowledge the work of my colleagues--Senator
Mikulski, Senator Gillibrand, and Senator Schumer--and thank them for
their help in bringing about this package and bringing about the
ability today to finally pass the designation of the Harriet Tubman
National Historic Park. This will be the first woman, the first
African-American woman to have such a recognition under our National
Park System. This is an appropriate person for this historic moment. I
think most people know that Harriet Tubman was considered the Moses of
her people. She was born into slavery in Dorchester County, MD, the
Eastern Shore of Maryland. For the first 30 years of her life, she
lived in slavery, and then on her own, by herself, she escaped slavery
and made her way to liberty in 1849. She did this alone. The courage of
this woman--she didn't stop there; she then came back and rescued
others slaves and brought them to freedom through the Underground
Railroad, which took slaves from slavery to freedom.
I am proud of the historic significance of the State of Maryland in
that regard, with the birthplace of Harriet Tubman and where the
Underground Railroad operated.
The Eastern Shore is on the eastern part of our State. I could take
you to the western part of the State, Cumberland, where you can see the
church in which the slaves on their way to freedom were sheltered
before they went through a tunnel to the railroad and literally went to
Pennsylvania and freedom.
This is an incredible opportunity. We have the landscape, we have the
property on the Eastern Shore of Maryland.
In Auburn, NY, we have where Harriet Tubman lived the later years of
her life. After escaping and becoming free, she was a spy for the
North, for the Union during the Civil War. She then went on to help
with women's suffrage. She set up a home for the aged African Americans
in New York. A lot of those properties still exist today up in New York
and will be part of the Harriet Tubman National Historic Park.
This is an appropriate way to honor a real hero of our country but
also to provide a way for young people and all the people in this
country to learn more about Harriet Tubman. It will help the local
economies of New York and Pennsylvania. It is part of the National Park
System's dedication to African-American history. I think it is very
appropriate to at long last be able to get this done.
For those who express frustration, we had this paid for a long time
ago, we worked out all the balances a long time ago, and we thought
this would be done a long time ago. But today we have a chance to get
it done, and I urge my colleagues to support the package and support
the NDAA bill.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. HEINRICH. Madam President, I rise in strong opposition to the
motion to refer, which would remove the public lands title from the
Defense authorization bill.
Like some of my colleagues, I think an appropriate place to start
today is to thank Chair Landrieu and Ranking Member Murkowski for their
efforts on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. They worked so
hard to come up with a package that could actually move in this divided
Congress.
The bills in this package have been the subject of incredibly long
debate. Many of them, such as the bill we just heard about from my
colleague in Maryland, have been under consideration for years. Almost
all the bills included in the public lands package have received
hearings in either the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee or
the House Natural Resources Committee, and almost all of the bills were
favorably reported by these committees. For example, every provision in
the lands package relating to a national park designation or expansion
and every provision designating Federal land as wilderness in this
package was closely considered by the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee and cleared the committee with bipartisan support.
I should note that many of these provisions were not only the subject
of committee hearings in this Congress and markups in this Congress but
in previous years as well.
The public lands title is the product of lengthy negotiations with
the House, with both Republican and Democratic priorities included.
Some Senate provisions were modified to address concerns raised by the
House of Representatives, and other House provisions were modified to
address Senate concerns. This package is a compromise. There is a lot
in it that I love but a few things that I absolutely don't support.
There are also things that I had hoped would be in this package that
will not be in this package. But that is the nature of compromise and

[[Page S6731]]

