Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I ask if I may have 1 more minute.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, first I thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont for his advocacy, passion, and hard work in laying out what this is all about. I also appreciate the work of the distinguished chair, even though we have disagreements on the budget, because this is really an opportunity we have to create a serious budget--a serious budget that gives every American a fair shot to work hard and to get ahead and the opportunity to strengthen the middle class of our country. But that is not what is happening here. What America needs is a middle-class budget. Unfortunately, instead, what we have is a budget that continues to rig the system on behalf of the wealthy and the well-connected. This budget does not close corporate tax loopholes or end practices such as inversions that take our jobs overseas. It doesn't even address the folks who pack up and leave the country and let taxpayers and workers pay the tab for the move. This budget does not help us address our crumbling infrastructure, which is a burden on our workers and a drag on the economy. Frankly, if we address that, as our ranking Member has urged, we will create a lot of good-paying jobs, millions of middle-class jobs. This budget does not invest in a meaningful way in education and opportunity for the future, which is the key to equipping our workers to excel in the global economy we all face, nor does it help make college tuition more affordable or help the millions of Americans who are struggling to pay back college loans. Too many young people today, too many young professionals come out of college and get a job and have loans that are more than a mortgage would be. They can't afford to even buy a house as a result of it. This budget needs to address that. This budget does nothing to address what is happening in terms of wages for tens of millions of Americans who are working hard every day trying to hold it together. It does not raise the minimum wage, nor does it help the millions of working women who are living in poverty. By the way, half of the women living in poverty could be lifted out of poverty if we really had equal pay for equal work. That is stunning. We could address that in this budget resolution. This budget does not protect our seniors who have worked hard to earn the security that comes from Medicare and Social Security. We are talking about a situation where the House, in fact, outrageously is suggesting doing away with the Affordable Care Act that has a group of exchanges through which insurance companies have to compete to lower prices--a whole process of the Affordable Care Act that they want to eliminate. At the same time, they are proposing to put the same thing in place for Medicare--take away the universal structure of Medicare and create a situation that will be unstable and more costly for millions of seniors. Finally, this budget calls for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, but it does some very interesting things. First of all, it would take health care coverage, medical care, away from 16.4 million families and raise taxes on millions of middle-class families right now. At the same time they are taking away medical care, health coverage, they turn around and exclude the Affordable Care Act from the process of points of order that are in this bill that say if there is a point of order-- there can be a point of order against anything that increases the deficit except for the Affordable Care Act. We are going to exclude that. Why? Because the Affordable Care Act actually reduces the deficit, and they admit it in the resolution because they exclude that from points of order. So we have a very interesting situation where, on the one hand, this budget takes away medical care, health care, extra help with closing what is called the doughnut hole for our seniors under medical, all the provisions, all the protections for people who already have insurance who now can't get dropped if they get sick and if they are sick can get insurance even if they have a preexisting condition, all of the folks who have their children on their insurance up to age 26, all of the other protections--gone under this budget. However, they admit that to do that actually increases the deficit, so they exempt the Affordable Care Act from that provision. On top of that, we are talking about millions of Americans who would have increased costs. So people are going to get increased costs, increased taxes, increased deficit, and less medical care.

Ms. STABENOW. I thank my colleague and leader of the Budget Committee. We are in this crazy situation where this bill would eliminate health care for 16.4 million Americans right now, most of whom have not had the ability to find affordable health care. It would raise their cost, raise their taxes, raise the deficit, and then at the same time this bill keeps the revenue and the cost savings from the Affordable Care Act. This is a pretty nifty trick, I have to tell you. So you lose your health care, but the revenue that is generated to pay for health services stays in the baseline. They are counting the revenue, they are counting the cost savings in this budget. They are counting the savings and taking away your health care. Not a good deal. I would suggest that is a very, very bad deal. This is not honest budgeting. It certainly is not a budget that puts middle-class families first or those who are working very hard--one job, two jobs, three jobs--trying to lift themselves up to get into the middle class for themselves and their families. It is not just irresponsible budgeting; it is irresponsible governing to create a document that hurts so many people in the priorities that are set--low-income people, middle-income people, those struggling hard and working hard to get into the middle class--but protects the interests of privileged Americans. This is a budget rigged for the wealthy and well-connected of the country, and I would urge a ``no'' vote.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to discuss the importance of international trade and the enforcement of international trade agreements. We talk a lot about international trade in this Chamber and frame it in terms of opening new markets with new trade agreements. But as the distinguished Presiding Officer understands, while it is important to ensure future agreements are fair for businesses and workers, we should also be devoting more time to the 290 trade agreements we already have and ask ourselves; are we doing all we can to ensure we are enforcing these trade agreements on behalf of American businesses and workers who are affected by trade agreements, on behalf of communities that are affected by trade agreements? I do not think we are, despite strong efforts by the Obama administration. I say that because this particular report--which I have in my hand, which is very heavy--is a report from the U.S. Trade Representative that has 384 pages detailing all of the trade barriers we face around the globe. Those are 384 reasons why we need to do more to fight for our manufacturers, our farmers, our innovators, our workers--everyone employed in all of the industries that are affected by trade barriers. So today, Senator Graham and I are introducing the Trade Enforcement Act, which would make permanent