[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 74 (Thursday, May 14, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2914-S2926]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ENSURING TAX EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL ACT--MOTION TO 
                            PROCEED--Resumed

  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, if I could make my remarks about trade, 
Chairman Hatch has graciously allowed me to make a few comments at this 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, with the votes that have been cast today 
in the Senate, the Senate has begun to develop a powerful and 
bipartisan message that the trade policy of the 1990s will be 
unacceptable in 2015.
  The Customs and Enforcement package passed this morning goes a long 
way toward breaking new ground. We will be talking about the final two 
elements of the overall trade package, trade promotion authority, and 
trade adjustment assistance. But until we are done with this debate, I 
will be referring to the chart next to me because what we will be 
outlining are all of the specific areas that demonstrate that this 
legislation is going to finally put the 1990s and NAFTA in the rearview 
mirror and fix many of its flaws.
  For example, in the NAFTA era, American priorities, like rights for 
working families and environmental protection, were an afterthought, 
and they were stuck in unenforceable side agreements. With this 
legislation, they will be bedrock elements of future trade agreements. 
Back in those NAFTA days, the United States pretty much just asked our 
trading partners to enforce their own labor and environmental laws, and 
then we sort of hoped for the best.
  The trade promotion act says that if a trading partner's laws fall 
short, they are going to be required to pass new laws to fix the 
problem, and for the first time, these labor and environmental 
protections will be fully enforceable, enforceable because they are 
backed by the threat of trade sanctions.
  So the NAFTA-era policies, colleagues, had no teeth. In effect, this 
legislation raises the global bar on labor rights and environmental 
protection.
  We are going to hear a lot about how somehow this is just more of the 
same, and it is going to promote a race to the bottom. What we intend 
to spell out in the days ahead is how this creates new momentum to push 
our standards up, rather than promote a race to the bottom.
  For the first time, I wish to note--with the support of our 
colleagues, the outstanding work done by our colleague from Maryland, 
Ben Cardin--now human rights will be a negotiating objective for our 
future trade agreements.
  Back in the NAFTA era, the United States fought for intellectual 
property protection for drugmakers, but nobody was trying to do much of 
anything to look for people stuck in hardship around the world who 
needed access to affordable medicine. That also will change with this 
legislation.
  The old NAFTA playbook was written in a time when cell phones were 
about as big as bricks and Internet commerce was still a dream. Today, 
it is right at the heart of our economy.
  So our new approach to trade is going to help cement American 
leadership in the digital economy. Even now, in 2015, you have 
repressive governments in China, Russia, and elsewhere building digital 
walls that block the free flow of information and commerce online. If 
that trend continues, it would chop the Internet up into small, 
country-sized pieces. In my view, the Internet is the shipping lane of 
the 21st century, and products sent around the world in bits and bytes 
are just as important as products packaged into shipping containers and 
sent across the oceans. I strongly believe this is the best chance to 
fix what NAFTA got wrong and introduce a new day in American trade 
policy.
  The only way for our country to defend an open Internet, promote 
access to affordable medicine, protect our values on labor standards, 
environmental protections, and human rights is to fight for them as 
part of our trade negotiations. Certainly nobody else is going to pick 
up the American banner and fight for those kinds of progressive 
American values in the way we can. In fact, it is my view that if our 
country fails to lead the way, it will be China that steps in to write 
rules, rules that very likely could hurt American workers and our 
exporters. So we have to engage with modern, progressive trade policies 
and with a higher bar for trade agreements.
  I recognize there are skeptics with doubts about trade deals and the 
process of moving them through Congress. I think we can still take 
steps to try to reach out to those who have been critical about past 
trade policy, find common ground, and lock those new policies into the 
future way in which we make a trade law.
  I have indicated for many months that I think those who are skeptical 
about our trade policies have a valid point when they talk about the 
excessive secrecy that has so often accompanied much of the trade 
discussion. My view has been, if you believe strongly in the benefits 
of trade--and particularly those high-skilled, high-wage export jobs, 
and you want more of them--why in the world would you want to have all 
of this secrecy that just makes Americans so aware of the fact that 
something isn't coming to light? They are wondering whether there is a 
reason something has been hidden.
  Now, it has been too common that Oregonians and other Americans have 
no way of knowing what is on the table in trade talks or how they would 
be affected. That was a problem with NAFTA, and it has been a problem 
that has continued over the years.
  There is no question about the need for protecting some of the 
details in our trade negotiations. I often say at a townhall meeting 
that nobody is talking about giving out the secret sauce in some 
particular product. But today Americans have reasonable expectations to 
be able to fire up their computer, click open their browser, and

[[Page S2915]]

learn about the public policies that affect them and their families.
  It is time to close the book on those days when Americans were kept 
in the dark on trade. The reality is, under the old playbook, that 
NAFTA playbook, the President could be handed an agreement for 
signature and put pen to paper right away.
  So nothing illustrates better than the changes that Chairman Hatch, 
I, and Chairman Ryan have worked on to put in place a fresh set of 
policies to ensure that the American people are no longer in the dark 
with respect to trade.
  Under this legislation, the President, by law, will have to make the 
full text of trade deals public for 60 days before a President can sign 
them. When you factor in the Congress, agreements would be public for 
as many as 100 days before they are voted on and often more.
  So what that means is, if you live in West Virginia, Utah, Oregon or 
Alaska, you will be able to come to one of our community meetings and 
have in your hands the trade agreement, starting with the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership, for more than 3 months before your Senator or your Member 
of the House has cast a vote on them. For more than 3 months, the 
American people will have the actual text, starting with the Trans-
Pacific Partnership agreement. I think that is a long overdue change. I 
will say, that is a very dramatic change. That is part of the reason 
why I note that this TPA is certainly not one that resembles the NAFTA 
era on transparency.
  Finally, on the transparency front, long before the deals are 
finalized, our trade officials would be required to give detailed and 
public updates on what is at stake in the negotiations. Every Member of 
Congress will have access to the full text, from beginning to end, and 
the doors will be open for Members to attend negotiating sessions and 
briefings.
  Perhaps the most important new tool in this legislation is a new 
procedure for hitting the brakes on bad trade deals before they reach 
the Senate or House floor. If a trade deal doesn't meet the high bar 
the Congress sets under this progressive, modern approach, it will be a 
whole lot easier to shut it down. It is my view that protecting that 
ability makes the process more democratic, and all of those upgrades 
will close the door on the 1990s and NAFTA once and for all.
  The second matter at hand now is the support system for American 
workers known as trade adjustment assistance, and paired with that 
program is the health coverage tax credit.
  When times are tough for workers and industries affected by trade, 
the health coverage credit guarantees that those persons and their 
families will still be able to see their doctors. And trade adjustment 
assistance is there to help with job training and financial support. It 
is a lifeline for more than 100,000 Americans today, including 3,000 in 
Oregon, and it helps to guarantee that those workers and their families 
have a springboard to a new set of opportunities where they can have 
for themselves and their families a new opportunity for good-paying 
jobs and a chance to get ahead.
  The Trade Adjustment Assistance Program has spent the last few years 
working at reduced capacity. That would change with this legislation. 
Trade adjustment assistance would be back at full strength in the year 
2021 with a level of funding the administration says will cover 
everybody who qualifies. Once again the program would bring service 
workers into the mix because it is not just manufacturing employees who 
face competition from abroad. Trade adjustment assistance takes into 
account competition that comes from anywhere, including China and 
India, instead of just a select list of countries.
  I want to be clear that the Senate is not voting today to give the 
green light to the Trans-Pacific Partnership or any other trade 
agreement. As I see it, this is legislation which raises the bar for 
trade deals and challenges our negotiators to meet it. It will go 
further than ever before in stripping the secrecy out of trade policy 
and will provide new accountability by protecting our ability to slam 
the brakes on trade deals that don't work for our hard-working middle 
class.
  When you put these vast improvements together with a next-level 
enforcement system, it is my view that you have a long-overdue 
progressive, modern approach that sets aside the NAFTA playbook. This 
is a plan which will help get trade done right so that it works better 
for all Americans, whether they are a service professional, a business 
owner, or a worker who punches the time clock at the end of the day.
  I will close with just a short statement about why this is especially 
timely right now. All the evidence suggests that in 2025 there are 
going to be 1 billion middle-class workers in the developing world. 
These are going to be workers with money to spend. They are going to 
buy computers and helicopters and bicycles, their companies will buy 
planes, and the list goes on and on. It is my hope and I think the hope 
of every Member of the Senate that we have a trade policy that ensures 
our workers can have the opportunity to export what we make here and 
what we grow here--the products of the United States--to this 1-
billion-person middle-class market.
  Let's take this opportunity--a bipartisan opportunity--to have a 
fresh new trade policy that increases the prospect of having American 
workers, who are the best and most competitive workers on the planet, 
sell the goods and services they make and deliver them to that enormous 
market that wants to buy American, wants to buy Oregon. It just seems 
to me to be obvious that we should take the opportunity to tap the 
potential of that market.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, while my colleague from Oregon is 
still on the floor, I want to thank him for his leadership through 
these discussions over these past several days on the floor and longer 
prior to that. He has been a leader in trying to thread the needle, and 
it has been a little bit harder, but I appreciate the fact that we are 
here today and hopefully moving forward to that agreement that will 
allow us as a nation to be the best we can and to engage in a level of 
trade that is fair, free, and really of great benefit to us as a 
nation. I thank him for that.


