Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 74 (Thursday, May 14, 2015)

[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.

____________________