the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center at the USTR. The Center was created in 2012 by Executive order. I appreciate that very much. Senator Graham and I have been working for a number of years to get a trade enforcement office, and I appreciate that President Obama put in place by Executive order this new Center with responsibilities to coordinate the enforcement powers of multiple Federal agencies. It has already demonstrated its value in helping our Nation win major trade enforcement cases. We just need to make it permanent. Around the same time as the Center's creation, China began imposing illegal duties on American cars and SUVs in defiance of World Trade Organization rules. These duties threatened the jobs of America's 850,000 automobile workers and had a direct impact on more than $5 billion of U.S. auto exports. With the help of the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center, the U.S. Trade Representative challenged this practice by China at the WTO. The WTO agreed with the United States that China's duties breached numerous international trade rules, and last June the duties were terminated. They ended. Another case, Argentina was restricting imports of U.S. goods-- blocking energy products, electronics and machinery, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, cars and parts--billions of dollars in potential sales. The Center helped to challenge that practice by Argentina, and, again, the WTO ruled in favor of the United States. The Center helped to challenge China's practice of imposing duties on exports of rare Earth materials--so important, again, to our basic technology and manufacturing. In fact, in that case, the United States won. The Center helped to challenge India's ban on U.S. agricultural products, and we won again. So what we are learning is that when the U.S. Trade Representative works with the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center--with an entity that is laser-focused on enforcing trade laws--to challenge unfair trade practices around the world, the United States wins. We can continue winning if only we devote more time and more attention to enforcing the rules in our existing trade agreements. Again, we have a lot of work that needs to be done with all the trade barriers stopping us from having the opportunities to the markets that would allow us to export our goods. For example, the USTR's report on nontariff trade barriers highlights how China provides export subsidies to its auto parts manufacturers so they can sell their parts to other countries at below market value and still turn a profit. This makes it impossible for our parts manufacturers--many of them small businesses--to compete in those markets. In a letter I wrote to the President--which I was pleased to have 188 Members of Congress sign--I asked the administration to take action. I was very pleased when the USTR announced later that year that the United States was formally challenging China's illegal practices on autos and auto parts. Without the investigation and the technical work done by the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center, that challenge would not have been possible. We have a free-trade agreement with Korea. Yet that nation continues to erect new trade barriers that make it more difficult for U.S. automakers to do business there. Even today, despite best efforts to open things up, Korea is one of the most closed auto markets in the world. Our legislation is based on the fact that our enforcement needs to go further and faster, and we need to support it. We need to give the USTR the resources it needs to take swift, decisive action to crack down on unfair trade practices. I very much appreciate the work that is being done by that Center, and they are showing what happens when we are focused, when we as a country are focused on those things that our businesses and workers need in terms of eliminating unfair trade practices. But I think it is very important that this Interagency Trade Enforcement Center become permanent, and that is what the bill that Senator Graham and I are introducing would do. Our bill would also establish a Chief Trade Enforcement Officer to lead the Center so we have one person being held accountable on enforcement who would be accountable to the Senate and to the American people. We also do something that I think is very important that will help manufacturing. Right now we have at the USTR a Chief Agricultural Negotiator. I support that. They are somebody helping to lead our efforts in agricultural policy. But we know to have a strong economy, it is about making things and growing things, and the making things part of it does not have a chief negotiator. That is why we in our bill create a Chief Manufacturing Negotiator to focus squarely on the interests of manufacturers in our country. That will clearly send a message that when we talk about growing the middle class, growing the economy, we are going to be laser-focused on manufacturing, as well as on agriculture. We know that for every $1 billion in goods we export, we support 5,800 American jobs. By passing the Trade Enforcement Act, we will remove more trade barriers, meaning we will export more goods and create more American jobs, and we all want to create jobs and grow the economy. So I am looking forward to working with my colleagues in the months ahead to ensure that in this global marketplace where we find ourselves, there is, in fact, a level playing field and we have an agency and individuals who are laser-focused on making sure we have fair trade. In the end, our goal should be to export our products, not our jobs. That is what Senator Graham's and my bill would do.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. President. First, let me say Happy St. Patrick's Day to all my friends and family and colleagues in the Senate. (The remarks of Ms. Stabenow pertaining to the introduction of S. 758 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Ms. STABENOW. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to discuss the importance of international trade and the enforcement of international trade agreements. We talk a lot about international trade in this Chamber and frame it in terms of opening new markets with new trade agreements. But as the distinguished Presiding Officer understands, while it is important to ensure future agreements are fair for businesses and workers, we should also be devoting more time to the 290 trade agreements we already have and ask ourselves; are we doing all we can to ensure we are enforcing these trade agreements on behalf of American businesses and workers who are affected by trade agreements, on behalf of communities that are affected by trade agreements? I do not think we are, despite strong efforts by the Obama administration. I say that because this particular report--which I have in my hand, which is very heavy--is a report from the U.S. Trade Representative that has 384 pages detailing all of the trade barriers we face around the globe. Those are 384 reasons why we need to do more to fight for our manufacturers, our farmers, our innovators, our workers--everyone employed in all of the industries that are affected by trade barriers. So today, Senator Graham and I are introducing the Trade Enforcement Act, which would make permanent the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center