                          National Police Week

  Madam President, I too want to speak about the trade promotion 
authority and some of the issues associated with it, but I first want 
to speak briefly and acknowledge the comments made by my colleagues 
from New Hampshire when they spoke about National Police Week and 
honoring those brave men and women who serve us day in and day out, 
those who go where many of us would choose not to, whose families worry 
about them, and those who have fallen in the line of their service.
  This is National Police Week in the Nation's Capital and across 
America. Each year during National Police Week I honor the men and 
women of law enforcement who have given their lives in the line of 
duty. In previous Police Week speeches I have taken note of the sad 
coincidence that a spate of line-of-duty casualties seems to happen in 
the days and weeks leading up to National Police Week.
  This year, unfortunately, is no exception. Last weekend the Nation 
was shocked by the shooting of two members of the Hattiesburg, MS 
Police Department. A week ago two communities lost law enforcement 
officers bearing the last name of Moore--Detective Brian Moore of the 
New York Police Department and Sergeant Greg Moore of Coeur d'Alene, 
ID. They are among 45 law enforcement heroes who have died in the line 
of duty this year alone. I extend my condolences to their families and 
to their communities on these tragic losses. And I extend my support to 
my colleagues from the States of Idaho, Mississippi and New York who 
share in the grief of their communities. In the U.S. Senate we take the 
loss of a first responder personally for we regard these public 
servants as members of our own extended families.
  During National Police Week we honor and remember the 117 law 
enforcement officers lost in 2014. Their names were read at a 
candlelight vigil on Judiciary Square Wednesday evening and their 
memories will be

[[Page S2916]]

honored at the Peace Officers Memorial Service on the Capitol grounds 
on Friday. This week the families and colleagues of these 117 officers 
are gathered in Alexandria at the Police Survivors Seminar sponsored by 
Concerns of Police Survivors, where they will gain comfort from a 
community of survivors who have walked in their steps. This week's 
events are very important steps in the lengthy journey our families 
face to heal their losses. But it is a vital step.
  I have attended the Police Survivors Seminar and cannot say enough 
good things about Concerns of Police Survivors and Suzie Sawyer, its 
founding executive director, who set the standard for caring and 
healing. Although Suzie claims to have retired, when we face a law 
enforcement tragedy in the State of Alaska I am comforted by the fact 
that her phone number is still in my speed dial. Sadly I had an 
opportunity to use it in 2014.
  Last evening I attended the candlelight vigil as I have in past years 
to honor fallen officers from the State of Alaska. Joined on the dais 
by the Attorney General of the United States and the Secretary of 
Homeland Security I was honored to read the names of two Alaska State 
Troopers who gave their lives while protecting the Native Village of 
Tanana in 2014. Trooper Sergeant P. Scott Johnson and Trooper Gabriel 
Lenox Rich at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial.
  I have spoken before about the unique dangers that are presented when 
law enforcement officers perform their duties in Alaska Native 
villages. No roads connected most of these villages to the nearest 
trooper post which can be hundreds of miles away, accessible only by 
air or boat and only then when the weather cooperates. And that was the 
case when Sergeant Johnson and Trooper Rich were ambushed in the 
village as they sought to apprehend an individual who was driving while 
intoxicated in the village and brandished a weapon at the unarmed 
village public safety officer.
  There is no consoling those who remember the lives and passions of 
Scott and Gabe. But it matters that their life stories were not 
forgotten. Fallen law enforcement officers are heroes for the way they 
live their lives. And at last night's observance the stories of Scott 
and Gabe were an integral part of the event. Attorney General Loretta 
Lynch spoke to their heroism as did the event organizers. For the first 
time I can remember you could see the distinctive tunics worn by our 
Alaska State Troopers among the crowd of 10,000, and as the event ended 
my staff encountered two members of the Fairbanks Police Department in 
uniform on the streets of downtown Washington. They traveled at their 
own expense to pay their respects to two individuals from Interior 
Alaska who were widely respected by area wide law enforcement. Sergeant 
Johnson was well known as a ``cop's cop''. He was well known as both a 
drug expert and a tactical expert.
  The Fairbanks officers mentioned that Scott was gracious with his 
time and his expertise--providing training to the Fairbanks Police 
Department that otherwise would have cost tens of thousands of dollars. 
Gabe Rich was a young guy and mentored by the finest of Alaska's 
finest--Sergeant Johnson--and he demonstrated great potential. Both 
lived their lives as model Alaska State Troopers.
  Service as an Alaska State Trooper is regarded as a huge deal in our 
State. I am reminded that there are 700,000 law enforcement officers 
across the country but only 400 have what it takes to be Alaska State 
Troopers. Guardians of the last frontier.
  In May I came to the floor to discuss the lives of Scott and Gabe and 
the families they left behind. Today I would like to pay homage to the 
organization they were a valuable part of and devoted their lives to. 
And I pay homage to the creed they willfully and enthusiastically chose 
to live their lives by.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Creed of the Alaska State Trooper be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                  THE CREED OF AN ALASKA STATE TROOPER

       From the beginning, society has needed a special few 
     willing to face evil and run toward harm for the sake of 
     others. I am one of those few. I am an Alaska State Trooper. 
     My environment is harsh, vast and unforgiving. I thrive in 
     it. My state is beautiful, majestic and the last of its kind. 
     I will protect it. My integrity is absolute. My loyalty is to 
     what is ethical, right and true. My courage will not falter. 
     Fear does not control me. I am the master of my actions and 
     emotions, regardless of circumstance. When action is needed, 
     I will act. If I fall, I will get back up. If I fail, I will 
     try again. I will either find a way or make one I will never 
     give up. I will be physically superior, mentally tougher and 
     more tenacious than those determined to bring harm to others. 
     I will enhance my knowledge and proficiency every day. My 
     training will never cease. I am a quiet professional. I do 
     not seek recognition for my actions. I accept and will 
     overcome the mental and physical hazards of my profession. I 
     will do what is necessary to place the needs of others before 
     my own. Because I endure this, others won't have to. Titles 
     will not define me. No man will determine my worth. I will 
     live my life according to the creed I have written on my 
     heart, regardless of my position, rank or title. I will stand 
     on the shoulders of those who have gone before me. I am honor 
     bound to maintain the proud traditions of Alaska's finest. 
     The fallen are honored by my actions and I commit myself 
     daily to the mighty cause of preserving this honor. I am an 
     Alaska State Trooper.

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I will close with these words which appear at the 
gates to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. The words of 
President George H.W. Bush: ``Carved on these walls is the story of 
America, of a continuing quest to preserve both democracy and decency, 
and to protect a national treasure that we call the American dream.'' 
Last evening the names of Patrick Scott Johnson and Gabriel Lenox Rich 
were carved into those walls. A reminder, once again, that in valor 
there is hope.
  Madam President, returning to the issue of trade in my State of 
Alaska, we are here to debate trade promotion authority. We have had an 
opportunity to proceed to this measure. I was pleased to be able to 
vote to advance it earlier this week and again today, and I will 
continue to support free trade.
  In my State, which is separated from the contiguous 48 States, our 
trade is based primarily with those to the west in Asia. Most of our 
trade does not go to the lower 48 States. So when we think about our 
trading partners, for Alaskans, it is international trade. 
International trade in our State supports about 1 in 5 jobs--over 
90,000 Alaskan jobs. Of those who are exporters, about 70 percent are 
small- and medium-sized companies. These are men and women who are 
engaged in a very sophisticated level of trade overseas, but many of 
them are relatively small. We are very vigorous in our trade with 
Japan, South Korea, and China, but we also have good relationships, of 
course, with our friends in Europe and elsewhere around the globe.
  In 2013, the countries that are negotiating the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership--the TPP--and the TTIP agreements comprised about 54 
percent of Alaska's exported goods. This is a significant part of what 
we look to for our exports. As we look to the TPP and the benefits that 
it will accrue, I think our State is looking to clearly strengthen 
these relationships as well as open new markets for Alaska's exports.
  About 34,000 Alaska jobs are supported by trade with TPP countries. 
Thirty-six percent of Alaska's goods are exported to TPP countries, and 
more than 50 TPP companies have investments within the State of Alaska.
  One of our longest and more established trading partners--Japan--is 
obviously not a current U.S. FTA partner, but the TPP negotiations will 
provide an avenue for removing some of the trade barriers we see with 
Japan and will allow us additional economic opportunities within the 
State of Alaska, specifically as it relates to our fish, our fisheries, 
and our frozen fish. Current tariff rates to export frozen fish and 
prepared crabs to Japan are about 10 percent, so a free-trade agreement 
will lower these tariffs and increase access to Japan's seafood market. 
This is something we care a great deal about, and it has been a very 
longstanding partnership and relationship.
  Today, I want to move from some of the issues relating to my State 
and what opportunities there will be for us with the prospect of trade 
promotion authority moving forward and I want to draw attention to a 
related issue. This is an issue that is outdated when

[[Page S2917]]

