[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.

                          ____________________