at the USTR. The Center was created in 2012 by Executive order. I appreciate that very much. Senator Graham and I have been working for a number of years to get a trade enforcement office, and I appreciate that President Obama put in place by Executive order this new Center with responsibilities to coordinate the enforcement powers of multiple Federal agencies. It has already demonstrated its value in helping our Nation win major trade enforcement cases. We just need to make it permanent. Around the same time as the Center's creation, China began imposing illegal duties on American cars and SUVs in defiance of World Trade Organization rules. These duties threatened the jobs of America's 850,000 automobile workers and had a direct impact on more than $5 billion of U.S. auto exports. With the help of the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center, the U.S. Trade Representative challenged this practice by China at the WTO. The WTO agreed with the United States that China's duties breached numerous international trade rules, and last June the duties were terminated. They ended. Another case, Argentina was restricting imports of U.S. goods-- blocking energy products, electronics and machinery, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, cars and parts--billions of dollars in potential sales. The Center helped to challenge that practice by Argentina, and, again, the WTO ruled in favor of the United States. The Center helped to challenge China's practice of imposing duties on exports of rare Earth materials--so important, again, to our basic technology and manufacturing. In fact, in that case, the United States won. The Center helped to challenge India's ban on U.S. agricultural products, and we won again. So what we are learning is that when the U.S. Trade Representative works with the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center--with an entity that is laser-focused on enforcing trade laws--to challenge unfair trade practices around the world, the United States wins. We can continue winning if only we devote more time and more attention to enforcing the rules in our existing trade agreements. Again, we have a lot of work that needs to be done with all the trade barriers stopping us from having the opportunities to the markets that would allow us to export our goods. For example, the USTR's report on nontariff trade barriers highlights how China provides export subsidies to its auto parts manufacturers so they can sell their parts to other countries at below market value and still turn a profit. This makes it impossible for our parts manufacturers--many of them small businesses--to compete in those markets. In a letter I wrote to the President--which I was pleased to have 188 Members of Congress sign--I asked the administration to take action. I was very pleased when the USTR announced later that year that the United States was formally challenging China's illegal practices on autos and auto parts. Without the investigation and the technical work done by the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center, that challenge would not have been possible. We have a free-trade agreement with Korea. Yet that nation continues to erect new trade barriers that make it more difficult for U.S. automakers to do business there. Even today, despite best efforts to open things up, Korea is one of the most closed auto markets in the world. Our legislation is based on the fact that our enforcement needs to go further and faster, and we need to support it. We need to give the USTR the resources it needs to take swift, decisive action to crack down on unfair trade practices. I very much appreciate the work that is being done by that Center, and they are showing what happens when we are focused, when we as a country are focused on those things that our businesses and workers need in terms of eliminating unfair trade practices. But I think it is very important that this Interagency Trade Enforcement Center become permanent, and that is what the bill that Senator Graham and I are introducing would do. Our bill would also establish a Chief Trade Enforcement Officer to lead the Center so we have one person being held accountable on enforcement who would be accountable to the Senate and to the American people. We also do something that I think is very important that will help manufacturing. Right now we have at the USTR a Chief Agricultural Negotiator. I support that. They are somebody helping to lead our efforts in agricultural policy. But we know to have a strong economy, it is about making things and growing things, and the making things part of it does not have a chief negotiator. That is why we in our bill create a Chief Manufacturing Negotiator to focus squarely on the interests of manufacturers in our country. That will clearly send a message that when we talk about growing the middle class, growing the economy, we are going to be laser-focused on manufacturing, as well as on agriculture. We know that for every $1 billion in goods we export, we support 5,800 American jobs. By passing the Trade Enforcement Act, we will remove more trade barriers, meaning we will export more goods and create more American jobs, and we all want to create jobs and grow the economy. So I am looking forward to working with my colleagues in the months ahead to ensure that in this global marketplace where we find ourselves, there is, in fact, a level playing field and we have an agency and individuals who are laser-focused on making sure we have fair trade. In the end, our goal should be to export our products, not our jobs. That is what Senator Graham's and my bill would do.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Florida for his comments and I echo those this morning. To the Presiding Officer and to the Members of the Senate, it was 70 years ago this year, in this very Chamber, that the Republican Senator from Michigan, Arthur Vandenberg, gave a speech which has been called the speech heard around the world. Here is how Senator Vandenberg opened that speech: Mr. President, there are critical moments in the life of every nation which call for the straightest, the plainest, and the most courageous thinking of which we are capable. We confront such a moment now. It is not only desperately important to America, it is important to the world. It is important not only to the generation which lives in blood. It is important to future generations if they shall live in peace. This was after World War I and World War II, facing the Cold War and many challenges. Senator Vandenberg was no friend of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was, in fact, the biggest thorn in the President's side. He opposed every New Deal program. He was bitterly opposed to U.S. engagement in Europe before World War II. He was the Nation's most famous isolationist and only moderated his stance after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. But 70 years ago Senator Vandenberg spoke on the floor of the Senate to warn his colleagues about what would happen if the United States of America allowed partisan politics to interfere in our Nation's leadership in the world. He later became the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where he coined the phrase ``politics stops at the water's edge.'' Politics stops at the water's edge. His wisdom when it came to foreign policy--his understanding that