governance. Frankly, that is something we need a lot more of around
here.
This package conserves our Nation's resources, our water resources,
and our wildlife habitat. It preserves our Nation's culture and history
and allows for the smart and responsible development of our public
lands as well. We have a responsibility to future generations to be
good stewards of our shared culture and the natural world.
Madam President, it will come as no surprise to you or to many of my
colleagues that as I travel across New Mexico, what I hear time and
again from people is that they are frustrated with Washington, that
Congress can't get anything done, and that ``compromise'' sounds like a
dirty word to some of our colleagues. We have an opportunity to change
that today. Let's work together and be willing to compromise in order
to get things done for our constituents and for the American people.
Our constituents across this great Nation deserve no less.
I would urge my colleagues' support of the package and opposition to
the motion to refer.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I understand there is still 5 or 6
minutes remaining of my time. If there are other colleagues who would
care to speak on the significance of title XXX of NDAA, natural
resources, and the related provisions, I am certainly happy to yield to
them.
I thank my colleagues who have come to the floor on both sides of the
aisle to speak to some of the specifics that are contained within this
bill because I think it helps to understand why we are at this late
point in the calendar with a package of different bills focusing in
different areas, whether it is a small land conveyance, whether it is
the creation of a wilderness area that has come about through a great
deal of compromise and collaboration, or whether it is a collaboration
that will allow for economic opportunity through mineral development,
timber harvest, or grazing opportunities. I think it does speak to the
diversity of what we are dealing with, with so many of our public lands
and the reality that they are different all over. It is very different
in Alaska from what my friend in New Mexico experiences. The similarity
we have is that we don't have the ability to do it on our own; we have
to come to the Federal Government.
What will happen is, whether you are in New Mexico or whether you are
in Alaska or points in between, you have local consensus emerge around
an issue. They bring it to the State, and the State works with us at
the Federal level, Members of the House and Members of the Senate. We
continue to work this process. It usually is a very collaborative
process.
Just because it is collaborative does not mean we agree on every
issue. There is a great deal of give and take that goes on, because
when you are talking about your public lands, every acre is precious to
somebody. I know that full well in the legislation we have been working
on, the See Alaska bill, for almost a decade now.
The fishermen have certain interests, those who harvest timber have
certain interests, the conservationists have certain interests, the
school district has certain interests. So how we build this takes time.
But it seems as though the only place we do not get time is here on the
Senate floor. We do not have the time allocated to us, nor do--I would
be happy to spend hours and perhaps days discussing issues such as we
have raised in this public lands bill. But I do not think most of my
colleagues are interested in debating a reversionary clause for a
parcel of land in downtown Anchorage that can be sold so they can have
an opportunity, in Anchorage, to build something new there. It just
does not rise to that level of immediacy and concern.
So, again, we do the best we can to try to be balanced, to try to put
together something that works for all. It is a balancing act. It
requires a level of finesse. If we were to have put together a package
that was overly weighted towards new wilderness or new parks, not only
would my constituents back home not support it, I could not support it.
We have to work together on bill packages of this nature.
I want to recognize the good work of those on the energy committee
who have worked with us to construct something that is good, balanced
and fair. I will acknowledge my chairman of the energy committee,
Senator Landrieu, who has worked with us to find that level of balance.
I do hope that as we look at a new Congress, we will be working
together as colleagues to try to figure out a better path for the
endgame for these smaller bills. I have been part of way too many lands
packages now where we have the same debate: Why is it attached to this?
Why are we doing this now? I would like to get us to a place where
there was a more certain process so that Members knew their small
conveyance bill, their small study, did not get caught up in end-of-
session kind of madness, or caught up in things that distract from what
it is that delegation has been attempting to do for that State, for
that part of the country.
I would ask my colleagues--I have spoken with many on this side of
the aisle as well as the Democratic side of the aisle--let's be working
together to figure out how we can relieve this bottleneck, because I
sincerely want to do that. But what we have in front of us today is our
opportunity to bring some finality, to bring some conclusion, to bring
some resolve to issues that have been outstanding for a considerable
amount of time, as I mentioned, in several instances almost a full
decade.
Let's clear the deck. Let's move this lands package on this NDAA bill
so that next Congress we can begin with the many public lands bills
that are still in the queue, that are still waiting for a process. But
you can count on me to be working with my colleagues to ensure that we
have a way forward that will be more expeditious than we have seen
historically.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, later today I will be offering a motion
to attempt to undo a precedent set in 2011 that took away the right of
all Senators, a right that was provided by Senate rules for Senators to
suspend the rules in a postcloture environment to offer an amendment.
It is a very high bar. It requires 67 votes to ever pass an amendment
under that. This right allowed the minority or individual Senators to
circumvent parliamentary obstacles, namely the filling of the tree to
receive votes. History now shows us that the filling of the tree has
occurred two times more under the leadership of Senator Reid than all
of the leaders in the past--91 times.
The question will essentially be, Do we want to keep the Reid motion
to suspend the precedent prohibiting motions to suspend the rules
postcloture by sustaining that precedent? This is not a nuclear option,
does not have anything to do with that.
As I thought about bringing this forward, I thought about how
important it is for the new minority. I am not going to be with you.
But it is my valid opinion, I believe, that you are not going to see
the limitations on your amendments that we have seen in the last 6
years under the new leadership of the Senate. But if we were to see
that, this is a particularly good way to have the Senate vote on a
topic of interest to the American public.
So when this is offered, voting yes keeps the Reid precedent which
says even postcloture you cannot offer to suspend the rules, even with
a 67-vote margin and have a vote. Voting no will reverse the Reid
precedent. If the precedent is overturned by a majority of Senators
voting against the ruling of the Chair, the rights of all Senators, as
written in the Senate rules to suspend the rules postcloture, would be
returned--Democrats, Republicans, all.
If I am successful in overturning this precedent, I am not planning
on following up with another motion allowing me to offer an amendment
at this time. The whole goal is to try to restore the Senate. So I have
no ulterior motive with another amendment if I were to win this
attempt.

[[Page S6732]]

The distinguishing characteristics of the Senate are the right to
offer amendments and the right to debate. That is what makes it unique.
That is what forces consensus. Throughout his tenure, my colleague, the
Senator from Nevada, has aggressively deployed a tactic to block other
Senators from offering amendments to legislation. This tactic is known
as filling the tree. It fills all available slots for all amendments
with shell legislation, preventing all other Senators from offering
amendments, both of his party and the opposition party.
He has done this 91 times during his tenure as the majority leader.
From 1985 to 2006, it only occurred 40 times. What this tactic
effectively does is shut down every other individual Member of the
Senate from even input into legislation and carrying on the
responsibility they were granted by the citizens of their State to
offer amendments to pieces of legislation coming through the Senate.
Starting in 2010, as Senator Reid continued to use the filling-of-
the-tree maneuver, Senators in both parties resorted to other
procedural options to assert their rights as Senators. Under rule V of
the Standing Rules of the Senate, the other rules may be suspended,
including blocking amendments by filling the tree.
From 2010 until October 6, 2011, Senators filed more than 30 notices
and the Senate held 15 separate votes to suspend the rules and allow
amendments to be offered during postcloture debate, as was the history
of the Senate for its entire history.
On October 6, the majority leader interpreted Senate rules with a
simple majority, ending the right of Senators to suspend the rules
postcloture. He called up a motion to suspend the rules that had been
filed on the previous day by myself. He made a point of order that a
single motion to suspend the rules was dilatory. A single motion to
suspend the rules was dilatory under rule XXII.
Never before had the Senate ruled that a single motion to suspend the
rules was dilatory. In fact, the Senate Parliamentarian had previously
upheld the maneuver. As such, the Presiding Officer correctly ruled
that the postcloture amendment was not dilatory under rule XXII. A
single motion to suspend the rules cannot be considered a delaying
tactic.
Senator Reid's point of order was, therefore, not sustained. He then
appealed the ruling of the Chair and held a vote to overturn it by a
simple majority of 51 to 48. The Chair's decision was overturned. Every
Republican and one Democrat voted against this appeal, instead voting
to uphold the Presiding Officer's decision which reflected the written
rules of the Senate.
This vote established a new precedent to interpret the meaning of the
word ``dilatory.'' Only it did so in the most heavyhanded way, fully
intended to block the ability of Senators to offer amendments. From
that point forward, it was considered out of order to offer postcloture
motions to suspend the rules, despite such right being explicitly
provided for under Senate rules.
In order to overturn this precedent, a Senator must offer another
postcloture motion to suspend the rules for the purpose of considering
an amendment.
The Presiding Officer most likely will rule that the motion is not in
order based on the 2011 precedent.
At that point, the Senator offering the motion will appeal the ruling
of the Chair on the basis that a single motion to suspend the rules
postcloture is not dilatory. The Senator would then ask for the yeas
and nays.
If a simple majority of Senators vote to overturn the decision of the
Chair, the precedent will be reversed, restoring the right explicitly
provided in the rules that allows Senators to offer motions to suspend
the rules postcloture as before.
This issue is unrelated to the nuclear option and will have no impact
on the outcome of that debate.
Senators who support or oppose changing that issue can both support
this effort.
At the appropriate time, I will be offering that motion. I came to
the floor today to put my colleagues on notice of my intent.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set
aside the pending amendment so that I may call up my amendment,
amendment No. 3996, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I will not support the unanimous consent proposal of
Senator Lee for several reasons. He may want to state his motion first
before I give the reasons for objecting to it, but I will object and,
if necessary at this point, I do object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. LEVIN. I have no objection to the Senator stating his purpose.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. I thank my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from
Michigan, whose presence we will miss and whose leadership we have
appreciated over the years.
Madam President, I have offered this amendment today, which is an
amendment that was crafted several years ago by me and Senator
Feinstein. We created this as a document that we originally called the
Due Process Guarantee Act. Senator Feinstein and I had one objective
with the Due Process Guarantee Act, which was to guarantee the right of
the American people that while they exist, while they live from day to
day on U.S. soil, they will be free from indefinite detention without
trial, without their rights that are protected by our Constitution,
without the rights we have come to associate with our habeas corpus
guarantees and our other constitutional protections.
These are rights that we understand are inseparably connected with
liberty and they long predated the existence of our Constitution and
our Republic. They were so fundamental, in fact, that not only were
they incorporated into our Constitution--this right to be free from a
chance of being locked up by government indefinitely in prison, without
trial, without counsel and so forth--they were discussed at length at
our Constitutional Convention. They were discussed at length by members
of our founding generation as they debated and discussed the merits of
our Constitution.
Notably, in Federalist No. 84, James Madison referred to these
rights, and he quoted a great luminary of that time--a luminary who is
still a legal force to this day--Judge William Blackstone. He quoted a
very meaningful excerpt from volume 1 of William Blackstone's
``Commentaries on the Laws of England,'' published in 1765.
I want to read briefly some of what he said there that is relevant to
this day. He says these rights are very important; they are the right
to be free from detention, from arbitrary indefinite detention. He
says:

To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his
estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and
notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the
alarm of tyranny throughout the whole kingdom. But
confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to gaol,
where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten; is a less
public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous
engine of arbitrary government. And yet sometimes, when the
state is in real danger, even this may be a necessary
measure. But the happiness of our constitution is----

And here he is referring, of course, to the British constitution at
the time

--that it is not left to the executive power to determine
when the danger of the state is so great, as to render this
measure expedient. For the parliament only, or legislative
power, whenever it sees proper, can authorize the crown, by
suspending the habeas corpus act for a short and limited
time, to imprison suspected persons without giving any reason
for so doing.

So in other words, he was referring to something contemplated and
built into our constitutional structure as well, which is that, sure,
there may be times of invasion, there may be times of national
emergency, of an exigency so great, so threatening to the safety of the
people that this kind of action might be warranted. But where that does
happen, it has to happen by an express declaration by the legislative

[[Page S6733]]

body--that the right to habeas corpus is, in fact, being suspended.
I will conclude with this quote, where he says:

. . . this experiment ought only to be tried in cases of
extreme emergency; and in these the nation parts with its
liberty for a while, in order to preserve it for ever.

What was true in William Blackstone's time remains true today. What
was true during the founding era, remains true today. What was true at
the time of the drafting and the ratification of our other
constitutional protections, including those in the Fourth, Fifth and
Sixth Amendments to the Constitution, remain true today. That is that
we are a free people, and as a free people, we have come to expect
certain rights that we have. By virtue of being Americans--Americans
living on U.S. soil--we have the right to be free and to be free from
this risk of indefinite detention without trial.
When those very rare circumstances might arise, as arose, for
example, during the Civil War, where they cannot be allowed to stand,
they may be suspended only by an act of Congress expressly suspending
the habeas corpus protections we have come to rely on.
For this reason, Senator Feinstein and I put this bill together. I
offer it up now as an amendment. I understand this motion has already
been objected to, and I state my concerns with the objection.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the reasons that I object to the offering
of the amendment at this time are several.
First, the amendment which Senator Lee asks consent to offer is not
germane to the bill, it is not in order postcloture, and it would amend
a statute of jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee relative to a
subject not addressed in this bill.
Second, when we included a similar provision in our bill several
years ago, the House objected and insisted the provision be dropped. So
the inclusion of this provision would require, at the least, difficult
discussions with the House when there is no time for such discussions.
When I voted for a similar provision which was offered several years
ago, the language was somewhat different than it is now.
The bottom line is there is simply not enough time left before we
adjourn to debate even a single amendment, and surely not a single
amendment of this complexity, to vote on it, and to reconcile the
provision, if it were adopted, with the House of Representatives and to
pass the bill again in both Houses.
And those are the reasons for my objection.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Levin). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4329

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I intend to call up H.R. 4329, the Native
American Housing and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act, but I
would like to say a few words about the bill before I do. This bill
reauthorizes programs that support housing for Native Hawaiians, Alaska
Natives, and American Indians.
Earlier this week, the senior Senator from Montana asked unanimous
consent that the Senate take up and pass S. 1352, the Native American
Housing and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2013. The bill
would reauthorize programs that promote and support affordable housing
for Native Americans, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. My good
friend, Mr. Lee, the Senator from Utah, who is on the floor this
afternoon, objected to passing this important Senate bill, noting his
objections to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act.
I am here on the floor today to offer an alternative--H.R. 4329. Like
the Senate bill which was objected to earlier this week, this bill is a
bipartisan bill. H.R. 4329 reauthorizes the Native Hawaiian Housing
Block Grant, the Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program, and
programs that provide support for housing funding for Native American
veterans.
Let me note here that we know that Native Americans enlist in the
military at a higher rate than other segments of this country. Of
course, the House bill I am referring to supports many other good
programs and, yes, including the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant
and the Section 184A Native Hawaiian Home Loan Guarantee Program.
We know the housing need in Indian country is staggering. Congress
knew and recognized this fact when it created the broader Indian
housing programs earlier to help address those needs and when it
reauthorized these programs again and again.
Is the House bill perfect? I would say no. But I must applaud my good
friend, Congressman Don Young of Alaska, my colleagues, Congresswomen
Colleen Hanabusa and Tulsi Gabbard, and of course the bill's sponsor,
Congressman Steve Pearce, for their work in crafting a bill that passed
the House by voice vote. There were no Republican objections. There
were no Democratic objections. To rely on an old adage, let us not
allow perfection to be the enemy of the good. And this is a good bill.
Should we forget our promises and responsibilities to our indigenous
population? I freely admit that we have not always been good stewards
of our responsibilities, and we have not always been good friends with
Indian Country. But we try, and with this bill we again are trying.
Let me now turn to address Senator Lee's specific early objections to
the Senate bill. The Senator stated that he believes the blood quantum
requirement in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act is unconstitutional. I
would say to my friend from Utah that in the context of Federal Indian
law, which is applicable here, blood quantum requirements are not
viewed as unconstitutional racial classifications. Instead, they
demonstrate connectivity to an indigenous political entity which
Congress can treat under the Indian commerce clause. It is why Congress
set a blood quantum requirement of 50 percent or more for the Hawaiian
Homes Commission Act, a blood quantum requirement of 50 percent or more
for the Indian Reorganization Act, and 25 percent or more for the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Native Hawaiians, Native
Americans, and Alaska Natives are indigenous people all, which my
colleague Senator Lee acknowledges.

