Angus King

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, what is the status of the session at this point? Are we in a quorum call?

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the 90th anniversary of the U.S. Probation System in Maine, for their dedication to ensuring the criminal justice system operates effectively and the public remains safe. Two events will be held in recognition, scheduled for September 21, 2015 and September 25, 2015, to commemorate 90 years of hard work and success. Signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge in 1925, the Probation Act altered the outlook of our judicial system. The act empowered courts to suspend a sentence and place worthy defendants into the probation system. Under predetermined conditions and irrefutable terms, low-level offenders have the opportunity to stay with their families and remain employed, while giving back to the community. For 90 years, this important piece of legislation has helped change and enhance lives, while keeping communities safe. Implementing probation services as a Federal law was a long and arduous process, and required significant effort at the State level. Maine has been a leader in supporting probation services since the early 1900s. In fact, Maine is home to George Grover, one of the first federally appointed--unpaid--State probation officers. He was appointed 90 years ago, on September 22, 1925, and served the communities and courts of Maine diligently. The U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services of Maine are dedicated to the betterment of the entire State. Helping to change lives, keeping families together, allowing defendants to stay on the job and give back, are just a few of the benefits this system regularly achieves. The U.S. Probation System is also committed to addressing and combating the serious concern of drug addiction in Maine. Through re-entry courts and treatment services, the probation system is helping low-level offenders turn their lives around and earn a fresh start. I applaud the U.S. Probation and Pretrial System in Maine for their dedicated service to communities and bettering lives throughout Maine. I would like to join the U.S. District Court of Maine in highlighting the success and hard work that has been demonstrated over the last 90 years.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the outstanding service of Meredith Jones, the president and CEO of the Maine Community Foundation, who is stepping down after 16 years of service. Meredith has greatly strengthened the Foundation through her hard work and dedication, and she has helped Maine citizens immensely. As a nonprofit that seeks to boost Maine's economy through investing in education, health, and leadership, the Maine Community Foundation has greatly benefited from Meredith's time as president and CEO of the organization. Her work has helped to shape policies that will have a tangible impact on Mainers for years to come. Meredith dedicated much of her career to public service, working for both the Maine Health Care Association and the Maine Development Foundation before her time at the Maine Community Foundation. With her background in strategic planning, grantmaking, and fund development initiatives, Meredith was more than equipped to take over as president and CEO in January of 2009. Meredith not only successfully navigated the foundation through the economic downturn of 2008-2009 but also helped the Maine Community foundation reach new heights. During Meredith's time, the foundation made over $160 million in grants and scholarship awards, as well as increased charitable funds from $190 million to more than $420 million. Meredith worked to prioritize downtown revitalization, higher education, and leadership development, all of which will have a tangible impact on Maine's future. I would like to join the Maine Community Foundation in recognizing and thanking Meredith for her dedication to the great State of Maine. I cannot speak highly enough of Meredith and her successful tenure at the foundation. The State of Maine owes Meredith a great deal for her years of leadership and support, and I wish Meredith all the best in the next chapter of her life.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Madam President, I want to talk about this arrangement and agreement with Iran and cover several points and what I think are important realities that have not been emphasized in this debate, but first I would like to address the issue of the 60-vote margin. First, I think it should be on the record that the minority leader offered to the majority leader a unanimous consent agreement that there would be no filibuster on the motion to proceed and there would be a 60-vote threshold required for final passage of the bill. As I understand it, that offer was rejected. That means the only alternative is to go the technical rule of the filibuster in order to require a 60- vote margin. It is absolutely clear from the legislative record of the Corker- Cardin bill that everyone involved in that discussion, including the Senator from Tennessee, understood that a 60-vote margin would be required in the passage of this legislation. There is no question about it. There are quotes in the Record. Everyone understood that from the beginning of the consideration of the Corker-Cardin bill. Finally, every major issue that has come before this bill since I have been here has required 60 votes, whether it was immigration or background checks or extension of unemployment benefits or the minimum wage. All of those have required a 60-vote threshold. That has been the standard in this body. We could debate whether that should or should not be the standard, but it is, it has been, and this is not a time to decide we are going to arbitrarily abandon that. I must say I am sort of amazed to hear people discussing this as if this is some kind of new imposition of a rule, and it reminds me of ``Casablanca": I am shocked--shocked--to understand that there might be a 60-vote requirement on this piece of legislation. That has been the standard for this body certainly for as long as I have been here and for some time longer. As I say, we can discuss whether that should be the standard, but that is what it is, and no one should be surprised that is the way we are proceeding here today. OK. Let's talk about the agreement--five quick realities. No. 1, Iran is a nuclear threshold state today. There is a lot of argument. I sat through the long debate yesterday afternoon about what happens in 2030, what happens in 15 years, and would Iran be somehow a legitimized nuclear threshold state. They are a nuclear threshold state today. The risk to the world is imminent. It is not in 15 years; it is today. That is why this agreement is so important--because basically it freezes and rolls back Iran's nuclear capabilities for at least the next 15 years and probably longer. The No. 2 reality: Iran is a rogue nation. It foments terrorism around the world. It is a state sponsor of terrorism. Everyone knows that. Under this agreement, as has been pointed out, because of the nature of the negotiations, which were ``roll back your nuclear program in exchange for relief from the sanctions,'' they will indeed receive relief from the sanctions, and that will give them additional funds for their economy and possibly for their nefarious purposes. But I would submit that the only thing worse than a rogue Iran is a rogue Iran armed with nuclear weapons. That is the essence of this deal. It prevents their opportunity to gain nuclear weapons, to create sufficient fissile material. It rolls back what they already have. I should point out that they became a nuclear threshold state during the imposition of various sanctions regimes. So it is clear that sanctions in and of themselves are never going to prevent their achievement of becoming a nuclear weapons state. No. 3, this is a multilateral agreement. All the discussion around here acts as if it is the United States and Iran, Obama and the Ayatollah. It indeed involves the world's major powers. It involves Great Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia, and other countries that have helped to enforce those sanctions and make them effective. If we walk away from this deal, we are doing so alone. We had an extraordinary meeting before the recess with Ambassadors from the P5+1 countries. They made it clear that they had accepted this agreement and that if we rejected it, their willingness to go back to the table, reimpose the sanctions, reinforce the sanctions--I believe one of the Ambassadors used the term ``far-fetched''--it is not going to happen. The sanctions are going to erode starting now, no matter what we do in this Congress. I can't figure out any way that a weaker sanctions regime--which is inevitable because other countries involved in the sanctions have already started to make moves toward doing business with Iran--I don't see how a weaker sanctions regime is ever going to bring Iran back to the table to get a better deal. Reality No. 4: This