for America to be strong, we must convey strength on the world's stage-- earned him a rare recognition, in fact, in this body. My colleagues will recognize this picture because it is a painting hanging in the room right outside this Chamber. I was honored to be there when it was unveiled--Senator Levin and myself--a few years ago. We are proud of this Republican Senator from Michigan. He has been given an honor that is shared by only a handful of Senators. In our Senate history, out of 1,963 Senators--men and women who have served-- only a small group have been honored with a painting, a portrait just outside this Chamber, and he is one of them. I can only imagine what Senator Vandenberg would say if he were alive today. How would he react to a letter signed by 47 U.S. Senators, all of his own party, addressed to the leaders--those we have called enemies--of Iran? How would he react to Members of the U.S. Senate empowering Iranian hard-liners--those whom we have called enemies time and time and time again--just to score political points against a President they do not like? To be clear, Senator Vandenberg loathed President Roosevelt, and by all accounts the feelings were mutual. Senator Vandenberg was no model of bipartisanship himself. He was not at all what we would call a moderate in his time. He may be considered a moderate today, but at the time he was extremely partisan as a Republican, and he was very prominent. He disagreed with the President's policies relating to Japan, but he didn't send a letter to the Emperor of Japan undermining the foreign policy of the President of the United States. He disagreed with the President's policies relating to Germany, but he did not send a letter to the chancellor of the Third Reich expressing his disagreements with the President of the United States. To be clear, one of the great things about America is that we can and should and must disagree with the President when we disagree with directions and policies. But when war hangs in the balance--and specifically when nuclear war hangs in the balance--should Members of the U.S. Senate be in a position of publicly undermining the President of the United States to our enemies? I do not believe Senator Vandenberg would have become pen pals with a group of extremists whose stated goal is ``death to America.'' It is shocking, dangerous, and deeply troubling to me that 47 Members of this body decided to throw away 70 years of wisdom to stand on the side of the Ayatollahs and the most extreme voices in Iran. When President Bush decided to invade Iraq, I voted no. I voted against his policies. I spoke out publicly about my concerns about that war, but I never would have sent a letter to Saddam Hussein undermining the President before that war happened. The chairs of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the chairs of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at that time all opposed President Bush's invasion of Iraq, but none of them penned a letter to Saddam Hussein. I do not have to wonder what Senator Vandenberg would have thought about all this because he told us. He told us 70 years ago in this very room when explaining how partisanship and division would undermine our efforts in Europe. Senator Vandenberg said: It must mean one for all and all for one; and it will mean this--unless somewhere in this grand alliance the stupid and sinister folly of ulterior ambitions shall invite the enemy to postpone our victory through our own rivalries and our own confusion. So I urge my colleagues to hear the words of the Republican Senator from Michigan, Arthur Vandenberg. I urge them to stop the politics at the water's edge. We are talking about the possibility of a nuclear Iran. We all agree that must not happen. We all agree that must not happen. We all agree that must not happen. We must stand together with the smartest, most effective strategy to make sure that does not happen. That is even more reason why this is not the time nor the place to score political points against the President of the opposite party. This is deadly serious for the United States, for Israel, and for the world. As the Senate saw fit to give Senator Vandenberg a place of high honor, reserved for only a few Senate leaders, just a few steps from here in the U.S. Capitol, I hope my colleagues will hear and take heed of his words now. He said: We cannot drift to victory. We must have maximum united effort on all fronts. . . . And we must deserve, we must deserve the continued united effort of our own people. . . . politics must stop at the water's edge. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, my Democratic colleagues and I come to the floor all the time talking about how we grow a middle class, how we help middle-class families, and how we make sure we have a strong economy because we have a strong middle class. Yet what we are seeing on the floor right now is an effort by our Republican colleagues to fight to keep a system which is rigged against American workers being able to get a livable wage, to have a voice in the workplace. We know what we ought to be doing is looking for every possible way to support those who are working hard every day, to have a wage that allows them to care for their family, to send their children to college and achieve the American dream. They should have a voice in the workplace around safety issues, around other issues that are important for working men and women. We have in front of us a National Labor Relations Board rule change that was made to basically modernize the system around employee elections so that people have a fair shot to have their voice heard in the workplace. It is pretty interesting to me that we are talking about simple changes that allow the use of email communications or fax communications--not exactly radical things in the world we live in. Without this modernization by the NLRB, we actually have a situation where people are denied the ability to communicate through email; to be able to talk about forming a union and communicate with each other through email, which is pretty crazy when you think about it. This particular vote would stop folks from using email or faxes. The NLRB rule change was to modernize the election process, to eliminate certain paperwork hurdles that didn't make any sense, so an employer could not delay the ability for folks to vote as to whether they want to be part of a union. That is what is in front of us now. What I wish was in front of us is the agenda we have been pushing, which is to actually strengthen the middle class. Instead, what we have in front of us is a vote about keeping the system rigged against American workers. There is no mistake about it. A ``yes'' vote, which eliminates this modernization process, is a vote to keep the system rigged against men and women who are working hard every day in the workplace and who just want a fair shot to make it. Interestingly, this only affects about 10 percent of union elections, because 90 percent of elections are done through agreement with employers and employees. That is a testament to the fact that the majority of folks can work together, if 90 percent of them are working out agreements. What we really ought to be talking about on the floor is equal pay for equal work and how we enforce that. I am stunned that we have the Republican majority fighting to keep the system rigged against American