it comes to exports and, very specifically, a ban on exports. What I am 
referring to is the current ban, the prohibition on crude oil exports. 
This absolutely runs counter to the principle of free trade as well as 
the notion that we should stand ready to help our allies, to help our 
friends for the sake of global security.
  We talk a lot about national security. We talk a lot about what more 
we can do to provide for national security and the geopolitics and how 
we can be of help to our friends and allies. Well, one way we can 
demonstrate our willingness to help is by lifting this decades-old ban, 
this prohibition on our crude oil and allow for exports.
  I want to share with my colleagues five quick facts they may or may 
not know about our Nation's history of oil exports, because while we 
have this ban in place--and it has been in place since the mid-1970s--
there is a history that I think is important.
  The first fact goes back to World War II. The United States exported 
tens of millions of barrels of crude oil to our allies in World War II, 
and I am talking about Canada, the United Kingdom, India, and 
Australia. We were engaged in a very robust level of exports to our 
friends during World War II.
  Second fact: When Egypt seized control of the Suez Canal, President 
Eisenhower moved quickly, and he ordered American oil to relieve what 
was called Europe's oil famine. That was pretty immediate, that was 
pretty direct, and it was targeted to help our allies and friends at 
that time.
  Third fact: When Rhodesia cut off the flow of oil to Zambia in 1965, 
America stood with Britain to provide assistance. We delivered 
petroleum products in the Zambian airlift. So we were there in 1965 
when Zambia needed that assistance.
  Then, in the 1970s, facing a threat from multiple regimes, Israel 
secured an agreement from the United States to supply it with oil in 
the event of a national emergency. So this agreement was made back in 
1975. This was under the administration of President Ford, and that 
agreement was that the United States would stand with our friend and 
ally and provide oil in the event that their sources were threatened, 
that Israel was threatened.
  That agreement stood through President Ford's administration, 
President Carter's, President Bill Clinton's, President George Bush's, 
and with President Obama's administration. So it is an agreement that 
has endured--that we will stand by our friend Israel in providing it 
with a source of oil in the event of a national emergency. This is 
something where we just got the administration to sign off on this just 
literally a month or so ago, to re-affirm that agreement.
  Then, the fifth fact here is that former Ambassador Carlos Pascual 
and others have testified before our energy committee that the 
sanctions against Iran--which brought Iran to the table--worked. They 
worked because of rising U.S. oil production. He went further to say 
that we were hamstrung by our inability to export it.
  We have heard this consistently in the energy committee. We heard 
this discussed on the floor of the Senate the past couple of weeks when 
we were talking about the Iran deal. Today, we are in a position where 
our friends, our trading partners, and our allies are again asking for 
our assistance. We have the resource.
  Some would say we are awash in oil right now. The production we have 
seen has been nothing short of phenomenal. But we are tied. We are 
limited in our ability to move it beyond our shores. Our allies are 
looking at us, and they are in the grips of tension.
  Look at our friends and allies in Poland. Poland is 96-percent 
dependent on Russia for their oil. Don't we think that Poland would 
rather receive their oil from their friend the United States? Poland 
has been there with us when it comes to national missile defense. With 
just about every engagement we have had, Poland has been there for us. 
Wouldn't it be nice for us to be there for our friend Poland?
  Just a couple weeks ago, we had the Prime Minister of Japan here, Mr. 
Abe. Iran is still supplying oil to Japan, despite those sanctions. 
Japan needs a source of oil. Don't we think that Japan would much 
rather receive oil from the United States--more crude from the United 
States?
  I think we recognize the world has changed out there. There are new 
alliances, there are new threats, there are new hopes, and there are 
new fears. It remains my hope that, while the world may change, our 
role as a global leader has not eroded. And one way--one clear, sure 
way--we can ensure that it hasn't eroded is to help our friends and to 
use our resource as a national strategic asset to help our friends and 
allies.
  The whole idea that oil exports are still prohibited is just mind-
boggling. I have been working on this now for over a year. We have been 
encouraging different reports so people really understand this issue 
and wrap their minds around it, because to change a policy that has 
been in place for decades takes understanding and education. I am 
willing to give that time, but I also appreciate that the policy that 
is in place right now just doesn't make sense.
  The Commerce Department retains a list of commodities that are 
defined in short simply, and they call this the Short Supply Controls. 
Historically, these controls were generally not blanket prohibitions. 
They were on things such as aluminum, copper, iron, steel scrap, 
nickel, selenium, and the polio vaccine.
  But it is interesting--we look at that Short Supply Controls list 
right now, and there are three items on that list. The first, 
obviously, is crude oil; the second is western red cedar; and the third 
is horses for export by sea intended for slaughter.
  Now, there is a small caveat, because there is a prohibition of 
exports of petroleum products that would come from the Naval Petroleum 
Reserve, but it is very small. So really what we are talking about and 
the three items that are on this Short Supply Controls list--in other 
words, prohibited--are oil, cedar, and horses. Go figure.
  Now, we do have embargoes on North Korea, for example, and we control 
the export of other things such as sensitive technology. But crude 
oil's presence on the Short Supply Controls, I think, is particularly 
conspicuous, since we export our petroleum products--our refined 
products--at record levels. I think it is important for people to make 
that distinction because sometimes there is a little bit of confusion.
  We export our refined products at record levels. What we don't export 
is the crude. Some people say: Well, I am afraid that if we lift the 
oil export ban and we allow for crude export, the price of oil or the 
price at the pump is going to go up, and I am worried about that. I 
think we would all be worried about that. We don't want to see the 
price of gasoline at the pump go up. The fact remains that what we put 
in our vehicle, what we pump at the filling station is a refined 
product that we already export. So we don't see that price spike; we 
don't see that increase. What we don't refine is the crude product.
  We have engaged in study after study after study. There have been 
about eight different, very reputable studies out there, and each and 
every one of them has come to the same conclusion--that allowing for 
the lifting of the export ban will not increase the price of gas to the 
consumer. I think it is important to reaffirm that.
  I urge my colleagues who are ready to vote for trade promotion 
authority to consider joining my effort. My colleague Senator Heitkamp 
from North Dakota is working with me on the other side to lift this 
ban, to extend the principle of free trade to crude oil exports.
  We export natural gas. We export diesel, jet fuel, gasoline, natural 
gasoline, propane, coal--so many other petroleum products.
  I should end by reminding people that the ban that we have in place 
does allow for certain limited amounts of export. Today, we export to 
Canada about 4,000 barrels a day. I think that is about average right 
now. With Alaska, there is an exception that allowed for export of 
Alaska crude back in the mid 1990s. I just asked for confirmation on 
what we have been exporting. Last year, in September of 2014, we 
exported about 800,000 barrels to South Korea, and I am told that just 
this month, in May, there were 975,000 barrels that went over to South 
Korea.
  So we in Alaska are trying to do our little bit to help. We need to 
get our oil pipeline filled up so that we can do more to export more to 
those who are

[[Page S2918]]

our friends, partners, and allies. But this is something for which, 
again, the time is now. The subject is ripe as we are talking about 
allowing for greater opportunities for export. But when we look to 
those policies that hold us back--hold us back from good jobs, from 
producing our resources to our benefit and our economy's benefit and to 
the benefit of our friends and allies--it is time that we lift the ban 
on crude oil. Doing so will create jobs, strengthen our security, lower 
our trade deficit, and, again, as study after study has shown, not 
raise our gasoline prices.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for the time on the floor this 
afternoon, and look forward to working with my colleagues on these 
issues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I thank the Presiding Officer for 
letting me talk about the trade agenda this afternoon. And I appreciate 
the words of my colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, regarding the 
liquefied natural gas exports and oil exports.
  This is a discussion about how we ensure that we are accessing the 95 
percent of consumers who live outside of our borders. For the workers 
and farmers I represent in Ohio, that is really important. This is how 
we are going to be able to get this economy back on track. In part, it 
is to provide more markets--more customers.
  Already in my State of Ohio, we depend heavily on exports. One out of 
every three acres that is planted in Ohio--we are one of the top farm 
States in the country. We are proud of that. It is the No. 1 industry. 
One out of every three acres that is planted is exported. Of our 
soybean crop, which is typically our biggest crop in Ohio, 60 percent 
gets exported. So for farmers, in order to keep their prices up, these 
foreign markets are absolutely critical.
  But it is also really important for our manufacturing sector in Ohio. 
About 25 percent of our manufacturing jobs are export jobs. And, 
frankly, what has happened over the last 7 years, while America has not 
been in the business of opening up these markets, is that they are 
beginning to lose their market share.
  So it is good for us to expand exports. We have to do that because 
that creates not only more jobs in my State and in our country, but it 
also creates better jobs. These are higher-paying jobs with better 
benefits.
  Those 95 percent of consumers outside of the United States border 
deserve to get some products stamped ``Made in America'' because they 
are great products. They are great agricultural products, great 
manufacturing products, great services. We should be aggressively 
expanding our exports.
  But while we do that, we have to be sure it is fair, too. We have to 
be sure that these other countries are not sending us imports that are 
traded at below their cost--that is called dumping--that they aren't 
illegally subsidizing their exports, which happens. That is when you 
put duties in place to make sure they are not doing things to make the 
playing field unlevel, and so that our workers who are doing all the 
right things--playing by the rules, becoming more competitive, and 
making concessions to be competitive--are not left holding the bag and 
don't get the short end of the stick. Instead, they get the ability to 
compete on a level playing field. If they can do that, they will be 
just fine. We will be able to expand exports, and therefore, create 
these better-paying jobs we talked about.
  That is what this debate should be all about. It is about a balance. 
It is about expanding exports, at the same time making sure that the 
rules of the road work for all of us, including our workers and our 
farmers, our service providers in my State of Ohio and all around our 
great country.
  I am delighted to see that we are moving forward with this debate 
because it is an honest debate we have to have.
  And for those who just say that we can expand exports but we can't do 
anything about this unfair trade, I think that is not the right 
balance. For those who say we shouldn't be doing these exports because 
somehow that doesn't help our workers because there is so much unfair 
trade out there, that doesn't work, either. There is a balance in 
between here.
  One of the issues I have spent a lot of time working on over the 
years and looking at is this trade distortion called currency 
manipulation. Look, I understand it is a complicated area, and some 
people think we just shouldn't touch it or maybe it is something that 
only the Department of Treasury can deal with because it is currency. 
It is not technically products and goods. But I would say that there is 
not a Member in this body who doesn't believe that when another country 
manipulates its currency to expand its exports, that that affects 
trade. It is just obvious.
  If you are trying in a deliberate way to lower the cost of your 
exports by lowering the value of your currency vis-a-vis another 
country, such as us, that is going to help you in trade.
  I had the fasteners in here this week. These are the people who make 
nuts and bolts and screws, and they are big in Ohio. We are happy to 
have a good fastener industry in Ohio. But they will tell you that 
their margins are pretty tight.
  Chairman Volcker, who was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, made 
an interesting statement. He said that, in 1 week, through currency 
manipulation, we can do away with all the benefits of years of trade 
negotiations. Sadly, I think that is true.
  So while we are promoting exports, we should also make it clear that 
we do not believe we should distort trade. And for our Republican 
colleagues, those of us who believe in markets, we should be against 
distortions--and this is a market distortion. We should speak up about 
it and not be shy about it and not suggest that somehow, because it is 
something that traditionally has been handled by the Treasury 
Department and by the International Monetary Fund and as a currency 
issue, it doesn't affect trade. It does affect trade.
  Now, if they were making great progress on it at the International 
Monetary Fund, I might feel differently about it. But why not include 
it as a trade negotiating objective? I think it makes all the sense in 
the world. We are going to have an amendment to do just that, and it 
will be on the floor next week as we take up the trade promotion 
authority.
  I urge my colleagues to take a look at it, objectively. It is very 
targeted. It does not deal with a country being able to adjust its 
monetary policy. It explicitly says it does not relate to monetary 
policy, macroeconomic policy. It has to do with deliberate intervention 
in currency markets to have this benefit in exports we talked about, 
again, to distort the free market in order for other countries to be 
able to sell their products to us at a lower value than they should be 
and in turn, for our exports to them to be at a higher value, which 
makes it harder for us to keep jobs here in America.