My colleague might argue that in the Supreme Court's decision in Rice
v. Cayetano, the Court held that ``ancestry . . . is a proxy for
race.'' I would respond to my colleague by saying that I was the
Lieutenant Governor of Hawaii at the time, serving under Ben Cayetano,
who is named in the Rice v. Cayetano suit, and I had the opportunity to
sit in the Supreme Court while the Rice case was being argued. That
case is broadly, but often incorrectly, cited because it was quite
narrow in its applicability. The Supreme Court in that case held that a
State--a State--could not restrict who could vote for members of a
quasi-State agency. In contrast to such State action, Congress has
given wide latitude and broad deference in dealing with America's
indigenous people.
So Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Indian Affairs
Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4329 and
that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill
be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or
debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask
unanimous consent that the request be modified and that the Lee
amendment to strike section 801 of this legislation be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify her request?
Ms. HIRONO. I object to the request for a modification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request?
Mr. LEE. In that case, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S6734]]

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I want to express my appreciation to
Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Inhofe for their work on the defense
authorization bill being considered in the Senate this week. It is
officially titled the Carl Levin and Howard P. `Buck' McKeon National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. It couldn't be more
appropriate.
This will be the 54th year in a row that Congress has passed the
Defense Authorization. It has never been an easy task. Senator Levin
has had a great deal to do with that annual labor of love. He has
served as the highest ranking Democratic member on the committee since
January 1997, and he has served as its Chairman for eleven of the last
14 years. Every year, he has kept the needs of our service members and
their families front and center.
It isn't an easy job. The Committee provides congressional oversight
for more than half of all domestic discretionary spending . . . it
analyzes every program line by line . . . and in this case worked with
Members of both parties and both chambers to craft a consensus product.
But the result is that our service members who are on the front lines
will have what they need to protect our national security.
In that spirit, this bill sustains in responsible ways the active
duty, National Guard, and reserve forces our nation relies on every
day. Even in this tough fiscal environment, the bill authorizes a 1
percent pay raise for military personnel below the general officer
level. It increases access to mental health care in a number of ways,
including lifting the limits on inpatient mental health services, and
requiring annual person-to-person mental health assessments. Finally,
it reauthorizes the family support programs our military families so
richly deserve.
The agreement also deals with a topic I have cared passionately about
for many years: tobacco. This is a serious subject. Smoking rates among
service members are 20 percent higher than the rest of America and the
use of chewing tobacco is 450 percent higher. Tobacco-related medical
treatment and lost work time costs the Pentagon $1.6 billion every.
Yet, military stores have been selling tobacco products at steep
discounts for years. On paper the discount is 5 percent. But an
independent review found discounts as high as 25 percent because of lax
enforcement and ill-defined community comparisons.
So I appreciate that this defense authorization carries a provision
similar to one I authored earlier this year in the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee to end this harmful subsidy. This is a
commonsense reform that will protect the health of our Nation's troops.
It will literally save lives. I look forward to continuing to work with
the Department to tackle this culture of tobacco use head on.
This bill also contains several provisions to reform the way the
military prevents and responds to sexual assault in the military. The
Department's most recent report outlines how pervasive and insidious
this problem continues to be. The prevalence of sexual assault has
decreased slightly, and we see more victims coming forward. But it
remains one of the most complex and damaging threats to our armed
services today. More than 6 in 10 female service members continue to
report that they have been retaliated against for reporting the
perpetrators of these criminal acts.
Congress has instituted many reforms, including Special Victims
Counsels. This year's defense bill contains several additional policy
changes. But we must continue to hold the Department's leadership
accountable for significant progress on this issue.
In addition to these national priorities, the Defense authorization
bill includes several provisions that will strengthen military assets
in Illinois. Rock Island Arsenal on the border of Illinois and Iowa is
a remarkable place. For example, at the height of the Iraq war, the
Arsenal was the single largest source of Humvee armor kits to protect
our troops against IED blasts. Its factory is one of the few places in
the country where our military, on short notice, can quite literally
turn raw metal into critical equipment for our troops.
The Armed Services Committee has worked with me each year to ensure
that the Arsenal can compete for workload and partner with the private
sector. This year's bill builds on this history by updating the Civil
War-era Arsenal Act to ensure that the Army manages arsenals with
wartime needs in mind.
The bill also extends the joint pilot program in North Chicago at the
Lovell Federal Health Care Facility. This is the first national effort
to integrate health care across the Defense Department and the
Department of Veterans Affairs. It is the future of health care for
service members and veterans. The Lovell Health Care Facility is
working to advance integration of everything from electronic medical
records to pharmacy programs.
Finally, the bill also authorizes $26 million for an Army Reserve
Center in Arlington Heights, IL, and $19.5 million for Family Housing
at Rock Island, IL.
Chairman Levin and Senator Inhofe have brought to the floor a
thoughtful and balanced bill for our men and women in uniform, and I
urge members to support this compromise.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I want to take a few minutes today to
speak on the National Defense Authorization Act, the annual policy bill
for the Department of Defense. Let me start by noting that Senator Carl
Levin, who is Chairman of the committee that put this agreement
together, will be retiring after this year. This bill carries Senator
Levin's name on it in what I think will be a fitting tribute to his
legacy here. I have appreciated his wisdom on so many issues over the
years, and I know I am in good company when I say to Senator Levin that
his leadership will be missed in the United States Senate.
Passing a defense authorization bill is one of Congress' most
important annual tasks, and it has been for decades. I have supported
some of these bills throughout my time here and given the number of
security concerns facing this country--the continued presence of ISIL
in Iraq and Syria, Russia's ongoing efforts to destabilize Ukraine, the
Ebola outbreak in West Africa--I hoped to be able to support this bill
as well. Regrettably, however, I am forced to vote against this defense
bill.
Most Americans may not know this, but the United States is still
spending as much on defense as it spent at the height of the Cold War.
This bill before us today would authorize nearly $600 billion in total
defense spending--including more than $60 billion in war funding. That
really ought to raise more questions about how that money is being
spent and whether the American people are getting their money's worth
for each dollar they spend on defense. But what I find most concerning
is that my Senate colleagues and I are being asked to approve this
mammoth bill without being given the opportunity to vote on any
substantive amendments. I am sure that if Senators were given that
chance, we could consider amendments regarding sexual assault in the
military or greater transparency within the intelligence community, for
example.
One issue in particular that would have benefitted from more debate
is the Guantanamo Bay detention center. When the Senate Armed Services
Committee passed its version of this defense bill in June, it included
provisions allowing the Department of Defense to transfer detainees
from Guantanamo Bay to the United States ``for detention, trial and
incarceration.'' My position on the Guantanamo Bay detention center has
long been to shut it down and prosecute as many detainees as possible
in the federal court system--where the United States has a strong
record of winning convictions. I felt that the earlier Armed Services
Committee language would have made progress toward these goals, and I
am disappointed that the agreement before us today maintains the
prohibition on transferring any detainees to the United States to stand
trial.
I also want to take a few minutes to express my deep concerns about
the lands package included in this defense authorization agreement.
This package contains some laudable bills for our Nation's environment
like wilderness and new parks supported by many