workers and then turning around and saying, well, we are not going to pass laws that enforce equal pay for equal work, or we are not going to pass laws that create a livable wage so people who are working are out of poverty, so that we reward work by having a livable wage. That is not what is on the floor. What is on the floor is an effort to roll back the modernization of a process that would make sure the system is not rigged against workers. Why are we not talking about equal pay or raising the minimum wage or talking about the cost of going to college? The majority of people today, who are playing by the rules, trying to do the right thing, trying to get the skills they need to be responsible citizens and work in the workplace, come out of college buried in debt--buried in debt-- but we are not talking about that. We are not spending our time on that. We are not talking about protecting pensions earned by workers over a lifetime, who are counting on those to be protected. We are not talking about how we strengthen and expand and guarantee Social Security for the future, or any number of things we could be talking about. If we just made sure that equal pay for equal work wasn't a slogan but actually a reality of this country, we would jump-start the middle class. We would jump-start the economy if women were earning dollar for dollar what men are earning. That alone, along with any number of other things, affects middle-class families. It is not about creating an economy by giving to those at the top and having it trickle down and hoping someday, somehow, it will affect the majority of Americans. We believe you start with the middle, you grow the economy from the middle out. It is a middle-class economy that lifts everyone up and addresses the strength of our country. So I am very concerned that when we look at precious floor time and what the priorities are, we are debating a rollback on the modernization of rules with the National Labor Relations Board that will basically keep in place a rigged system. Without that modernization it is just one more mark against workers who are trying to have a voice and are trying to lift themselves up and improve their wages and ability to be successful and be rewarded for their work. There is a lot more we could and should be doing. We are going to continue to raise the issues that middle-class families care about. We are going to continue to fight for middle-class families every single day, and we are going to continue to oppose those who want to keep a rigged system against the middle class. So I urge a ``no'' vote on this particular resolution, and hopefully we can stand together and actually create jobs and a better standard of living by doing those things that are going to help middle-class families across America. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I want to commend both of our leaders, Leader McConnell and Leader Reid, for coming to the floor and agreeing to a path forward to fully fund Homeland Security, and I want to speak for a moment about how critical this is and how really--if we cannot get the House of Representatives to agree, if they are not willing to move forward and support this path--we have actually not one shutdown but the possibility of two different kinds of shutdowns that will happen within 3 days. I am talking about the fact there are 3 days left before the funding for the Department of Homeland Security expires--on February 27, at the end of the day on Friday. We are in a situation where those who protect us from terror threats all around us will be in a situation where they either aren't at work or are working without pay. We will be working with pay but they won't be working with pay, which of course is an outrageous situation for us to put them in. Every week we know there is a new terrorist threat. That is literally true now, and it is shocking, as we turn on the television and we read the papers and listen to the radio. The most recent threat we know is from al-Shabaab, a Somali terrorist group with ties to Al Qaeda. A video appeared this last week where we know they called for an attack at the Mall of America near Minneapolis, as well as at other shopping centers in the United States and Canada and Great Britain. We also know that an attack on that mall would endanger as many as 100,000 people--men, women, and children. That is how many people come to that mall, that big mall, every single day. Al-Shabaab terrorists have attacked a mall before so we know this is not an idle threat. In 2013, they attacked the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya, where 63 innocent people were killed. On February 14, a shooter at a synagogue in Copenhagen killed three people. In late January, an American was 1 of 10 people killed in a terrorist attack in Libya. Earlier in January, in Paris, an attack by a terrorist claimed 16 lives. I could go on and on. In October alone, gunmen attacked the Canadian Parliament in Ottawa, killing a Canadian soldier. Michigan has the busiest northern border crossing in the country between Detroit and Windsor. Every day over $1 billion in goods and people are crossing that border--every single day. We actually have three crossings--two of the busiest in the country--and we count on border and Customs security. We count on our Homeland Security people to be on the job doing their job every single day. We also count on the people at the airports--all of us. Most of us are on planes one or two times a week. We all understand the critical importance of the airport. And for those of us who are surrounded by water, the Coast Guard is absolutely critical. I could go on and on with all of the ways in which the men and women of Homeland Security, border security, Customs, the Coast Guard, as well as police and firefighters, our first responders, are keeping us safe every single day. If the House does not agree to what we are doing here, in 3 days we will see the Department of Homeland Security shut down--an entire infrastructure put together after 9/11, which we all worked together on in a bipartisan way because we saw and we felt what had happened in terms of the threats to our country and the loss of lives. It is critical this not be just a game. This can't be just a trick, where we are somehow voting straight up on Homeland Security funding without other riders on immigration or other things where there are differences with the President. If it is straight-up funding, then we vote, and then it goes to the House and it gets completely changed again, that is not going to work. We are going to stand with the men and women who stand with us, put their lives on the line, and work hard every single day to keep us safe. It is critical the House decide to join us if in fact the Senate acts today to fully fund Homeland Security, which I hope we will. There is another thing I am deeply concerned about, and that is the fact we have heard a lot of people talk about we will just do a continuing resolution from last year. That is effectively a shutdown of the first responders, because when we look at the list--immigration, Customs enforcement, detention, antitrafficking, smuggling--of those things that are funded under a continuing resolution, which is a fancy word for last year's funding, those things don't continue. The new grants that keep firefighters in Michigan and across the country going--in Detroit