  People say this is all about the auto industry. Yes, the autoworkers 
care about it, and they should--so do the auto companies, so do the 
fastener companies, so do the steel companies, so does anybody or any 
group in Ohio that is concerned about ensuring that they get a level 
playing field for their exports, because currency manipulation does not 
help anybody. People say: Well, why are you doing this now, because 
these countries, such as Japan, are not currently manipulating their 
currency? I agree. Since probably the end of 2011, 2012, Japan stopped 
manipulation of their currency. They would not fall under these 
criteria we played out. But they have done it over 300 times in the 
past.
  All we are saying is this: Is it not right that when we are 
negotiating an agreement, we put in place some kind of discipline to 
say we do not want you to do this in the future because it is not fair 
for you and for us? Trade ought to be about balance--not just a balance 
of expanding exports but also having enforcement measures in place to 
level that playing field I talked about, and balance in the sense that 
we sell something to you, we get some money from doing that, and we use 
that money to buy something from the other place. So you have a balance 
in terms of trade. You do not have these huge surpluses you see in 
countries such as China, for instance, where they have manipulated 
their currency.
  I hope this issue will be one that we can address in an objective 
manner.

[[Page S2919]]

Take the politics out of it. Let's decide what is best for the workers 
and farmers we represent and for the overall health of our economy. If 
we are going to get back into the business of trade--which I think we 
should--I think we should be expanding trade by doing good agreements 
that knock down the barriers to us so that it is fair. If we do that, 
let's be sure that we can build a consensus for that among the American 
people, who get it. They understand that we need to have exports. But 
they also understand that we need to have more fairness.
  There are other issues as well that we are going to address in the 
Senate in the trade promotion authority vote next week. I hope some of 
them will be issues that we actually voted on today in the Customs 
bill. Some of you followed this closely, but in the Customs bill there 
were a number of enforcement measures, not just on currency but also on 
this issue of how do you show when you are injured, as an American 
company, if there is unfair trade. If another country sells something 
over here below its cost--meaning they dumped it here--or if they 
subsidized something illegally, how do you show as an American company 
that you have been injured by it in order to get the relief that you 
and the workers you represent deserve?
  Right now, it is very difficult sometimes to show injury, to the 
point that some companies tell me: Rob, by the time we were able to go 
through this process and show that we were injured, it was too late. We 
had lost too much market share. We were not able to get back on our 
feet.
  There is a very simple provision. It is a Brown-Portman amendment 
that was included in the Customs bill. We voted on it today. I would 
urge my colleagues to help us get that provision into the TPA bill as 
well because we know that the Customs bill may or may not make it 
through the process. We believe that the trade promotion authority bill 
is much more likely to make it through the process and to the 
President's desk for signature.
  I hope we have that provision in there. I asked my own leadership to 
include it in the substitute that was filed apparently today. I do not 
know if it is in there. I am told it is probably not. I am sorry to 
hear that because it was one that we seem to have a bipartisan 
consensus on in committee. I thank Senator Hatch and Senator Wyden 
because they included it in the committee markup on the Customs bill. 
We did not have a vote as an amendment because they included it in the 
markup because they thought it was good policy.
  Yet, somehow in the substitute, I understand it may not be in there. 
I hope it is. But if it is not, we intend to offer an amendment to have 
it included. I hope my colleagues will support that, because, again, if 
you are talking about trade in a State such as Ohio where we have a lot 
of manufacturing, you have to be sure to be able to look workers in the 
eye and say: This is going to be fair for you. Get in this business of 
trade because we want to access the 95 percent of consumers outside of 
our borders, but we are going to help you. If somebody unfairly 
competes with you by dumping their product or illegally subsidizing 
their product, you know what, we will be there for you. We are going to 
be able to level that playing field by adding tariffs to their products 
because it is illegal what they are doing.
  I have been active on this issue back home, not just on the material 
injury standard, which is what this is about when you get injured in 
trade, but also on this issue of being sure that we are opening up more 
markets for all of our Ohio products.
  Ohio manufacturers right now in rebar, hot-rolled steel, tires, and 
uncoated paper are all involved in trade cases such as this--all of 
them. They all want to know that this is going to be fair.
  Wheatland Tube is one of the Nation's largest producers of steel pipe 
and tube products. They have four facilities in Ohio: one in Warren, 
one in Niles, one in Cambridge, and one in Brookfield. They make 
products ranging from steel products for the energy industry, pipe for 
hydraulic tracking, and so on--construction industry. They have been 
particularly impacted by a number of these trade enforcement cases, 
including several crucial cases we won last year on pipe and tube from 
China. We have had some nice victories for them. In fact, given the 
import concerns they have, I understand the plant in Warren, OH, which 
has 178 workers, probably would not be in existence today if we had not 
won these trade enforcement measures. Here is a plant with 178 people 
in Warren, OH, who would not have a job today if not for our standing 
up for them and saying we are going to help you when there is an unfair 
import coming into this country.
  The workers there understand this issue. They get it because they 
know it has a direct impact on their jobs. Let me read an email I 
received this week from Mike Mack. Mike is a maintenance foreman at 
Wheatland Tube in Warren, OH. This is what he said:

       As an individual employed in manufacturing, I understand 
     better than most that trade is a key component for economic 
     growth. However, it's important for U.S. manufacturers (i.e. 
     steel pipe and tube producers) to have the tools to challenge 
     unfair trade. . . . I support the adoption of enforcement 
     provisions . . . that will close loop holes in the trade laws 
     to ensure that companies can access these laws to challenge 
     trade distorting practices.

  I continue with his quote.

       I also support language in the TPA that prevents currency 
     manipulation and the ``dumping'' of foreign products in the 
     U.S.
       It's essential that provisions to close loop holes in trade 
     laws are included in a final trade bill. After all, there's a 
     huge difference between FAIR trade and FREE trade.

  He says his company ``relies on these laws, and has utilized them in 
recent years to challenge trade distorting practices that have injured 
our industry and our employees.''
  He says:

       Without laws to regulate unfair trade, I know my job--and 
     the jobs of thousands of other manufacturing workers--is at 
     risk.

  I think that email says it well. He did not say he is against trade. 
He did not say he is against exports. In fact, he said that ``trade is 
a key component for economic growth.'' He supports it. He just wants to 
know there is going to be a balance.
  If there is a balance, Mike will stand up and support trade. But if 
there is not, he, understandably, is worried about his job and the jobs 
of his colleagues at that company and the companies all over my State.
  I really hope that as we promote trade--and we should--we do so in a 
more balanced way. If we do that, I think we are going to build a 
broader consensus for doing exactly what we should be doing--reengaging 
in the world, expanding markets, and knocking down barriers to trade--
tariff barriers and nontariff barriers alike.
  As some of you know, I was the U.S. Trade Representative for a while. 
I had that great honor to be able to travel all around the world 
representing our great country. Other countries are looking to us to 
able to knock down these barriers to trade because they are unfair, 
because they know that it helps the economies in their countries 
develop.
  Developing countries know in their hearts that higher tariffs and 
nontariff barriers between countries make it harder to grow a middle 
class, to be able to bring people out of poverty, and they depend us 
for that. They also depend on us to ensure that the rules of the road 
are fair. It affects us. It affects this plant in Warner, OH, and it 
also affects them.
  They suffer from currency manipulation, too. They suffer from 
unfairly traded imports, too. Frankly, they are not always strong 
enough or big enough countries to be able to stand up to it. America's 
role in the world is truly exceptional. It is truly essential that we 
are out there. It is true on a whole broad range of issues--from human 
rights, to fighting terrorism, to keeping open the Strait of Hormuz, 
the South China Sea, and so on.
  It is also important on trade. This is an opportunity for us to stand 
up here in this Chamber and say we are going to get back into the 
business of expanding trade. We are going to do it in a balanced way.
  Finally, let me mention a specific issue that is part of the trade 
legislation coming to the floor. This is about something beyond 
exporting American products. It is about exporting American values and 
the rule of law. As I said, countries are looking for us, in part, to 
let people know what the rules of the road ought to be. One of those

[[Page S2920]]