[[Page S6735]]

members of Congress. This lands package also includes, however, a
number of extraordinarily controversial provisions that will do serious
and long-lasting environmental damage.
Take the provision that represents an unprecedented giveaway of
public lands to benefit a foreign corporation. It will destroy a
recreational oasis, disturb a sacred Indian site, and cast aside
recreational, environmental, and cultural concerns in favor of big
mining and big money. Neither the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee nor the House of Representatives has approved that provision
this Congress, yet it is being jammed into this defense bill today
without debate.
In addition several important pieces of legislation with bipartisan
support were simply left out of this lands package. I am disappointed
that this package does not include legislation to modernize and
increase forest management on the Oregon and California Grant Lands,
better known as the O&C Lands, for example. This lands package also
does not include legislation that would resolve long-standing issues
regarding water resources in the Klamath Basin.
Additionally, I am disappointed that the lands package does virtually
nothing to help rural counties: it fails to renew the bipartisan Secure
Rural Schools program that funds critical services in more than 700
counties in over forty States. The assistance it provides to fund the
another significant rural aid program known as Payments in Lieu of
Taxes is not enough to fully fund the program in the absence of Secure
Rural Schools funding. These programs are lifelines for cash-strapped
rural counties that struggle to fund basic law enforcement,
infrastructure improvements, and other public services.
Finally, I am extremely disappointed that the lands package did not
include reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a
program that opens up our Nation's public lands and wilderness areas
for recreation and enjoyment, while providing tremendous economic
benefits to rural communities.
This lands package is unbalanced. It does not reflect bipartisan
compromises reached in the committees of jurisdiction. Lastly, in the
crucial days, when decisions were being made about the public lands
bills that did not make it into this package, most Senators were kept
in the dark about issues of great importance to their constituents.
So, I return to the notion that Senators and the people they
represent must be heard on legislation this consequential. It is
unfortunate that after a full Congress of hard work, a number of good
proposals will simply be left on the cutting room floor.
I want to repeat that this bill before us today authorizes more than
half of the discretionary budget for the U.S. Government, almost $600
billion in defense spending, including more than $60 billion in war
funding.
Because of that, I regret that I must oppose this defense
authorization bill.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, today I rise in support of the Fiscal
Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act.
First, let me express my sincere thanks to both Chairman Levin and
Ranking Member Inhofe for their hard work in putting together a
bipartisan bill that addresses the needs of our military and contains
provisions that are important to Maine and to our national security.
This legislation fully funds both the vital DDG-1000 and DDG-51
Programs. These ships must be part of the fleet to maintain the robust
forward presence our Nation requires. The U.S. Navy protects trade
routes, projects power, acts as a stabilizing force, and assists when
tragedy strikes. These missions are especially important in the
increasingly dangerous and unpredictable world in which we live.
When tensions flared in Syria, it was Navy destroyers that were
positioned off the coast. Following the devastation of Typhoon Haiyan
in the Philippines, two U.S. Navy destroyers were among the first ships
to respond.
This bill also provides the resources necessary to help our allies
and partners around the globe. When Hamas, a designated foreign
terrorist organization, launched more than 3,000 rockets into Israel
this summer, it was the Iron Dome missile defense system--developed
with assistance from the United States--that saved countless civilian
lives.
I am also pleased that this bill takes further steps to address the
problem of sexual assault in the military, which remains a significant
challenge facing the Department of Defense. While progress has been
made, we must remain focused on our goal of ensuring that the military
has a zero tolerance culture when it comes to sexual assault.
I first raised my concern about sexual assaults in the military with
Gen George Casey in 2004. To say his response was disappointing would
be an understatement. I am convinced that if the military had heeded
the concerns I raised then, this terrible problem would have been
addressed much sooner, saving many individuals the trauma, pain, and
injustice they endured.
I am encouraged that as a result of an amendment I offered to the
Senate version of this bill, DOD is already taking formal steps to
modify the rules of evidence to ensure confidentiality between the
users and the personnel manning its Safe Helpline and HelpRoom systems.
The bill includes a provision which mandates a study by DOD's Judicial
Proceedings Board on how best to effectuate the rule change.
I also support eliminating the so-called good soldier defense, which
this bill does. This defense has allowed the general military character
of an individual to be used as evidence of their innocence.
To further support our men and women in uniform, this bill includes
necessary provisions to take care of our troops and rejects many of the
administration's proposed changes to compensation and benefits.
The bill wisely rejects the President's proposal to authorize a new
base realignment and closure round in 2015.
This is the right way to proceed because the GAO has found that the
previous BRAC round never produced the amount of savings that were
promised when it was originally sold to Congress.
Finally, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for
including in the bill a provision I authored that reauthorizes the
authority for Federal agencies to hire Federal retirees to come back to
work part time and still retain their annuitant status. This means that
individuals with years of accumulated experience in their jobs can help
train and transition in their replacement or fill staffing gaps.
Let me close on a less optimistic note. As we look ahead to next
year, the specter of sequestration looms increasingly large. DOD has
already made significant reductions, and unless we act soon, the
effects of these indiscriminate, senseless cuts will be devastating to
our national security and defense industrial base.
Further cuts will compromise the size, readiness, and technical
superiority of our military. I stand ready to work closely with all of
my colleagues in the next Congress on a sensible solution.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I speak today about an important
provision in the defense bill. As you know, the maritime and
shipbuilding industries are significant contributors to the economy in
Louisiana and are important to our national security. In Louisiana
alone, these industries employ thousands of hard-working Americans. I
am pleased that the managers of this bill were able to include section
3502, dealing with floating drydocks that are owned or contracted for
purchase by eligible United States shipyards or their affiliates prior
to this bill's enactment. The term ``shipyard'' in section 3502 will
apply to any facility owned by an eligible company in the United States
that constructs or repairs commercial or government vessels, including,
but not limited to, facilities that undertake alterations, conversions,
installations, cleaning, painting, or maintenance work to such vessels.
This provision will clear confusion regarding drydocks and will benefit
American shipbuilders. I commend the managers for including this
provision in the bill.
Mr. TESTER. Madam President, it has come to my attention that a
provision of the Northern Cheyenne Lands Act, which was included in the
recently passed NDAA and public lands package, contains a ministerial
error. Section 3077(c)(1)(A) of the NDAA describes a