agreement is flawed. It is not the agreement I would prefer. There are elements that I think could be improved. I wish the 15 years was 20 or 30 years. I wish the 24 days was 12 days or 8 days or 1 day. But this is the agreement that is before us. And the analysis could not be strictly of the agreement itself and within its four corners, but compared to what? That is really the basic question here--not whether this a good deal or a bad deal. The question is, How does this deal, no matter what its flaws, compare with the alternatives that are out there? In all of the drama and all of the argument and all of the speeches and rallies that we have heard, no one has yet come up with a credible alternative. I have not yet heard a credible alternative. The only thing I hear is this: We will reimpose sanctions and bring them back to the table and get a better deal. It is going to be very hard to reimpose those sanctions without the support of our international partners. If we enter into the deal and Iran cheats, then we can bring the international partners back with us, but to do so--to try to think that we could do so now is just unrealistic. I wish there were a better alternative. I also wish I could play tight end for the New England Patriots, but it is not going to happen. It is simply not realistic. There is no credible alternative. Finally, we have to talk about what happens after the deal. Congress has a responsibility. The administration has a responsibility. We cannot trust Iran. Everyone knows that. No one argues that. There has been a lot of discussion about the IAEA. I serve on the Intelligence Committee. We had a briefing just yesterday morning with the heads of our intelligence agencies. It is not just the IAEA that is going to be watching this agreement, it is the world's intelligence community, and we have significant capability to know if they are cheating over and above and in addition to anything the IAEA brings to the table. This is not trust; this is verification based upon the IAEA's worldwide experience but also based upon the considerable intelligence assets of the United States and other countries that are supporting us in this effort. Finally, there are risks. I understand that. There are risks on both sides. There are severe risks. This is not an easy call. It is one of the hardest decisions I have ever had to make. But if you analyze the alternatives and weigh the risks, I believe the risks of not going forward with this agreement are significantly greater than the risks of giving diplomacy a chance going forward with this agreement, which can be verified. If there is cheating, it can be caught, No. 1, and punished, No. 2, and if the agreement doesn't work, we have the same options we have today. This is a difficult decision. It is one that has weighed on this body and on this country. But I think this is a tremendous opportunity for us to avoid a nuclear-armed Iran and secure at least that part of a peaceful Middle East and more secure world. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jon Greenert, a military fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress and for the debate today.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the hard work and dedication of Michael McCarthy, the principal of King Middle School in Portland, ME, who has served for 27 years and is moving on to a much deserved retirement. Mike has left a remarkable legacy and his hard work and dedication will continue to help Maine students for years to come. About one-fifth of King Middle School's students speak a native language other than English, 28 different languages in all, and students at the school come from 17 countries. More than half of the student body qualifies for free or subsidized lunch. Such factors can often contribute to poor academic performance, and for many years, parents did not view King Middle as a viable institution for their children. That view changed when Mike McCarthy took over 27 years ago. Mike possesses the qualities required of a strong leader. He is intelligent, but understands he may not always have the right answers, making him a good listener. He is dedicated to his students and faculty, and makes decisions that benefit the entire community. As a former teacher, Mike understands the classroom atmosphere and devotes his time to creating a positive learning environment. Perhaps most importantly, Mike is willing to take risks. Under Mike's leadership, King Middle School was one of the first schools in Maine to embrace 1:1 digital learning. This new approach helped to put technology in the hands of his students and teachers, and helped to open doors and unlock new potential in and out of the classroom. Mike also had the courage to implement an innovative approach called the Expeditionary Learning model, through which groups of teachers and students work together on hands-on projects that require them to have an understanding of many different disciplines. He also has demonstrated the courage to do what he thought was right, even when decisions were controversial. His approach earned him the respect of the teachers and the entire school community, and it has helped turn King Middle School into a real success story. I cannot say enough good things about Mike and his impact on King Middle School, the city of Portland, and Maine education as a whole. When I recently convened a panel of Maine educators to share their perception on reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Mike brought his strong voice to the table. His has always been an invaluable perspective. Through his experience and input, educators across Maine are better off as they work--just like Mike--to broaden their students' horizons and prepare them for success in a rapidly changing world.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, this month, 70 years ago, the greatest crisis of the 20th century came to an end. Lasting 6 full years and involving participants from over 30 countries, World War II was the most widespread and devastating war in human history. America's isolation from this dreadful conflict abruptly ended when, on the morning of December 7, 1941, our Nation came under sudden and deliberate attack. In less than 2 hours, thousands of lives were lost as bombs fell across the island of Oahu and that quiet Sunday morning quickly turned into a terrible scene of violence and horror. But the attacks on Pearl Harbor did not break the American spirit. In this darkest of moments, our country discovered a renewed sense of strength, courage and resiliency; qualities that define us. And, following the attack on Pearl Harbor, American forces joined the Allied Powers, fighting side-by-side against Nazi oppression in Europe and Japanese expansion in the Pacific. Sixteen million Americans bravely served in these two theaters of conflict, and it was through their patriotism and courage that freedom was able to triumph over tyranny. I also want to recognize Maine's important role in the war effort. In northern Maine, Army airfields in Bangor, Presque Isle, and Houlton provided strategic air basing and training sites which facilitated the deployment of personnel and equipment overseas to the frontlines. And along the coast, where the Kennebec River meets the sea, Bath Iron Works established its reputation for producing the ``best-built'' destroyers in the world. The shipyard delivered a total of 83 new ships to the U.S. Navy--hitting a 2-year peak production of 21 ships a year or an average of 1 destroyer every 17 days. Bath-built ships survived the attack on Pearl Harbor, landed troops at Normandy, supported Marines at Iwo Jima, and sank Nazi U-boats in the Atlantic. Maine's support to our Armed Forces during the war years was unparalleled in terms of dedication, scope, and impact. And, above all else, we must honor the immeasurable contributions of our servicemembers. As a State with one of the highest percentages of veterans per capita in the Nation, the war's legacy resonates strongly in Maine. During World War II, nearly 80,000 Maine citizens served overseas. Their steadfast perseverance, patriotism, and bravery in the face of grave danger helped secure a better future for generations to come. On this 70th anniversary of World War II, we remember all the American and Allied servicemembers who bravely served on land, air, and sea; as well as those on the homefront providing for our warfighters. Their service and sacrifices contributed to international peace and stability and ensured the continued promise of the freedoms we enjoy today.