rules of the road ought to be that we believe that human trafficking 
ought to be stopped, whether it is in our country or on other shores.
  Addressing human trafficking has been a really bipartisan issue here 
in this body. I serve as cochair of the Senate Caucus to End Human 
Trafficking. I started it a few years ago with Senator Blumenthal. 
Since we founded the caucus in 2012, we have made real progress, 
passing a number of bills to end trafficking in Government contracting, 
for instance, reauthorizing the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. A 
few weeks ago we passed a big bill called the Justice for Victims of 
Trafficking Act. We passed it 99 to 0. Three bills that I had proposed 
were part of that package. It is good legislation.
  As a member of the Finance Committee, I was happy to support a 
bipartisan amendment to the trade promotion authority that was offered 
by Senator Menendez. It puts additional teeth into our trafficking 
enforcement so that countries that are dealing with us in a trade 
agreement know that we are serious, if year after year they turn a 
blind eye to the horrible reality of human trafficking in their labor 
markets and in their countries.
  The question before us is this: Do we keep that in this legislation 
or not? I think we should not water down trafficking protections that 
have already been adopted by a bipartisan majority of the Finance 
Committee by a vote of 16-10. I think we should take into account the 
horrendous human trafficking record of some of the world's worst 
offenders.
  If we do--if we do that--we are going to be able to help stop human 
trafficking globally. If we do not do that, if we water it down, I fear 
we are giving some of these countries an easy way out, promoting 
trafficking by letting countries get around the rules.
  Every year, the State Department issues the ``Trafficking in Persons 
Report,'' or TIP--``Trafficking in Persons Report.'' The report ranks 
countries. They have different tiers. Tier 1 means the country is 
responsive and proactive to combating human trafficking. Tier 3 means 
the country has failed to take steps to prevent trafficking, and the 
laws and policies of the country actually promote a market that 
encourages human trafficking, so that is the State Department.
  I understand this report--the TIP Report--will be released in June. 
It has already been substantially drafted. I understand that one of the 
TPP countries may fall in category 3, tier 3. This government continues 
to detain trafficking victims for periods of time, treating them as 
criminals for months or years, we are told. This country does not 
support the NGOs, the nongovernmental groups in the region that provide 
counseling or rehabilitation for victims. This is from the State 
Department.
  The most egregious trend highlighted by the State Department is that 
this government is now identifying fewer victims and conducting fewer 
investigations than in recent years.
  Should we be concerned about that? Yes, we should. I think there is 
nothing wrong with us including that, to provide that incentive and to 
provide that leverage in this TPA bill that we are going to vote on 
early next week.
  The trafficking in persons office is independent. They are not swayed 
by political considerations. That is my sense of it. It is a good 
office. I will have enormous respect for their TIP analysis. I will be 
disappointed if that language is not included in the trade agreement.
  Again, the Finance Committee--with the support of five Republicans, 
including me--passed this amendment, and I think Senator Menendez's 
attention to this issue is appropriate. I hope it will stand up, as we 
did with the 99-to-0 vote with regard to the broader legislation.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for giving me the ability to talk about 
these issues today. I think it is incredibly important that we move 
forward with expanding trade. I think trade promotion authority is 
needed to do that. But as we do it, let's be sure that we are able to 
look those workers and those farmers in the eye back home and say: You 
know what. This is going to work for you, too. It is going to work for 
all of us. This is going to work because we are giving you access to 
markets you would not otherwise have. That creates more and better-
paying jobs. But we are also going to be sure that it is a more level 
playing field, that you are able to compete effectively and win because 
the rules won't be rigged against you. The rules are going to be fair 
for everybody.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I appreciate the excellent remarks that 
were made by the distinguished Senator from Ohio and other Senators on 
the floor this day. There is no question that the Senator from Ohio is 
a very strong leader when it comes to international trade, having 
served as the Nation's Trade Representative and having served very 
well.
  Not only was he a great Trade Representative, but he is a great 
Senator. I have a very high regard for him. I understand why he--just 
as I am--is working to push this bill through Congress.
  We have enough Democrats who are pro-free trade and understand what 
this bill will do for them, and I think we have enough Republicans. 
Let's just hope that we can put this through.
  Having said all of that, I wish to praise the President. I have had 
many differences with the President over the years. We have always been 
cordial. There is no question that I care for him, and I hope he cares 
for me. But the fact is that on this issue, our President happens to be 
right, and that is why I was pretty upset the other day when cloture 
was not invoked. I am glad we were able to work together to overcome 
that logjam and have the bill on the floor now, and hopefully we will 
overcome any desire to filibuster this bill in any way, shape, or form.
  There have been many heroic Democrats who have worked on this bill, 
and I want to pay homage to all of them, from Senator Wyden right on 
through. They all deserve a lot of credit. There are not enough, but 
nevertheless a good number, and those folks deserve a lot of credit for 
standing up for this bill the way they have.
  Think about it. The Senator from Ohio, Mr. Portman, said that 95 to 
96 percent of all of the world's consumers live outside of the United 
States of America. That ought to tell anybody--even an idiot--that this 
bill is important and that international trade is important. We have 
all kinds of small and large businesses that are doing trade overseas 
but are severely limited because of the lack of a free-trade agreements 
with a wide variety of countries.
  The advantage of this particular agreement--and people are starting 
to realize that it is a very advantageous agreement--is that this will 
provide great trade relations.
  This bill will provide a means whereby 11 countries in the Asian-
Pacific--through the Trans-Pacific Partnership--will have great trading 
rights with us, and us with them.
  Additionally, should this bill pass, there are 28 nations in Europe 
that are party to the TTIP negotiations, and this will be one of the 
most important things we can do to keep trade alive and interchange 
with these countries in ways that will benefit not only them but us.
  The fact is that we know that trade generally helps us to have better 
jobs in this country, and the proven fact is that when we negotiate 
free trade agreements, wages go up. So it is good for our workers, it 
is good for our consumers because we will be able to purchase products 
at better prices than we have in the past, and it is good for our 
country because we will lead the world in trade. Although we are far 
away from that right now because there are 400 trade agreements in the 
world and we are only signed on to 20 of them. It shows how lacking we 
are in negotiating the free-trade agreements that we really ought to.
  This bill will push us forward, and it will enable us to create free 
trade agreements with countries that compose 40 to 60 percent of 
worldwide trade. That should say to anybody that this is a good thing 
to do. It creates jobs, it creates opportunities, and it also creates 
better relationships between our Nation and the almost 40 nations 
currently in negotiations with us under TPP and TTIP.
  Having said that, there are those who do not like this bill. The 
labor unions, in particular, don't like this bill. I

[[Page S2921]]

think some of the union members do, because it means a level 
international playing field for their jobs, higher pay, more 
opportunity, their States can get well and strong, that their 
agriculture is going to improve, their industry is going to improve, 
and their manufacturers are going to improve. I could go on and on. It 
creates more jobs, more opportunities, and higher paying jobs.
  It is pretty hard for anybody to really cite any reason why they 
should vote against this agreement. A lot of people have misconstrued--
some of the most brilliant people in the Senate--that it as though this 
is the final trade agreement, that is TPP, with 11 nations.
  This is TPP. This is the procedural agreement that makes it possible 
for those nations to sign treaties with us knowing that when the TPP or 
the TTIP agreements are brought to the Senate and the House, we will 
simply have a right to a vote those agreements up or down.
  After having a complete look at them, there will be lots of 
transparency. People have been raising the issue that this is not 
transparent. Well, this is not the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement; 
this is the mechanism through which we can arrive at a Trans-Pacific 
Partnership Agreement. This bill provides more transparency than any 
other TPA agreement in the past.
  This opens up the world for trade and says to the other countries 
that we are willing to comply with certain rules and regulations if 
they will. And in the process, we know that we are not going to be able 
to conclude most of these individual trade agreements with individual 
nations unless we have trade promotion authority in law because these 
countries don't want to enter into a very difficult, intensively 
complex set of negotiations if their only hope is that the negotiations 
in the trade agreement that they signed would be brought back to the 
two Houses of Congress that could do whatever they want to with it and 
open it up to any kinds of amendments. They are not going to sign on to 
these trade agreements.
  We have had some representatives of some of these 11 countries in the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations saying that unless we pass trade 
promotion authority, they will not sign on to any agreement, and I can 
hardly blame them because you never know what Congress is going to do 
once these agreements come back.
  We do have a right to know what they are. We do have a right to look 
at them thoroughly. We do have a right to debate them on the floor. We 
do have a right to vote up or down for or against these treaties, and 
that is a right this particular bill enshrines. That is an important 
right. On the other hand, we need to have TPA in order to attract other 
countries to negotiate and conclude agreements with our country, which 
is what this agreement is all about.
  So those who are saying ``Well, this is not transparent'' or ``We 
don't know what is in the TPP'' and so forth, of course they don't. It 
is not concluded yet. But this gives us the right to know, this gives 
us the right to debate, this gives us the right to vote, and this gives 
us the right to be part of that system.
  The administration has made it very clear that they will work in a 
way that every Senator in the Senate and every Member of the House of 
Representatives will have a right, if they want to, to participate in 
the process under certain terms that are really outlined by this 
particular bill.
  What we are talking about here today is future trillions of dollars 
in trade--not just billions, trillions. We are talking about the United 
States being a leader of the free world. We are talking about leading 
other nations to come and work with us for freedom in this world.
  Think about it. If we get those mainly Asian-Pacific countries in the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement to agree to this agreement and 
agree to work with us on trade that will send a message to everybody in 
that area that they better work with the United States as well. It 
sends a message to every country in the world, really, that if they are 
willing to work in a fair way with the United States of America then we 
are willing to work with them.
  If we don't pass this legislation, can you imagine what it will do to 
our relationships with many of these countries that are absolutely 
critical to our foreign influence? I would say all 11 of the Asian-
Pacific and 28 of the European countries are. These are important 
countries to us. Just the massive percentage of trade in the world that 
is done by these almost 40 countries says to anybody--any thinking 
person--you would be crazy not to enter into agreements that outline 
how we can do things, do them right, protect intellectual property, and 
do a lot of other things that good trading relationships can grow from.
  This will enable us to at least work with the United States Trade 
Representative, the Ambassador Michael Froman, and conclude these 
agreements so that everybody in our country will benefit from them. It 
just makes sense.
  Not only that, can you imagine, if we fail to pass TPA--trade 
promotion authority--the message it will send to almost 40 countries, 
including ours? Can you imagine what message that would be? Not only 
that, but it would interfere with foreign policy objectives for our 
country in many years to come in drastically bad ways.
  So the frightened people who don't like this approach, of giving the 
administration the tools it needs to be able to properly negotiate 
free-trade agreements with other countries need to understand that this 
is the best tool Congress has to give the American people the level 
playing field and competitive edge they have worked so hard for. It 
also lets other countries know they are going to have to comply with 
important and relevant terms--and it says to the people in all of those 
countries that the United States is a dependable partner to deal with.
  This is an important debate, and that is why it has come so far. I 
wish to personally applaud the heroic Democrats who are willing to 
stand up for this, as well as Republicans. We can always find something 
wrong with every piece of legislation that comes through this place. I 
don't know of many that have been perfect, although I am sure there 
have been a few. Nothing seems to be perfect, but what we try to do 
here is do the absolute best we can to get as close to perfection as we 
can. Yes, this is not a perfect bill, but, by gosh, it takes us a long 
way toward resolving all kinds of disputes and relationships throughout 
the world.
  This is an important bill, and we will begin the real work by holding 
votes on the bill on Monday. Hopefully, our colleagues will pay 
attention to what is in this bill and what it really means; that it is 
not the Trans-Pacific Partnership but that it is a means by which 
Congress has a say in the Trans-Pacific Partnership and TTIP, the 
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, and it gives us some 
authority over these matters. Plus, it helps us to comply, cooperate 
with, and work with the President of the United States and the people 
he has designated to negotiate these agreements. It is just the right 
thing to do.