[[Page S6736]]

mineral estate transfer between the United States and a private
landowner. Both subparagraphs of that section should reference the same
map, titled ``Northern Cheyenne Land Act--Coal Tracts'' and dated April
22, 2014. However, subparagraph (ii) as just passed contains an error
by indicating a map with an incorrect title. Section 3077(c)(1)(A)(ii)
should therefore be read to reference the ``Northern Cheyenne Land
Act--Coal Tracts'' map dated April 22, 2014, which is the same map
correctly referenced in subparagraph (i) of the same section.
The committee report for the underlying Northern Cheyenne Lands Act
bill, S. 2442, will also acknowledge and address this error. I hope
this drafting error does not delay the Department of the Interior's
implementation of these provisions, which is of great importance to the
Northern Cheyenne Tribe in Montana. This conveyance, once completed,
will correct a mistake made by the United States over a century ago,
when the United States failed to convey this property to the Tribe as
originally directed by Congress.
Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I rise to address American military
involvement in the Syrian civil war and our strategy for protecting
America and our interests in the region.
I would first like to say that I am adamantly opposed to extending
authority to provide funding to train and arm Syrian rebels. That
authority is provided in the defense authorization bill that we are
considering today. I voted against it in committee, spoke against it on
the floor in September, and raise my objections to it now.
I do not know where the Syrian rebels' allegiances truly lie or if
they will remain our allies once the Syrian civil war comes to an end.
What I do know is that once our military begins to train and equip
Syrian rebels of uncertain provenance, we will have put ourselves on a
path that leads inevitably to regime change and nation-building in
Syria. Such a course defies the lessons of American-led Middle Eastern
nation-building over the last twelve years. And I cannot in good
conscience justify to the people of West Virginia why we should
continue down this path.
Before we commit more of our country's blood and treasure, we should
acknowledge that after more than a decade of war, trillions of taxpayer
dollars spent, and over 7,000 American lives lost in that part of the
world, we have not established the pro-western representative
democracies that were once envisioned. But that doesn't mean we can't
protect ourselves.
While I caution against repeating the mistake of Middle Eastern
nation-building, I reiterate my strongest support for our military,
intelligence, and law enforcement professionals who are today defending
Americans at home and abroad from the kind of vile atrocities
perpetrated by ISIS. These professionals demonstrate every day that we
have the means to identify terrorists and prevent them from doing harm
to America.
If I thought that sending military trainers and weapons into Syria
would further that end or would make Americans safer, I would support
doing so. I do not. I reiterate what every Member of this body
certainly believes, which is that we can and should take any necessary
action to prevent a direct threat to the United States. But I firmly
believe that protecting America does not require nation building in
Syria.
Yet our military involvement in Syria and Iraq continues to grow,
though to what end no one is certain. Because Congress has not had a
robust public debate about our strategy in the Middle East, nor made
hard decisions about what our military response should be.
We know that ISIS is a threat to Americans in the Middle East as well
as to friendly nations and our allies there. But we have not debated
whether entering another war is in our national interest.
One of the reasons this debate has not yet happened is that the
President has not submitted to Congress a request for authority to use
military force against ISIS. Instead, what is happening in Syria is
basically this: the White House is relying on a decade-old
congressional authorization that allows military force against al-Qaeda
and is using that as its legal justification for attacking ISIS. Well,
the world is changing, and we ought to be adapting our policies with
it.
My colleague Bob Menendez is pushing forward with an AUMF of his own.
This week the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed out of
committee an AUMF that gives the President authority to go to war with
ISIS, but which prohibits ground troops. This is a first step, and I
look forward to debating the AUMF on the floor of the Senate.
But we should be debating this military authorization in the context
of the President's Middle East strategy, which we have not yet seen
because I believe we have a moral duty to have a full debate before we
send any more Americans into harm's way.
Two important things are going on here. The first is that Congress is
moving closer to give legal authorization for the President to conduct
strikes against ISIS. The second is that the President is also pursuing
a scheme to arm and train Syrians, which will certainly lead to regime
change and nation building. It is therefore critically important that
the President tells us clearly and plainly not just what the objectives
of the military mission are--to degrade and destroy ISIS--but how he
plans on doing so without putting us back into an open-ended war.
I support, as all my colleagues do, any action that prevents attacks
on American property or persons. But before we commit more of our
Nation's blood and treasure to political reform and religious
settlement in the Middle East, we should consider the lessons of our
decade of war there.
History has taught us that militarily training and arming Syrian
rebels of uncertain provenance will put the United States on a path
that leads inevitably to regime change and nation-building in Syria.
Such a course defies the lessons of the American-led military
operations of the last twelve years.
For these reasons I am adamantly opposed to sending American troops
into Syria to further escalate a ground war that I do not believe is in
the best interest of America or the region.
I ask the President and my colleagues in the Senate to allow us to
give the American people the public debate they deserve, before we find
ourselves again in an open-ended war in the Middle East.
Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I wish to speak on a provision in the
appropriations measure. I am pleased to see that this legislation
includes a provision in Division D-Energy and Water Development and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2015, which addresses a concern
raised by farmers and ranchers around the country.
Section 111 of the General Provisions relating to the Corps of
Engineers Civil Works Program states that: ``None of the funds made
available by this Act may be used to require a permit for the discharge
of dredged or fill material under the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act for the activities identified in subparagraphs (A) and (C) of
section 404(f)(1) of the Act.''
In section 404(f)(1) of the Clean Water Act, Congress provided a
permitting exemption for certain activities including normal farming,
forestry, and ranching activities, upland soil and water conservation
practices, and the construction and maintenance of farm or stock ponds
or irrigation ditches and the maintenance of drainage ditches.
One would think that with this clear exemption, our farmers and
ranchers could go about their business without worrying about whether
EPA or the Corps of Engineers would try to regulate plowing, seeding,
and harvesting, or their farm ponds and ditches. Unfortunately, in
recent years EPA and the Corps of Engineers have been trying to
circumvent the 404(f)(1) permitting exemptions by interpreting the
limited ``recapture'' provision in section 404(f)(2) in such an
expansive way as to virtually swallow up the exemptions in 404(f)(1).
A farmer's field is not a water of the U.S. A farm pond is not a
water of the U.S. An irrigation ditch is not a water of the U.S. But,
there are overzealous regulators out there who disagree. We have seen
the Corps try to regulate a family farm when the farmer tried to change
from a ditch irrigation system to a piped irrigation system to improve
water efficiency. The Corps argued that there would be runoff from the
work