alone we have 150 firefighters--were supposed to start in October. Because we haven't fully funded Homeland Security, they have been waiting. We have people who will be laid off--police officers, firefighters in Michigan and across the country under a CR-- under a continuing resolution. It is effectively a first responders shutdown. So that is the second shutdown I am concerned about. We could see Customs and Border Protection unable to award new contracts for new video surveillance. How many times do we talk about the need to protect the borders? But if we don't fully fund Homeland Security, if we do what it sounds like may happen from the House, some short-term funding from last year, we will stop first responders, we will stop surveillance equipment, we will stop the ability to upgrade our Coast Guard, and we prevent and delay contracts for police and fire. Also without a fully funded Homeland Security, nuclear detection equipment can't be replaced. That deals with our enemies trying to smuggle nuclear devices or dirty bombs into this country. And what about emergency communications? Think about the malls or think about things such as FEMA and the unprecedented storms and snow that we have seen in parts of our country, the cold. The idea we would somehow not fund upgrades to emergency equipment and effectively have a first responder shutdown is outrageous. I can't imagine the public, and rightly so, will understand this. I certainly don't understand it. We have all heard concerns about the Secret Service and the ability to upgrade those operations. I could go on and on as it relates to first responder funding. So I am, on the one hand, pleased that it appears we may in fact have a path forward to separate the debate on fully funding our Homeland Security, our protections at the borders and airports, and so on, as well as police and fire and first responders across the country from a debate on immigration. I appreciate the differences, and we can have that debate. I appreciate that has been proposed to be separated. But we have to make sure there are no tricks and no doublecrosses when it comes to the House of Representatives, because we are not going to support an effort to go back again and hold Homeland Security funding hostage to other policies and disagreements with the President. Finally, let me stress if the House does less than what the Senate is going to do on fully funding Homeland Security, they are shutting down first responders in this country. That is what they are doing. If we see a funding bill that has last year's numbers, they are putting in place a shutdown of our first responders in this country with threats all around us and new threats every day. People in this country deserve a lot better. We can do better than that. So I hope we will come together today to do the right thing: Fund Homeland Security fully so our police and firefighters are available and on the streets, and we are securing our borders and our homeland operations. I dearly hope the House of Representatives will step up and join us in getting this done. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, we are in a countdown of sorts right now, and it is one I am deeply concerned about. On February 27, the funding for the Department of Homeland Security of our country runs out, and that is 17 days from now. Only 17 days from now, our Border and Customs and air traffic controllers, air security, Coast Guard--all of those agencies and all of the people involved in protecting us from the terrorist threats all around us--will lose their funding in one way or the other if we don't act. On Sunday morning in Michigan, we had a reminder of the threat that exists within our borders. A man crashed his truck into a U.S. Coast Guard station in Grand Haven on the west side of Michigan. Then he assaulted members of the Coast Guard, which is, by the way, a Department of Homeland Security facility and will be affected by what is going to happen. The man claimed to have explosives in his truck. Fortunately, that turned out not to be true. Still, local officials initially called it ``an act of domestic terrorism.'' Department of Homeland Security officials have been working alongside other Federal agencies and local law enforcement to investigate. My colleagues can imagine how people on the west side of Michigan are feeling right now and how members of the Coast Guard are feeling about this. This is the work the men and women of the Department of Homeland Security do every day in every part of Michigan, in every part of our country, in every part of our cities, including the District of Columbia, and in the communities we all represent. Frankly, people are scratching their heads right now about what in the world is going on. I appreciate the fact there are disagreements with the President regarding immigration policy. Certainly, we can debate that. We can discuss it. The Republican leader can bring up the issue of immigration at any time on the floor of the Senate. But that should not be tied to whether we fund the Department of Homeland Security for our country. Homeland security funding should not be held hostage to what I view as the politics of the moment on immigration. We may have a disagreement in terms of immigration issues, but we should not have any disagreement about the need to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security. We rely on the Department of Homeland Security to provide our transportation security at shipping ports and at all of our airports. We all go back and forth every single week. Millions of Americans are counting on the fact that people at our airports--people we see and people we don't see--are keeping us safe from attacks--the passengers, the cargo. Michigan is a border State. We are the largest northern border crossing in the country for goods, services, and people coming back and forth from Detroit to Windsor. It is the men and women of the Department of Homeland Security--Border and Customs--who are keeping our borders safe every day. We rely on the Department of Homeland Security to protect us against nuclear attacks, chemical attacks, and cyber attacks every day. In recent years, major American financial institutions have been attacked by hackers. I have been in a situation as a customer of a major company getting that notice in the mail about my credit card. Millions of Americans have been in that situation. We expect that we are going to make sure we are protecting people's information, their financial security, the financial security of businesses. That is what is done through the Department of Homeland Security. Seventeen days from now, if we don't act to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security, we will see the funding for that Department stop. Chinese hackers targeted the U.S. Transportation Department Command, which directs the global movement of U.S. military forces. Hackers have gone after America's transportation and communications infrastructure over and over again. This is very serious. This is very serious. This is not about politics or differences of opinion with the United States or having some leverage by holding funding up in order to get something else that group of people wants to get. This is about whether we are going to straight-up fund the security operations of our country. We have terrorists and terror threats all around us. Look at the globe--all