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I have never faced a more difficult decision than the vote on the Iran nuclear weapons agreement which is currently scheduled for mid-September. The stakes could not be higher, the issues more complex or the risks more difficult to calculate. In approaching this decision, I have taken a two-pronged path. The first is to have learned everything I possibly could about the agreement itself and then carefully analyzed the alternatives. This second step is critically important, particularly in this case. No negotiated agreement is perfect. It is easy to pick apart whatever agreement is before you, but the question is, Compared to what? Often, an imperfect agreement is preferable when compared to the likely alternatives. Starting with a close reading of the agreement over several nights and early mornings back in July, and following hearings, classified briefings and sessions, meeting with experts inside and outside the administration, extensive readings about the agreement and its implications and discussions with my colleagues, this is where I have come out: First, if implemented effectively, I believe this agreement will prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear weapon for at least 15 years and probably longer; second, at the end of that 15 years, if we take the right steps, we will have the same options then that we have today if Iran moves toward the building of a bomb; third, the current alternatives, if this agreement is rejected, are either unrealistic or downright dangerous. So based upon what we know now, I intend to vote in favor of the agreement. This is why: The deal itself, I believe, is strong and explicit in terms of the burdens it places upon Iran's nuclear program for the first 15 years--a 98-percent reduction in their current stockpile of enriched uranium, strict numerical limits on further enrichment, the effective dismantling of the plutonium reactor at Arak, and dismantlement of two- thirds of their current fleet of enrichment centrifuges. But many argue that after 15 years, Iran could become a nuclear threshold state, which is certainly a possibility we need to be prepared to address, but Iran is a nuclear threshold state today. To be arguing about what may or may not be the case in 15 years and ignore the fact that they are a nuclear threshold state today, it seems to me, is the height of folly. If they decided to build a bomb today, they could get there in 2 to 3 months. After the rollbacks required in this agreement, however, this period is extended to at least 1 year, and we would know almost immediately if they were on track to a bomb. I might mention that we will have a much greater insight into their activities if this agreement is enacted than we do today. The inspection and verification provisions, as I mentioned, which will be monitored and enforced by the International Atomic Energy Agency, coupled with the tools and capabilities of the U.S. intelligence community and those of our international partners which, by the way, is an important part of the verification regime. There is a lot of discussion about the IAEA, as if those are the only people who will be watching, but indeed the intelligence agencies of at least half a dozen countries will also be watching. I believe the combination of the IAEA and our intelligence assets provide us with a high level of confidence that any attempt by Iran to cheat on its enrichment program will be detected. IAEA inspections at known nuclear sites indeed are anytime, anywhere, and include Iran's entire uranium supply chain. While it is true that inspections at hidden sites--sites we don't know about--could be delayed for up to 24 days from when the IAEA requests access and that some covert work at such a site could be harder to detect, it is in the nature of uranium that traces can be detected long after 24 days, no matter how much they try to clean it up. The half-life of uranium-235 is 700 million years. They are not going to be able to clean it up in 24 days. In the end, to build a bomb, there has to be nuclear material. But what about after 15 years when most of the restrictions on enrichment are lifted? If the Iranians try to break out at that point, we have the some options we have today, including the reimposition of sanctions or a military strike. In other words, we are in a similar place in 15 years to where we are now, but we will have achieved 15 years of a nuclear weapon-free Iran. If Iran violates the terms of the agreement at that point, I believe reimposing the effective international sanctions involving the rest of the world would be stronger and more likely than it would be today because it would be Iran breaching the agreement, not us walking away from it. I cannot argue, nor can anyone, that this deal is perfect. For example, I would prefer that the 15-year limits be 20 or 25 or 30 years or that the U.S. arms embargo would remain in place indefinitely. I would prefer to see that in the agreement. In fact, I think Congress can and should have a role to play in seeking to ensure the strict enforcement of the agreement and to mitigate some of its weaknesses, as well as reassuring our regional allies and partners and further strengthening our ability to ensure Iran never becomes a nuclear weapons state, but then we get to the central question. As I said, it is easy to pick apart a deal: I don't like this aspect. I don't like that. I think it should be longer. I think it should be shorter. But the question is, Compared to what? What are the alternatives? What happens next if we reject this agreement? The usual answers I have heard in this body, in hearings, and in meetings over the last month or so are sort of vague references to reimposing or strengthening the sanctions, bringing Iran back to the table, and getting a better deal. The problem with this is that the countries which have joined us in the sanctions--and by doing so have considerably strengthened the impact of those sanctions on Iran--believe this deal is acceptable. They have accepted it. Our unilateral rejection would almost certainly lead to those sanctions eroding rather than getting stronger. I would not argue they will collapse, but they will definitely erode. It is hard to argue that the sanctions will get stronger when the countries that have helped us to enforce and make those sanctions effective believe we should endorse and enter into this agreement. If that happens, we have the worst of all worlds: Iran is unfettered from the terms of the agreement, and they are subject to a weaker sanctions regime. It is important to remember, and this often is not conveyed much in the information that is shared, this is not simply an agreement between the United States and Iran, this is an agreement between the United States and Germany and Great Britain and France and China and Russia and Iran. This is not a unilateral agreement. This is an agreement that has been entered into by the major world powers. They have found it acceptable. The other option, if we cannot somehow find our way to a better deal--and I have not heard anybody credibly argue why or how that would happen. The only other option, of course, is a military strike, which the experts estimate would only set the Iranian nuclear program back between 2 and 3 years. Where are we then? Are we in a position where there would have to be follow-on strikes to prevent the reconstitution of Iran's nuclear facilities every 2 or 3 years? That would be at an unpredictable and incalculable cost. It is true that as a result of Iran's acceptance of the limitations of the agreement, they get relief from the nuclear sanctions and the release of approximately $50 billion of restricted foreign assets that they will be able to spend, but it is important to remember they only get that after they comply with the limitations. If we sign on to this agreement, they don't get the money the next day. They have to meet the limitations in the agreement and the IAEA has to verify that. Let me repeat. There is no sanctions relief until Iran implements and the IAEA verifies that its nuclear commitments have been met. To get that relief is why they entered into these negotiations in the first place. And to get them into the negotiations is why we led the imposition of the nuclear weapons sanctions in the first place. In other words, sanctions relief in exchange for acceptance of limitations on their nuclear program is the essence of the deal. Neither the sanctions nor the negotiations were ever about Iran foreswearing terrorism or recognizing Israel or releasing hostages. All of those things are things I wish we could do. I believe those are good policies, but that isn't what this negotiation was about. To try to add them now or argue that the deal falls short because they aren't included is simply unrealistic. The United States, along with our allies and partners, must redouble our efforts outside of the nuclear agreement to address these issues. They are critically important issues. We need a strategy to deal with an expansionist Iran that is completely separate from the nuclear issue--I don't deny that--and to deal with Iran's malign activities in the region. It is also important to reiterate that all U.S. sanctions on Iran related to terrorism and human rights will remain in place. When President Kennedy was negotiating the removal of the Soviet missiles from Cuba, he did not throw in that Cuba had to depose Castro or that the Soviets had to foreswear their dangerous enmity to the West. The phrase they used was this: ``We will