  I have to say this would be a crown for the Obama administration 
should we pass this through. It would be a crown to every Senator and 
every House Member who votes for it. It is going to be a crown that a 
lot of people will be able to wear for years to come--at least 6 
years--and it will be helpful to future administrations as well.
  So I hope our colleagues will help us to pass this bill. I hope they 
will help us to keep amendments that shouldn't be on and that really 
aren't helpful off this bill. I hope they will help us to keep the 
poison pills that sometimes come up around here off, so this bill can 
pass through and become law. Then, it will enable whatever 
administration it is--this administration for the next year and a half, 
approximately--to be able to complete some of these agreements with 
other countries that are important to our well-being as well as their 
well-being, that may be as important to our relationship with them as 
it is to their relationships with us, and to our region as well as 
their region. To have the United States of America working with them 
and have them working with us sends a message to a lot of enemies 
around this world that we are making headway. We are doing things the 
way they ought to be done, that the United States is a good trading 
partner, and that as tough as it sometimes is to get these types of 
landmark pieces of legislation through

[[Page S2922]]

both Houses of Congress, this one is worthwhile to put through.
  I hope we will conclude this in a way that will help the 
administration do a really good job and will help us to move forward as 
a nation and will help our economy and help their economies and create 
greater foreign policy presence for our great country around the world, 
especially for the countries involved in these agreements.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, this is a very important debate. I was 
here earlier this week and I look forward to more debate next week. I 
look forward to a vote on the Portman-Stabenow amendment addressing 
currency manipulation.
  At this point in time, I wish to speak as in morning business, and I 
ask unanimous consent to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Remembering Rachel Jacobs

  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise today on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate in memory of a young woman whose life was extraordinary and 
meaningful and whose passing has left so many of us so profoundly sad.
  On Tuesday night, Rachel Jacobs left work and boarded a train to go 
home to her husband Todd and her 2-year-old son Jacob. Rachel's life, 
so filled with passion and purpose, was lost that night, along with at 
least seven others, when her train--and we all know now about the 
train--derailed just outside of Philadelphia.
  Rachel touched so many lives all across the country. Today, all of 
those hearts are broken. The loss is so profound. Her family has lost a 
wonderful wife and mother and daughter and sister, and all of us have 
lost someone who had accomplished so much already in her young life and 
would have done so much more to make the world a better place if only 
she had been given the time.
  I want my colleagues in the Senate to know Rachel. I want them to 
know the life she lived. She grew up in the Detroit area, where she was 
a smart, engaged young woman who was active in her community and always 
looked for ways to make a difference. She was an exceptionally talented 
and bright young woman. She went to college at Swarthmore and then to 
Columbia for her MBA.
  Two months ago, she became the CEO of ApprenNet, an online workforce 
training startup. She had a vision to use technology to help people get 
the right skills to be successful in the fastest growing sectors of our 
economy, such as health care.
  She was also the cofounder and chair of Detroit Nation, which brought 
together native Detroiters around the country to stay engaged and 
connected to their hometown in an effort to create jobs and economic 
growth.
  Rachel did so much for others--something I know she learned from her 
parents, Gilda and John Jacobs. Gilda is a dear friend of mine and 
someone who has devoted her own life to public service. I cannot 
imagine the sadness of her family today. It is small comfort that 
Rachel's dedication to her family and community is a testament to the 
wonderful person she was. She was an inspiration to so many and that 
inspiration will endure.
  Rachel's life was not the only one lost on Tuesday night. A Navy 
midshipman from New York, a college dean, an award-winning Associated 
Press technology staffer, and five other Americans with families and 
friends and with so much going for them, and we are finding more who 
have lost their lives--so many lives cut short in their prime, so many 
people who were doing so much good in the world.
  There are many questions as the investigation into this crash gets 
underway. Federal authorities are doing their work right now, and the 
families of those killed or injured deserve answers.
  So I was truly stunned yesterday when the House of Representatives 
voted in committee to slash funding for our infrastructure, including 
Amtrak. I could not believe that happened. There is something deeply 
wrong when an unthinkable tragedy such as this occurs--that should 
serve as a wakeup call to all of us to work together--and not even 24 
hours later, Republican Members of Congress act as if nothing had 
happened.
  Our roads and bridges and railroads carry people. They carry young 
mothers such as Rachel who want to get home to hold their babies. They 
carry young men such as Justin Zemser, the 20-year-old midshipman at 
the Naval Academy--a patriot whose contributions to his country could 
have been incredible. I know, from speaking to Senator Schumer who 
nominated him, he was an incredible young man.
  We have a responsibility to the people of this country, to the people 
who sent us here to represent them, to make sure our infrastructure is 
secure. Yet we see on the horizon the very real possibility that our 
highway trust fund will soon be empty. We see the events of yesterday, 
with a vote in the House Appropriations Committee to slash funding for 
trains and roads and bridges. It is personally very alarming to me.
  As we engage in these discussions over the next few weeks about how 
to fund transportation in this country, I hope my colleagues will not 
forget the people who use our transportation system--people like Rachel 
Jacobs.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


             NIH-Supported Research and Alzheimer's Disease

  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I wish to call to the attention of my 
colleagues the idea that biomedical research must be a national 
priority.
  The Presiding Officer and myself, as members of the Appropriations 
Committee, are in the process of crafting our appropriations bills for 
fiscal year 2016, and we face a tremendous task in trying to balance 
effective, efficient government operations with the necessity of 
righting our Nation's fiscal course during very difficult and 
challenging times. Therefore, what I take from that--the circumstance 
we are in--is it is extremely important that we prioritize initiatives 
that are effective in their service to the American people and 
demonstrate a significant and sufficient return on investment. Congress 
should set spending priorities and focus our resources on initiatives 
with proven outcomes. No initiative meets these criteria better than 
biomedical research supported by the National Institutes of Health.
  NIH-supported research has raised life expectancy, improved the 
quality of life, lowered overall health care costs, and is an economic 
engine that strengthens American global competitiveness.
  The benefits of NIH are widely acknowledged on a bipartisan basis. 
During the recent negotiations on the fiscal year 2016 budget 
agreement, 34 of my Senate colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, 
cosponsored an amendment I offered affirming NIH biomedical research as 
a national priority. I was pleased this amendment was included in the 
final budget agreement passed by Congress.
  Furthermore, the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, and the 
Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, have recently agreed to form a 
Senate NIH--National Institutes of Health--Caucus. I am happy to be a 
founding member of this caucus, which will offer an opportunity for 
Senators to visit about the importance of NIH and to seek bipartisan 
strategies to provide steady, predictable growth for biomedical 
research.
  If the United States is to continue its leadership in providing 
medical breakthroughs to develop cures and treat diseases, we must be 
committed to supporting this research.
  If researchers cannot rely on consistent support from Congress, we 
will jeopardize our current programs, we will reduce our progress, 
stunt our Nation's competitiveness, and lose a generation of young 
researchers to other careers or other countries.
  New scientific findings help us confront the staggering challenges of 
disease and illness. One such challenge I wish to focus on in my 
remarks is Alzheimer's. It is a devastating and irreversible brain 
disease that slowly destroys an individual's cognitive functioning, 
including memory and thought. Today, more than 5.3 million

[[Page S2923]]

Americans are living with this terrible disease. Every minute, someone 
in our country develops Alzheimer's. It is the sixth leading cause of 
death in the United States, and it is the only cause of death among the 
top 10 in the United States that cannot be prevented, cured or even 
slowed.
  Within these grim statistics are immeasurable suffering and stress 
this disease places on individuals, on their families, on their 
friends. This reality hits home in the stories I hear from Kansans.
  The Alzheimer's Association's Heart of America Chapter in Prairie 
Village, KS, tells me about Ricky from Topeka:
  Ricky has early onset Alzheimer's disease. He is 60 years old. Due to 
Alzheimer's disease, Ricky had to retire from a good-paying job because 
he no longer was able to do the work. He and his family expected him to 
work at least another 5 years or more, and they had plans that were 
interrupted that caused them to have to adjust from a two-income family 
to a single-income family.
  Ricky is frustrated at times and tries to maintain a positive 
attitude with his family and his peers. He and all members of his early 
stage support group are very scared about their future and they are 
desperate for a cure. They are worried about the burden they might 
place upon their families.
  Ricky and so many of his peers are continually looking for ways to 
slow down the progression of this disease. This includes testing 
himself daily with the use of an iPad, trying new foods, and joining in 
a research study at the University of Kansas Medical Center. 
Fortunately, Ricky is still able to ride his Harley Davidson, but he 
knows the day is coming when the thing he enjoys so much will not be 
able to occur again.
  I am also aware of Katrina from Shawnee, KS. She is an Alzheimer's 
Association ambassador and she shared her story:

       As personal and health care advocates, my brother and I 
     used more than 7 weeks of personal vacation time--some 
     unpaid--during our mother's final year of care. During the 
     year, she was transitioned through 10 different care 
     facilities, we worked with more than two dozen health care 
     professionals at these locations and some were not [even] 
     notified of her basic needs such as her iodine allergy or 
     insurance--information she was unable to share during her 
     moves. This would be a significant life change for anyone--
     but especially for our mother, a 67 year old, physically 
     strong woman but cognitively impaired due to early onset 
     dementia diagnosed at [age] 59.

  Katrina said they reflect upon her passing, which is now 3 months 
ago, and the emotional and financial toll of the last 27 months 
couldn't be quantified--long-term savings and time off from work for 
vacations were limited, and the time spent at work was interrupted with 
calls, doctors appointments, and meetings to communicate with care 
providers ``regarding our mother's ongoing care needs, including 
behavioral challenges.''

       My brother and I are 40 and 37--we have children ages 4 to 
     15--we worked full time [during this period of time] while 
     doing everything we could to advocate for our mother's care. 
     We are fortunate to have devoted spouses, family, and friends 
     and understanding employers that worked through these 
     difficult times with us.