around us. This is not the time to play politics with Homeland Security funding. Last year we passed, with a huge majority, a bipartisan immigration bill. Immigration deserves a debate. There will be differences of opinion. I still think there is a broad bipartisan coalition to do comprehensive reform that makes sense for everyone, makes sense for America. But this is not the time to say: It is either my way or the highway. Either I get the changes I want or I will say to the President of the United States that he is wrong, that he is playing politics, whatever it is, and I am going to hold up the security of our country in order to do it. I think most people in Washington are saying: What in the world is going on here? Terror threats are all around us, and we are 17 days away from a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. This makes absolutely no sense to me. Frankly, we can do better than that as an institution, as the U.S. Senate. We can do better in Congress than constantly having these roller coasters up and down and threats of government shutdowns. We have seen it before. We are now seeing the possibility of it again. Seventeen days from now, if Homeland Security is shut down, if we aren't funding our border, cockpits, airport security, ports, the Coast Guard, and all the other things that keep us safe, there is going to be a big party. Do you know who is going to throw that party? The enemies of America. The terrorists who want very much to have the opportunity to attack our country. That makes absolutely no sense. Let's come together this week before we leave. We are not in session next week. We can get this done. Let's just pass the Homeland Security budget and get on with important debates on other topics that we all care about. I hope we can do that and get this done as soon as possible. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. President. First, let me say to my friend from Alabama, I couldn't agree more that we need to focus on jobs. There is no question about it. I couldn't agree more that we need to have a legal immigration system that works and that protects Americans first, in terms of jobs, people who are here legally, whether it is those working in agriculture, whether it is those working in manufacturing or any other part of our economy. We can very quickly, if the new majority wants to, bring an immigration bill and address it. I think there are 68 of us, if I remember right, who voted for a pretty big bipartisan effort last year, a major effort to actually fix a very broken system. There were important protections in there for American workers. It is something that would have been incredibly important to get done and to put those prohibitions in. So this is not about that. It is very simple. The majority could very quickly pass the funding for Homeland Security to keep us safe and immediately go to the issue of immigration, and I would support it wholeheartedly, as would colleagues on this side of the aisle. Here is what we don't support: holding the security of our country hostage while others debate policy, frankly, that was already agreed to by the majority of the Senate last year. Regardless of your feelings about the immigration policies, if you ask folks at this time, when terror threats are all around us, do they want games being played with the funding of our homeland security, the answer would be no--a resounding no. So let's get on with the business in a bipartisan way of funding our national security effort, and then let's immediately go to a vigorous and important debate about immigration. I would agree that should be done as soon as possible. Since the attacks of 9/11 in 2001, we have had a Department of Homeland Security that we organized and put together to play a critical role in protecting America against acts of terror. Make no mistake, as I said, we have terrorist threats all around us, yet, unfortunately, our Republican colleagues are willing to shut down our Homeland Security Department to make a political point. Yesterday ISIS released a video showing the horrendous burning of a Jordanian pilot. It was unbelievable. But while that is happening, the Senate can't pass a Homeland Security funding bill. We need to pass a Homeland Security bill. Colleagues who are fighting about immigration are willing to shut down Homeland Security in order to make a point with the President. This past weekend ISIS beheaded a Japanese contractor. Yet Republicans are willing to shut down Homeland Security to make a point. Last week at a hotel in Libya an American was killed in an attack by ISIS. Yet colleagues on the other side of the aisle are willing to shut down Homeland Security in order to make a political point. Last month 11 people were killed in a terrorist strike against America's oldest ally, France. Yet Republicans are willing to shut down Homeland Security. In November, a Canadian soldier was killed in an attack near the Canadian Parliament, just 60 miles from the U.S. border. Michigan is on that northern border. Yet Republicans are willing to shut down Homeland Security. In fact, we heard Republicans in the House say it wouldn't be that big of a deal to shut down Homeland Security. Really? Anybody who reads the paper or watches the news can see what is happening every day around us, and Republicans in the House say it wouldn't be a problem to shut down Homeland Security? That is stunning. Detroit, MI, has the busiest northern border crossing in the country. It is the busiest northern border crossing for commerce, products, and people. We rely on our Customs and Border Patrol every single day. Customs and border security, airport security, and police and firefighters are on the frontlines every day protecting us. Let's not forget about the Coast Guard. All those folks are on the frontlines protecting our families in America. That is what we are debating. Do we want to play games with that? Do we want to hold Homeland Security hostage because of a debate with the President on another issue or do we fund Homeland Security and then have that debate? We can do it immediately--the same day. We could fund Homeland Security and then the Republican leader could immediately call up any bill he wants on immigration and then have that debate. Unfortunately--with terrorist threats all around us--Republicans are willing to shut down Homeland Security. Boko Haram is gaining strength in West Africa and hoping to inspire attacks against Americans. We know what they have done. Yet here we are debating whether Homeland Security is going to be shut down. In the months to come, we will need all of the hard-working men and women who work in every part of that agency to be full speed so they can protect us. Unless Republican colleagues are willing to support a spending bill and get that done right away, we are going to see the Department of Homeland Security management and headquarters stop functioning. Some 30,000 employees will be furloughed. People will be asked to work without pay--talk about jobs for people. In Detroit alone--and all over Michigan--we get firefighter grants. The budget has already started, and we have 150 firefighters in the city of Detroit alone whose ongoing funding has been stalled. We have firefighters all across Michigan. We have very important law enforcement grants all over Michigan that at the moment are on hold and can't go forward. We are