bury you.'' He simply wanted to get those missiles out. He didn't try to settle all the issues in the Cold War. And, indeed, so it is with this deal. The idea is to constrain. The idea has always been to constrain Iran's nuclear capability, not settle all the issues of the Middle East--no matter how desirable that might be. In my book there is only one thing worse than a rogue Iran seeking to make trouble for its neighbors and us, and that is a rogue Iran seeking to make troubles for its neighbors and us armed with nuclear weapons. That is the issue before is. Finally, of equal importance as the terms themselves of the nuclear agreement is ensuring that it is effectively implemented. One of the principles of my life is that implementation and execution are as important as vision. If this agreement is approved, that is day 1 of the critical implementation and execution period. There is a real risk, I believe, that as time wears on, the attention of the international community on this issue will diminish. It will be vital to the United States, across successive Presidents, to maintain focus on implementing and enforcing the terms of the agreement. Congress also will have a crucial role to play, both in oversight of the deal's implementation and in making certain that the IAEA and our intelligence agencies have the resources they need to monitor and assure compliance, and more broadly to ensure that all of our options to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon--whenever they may decide to take that step--remain viable if the agreement collapses. I have negotiated lots of contracts over the years, and one side or the other rarely wins in a negotiation. The idea is that all sides get something they want or need, and, in the end, I believe that is what happened here. If this deal is implemented properly, I believe it will accomplish our national security objectives, while preserving or improving all of our existing options to ensure that Iran never develops a nuclear weapon. There is no certainty when it comes to this question. As I said at the beginning, I believe this is the most difficult decision I have ever had to make. There are risks in either direction, and there are credible arguments on both sides. But, in the end, I have concluded that the terms of this agreement are preferable to the alternatives-- and that is the crucial analysis; what are the alternatives--and that it would be in the best interests of the United States to join our partners in approving it. I intend to remain deeply engaged in this issue in the weeks and months ahead because the process does not end the day of our vote. If this agreement moves forward, it will fall to future Presidents and future Congresses to oversee it and make it work. We owe the American people our best judgment, and it is my belief that this agreement, if implemented effectively and in conjunction with the other measures we must take to ensure its ongoing vitality, will serve our Nation, the region, and the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KING. Madam President, I rise to speak in opposition to S. 1881, the bill that will be coming before us this afternoon, and I have several quick points that I think need to be made. The first is that this bill has nothing to do with abortion. Ninety- seven percent of the activities of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its associated facilities have nothing to do with abortion. They have to do with women's health, they have to do with cancer screening, and they have to do with contraception and early detection. The 3 percent that do involve abortion have no involvement whatsoever with Federal funds. This is not a case where Federal funds are going to support abortion or any of the related activities. The net effect of this bill is simply to deny basic health care, including contraception, to millions of women, particularly low-income women. And the irony is that it will undoubtedly increase abortions in this country. I have never understood why people who are opposed to abortion also seem to be opposed to the provision of family planning and contraceptive information which can prevent unwanted pregnancies and, indeed, prevent abortions. The Guttmacher Institute, a respected, nonpartisan institution, estimates that without family planning information supplied by organizations such as Planned Parenthood, abortions would increase in this country by 345,000 a year. That is not a result anybody wants. It is certainly not one I want. That would mean an increase in abortions--345,000 a year. I understand the bill does make funds generally available to a whole host of different organizations, some of which may or may not provide the kinds of family planning services that have been provided for over 70 years by Planned Parenthood. It is a narrower network. It eliminates clinics that have been available to women and doctors who have been available to women for many years. Ironically, amidst all the discussion about the Affordable Care Act, a criticism which was ``Maybe you can't keep your own doctor,'' this is a bill designed to keep you away from your doctor, the doctor you have been seeing and have confidence in at a clinic run by Planned Parenthood. The issue, which my colleague from Indiana noted, is not about abortion. It is not about Planned Parenthood. It is not about contraception. It is about fetal tissue and the uses of fetal tissue and how fetal tissue should be controlled and whether it should be allowed to be used for medical research. But that is a debate we should have on that issue. There is no reason we should be defunding Planned Parenthood because of a debate we may or may not want to have in the future about the use of fetal tissue. We are denying medical services to women--particularly low-income women--because of an issue that has nothing to do with the 97 percent of services this organization provides. To me, this bill is like attacking Brazil after Pearl Harbor--it is a vigorous response, but it is the wrong target. If the concern is Planned Parenthood or any other organization having access to fetal tissue and then using that tissue in medical research-- by the way, designed to save lives and ameliorate the effects of diseases such as Parkinson's or Alzheimer's--then let's focus on that. Let's talk about whether it should be legal, how it should be controlled, what the limitations should be. But we should not eliminate an organization which for many years--almost 100 years--has been providing health care for women, particularly low-income women, basic female health care such as cancer screenings and contraception and family planning. This is a straightforward attack on women's health, in my view, particularly the health of low-income women. ``No American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition.'' That radical statement wasn't made by me. It wasn't made by Jimmy Carter. It wasn't made by John F. Kennedy. It was made by that known radical Richard M. Nixon in 1970. So access to family planning information goes back almost 50 years. If people in this body don't think that is appropriate, then let's debate that, but let's not use this collateral issue of fetal tissue, which we can debate, to defund an organization that serves the needs of many women in my State and in States across the country, particularly low-income women. Two-thirds of Planned Parenthood's patients are low-income women. They serve the needs of those women in a responsible, legal, and thoughtful way. This is targeting an organization for the wrong reason. If we want to discuss fetal tissue and how to deal with it and what the pros and cons are, then let's do so, but I don't believe it is appropriate to do it in the context of legislation that will basically crush an organization that has been enormously helpful in maintaining women's health throughout this country and will not, in fact, end whatever concerns people have about the use of fetal tissue. Again, Madam President, this bill has nothing to do with abortion. It has everything to do with women's health. I hope my colleagues will move on, debate the real issues, and oppose this ill-founded and I believe unsupported piece of legislation. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the National Association of Community Health Centers, NACHC, for their hard work and dedication to providing Americans with the care they need and deserve. The association is celebrating 50 years of providing support through health centers across the Nation. A series of events will be held during National Health Center Week, scheduled for August 9 through August 15, to recognize the importance of health care and to celebrate 50 years of support. The NACHC was organized in 1965 and held demonstration programs under the Federal Office of Economic Opportunity to help Americans receive medical support regardless of their income. Also during this time, the first four health care centers opened in Massachusetts, Mississippi, Colorado, and New York. Since 1965, the NACHC has worked to address our Nation's widespread lack of access to basic health care services. Devoted to the mission of, ``promoting the provision of high quality, comprehensive and affordable health care that is coordinated, culturally and linguistically competent, and community directed for all medically underserved populations,'' the NACHC helps educate Americans on the importance of health care. The NACHC also provides health centers with a unified voice and a common source for research, information, training, and advocacy. Maine currently has 19 organizations that run 135 health center sites. The 19 federally-funded health center organizations in Maine serve 184,546 patients, 17.8 percent of whom are uninsured, and create over 200 jobs. Mr. President, 89 percent of people relying on these centers live in extremely rural areas of the State. These Mainers would not be able to access adequate health care services if these sites did not exist. The work that has been done in Maine continues to help the State become healthier and smarter. The theme for this year's National Health Center Week is ``America's Health Centers: Celebrating Our Legacy, Shaping Our Future.'' This theme showcases the numerous ways in which America's health centers are driving and empowering healthier communities and Americans. With more than 9,000 delivery sites throughout the Nation, health centers employ hundreds of thousands of individuals nationally which, in turn, powers local economies. During the National Health Center Week, health centers in all 50 States will be hosting a variety of public events to highlight their work in local communities and to honor the elected officials who have supported the work of the health centers. I would like to join the National Association of Community Health Centers in highlighting the success that has been demonstrated over the last 50 years by local health centers throughout the Nation.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. ``Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation.'' That was Abraham Lincoln in a message to Congress on December 1, 1862. I think his words echo today as we talk about the serious and solemn issues before us and the one that will be coming up within 60 days, the consideration of the agreement with Iran. We are embarked on a historic process, a process that will result in one of the most important votes that any of us will ever take in this body, a vote that entails risks of war and peace, of life and death, of relationships in the Middle East and throughout the world. I have been thinking in the last 24 hours about how to approach this decision, and I would like to share that today. This is a solemn responsibility. The first step for this Senator is to read the agreement word for word and to note in the margins the questions, data, and analysis that we think we need in order to make this decision. That is No. 1. No. 2 is to seek expertise, to reach outside of this body to people in the nuclear field--one literally needs to be a nuclear physicist to understand some parts of this agreement--to arms inspection people, to economists, to foreign policy experts. I hope and expect this will happen in hearings before the Foreign Relations Committee and other committees of this Senate, but it is also incumbent upon us as individuals to reach out and to try to gain as much knowledge and expertise in the facts of this agreement as we possibly can. Then I think we need to debate--to really debate with the Senators here in the Chamber, face to face. Our legal system is based upon the principle of an adversarial system where truth emerges from the fire of argument. And I believe that is something we owe the American people, not the strange debate we have where one person comes and speaks to an empty Chamber and then another person comes and speaks to an empty Chamber. I think this is an occasion where Senators should confront one another with their best arguments, their best facts, and listen to one another and make their decisions based upon what they learn and what they hear. Of course, the context of the decision is important. We must consider the alternatives. What happens if we don't accept this agreement? What happens if we do? No agreement like this can be judged solely in isolation; it has to be viewed in terms of what are the alternatives. What if nothing happens? What does Iran do then? What are the relationships in the Middle East? What is Iran's path to a bomb if this agreement is not approved? Mr. President, I did not plan to come to the floor today, but I am here because I have been shocked and, frankly, surprised at the outpouring of reaction from people who haven't read the agreement, who haven't studied the implications, who haven't gained the facts. To denounce an agreement or a deal before the ink is even dry strikes me as an abdication of our responsibility. My message today is, let's slow down and take a deep breath. Let's listen to one another. Let's gain the facts. I have not yet made my decision. And I commend that position to my colleagues. This is too important to become just another political issue. Even though we are headed into a Presidential year, even though there are partisan differences, even though there are differences with this President, this is a historic vote and it is a solemn responsibility. We owe our constituents, we owe the people of our States and America a close reading of the facts, a balanced weighing of the alternatives, and our best judgment. That is what the people of Maine expect of this Senator, and I believe that is what the people of America expect of us. The Senate has an extraordinary opportunity to regain its place in this country as the world's greatest deliberative body, and that means we have to deliberate and listen and learn the facts, and that is how we should approach this momentous decision. History will judge us. History will judge us not only on our ultimate decision but how we reached it, how we wrestled with the facts and the alternatives and the consequences, and how we made this decision that will have long-term implications for this country, for the Middle East, for our allies, and for the world. Mr. President, I have confidence in this institution. I have confidence that we can make this decision in a thoughtful, deliberative, and consciously deliberate way to reach a conclusion that is in the best interests of the people of America. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, before beginning my remarks, I want to express my profound sorrow, sympathy, and condolences to the people of South Carolina and the people of Charleston for the tragedy that occurred last night. To my colleagues, Senators Scott and Graham, and to all the people of South Carolina, these things are very hard to understand, very hard to fathom, and I think I speak for all of our colleagues when I say our hearts go out to the people of South Carolina this morning concerning this unspeakable tragedy.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, there has been a great deal of discussion this week, and there will be, I am sure, over the next few days, about Pope Francis's comments in his encyclical issued this morning on the issue of climate change and on the issue of the preservation of the environment. Some of the reaction has been that the Pope should stay away from science and stick to morality and theology. I am here this morning to say I believe that is exactly what he is doing. He is sticking to morality and theology, and that is why he has made the statement that he has. I have always viewed this issue in fundamentally an ethical and moral context. There has been a lot of talk, discussion, and debate in committees and on this floor about the science, which I think is irrefutable--the science of climate change, the science of the increasing load of CO2 in the atmosphere, the most we have ever had in some 3 million years, and the impact it will have. I have talked about the practical impact it will have on the lobster population in Maine and on the shellfish, on our forests, on moose in New Hampshire, on water-edged cities and communities all over this country. All of those practical and scientific things we have talked about at great length on this floor. The only thing I would say is that I am convinced the science is irrefutable that, A, something is happening; B, it is detrimental to the future of the world; and, C, we--people--are largely responsible for it. Fundamentally, this is a moral and ethical issue. It has always occurred to me in two moral and ethical contexts. One is that I don't understand what right several generations of people on this Earth have to use up a finite resource that was created over millions of years. It took 3 or 4 million years to create the oil and gas that is underneath our Earth. How do we have the right to use it all up in 200 or 300 years? That assumes we are the only people who will ever occupy this planet. Indeed, I don't believe that is the case. Obviously, it is not the case. There are generations that will come after us--6, 7, 8, 10 generations