  All of us in the Senate, every American knows someone who has been 
affected, someone whose family member has been affected by the terrible 
disease Alzheimer's. It is a tremendous personal tragedy, this disease, 
but it is also a very expensive disease, and we have a lot to gain both 
in the care for people and the quality of their lives that we want to 
maintain.
  We also have the opportunity to invest in Alzheimer's research that 
will reduce the cost of Alzheimer's to us as taxpayers, to health care, 
to those of us who pay insurance premiums. This is a way we also can 
save money because, on average, per-person Medicare spending for 
individuals with Alzheimer's and other dementias is three times higher 
than Medicare spending across the board for all other seniors. So for 
Alzheimer's patients, Medicare has per-person expenditures three times 
the amount of other seniors on Medicare.
  This year, the direct cost to America for caring for those with 
Alzheimer's is estimated at $226 billion--$226 billion. Half of these 
annual costs--more than $100 billion--will be borne by Medicare. These 
numbers mean that nearly one in five Medicare dollars is spent on 
individuals with Alzheimer's disease and other dementias.
  In 2050, which isn't that far away, this amount will be one in every 
three Medicare dollars will be spent on Alzheimer's and dementia 
diseases. Unless something is done, in 2050, Alzheimer's will cost our 
country over $1 trillion in 2015 dollars. Taking into account 
inflation, it will be $1 trillion, and costs to Medicare will increase 
more than 400 percent to nearly $590 billion.
  We must commit to a national strategy for speeding the development of 
effective interventions for Alzheimer's disease. As the baby boomer 
generation ages, Alzheimer's has unfortunately become a disease to 
define a generation, but it doesn't have to be an inevitable part of 
the aging process. America can tackle Alzheimer's by prioritization of 
our biomedical research capabilities.
  In a recent New York Times editorial, former Speaker Newt Gingrich 
praised the considerable benefits of NIH and specifically a research 
breakthrough relating to Alzheimer's. He noted that a breakthrough that 
could delay the onset of the disease by just 5 years, slow the onset by 
5 years, would reduce the number of Americans with Alzheimer's in 2050 
by 42 percent and cut costs by a third.
  These encouraging statistics--the idea that we can have hope and that 
there is a better day--these encouraging statistics would also 
represent increased health and quality of life for both patients and 
their loved ones. Current research advances give us that reason for 
hope. Dr. Francis Collins, the Director of the National Institutes of 
Health, recently stated, ``Alzheimer's research is entering a new era 
in which creative approaches for detecting, measuring and analyzing a 
wide range of biomedical data sets are leading to new insights about 
the causes and course of the disease.''
  Dr. Collins calls on our Nation's medical researchers to work 
smarter, faster, and more collaboratively to determine the best path 
for progress in Alzheimer's disease research. As an example, NIH is 
implementing a new initiative called the Accelerating Medicines 
Partnership, working together with pharmaceutical companies to develop 
the next generation of drug targets for Alzheimer's disease, as well as 
rheumatoid arthritis, type 2 diabetes, and lupus.
  NIH is also leading the Brain Research through Advancing Intuitive 
Neurotechnologies Initiative, or BRAIN Initiative, which is a 
multiagency effort to revolutionize our understanding of the human 
brain. The objective of the BRAIN Initiative is to enable the 
development and use of innovative technologies to produce a clear 
understanding of how individual cells and neurocircuits interact. By 
better understanding how the brain works, technologies developed under 
this initiative could help reveal the underlying cause of a wide array 
of brain disorders. Understanding these causes will provide new avenues 
to treat, cure, and prevent neurological and psychiatric conditions 
such as Alzheimer's disease, traumatic brain injury, autism, 
schizophrenia, and epilepsy.
  Groundbreaking research is taking place, and Congress must do its 
part to prioritize the important work supported by the NIH. As a member 
of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that is responsible for the 
funding of NIH, I am committed to working with my colleagues to see 
that prioritization of NIH occurs and that within NIH there is strong 
support for Alzheimer's research.
  In 2011, Congress passed the National Alzheimer's Plan that 
specifically lays out a series of scientific milestones that 
researchers think need to be met in order to make meaningful impact on 
the trajectory of Alzheimer's by 2025--what is the plan to get us where 
we need to be by that point in time?
  Over the last two years, Congress has provided NIH with approximately 
$125 million in increased funding to support good science that 
addresses Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. Additionally, we 
have worked to include language in the fiscal year 2015 omnibus that 
requires NIH to submit a yearly budget request for Alzheimer's research 
based on what is required to fund the necessary science. This 
particular effort is to make certain we have a specific, accountable 
research plan to ensure that our resources are effectively targeted to 
meet these

[[Page S2924]]

milestones the scientific community has established.
  Alzheimer's disease is a defining challenge for our generation. The 
health and financial future of our Nation are at stake, and the United 
States simply must not continue to ignore such a threat. This is a 
moral and financial issue. It is one that should be easy for us to come 
together on. If you are the person or the Senator who cares the most 
about people, who cares in compassionate ways, you should be for 
medical research. If you are the Senator who cares about the fiscal 
condition of our country and getting our financial house in order, you 
should be for biomedical research.
  This commitment by all of us will significantly lower costs and 
improve health care outcomes for people living with the disease today 
and those who may encounter it in the future. Together, we can. This is 
what we are all here for. Together, we can make a difference, and we 
can do that by making a sustained commitment to Alzheimer's research 
that will benefit our Nation and bring hope and healing to Americans 
today and tomorrow.
  The challenge is ours, and the moment to act on this disease is 
today. It is important for our moms, our dads, our grandparents, our 
family members, our friends. For the fiscal health of our Nation, the 
time to act is now.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


 Honoring Vietnam Veterans and North Dakota's Soldiers Who Lost Their 
                            Lives in Vietnam

  Ms. HEITKAMP. Madam President, I rise to continue an effort to honor 
the 198 North Dakotans--soldiers, sailors, and airmen--who gave their 
lives while serving in Vietnam.
  Together with the Bismarck High School history and English classes, 
we are reaching out to families and friends of these fallen 
servicemembers and sharing a bit about each one on the floor of the 
Senate.
  Today, I begin by talking about a large family, the Gietzens, who 
lost one of their own in Vietnam but continue to serve our country and 
our State. Bill and Mary raised 15 children on a farm outside Glen 
Ullin. It was on their farm that their children learned the importance 
of hard work, dedication, and bravery.
  After serving in the Army in World War II, Bill married his 
sweetheart Mary, and they had 15 children.


                              Gene Gietzen

  Gene Gietzen served in Vietnam in the Marine Corps' Alpha Company, 
lst Battalion, 7th Marines. Gene was born March 19, 1950. On May 21, 
1969, he died as a result of wounds received on a company operation. He 
was 19 years old.
  Gene's twin brother Glenn and older brother, Russell, were also 
stationed in Vietnam for a time while Gene was there. Once, when 
Russell and Glenn's battalion passed through Gene's camp, they had an 
opportunity to spend a night together. That night, the young men 
learned of the birth of their youngest brother Fred.
  While the brothers said goodbye, Gene told them he would never get to 
see baby Fred. Glenn and Russell told him they would see him soon and 
that he needed to stop being so pessimistic. A few weeks later, they 
learned of Gene's death. Glenn escorted his twin brother's body home.
  Russell, the oldest child, served three tours of duty in Vietnam with 
the Army as an interpreter and participated in several covert missions. 
Russell has two sons who served our State and country in the North 
Dakota National Guard.
  Glenn also served in the Army in Vietnam. Glenn started the Injured 
Military Wildlife Project of North Dakota, which gives wounded veterans 
nationwide opportunities to hunt and fish in North Dakota.
  Mark, their other brother, joined the Marine Corps and served all 
around the world on embassy duty.
  Greg served with U.S. Special Forces for 37 years. Jim joined the 
Army and was stationed in Germany for 2 years.
  Aaron served 22 years with Army Special Operations as a combat medic. 
He now trains a new generation of Army medics at the U.S. Army Special 
Operations Command in Fort Bragg, NC.
  The rest of the Gietzen children have served as nurses, missionaries 
or have kept up the tradition of family farming.
  North Dakota is proud to be home to this inspiring family.
  Now, I will talk about more North Dakotans who, like Gene Gietzen, 
gave the ultimate sacrifice while serving their country during Vietnam.


                        Gerald ``Jerry'' Decker

  Gerald ``Jerry'' Decker was from Sentinel Butte and was born June 17, 
1948. He served in the Army's 25th Infantry Division. Jerry died on 
April 10, 1969. He was 20 years old.
  Jerry was one of seven children and the youngest of three boys. Jerry 
and his brother, Ron, were both stationed overseas at the same time, 
Ron running supplies from Thailand and Jerry as a cook in Vietnam.
  Jerry chose to enlist so he could serve his country and return to the 
family farm and ranch as soon as possible. Jerry intended to eventually 
take over the farm. His sister, Rose, recalls how much Jerry loved 
farming, loved the animals, and loved training his dogs to hunt.
  After his death, Jerry's brother, Ron, escorted his body home. The 
day after Jerry's funeral, their brother, Tom, had to appear before the 
draft board, but he was excused from service.
  Rose remembers Jerry as the kind of guy everyone loved, even though 
he had a very dry sense of humor. She says that during Jerry's funeral, 
their church was overflowing with people mourning Jerry's death.


                             Norman Emineth

  Norman Emineth was from Baldwin and was born June 13, 1949. He served 
in the Army's 25th Infantry Division. Norman was 20 years old when he 
died on May 22, 1970.
  Norman and his four siblings grew up on a farm outside of Baldwin. He 
spent his childhood working on the farm, picking rock, and milking 
cows. In his free time, Norman enjoyed hunting, fishing, and spending 
time with their neighbors.
  In 1961, the singer Sue Thompson recorded a song called ``Norman.'' 
His friends poked fun at Norman, but despite the teasing, Norman loved 
the song. He bought the record and listened to the song over and over 
until he had memorized all of the lyrics. To this day, his sister, 
Elaine, can still hear the song in her head.
  Elaine cherishes the time she spent with Norman when he was home on 
leave from Vietnam. She said that during this time, she felt like the 
kids had finally become adult friends instead of bickering children. 
The siblings all wished they could have spent time in their adult years 
with their brother, Norman.


                          Lawrence Esser, Jr.

  Lawrence Esser, Jr., was from Minot. He was born February 21, 1948. 
He served in the Army's Ninth Infantry Division. He was 21 years old 
when he died on March 12, 1969.
  Lawrence was the fourth of eight children, and his family and friends 
called him Junior.
  His sister, Darlene, has fond memories of playing together outside 
making mud pies. She says that from the time Lawrence was a child, he 
loved to build things and work with his hands. He attended a trade 
school and worked for his brother-in-law in a construction firm.
  Lawrence's family remembers him as a humble and quiet person. His 
mother, who died when she was 98 years old, still had a hard time 
speaking about Lawrence until her own death.