[[Page S6737]]

and that runoff somehow made the work subject to permitting under
section 404.
Section 111 stops that regulatory overreach and preserves the
protections Congress has provided to ranchers and farmers by making it
clear that the recapture provisions of section 404(f)(2) do not apply
to normal farming, forestry, and ranching activities, upland soil and
water conservation practices, and the construction and maintenance of
farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches and the maintenance of
drainage ditches.
Of course, the greatest abuse of the Clean Water Act is the Obama
Administration's proposed ``waters of the United States'' rule, and
this section does not alleviate the concerns that farmers, small
businesses, and local communities have with the proposed rule. This
section will, however, ensure that the will of Congress to protect
farmers and ranchers from burdensome 404 permitting requirements is
carried out, and I will continue to do everything in my power to stop
EPA from finalizing the proposed ``waters of the United States'' rule
next year.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, we are getting close to having votes on
amendments and final passage tonight, the most significant vote of the
year each year.
For 52 consecutive years, we have passed the National Defense
Authorization Act. In almost every year there has been a last-minute
misunderstanding as to how these different provisions might affect
something that has nothing to do with the defense of America.
In this case, there was--and procedurally I have disagreed with it. I
have said several times that a land package was included on the bill. I
have felt that once we have gone through the process of what has been
referred to as the big four, we have ironed out the differences. There
are a lot of things that I don't like, but there are more things that I
do like. I daresay to Chairman Levin, he is in the same situation.
I have to say one more time that this chairman has been so incredibly
fair to everyone.
We have to keep in mind that we passed this bill. After working on it
for 4 months, we passed it to the floor from the Senate Armed Services
Committee on May 23. There are a lot of things on here that we had. Of
course, it went over and the House then passed their bill. They passed
their bill actually on May 22; we passed it out of committee on May 23.
The problem is, they were able to pass theirs on the floor; we were
not. It is something we should have done a long time ago, and I am
hoping that we learned a lesson from last year to this year, and we are
not going to let this happen again.
So we have now before us a bill that does the necessary things in
this most difficult time. I think most people would agree there has not
been a time in our history where we have had more opposition from
different parts of the world. I refer to the good old days of the Cold
War with two superpowers--we are one, and the Soviet Union was the
other one--and they were predictable. Mutually assured destruction
meant something. If something happened, we could bomb them and they
would do the same to us, and it is now all over. That is not the way it
is anymore.
We have forces out there from North Korea and Iraq, and all these
things are taking place at a time when--and I don't want to make people
angry about what this President has done to the military, but we have
virtually disarmed America. Our generals now are facing the possibility
of sequestration. So the most important bill is now even more than just
most important. It is a must-pass bill. It has to pass. If this doesn't
pass, there is no other time we can take it up. Should December 31 get
here, it would be an absolute disaster.
We right now have 1,779,343 enlisted personnel in the military. If we
didn't pass a reauthorization bill, they would lose their benefits on
December 31. I have talked about the benefit of that. I think everyone
understands it, and it would be redundant to repeat it. But we can't
have people making career decisions predicated on assumptions that they
would have hazard pay, the assumption if they are pilots that they
would have pilot pay; that critical skills like the SEALs would have
bonuses, and then all of a sudden on December 31 we take them away.
We are not going to let that happen. We are going to pass this bill
today. The concern I have is that any amendments on it would cause a
problem that I think would be insurmountable. It would have to go back.
They would have to recall the House and then come back, and timewise it
can't happen.
So this is the last train leaving town. We have to have this for the
sake of our men and women in uniform. If there is time remaining after
the chairman makes his remarks, I will even comment on some specific
parts of this bill in terms of how good this bill is and why it is
necessary to pass.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I first thank my friend from Oklahoma, my
partner as well in the Armed Services Committee. I have enjoyed the
presence of the Presiding Officer on our committee, and I think she
knows how well that committee works together, and Senator Inhofe and I
guess both sides--both parties have worked very closely together for
our troops. That is what this is all about is pulling together for our
troops. They inspire us, they unify us, they protect us, and the least
we owe them is a Defense authorization bill.
We haven't missed in 52 years. This would be the 53rd straight year
that there would be a Defense authorization bill--coincidentally, the
same number of years I have been married. So this may be the gift to my
wife for our anniversary if we are done with this bill, if we finish it
today.
This bill takes provisions critical to our national security, to the
well-being of our men and women in uniform, to our retirees and their
families. If we fail to enact this bill, the Department of Defense's
statutory authority to pay combat pay, hardship duty pay, enlistment
and reenlistment bonuses, incentive pays for critical specialties,
assignment incentive pay, accession and retention bonuses for critical
specialties, will expire on December 31. We cannot let that happen.
After that date, the statutory authority to provide combat pay to our
troops in Afghanistan and Iraq will lapse. We cannot let that happen.
We would lose some of our most highly skilled men and women with
specialties that we vitally need. We cannot let that happen.
Not only would we be shortchanging our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
marines, we would be denying our military services critical authorities
they need to recruit and retain high-quality servicemembers, and to
achieve their force-shaping objectives as they draw down their end
strengths.
And there is more. If we fail to enact this bill, school districts
all over the United States that rely on supplemental impact aid to help
them educate military children would no longer receive that money. If
we fail to enact this bill, the Department of Defense will not be able
to begin construction on important new military construction projects
in the coming year. That would mean our troops don't get the barracks,
the ranges, the hospitals, the laboratories, and the other support
facilities they need to support operational requirements, conduct
training, and to maintain their equipment.
It would mean that military family housing will not receive needed
upgrades, and that schools to educate the children of our
servicemembers will not be built or modernized.
If we fail to enact this bill, we will not enact provisions that
strengthen survivor benefits for disabled children of servicemembers
and retirees. We would not then enact provisions addressing the
employment of military spouses, job placement of veterans. That is an
issue which the Presiding Officer knows an awful lot about, because she
has been so directly involved in that and so many other issues.
We would then not be enacting provisions relative to military hazing,
military suicides, post-traumatic stress disorder, and mental health
problems in the military.
If we do not enact this bill, we would then enact none of the 20
provisions in this bill addressing the scourge of sexual assault in the
military. We will not eliminate the good soldier defense which is
eliminated in this bill, as it