of people who will come after us. Why do we have the right to use resources that the Earth created for all of time? One of the fundamental premises of the Old Testament is, of course, the Ten Commandments. One of the basic Ten Commandments is ``Thou shalt not steal.'' I believe we are stealing resources from future generations by simply using them up in our lifetimes. That is moral and ethical issue No. 1. The second ethical issue is the fundamental ethical and moral principle of stewardship. The first line of the Bible says: ``In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'' God created--God created--the heaven and the Earth. We have a responsibility to steward, to take care of the creation that God gave us. There are some very interesting Biblical references early in the Bible, in Leviticus, the third Book of the Bible, about this concept of stewardship. One is in Leviticus 25. The Lord said to Moses: ``The land must never be sold on a permanent basis, for the land belongs to me.'' This is God speaking: The land belongs to me. ``You are only foreigners and tenant farmers working for me.'' That is the concept of a long-term stewardship--that we don't own the land. Yes, we have deeds and we think we own it, and we can pass it on to our children, but we don't own the planet, and we have a responsibility to pass that resource on to our children in good shape and not destroy it. Another interesting provision in Leviticus--and I hope it is OK to make notations in the Lord's Book because that is what I did. In Leviticus 25, Moses is told a very interesting thing about how to take care of the land. God talked about a Sabbath for the land, just as He talked about a Sabbath for people--a day of rest. ``For six years you may plant your fields and prune your vineyards and harvest your crops, but during the seventh year the land must have a Sabbath year of complete rest.'' Very interesting--the land must have a Sabbath. It is the Lord's Sabbath. Do not plant your fields or prune your vineyards during that year. And then later on in Verse 32, God tells Moses what will happen if you don't observe that rule. In other words, if you just keep planting and abusing the land, He said--this is again quoting God here in Leviticus 25: ``Your land will become desolate.'' There is an interesting observation. God said: Your land will become desolate, and your cities will lie in ruins. Then at last the land will enjoy its neglected Sabbath years as it lies desolate while you are in exile in the land of your enemies. Then the land will finally rest and enjoy the Sabbaths it missed. The concept is we have an obligation to the land, to the Earth that has been given to us. Then, we skip all the way from the beginning of the Old Testament to the end of the New Testament to the Book of Revelations, and there is a kind of admonition, I think, for all of us in terms of our stewardship of the Earth. In Revelations 11:18, the Chapter says: ``But your wrath came, and the time for the dead to be judged, and for rewarding your servants . . . and for destroying the destroyers of the earth.'' That is something we ought to take very seriously; that the time will come for the destroying of the destroyers of the Earth. This is all about morality, theology, and ethics. This is about simply taking care of the asset the Good Lord gave us--whatever Name you give to the Good Lord. It is the Earth we have been given. It is the only Earth we have. It is the only home we have, and we simply can't destroy it. Yet in Genesis it says man is given dominion over the waters, the Earth, and the animals. But that doesn't mean we are entitled to destroy it. It means we have to steward it, we have to conserve it. That is really what this discussion is all about. This is about ethics. This is about morality. It is about theology, as I have demonstrated. Now, I want to go from the Good Book to another way to state this. In Maine we have what is called the Maine rototiller rule. It is all you need to know about environmental stewardship: If you borrow your neighbor's rototiller to clean up your garden in the spring, the principle is you always return it in as good shape as you got it, with a full tank of gas. That is environmental stewardship. We don't own this planet. We have it on loan. Therefore, we have a responsibility to pass it on to our children and grandchildren and countless generations ahead of us in as good of shape as we got it and maybe with a full tank of gas. And that means we just can't willy-nilly act like there are no consequences for our actions, that we can befoul the air and the land and the water for our convenience, for our aggrandizement, for our material comfort. We have to think about other people. That is of course the fundamental principle of every religion in the world: ``Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'' I would submit that ``others'' includes not only those of us here or those of us in America or those of us around the world but those of us who haven't been born yet. We have an obligation to ``do unto others as we would have them do unto us.'' So I welcome the Pope's words this week as a valuable voice in an important discussion. I realize we will have differences about how to solve this problem. We will have differences about the exact dimensions of it. We will have differences about what the resolution should be and the technology we should use and how we should get there and transitions and all those kinds of things. That is perfectly legitimate. But, fundamentally, we have to think of this as a moral and ethical issue--as a moral and ethical issue--the obligations we owe to other people in this country, to other people in the world who have no voice in the use of the resources that are being taken away from them, and particularly to the people whom we don't yet know who are going to follow us on this wonderful home we have been given to steward, to preserve, to use but to pass on in as good or better shape than we found it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I come to the Senate floor with some good news from my home State of Maine. World Refugee Day is this Saturday, and I would like to highlight an organization that sprung up spontaneously in one of our Maine cities that is really making a difference in the lives of young people, particularly young refugees from Somalia, Sudan, and other African countries, helping them to expand their own horizons. As the roots of our refugee and immigrant population continue to grow stronger in Maine and in the process strengthen our communities, a group called Tree Street Youth is helping to nurture that growth one student at a time. I have visited the Tree Street Youth, and it is an amazing program. Maine's history, like the rest of America, is inexorably linked to immigration. With the exception of our native tribes, we are all from somewhere else originally. It began with European immigrants from England, Scotland, and Ireland. People with French heritage came down from Canada, and Swedes settled in northern Aroostook County in Maine. African Americans were brought here against their will, but they became part of the stock of this country. For years, immigrants in Maine found work in mills, farms, and fields, and now their descendants are our leaders--business leaders, political leaders, our neighbors, our friends, and our family. Just as previous waves of immigrants have come to Maine in search of a better life for themselves and their children, newer immigrants-- including refugees, asylees, and asylum seekers from Somalia, South Sudan, and several central African countries--are making new homes in Maine and making Maine more diverse, more dynamic, and a better place in the process. I think it is important to point out that these refugees are people we have, in effect, invited to come to this country because the conditions in their former countries were so unstable or because they feared persecution. These people are not illegal immigrants. They are people, and they are not illegal aliens. They are people here under a legal process. They are looking for a new start, and they are willing to work hard, as we learned in Maine. But anyone who finds themselves in an entirely new and unfamiliar situation--in a situation where they may not be familiar with the language--can always use some help and support, and groups such as the Tree Street Youth in Lewiston are so important and can have such a huge impact because they smooth the transition and help promote cooperation and understanding within the community and particularly the transition of young people. This remarkable organization was founded in 2011 by two former Bates College students located in the city of Lewiston--Julia Sleeper and Kim Sullivan. They recognized the need for such a group--for such a facility. Tree Street Youth is dedicated to supporting young people in the Lewiston-Auburn area through academics, the arts, and athletics. The organization, which originally grew out of a simple after-school homework help program, now provides local