                         Joseph ``Joe'' Fischer

  Joseph ``Joe'' Fischer was from Zeeland and was born September 11, 
1948. He served in the Army on the USS King as a boiler technician. Joe 
died on May 23, 1969. He was 20 years old.
  When Joe was very young, his mother passed away. During middle 
school, he began living with Ben and Laura Jund of Zeeland. Joe and the 
Junds, his foster family, grew very close.
  Joe's high school friend, Anne Welder, remembers that Joe was kind of 
a class clown and participated in baseball, basketball, football, 
drama, and

[[Page S2925]]

pep club. Anne and Joe's foster family believe that everyone who knew 
Joe loved being around him.
  After his high school graduation, Joe enlisted in the Navy. He 
enjoyed his Navy service very much.
  The day after Joe's foster family learned that Joe had died, they 
received a note in the mail sent to them, stating: ``I just thought I 
would let you know that I am still alive.''


                             Wendell Keller

  Wendell Keller was from Fargo and was born May 19, 1934. He served in 
the Air Force 433rd Tactical Fighter Squadron. Wendell was 34 years old 
when he went missing in action on March 1, 1969.
  Wendell's parents were Raymond and Leona Keller, and his siblings are 
Virginia Post, Ray Keller, and David Keller. In addition to his 
siblings, Wendell is survived by his wife Jacqueline, son Gregory and 
his wife Patty, stepson Andy, and son Michael and his wife Janie and 
their daughter Lydia.
  While at North Dakota State University, Wendell majored in electrical 
engineering and graduated with an Air Force ROTC commission.
  Wendell was an accomplished pilot. In 1959, he was selected to fly 
over the first U.S. Air Force Academy graduation ceremony. In 1968, 
Wendell volunteered for an assignment in Southeast Asia rather than 
accepting the recommendation to become a Thunderbird pilot.
  On March 1, 1969, Wendell, an Air Force major at the time, was the 
flight commander of a night strike over Laos. It was his 80th mission, 
and he made multiple passes before his plane was struck by anti-
aircraft fire and crashed in the rugged terrain. Search-and-rescue 
efforts to locate him were unsuccessful. He was declared missing in 
action and was promoted to lieutenant colonel.
  Fifteen years later, the crash site was discovered, and after several 
ground searches and excavations, in 2012, his remains were identified 
and he was buried in Arlington National Cemetery.
  The Air Force issued Lieutenant Colonel Keller medals to honor his 
extraordinary service, including the Distinguished Flying Cross, the 
Air Medal with Four Oak Leaf Clusters, and the Purple Heart.


                             Stanley Ottmar

  Stanley Ottmar was from Mott and was born October 26, 1949. He served 
in the Army's 1st Cavalry Division. Stan died April 10, 1969. He was 19 
years old.
  His family called him Stan, and he was the third of seven children. 
His sister, Mavis Jarnagin, or Mavis Ottmar, was my college roommate 
when we were at UND and remains a good friend of mine today.
  Their father served in World War II in the Army. After high school 
graduation, Stan followed in his father's footsteps and enlisted in the 
Army, where he joined a parachute training program.
  Stan was a friendly and social person who had a love and talent for 
music. His sister, Sharon, has fond memories of Stan at home standing 
in front of the mirror watching himself play guitar and sing. The 
family cherishes the recordings they have of him singing and playing 
the guitar.
  Stan died with just 2 weeks left in his tour, and he was already 
making plans at the time to buy a new car.


                              John Renner

  John Renner was from Mandan and he was born June 24, 1949. He served 
in the Marine Corps' Hotel Company, 2nd Battalion, 26th Marines. He was 
20 years old when he died July 28, 1969.
  John was one of three kids. His sister Mary lives in Mandan, and his 
brother Tim lives in Arizona.
  Mary remembers John as a happy, nice person who was always smiling. 
He was never unkind to a soul.
  John was killed just 2 months after beginning his tour of duty in 
Vietnam.
  After John died, his brother Tim joined the Marine Corps. Tim was not 
sent to Vietnam but felt he owed it to his brother to join the 
military.
  John's fellow soldiers remember him as a brave and good friend. He is 
deeply missed by all who knew him.


                             Virgil Greany

  Virgil Greany was from Rugby and he was born November 26, 1930. He 
served as a major in the Army. He was 33 years old when he died 
September 25, 1964.
  Virgil served our country for over 12 years prior to his death, 
including service in Korea and Ethiopia before he volunteered to go to 
Vietnam as an adviser. Virgil had made the military a career, but he 
had a passion for mathematics. Virgil's dream was to become a math 
teacher after he retired from the Army.
  The day Virgil died, a Vietnamese soldier threw four grenades into 
his vehicle. The third grenade exploded inside of the truck, killing 
Virgil.
  Virgil left behind his young wife, stepchildren, and a daughter.


                          Robert ``Bob'' Sime

  Robert ``Bob'' Sime grew up in Velva and Tolna and was born on 
December 10, 1939. He served in the Army's 1st Cavalry Division, in 
what was called the ``Garry Owen'' regiment. Bob was 27 years old when 
he died on October 23, 1967.
  His siblings are John, Richard, and Marilyn. His parents both worked 
in education.
  Bob grew up in Velva. His senior year of high school the Sime family 
moved from Velva to Tolna, where his father became the superintendent 
of schools. Bob was tall and was talked into joining the basketball 
team at Tolna, where he played just for the fun of it.
  Bob's cousin, Jean, remembers that Bob liked 1950s rock-and-roll 
music and that he always combed his hair like Elvis Presley. After 
graduating from Tolna High School, Bob enlisted in the Army.
  In the Army, Bob met Lieutenant Bob Trimble, who became his company's 
executive officer. The two men had confidence in each other on missions 
and also enjoyed spending their free time together. Lieutenant Trimble 
remembers Bob's great sense of humor, even when times were tough. He 
was with Bob when Bob was killed and says that day will always haunt 
him.


                         Thomas ``Tom'' Spitzer

  Thomas ``Tom'' Spitzer grew up on a farm south of Wilton and was born 
June 17, 1941. He served as a Navy pilot on the USS Oriskany. Tom was 
25 years old when he died on October 26, 1966.
  Tom is survived by his siblings, wife, and his son Tom, who was born 
the month after his father was killed.
  In high school, Tom and a friend began flying. He then attended North 
Dakota State University, where he participated in ROTC and received a 
degree in business administration.
  During his Navy training, Tom was designated a Top Gun graduate. His 
brother Jeff says it was the proudest moment of Tom's life.
  The Navy intended for Tom to stay in the United States to train other 
pilots, but Tom volunteered to go to Vietnam to serve his country. As a 
Navy pilot in Vietnam, Tom flew over 100 missions. One of those 
missions involved him flying over his wing commander, who had been shot 
down, to draw fire away while they waited for help to arrive. The Navy 
awarded Tom with distinguished medals in recognition of his heroism.


                        Donald ``Donny'' Vollmer

  Donald ``Donny'' Vollmer was from Bismark. He was born August 2, 
1950. He served in the Army's 1st Aviation Brigade. Donny died on 
November 2, 1969. He was 19 years old.
  Donny had three brothers and one sister. He enjoyed hunting and 
fishing in his free time. Donny decided to join the Army because his 
older brother Jim was enlisting and he wanted to go too. At the time, 
Donny was 17 years old, so his parents had to give permission, and 
Donny had to finish his GED while at basic training.
  Donny and Jim served in the same unit, and Donny was a helicopter 
crew chief. A few weeks before Donny was killed, he and Jim came home 
on emergency leave because their mother had a heart attack. Donny spent 
his time at home telling his friends how much he loved serving his 
country. Jim's tour was almost over, so he was allowed to stay home, 
but Donny returned to Vietnam alone.
  Jim believes that if Donny had not been killed in the war, he would 
have made the Army his career.


                             Robert Brothen

  Robert Brothen was from Mohall and was born February 14, 1947. He 
served in the Army's 1st Infantry Division. Robert died on February 27, 
1969. He had just turned 22 years old.
  His two sisters were Beverly and Audrey, and his brother's name was 
Bernard. Even though he was Robert's

[[Page S2926]]

younger brother, Bernard joined the Army during the war just to help 
protect Robert.
  At one point during their service, Robert and Bernard were both 
hospitalized in Washington State, being treated for foot rot, but 
didn't learn they were in the same place until the day after they left.
  Robert's father Alvin died of cancer the same year Robert died. Their 
sister Beverly is the last living member of the family. Their mother 
Pearl passed away in 2004 but witnessed the deaths of three of her 
children and two husbands during her lifetime.
  These are the stories of just a few North Dakotans and actually just 
a few of those brave soldiers killed in action in Vietnam. As we 
continue to participate in the commemoration of the Vietnam war, I 
believe it is critically important that we continue to honor and 
appreciate their sacrifice and to help educate the younger generation, 
like the Bismark High School students who are helping me with this 
project, on the importance of sacrifice and commitment to our country.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all 
postcloture time be considered expired and the motion to proceed to 
H.R. 1314 be agreed to, and that Senator Hatch be recognized to offer 
substitute amendment No. 1221 and a first-degree amendment to strike 
title 2 of the amendment. I further ask that the following amendments 
be the only other amendments in order during today's session of the 
Senate: Brown No. 1242 and Lankford No. 1237.
  I further ask that when the Senate resumes consideration of H.R. 1314 
on Monday, May 18, the time until 5:30 p.m. be equally divided between 
the managers or their designees, and that at 5:30, the Senate proceed 
to vote in relation to the Brown and Lankford amendments in that order, 
with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes, and a 60-
affirmative-vote threshold for adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The minority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, reserving the right to object, first of 
all, I haven't had the opportunity to express my appreciation for the 
hard, hard work of the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on 
Finance. The senior Senator from Oregon has gone through a lot the past 
2 weeks trying to help us get to the point where we are today, so I 
admire the work they have done and look forward to the fair amendment 
process we are going to have next week.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the motion to proceed is agreed to.

                          ____________________