[[Page S6738]]

should be. We would not give victims of sexual assault a voice in
whether their case is prosecuted in military or civilian courts. They
should have that voice. We would not give survivors of sexual assault
the right to challenge court-martial rulings that violate their rights
and to challenge them in the Court of Criminal Appeals. They should
have that right.
If we don't pass this bill, we would not be strengthening the
psychotherapist-patient privilege.
So this bill includes critical authorities for the Department of
Defense. It provides essential support to our men and women in uniform,
military retirees, and their families.
If either of the motions we are going to be voting on is adopted,
this bill then will not pass and not become law, because it would then
in one instance be open to amendments, and that could be endless
because there are so many amendments that people would like to offer. I
have gone into the reasons why we are in a position where that simply
is not practical or possible.
We are asking our colleagues to allow this bill to come to a final
passage today and become the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2015.
Again, with thanks to all of our colleagues on the Armed Services
Committee, thanks to my partner Senator Inhofe who has worked so
closely, he and his staff, with myself and our staff.
I hope this would have an overwhelming vote and that we would not
adopt any motion which would lead then to our not adopting this
critically needed bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, it is just about time for the vote. I
want to mention something which hasn't been mentioned.
We have two really great Americans, one serving in the House and one
serving in the Senate. We have been talking about Chairman Levin and
how fair and open he has been. I think there is not a person of the 100
Members of the Senate who doesn't agree with that.
At the same time, we have Buck McKeon over in the House of
Representatives. He is the chairman of the House committee that Carl
Levin is the chair of over here. He also is retiring, and he has served
for quite some time--not as long as Senator Levin.
Against their objections, we have named this bill the Carl Levin-Buck
McKeon bill, so I want to make sure everyone recognizes that proper
tribute has been made to the long hours and years and the hard work
they have contributed.
This guy over here to my left has been through 16 of these. He has
been working about 36 years, and I want to say he is deserving of that
recognition.
I also want to mention two other people. One is the guy sitting next
to me to my right, John Bonsell; the other is Pete Levine, sitting next
to the chairman. Their job is to make us look good and make all this a
reality, because it is a very complicated thing. It is a 24-hour-a-day
work project. So I thank them for their effort. I know we are just
talking about amendments right now and we will have a chance to maybe
expand later on, but I think it needs to be said, and it needs to be
said more than once.
I yield the floor. The hour is here.

Vote on Motion to Refer

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
refer the House message on H.R. 3979 to the Committee on Armed Services
with instructions.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, before asking for the yeas and nays, I
want to thank my friend again, Senator Inhofe, for mentioning our
staff. John Peter has done such good work with all of our staffs. We
put the names of our staffs in the Record a day or two ago and they
deserve that and a lot more.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Walsh). Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 18, nays 82, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 323 Leg.]

YEAS--18

Blunt
Boozman
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Corker
Cruz
Grassley
Johnson (WI)
Lee
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Thune
Vitter

NAYS--82

Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Crapo
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Tester
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Walsh
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
The motion was rejected.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore.
The Senator from Oklahoma.

Motion to Suspend Rule XXII

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I move to suspend rule XXII for the
purposes of proposing and considering amendment No. 4098, and I ask for
the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Pursuant to the precedent set by
the Senate on October 6, 2011, such a motion is dilatory postcloture,
and is not in order.

Appeal of the Decision of the Chair

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, a motion to suspend the rules postcloture
is not dilatory, and on those grounds I respectfully appeal the
decision of the Chair, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the
judgment of the Senate?
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 45, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 324 Leg.]

YEAS--55

Baldwin
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Walsh
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--45

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Walsh). On this vote, the yeas are 55, the
nays are 45.
The Senate sustains the decision of the Chair.
The majority leader is recognized.

Order of Business

Mr. REID. For the information of all Members, we have two more votes
based on the prior order that was entered last night. I alert all
Members they better not leave here right now for the weekend because we
have matters we need to dispose of. I have spoken to Senator McConnell
recently, and we are going to try to work something out so that we may
be able to get off tomorrow and Sunday. We are going to have to work on
Monday morning unless something comes up in the meantime. Everybody
should just take it easy until we get something worked out; otherwise,
the Government will run out of money tomorrow night at midnight. We
have to complete this omnibus bill prior to that time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to concur
with an amendment is withdrawn.

[[Page S6739]]

The question is on agreeing to the motion to concur in the House
amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3979.
Mr. BEGICH. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 11, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 325 Leg.]

YEAS--89

Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Walsh
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker

NAYS--11

Brown
Crapo
Cruz
Gillibrand
Lee
Merkley
Moran
Paul
Risch
Sanders
Wyden
The motion was agreed to.

____________________