youth with a safe space to promote healthy physical, social, emotional, and academic development. Through its flourishing arts, college prep, and job-training programs, Tree Street is not only giving young people the tools, support, and confidence they need to succeed, but it is also helping to bring all students from all backgrounds in the city of Lewiston together. Tree Street Youth has proven to be a tremendous resource in Lewiston and Auburn, particularly for young people from immigrant families. The support services and sense of community that is provided there empowers these young people to be independent and productive members of society. While integrating into the community can be difficult for recent immigrants, refugees, and their families, the Tree Street experience helps to connect young people to their peers and to the community as a whole. This is a two-way street of understanding that helps bring our communities together. For example, Tree Street Youth had an annual banquet this past May, and it was, I am told, a fun and emotional event and a showcase that allowed the Tree Street students to share some of their talents with the Lewiston-Auburn community. I am told that after students gave a variety of inspiring poetry readings, dance, and other performances about their experiences, it was hard to find a dry eye in the house. That really speaks to the life-changing power that this organization has brought to our community. Just as Tree Street Youth improves young lives, these young people can in turn improve Maine and America. We need motivated, talented, and creative people from all backgrounds if we are going to keep pace with the rest of the world. We need students like Muna Muhammad, whom I met here just a few weeks ago when she represented Maine in the Senate Youth Leadership Program. Muna, whose family is from Somalia, is the president of her class at Lewiston High School, serves as a student representative on the Lewiston school committee, is involved in her school's speech, mock trial, and civil rights teams, and has a long list of other accomplishments. They highlight her remarkable leadership qualities, which radiate when you meet her. This is what America is all about. It is about families from around the world finding a new start, bringing with them new perspectives, new ideas, and new hope for the future. It is the mainspring of the American experience. It is about a melting pot of peoples, cultures, and ideas that create a tapestry that is much stronger than any single thread. Welcoming new people and cultures hasn't always been easy, and it is not easy. Sometimes our differences are more immediately apparent than our similarities, but over the years, immigrants and refugees have proven to be an irreplaceable part--the essential part--of who America is. This wonderful organization started spontaneously in one of our great cities of Maine. Tree Street Youth has proven that support and community engagement can help ease that transition and create a brighter future for those students, for Maine, and for our entire country. That is good news for Maine and good news for the United States. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I stand before you today in solemn remembrance of Lawrence Gould, a founding member of Camp Sunshine, which is a truly remarkable and transformative sanctuary for children with life-threatening illnesses and their families. The camp has brought respite, support, hope, and joy to thousands of families for over three decades and will continue to do so for years to come. The State of Maine has lost a man of true integrity; Larry was 84. Larry was an exceptionally intelligent and hard-working man who found countless successes in life. Equipped with a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology at the age of 24, he went on to become president, chairman, and CEO of M/A-Com, Inc., a Fortune 500 company. After establishing himself as a prominent and distinguished businessman, Larry developed Point Sebago Resort, in Casco, ME-- considered the first resort campground in the country. Upon stepping down as chair of M/A-Com, Inc. in 1983, Larry and his wife Anna sought to share their successes with others and turned their dedication and devotion to charitable endeavors. A year later, Point Sebago Resort opened its doors to 43 children and their families, and the program was met with resounding enthusiasm from its pilot participants. Thus Camp Sunshine was created. Over the years, more and more medical centers began referring their patients to Camp Sunshine. The camp's extraordinary emotional and medical support played a momentous role in the well-being of the children who spent their summers on the shores of Lake Sebago. As the camp became widely revered in the medical community, Larry knew he needed to expand and find a permanent home for Camp Sunshine. In 2001, the Goulds donated 24 acres of land adjacent to Point Sebago. Camp Sunshine was now open year-round. Since then, the Goulds have continued to strengthen Camp Sunshine's services while ensuring that their families can attend free of charge. Larry's idea for a camp that provides respite and psychosocial support for sick children was the first of its kind in the United States and is emblematic of his nature as a visionary philanthropist. His passion for improving the lives of those children and families who have stayed at Camp Sunshine is felt by all who knew him. In continuing to carry out Larry's mission, I am sure that Camp Sunshine's dedicated staff will also carry on his earnest enthusiasm for helping those around him. Through his tireless efforts, Larry affected countless lives. I am deeply saddened by his passing, but I know that the impact of his work transcends life. His firm devotion to the betterment and care of Camp Sunshine's children will never be forgotten. I, along with all the people of Maine, am thankful for his immeasurable contributions to our State and the Nation.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I bring to the fore an organization that serves as a model for coordinated economic development and environmental responsibility. Later this month, the Southern Maine Planning and Development Commission, or SMPDC, will celebrate its 50th anniversary. This milestone is a testament not only to its longevity and breadth, but also to its ability to continually develop pertinent projects for southern Maine's economy. They are truly an inspiration for similar initiatives across the country and around the globe. SMPDC is a Council of Governments enabled by State statute that serves the southern part of our great State in 39 communities. As this region forms the southern tip of Maine, it injects economic vitality to all corners of the State as the ``Gateway to Maine.'' It boasts 300 miles of breathtaking coastline--with rocky points, quiet inlets, and sandy beaches. This coastline alone brings in thousands of tourists each year who wish to share the marvels of our distinct and special home. This region also extends westward toward the White Mountains, an area dotted with numerous lakes, fertile lands, dense forests, and crossed by the mighty Saco River. To help maintain this land for us and for future generations, the folks at SMPDC offer comprehensive planning and ordinance revision to communities to ensure they achieve the appropriate growth while preserving the land and shoreline that so characterizes the Maine way of life. Being the Gateway to Maine, and given the recent Federal gridlock over properly funding the Highway Trust Fund, I would be remiss not to mention the commission's work to assist municipalities throughout the region in transportation project planning and management. They have rallied local leaders and first responders to address the emergencies on the roads and made the veins of our economy safer through their Traffic Incident Management Group--which in 2007 was given the Excellence in Regional Transportation Award by the National Association of Development. Furthermore, with I-95 and Amtrak pouring resources and revenue into the State, SMPDC has been essential to coordinating community action to ensure we make the most of these assets. And even while focusing on the largest arteries of transportation in the area, the commission has not turned a blind eye to the scenic roads and healthy travel alternatives that encourage people to get outdoors and reaffirms access and economic prospects for Maine's vibrant eco- tourism industry. Teaming up with the Bicycle Coalition of Maine, SMPDC has successfully implemented the York County Active Communities Network. This initiative explores the potential for improvements and funding opportunities for those looking to bike or walk safely and freely throughout their community. The group has also added further economic vitality to Maine through its work with the Pequawket Trail Scenic Byway, which winds its way through the White Mountains in western Maine and along the Saco River. This Corridor Management Plan floods the scenic towns along it with visitors and economic opportunity from downtown Standish to historic Fryeburg. Perhaps what the commission is most widely recognized for is their success with the Brownfields Redevelopment Project, which is funded in part by the EPA's Brownfield and Land Revitalization Program. Brownfields are abandoned or underused industrial and commercial properties that have some threat of environmental contamination, whether it is real or perceived. Beginning in 2004, the Brownfield Redevelopment Project started funding ventures throughout southern Maine to rebuild old dams, mills, and other previously condemned facilities to help reintroduce many of Maine's beautiful, historic buildings to their communities. South Berwick now boasts a fantastic renovated library and Kennebunk even retooled a gas station to create a community ice rink, while the mills in Sanford and Biddeford are teeming with hundreds of new businesses. At an event earlier in the year, the EPA cited SMPDC as one of the top 10 in the Nation for their wide ranging success with these projects. This work is truly exciting and a perfect demonstration of SMPDC's powerful impact on southern Maine. As the Southern Maine Planning and Development Council ushers in their 50th anniversary on June 24, we should take time to reflect on the countless dedicated public servants who have worked with unwavering commitment to better their communities. I am deeply grateful for their countless accomplishments, and look forward to the many more inspiring and productive projects they undertake in the future.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I wish to honor the career of LTC Peter W. Ogden, who will retire this June as director of the Bureau of Veterans' Services. Peter has served in this role for the past 11 years and I am profoundly grateful for all that he has done for Maine and our esteemed veterans. Peter began serving the Nation and the State of Maine long before his position as director. He enlisted in the U.S Army Corps of Engineers in 1967 and in the following years he completed two combat tours in Vietnam. After graduating from Maine Military Academy as a Distinguished Graduate, Peter served in the Maine Army National Guard. In total, Peter spent an impressive 28 years of his life dedicated to military service. Peter is an excellent example of a person who brings personal and selfless commitment to his career. As a veteran himself, Peter has a complete and thorough understanding of the challenges and issues veterans face on a regular basis. He has worked tirelessly to provide Maine veterans and their families with informational services, assistance programs, and strong representation. Through his work as director, Peter has improved the lives of countless Maine veterans and families. The programs and services Peter developed while director are essential to veterans as well as military men, women and families. I was particularly impressed by Peter's work supporting Gold Star families through projects such as House in the Woods. This project continues to help both families and veterans cope with loss by providing a close support network and outdoor-related experiences, from fishing to hiking. I greatly value public servants like Peter and I have a high appreciation for the essential and high-quality service he has ensured for Maine veterans during his time as director of the Bureau of Veterans' Services. I extend my sincerest congratulations and gratitude to Peter for all of his accomplishments and I wish him all the best in his well-deserved retirement.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the Girl Scouts of America on the occasion of their 103rd Anniversary. The Girl Scouts were created in 1912 in the midst of the progressive movement by Juliette Gordon Low for the purpose of empowering young women and instilling them with character, honesty, patriotism, and leadership skills. The independence and integrity that young women develop with the Girl Scouts is a priceless resource for these girls later in life. For 103 years, the Girl Scouts have influenced female leaders, and have led the fight for equality and inclusiveness in leadership positions. The fact that former girl scouts make up 60 percent of the women in the House of Representatives and over 50 percent of current female business owners demonstrates the organization's ability to cultivate leaders. Through the Girl Scouts, girls have gained skills that are essential tools to help women achieve equality in leadership positions. The Girl Scouts have also developed and implemented programs to help middle and high school girls become financially literate and independent. Indeed, the Girl Scout Cookie Program is the largest girl- led business in the world and is a hallmark program that helps girls across the country develop the skills, such as money management, customer interaction, and business ethics, which are essential to life- long success. They have also invested in science and mathematics programs to empower young women who have an interest in those fields. Through their continued efforts to develop girls' leadership abilities, confidence, and worldly knowledge, the Girl Scouts have played an important role in helping young women reach their full potential. Today, I mark the legacy and future of this invaluable organization. I applaud the Girl Scouts of Maine, and America, for the immeasurable impact they have had on women's rights, and women themselves, over the past 103 years.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the Frances Perkins Center on the designation of the Frances Perkins Homestead, located in Newcastle, ME, as a National Historic Landmark. The Brick House was the home of the remarkable Frances Perkins, the first woman appointed to a Presidential cabinet. This is an honor that has been given to only 2,500 other historic places in the United States and I applaud the Frances Perkins Center for receiving this distinction. Frances Perkins found that no matter where she lived during her life, her true home would always be in Maine. While she was born in Boston in 1880, both of her parents were native Mainers. She grew up living in Worcester and spending summers with her grandmother on the family's saltwater farm in Newcastle. Frances credited her own character to be a direct result of her grandmother's influence and their time together in Maine. Frances was a motivated and inquisitive person from a young age. She attended Classical High School in Worcester and, though it was uncommon at the time, she went on to Mount Holyoke College where she was a standout student. Professors immediately noticed Frances' ambition and natural intellect. Frances graduated from Mont Holyoke in 1902 with a major in physics and minors in chemistry and biology. Throughout her life, Frances was devoted to improving the lives of American workers. After college, Frances moved to Illinois, working as a teacher and volunteering in settlement houses. She then received her master's degree from Colombia and subsequently began her extraordinary career in public service, working for the New York City Consumers League and then the New York State Industrial Commission. The impressive work by Frances for the Industrial Commission led to newly elected New York Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt to name her New York State Commissioner of Labor. She received attention and admiration in this role for her ceaseless commitment to improving work conditions in New York. In February 1933, Roosevelt appointed Frances Secretary of Labor in his Presidential cabinet. Frances was the first female Federal cabinet official, which remains one of her most notable and outstanding achievements. Frances' accomplishments as Secretary of Labor had, and continue to have, a profound impact on American lives. Frances was the lead architect in designing New Deal policies during the Great Depression; however, her work did not stop there. She was incredibly influential in creating legislation for Social Security and establishing a 40-hour work week. Frances is also known for her major role in prohibiting child labor, enforcing worker's rights, and designing unemployment insurance as well as workers' aid. Frances' beliefs, values, and spirit grew from her strong connection to Maine. Frances regularly returned to her Maine home, especially when she desired a haven to rest and remember her roots. She owned and maintained the family farm in Newcastle from 1927 until she died on May 14, 1965 at the age of 85. She is buried nearby the homestead. I am thrilled at the nomination of the Frances Perkins Homestead as a National Historic Landmark. Frances was a fearless leader who exemplified American values of hard work and determination. Frances' work lives on as an essential benefit to countless American citizens. I am proud that her legacy is a part of Maine's history and I warmly congratulate the Frances Perkins Homestead, and all those involved with achieving this accomplishment, on its dedication as a National Historic Landmark.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.