talking about disrupting programs used to detect weapons of mass destruction and the training of local law enforcement officers who are on the frontlines of our defense. This makes no sense. It would be one thing if Republican colleagues were in the minority and they felt the only way we could have the debate they want to have is to tie the two together, but that is not the case. Republican colleagues are in the majority. We can pass Homeland Security together--100 to 0--and then get on to whatever immigration debate the majority wants to have or whatever else they would like to debate. We don't have to hold the Homeland Security funding hostage in order to do it. This past August our Defense Secretary said of ISIS: They are as sophisticated and well-funded as any group we have seen. They're beyond just a terrorist group. When we think about it, we are talking about a well-funded terrorist group at the same time we are debating whether to fund our Homeland Security agencies that keep us safe from ISIS and other terrorist threats. I implore Republican colleagues to join with us, regardless of the passion on this other issue. We can debate it. It can be addressed. There are Republican majorities in the House and Senate that can debate the President's actions or debate anything for that matter, but we can certainly debate immigration at any moment. We do not have to hold the funding for the national defense of our homeland hostage to do it. I encourage my colleagues to get on to the business of passing the funding. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I assume there is a little bit of time to make a couple of comments as we are waiting. I would commend the chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, for she and the ranking Member have done an excellent job of moving us through. I think we all appreciate it when we hear the words ``an amendment has been withdrawn'' in terms of being able to move the process forward. I did want to mention a couple of things. One, just to remind everyone, when we talk about this Canadian oil company bringing a pipeline through the United States down to the Gulf--putting it on a ship and sending it to China--they are not paying into the oilspill liability trust fund. Our amendment to say the oil should stay here if Americans are taking all the risk was voted down. The amendment that would require American steel was voted down. Any commitment to make sure these were all American jobs has also been voted down. I did also--because the distinguished Chair of the committee mentioned a bill that came over from the House--want to take a moment to say as we look at energy policy in the energy committee today we are, in fact, considering what I consider to be one of the most fundamental questions for us moving forward with this new energy source in abundance called natural gas. It is incredibly important we get this right. As opposed to the pipeline going through the middle of our country, this is something that can greatly increase our ability to have manufacturing jobs across the country, to continue to lower and keep down the prices of heating and other energy costs for our citizens. If it is done right--the committee, I believe, dramatically does it the wrong way. The bill that came from the House is very much, in my judgment, a China-first policy and not an America-first policy. I say that because right now China is willing to pay more than three times for natural gas than we are. I understand that the gas and oil industry wants to rush it on ships over to China. But to add insult to injury for us, they were willing to pay, last year, $16 and then turn around and subsidize their industry that is competing with us and only give it to them for I believe it was $1.78. Our folks who are forced to pay $16 because we don't have a prudent export policy--they just throw open the doors to send it to China. Our folks pay $16. The folks competing with us for our jobs are paying $1.78. I realize we have a lot more discussion on that at a later point. I do want to say there will be a great debate on what I believe is one of the most important issues in front of us in terms of continuing to having manufacturing renaissance and the ability to create good middle- class jobs in this country. I am hopeful in the end we will have an America-first policy, not a China-first policy. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Thank you very much to my friend and colleague and leader from California. I first want to say thank you to Senators Murkowski and Cantwell who have worked so hard with Senator Boxer moving forward a process that, until Thursday night, was working very well going back and forth. Before we authorize the building of a new oil pipeline in America, it is important for us to consider the safety of pipelines we already have. In 2010, a pipeline that runs from Canada through Michigan spilled nearly a million gallons of tar sands oil into the Kalamazoo River, causing the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history. That cleanup cost $1.2 billion. Nine days ago, another pipeline broke in Montana, and for the second time in 4 years, tens of thousands of gallons of oil emptied into the Yellowstone River, making that water unsafe to drink. Right now in Michigan, we have a 61-year-old pipeline which runs along environmentally sensitive areas and goes beneath the Straits of Mackinac and our magnificent Great Lakes. That pipeline carries 1.2 million gallons of tar sands oil per day and has undergone only a few upgrades since it was first installed in 1953. A spill would be devastating, not only to the region but to all Americans--because the Great Lakes are a vital source of our Nation's fresh water supply. Yet none of the companies transporting heavy tar sands crude are required to pay into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which would ensure that taxpayers are not footing the bill. When we offered an amendment to fix that, the Republicans said no. America's economy is only as strong as our natural resources, and those resources are threatened every time a pipeline breaks. Making matters worse, Republicans said no to amendments that would keep the oil in America, guarantee the pipeline be built with American steel and use American workers. So Americans take all of the risks with very few, if any, rewards. Because Republicans refuse to make this Canadian oil company pay into the oil spill fund, American taxpayers may have to bailout the company if the pipeline breaks. So, before our Colleagues vote on behalf of the oil companies to approve the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, it is critical that we pass the amendment that my friend and partner from Michigan and I have introduced. This amendment ensures that we address the safety of the pipelines that we have now--before beginning construction on Keystone. And it would ensure that the heightened safety standards being applied to Keystone exist in pipelines around the Great Lakes. The Republican majority has promised an open amendment process, so I certainly hope that when my colleague from Michigan offers this amendment in a few moments, the Republican majority will allow a vote on this critical pipeline safety amendment--even though Big Oil may not like it. Again, the American people are taking all of the risks when the oil will not even stay in America. The least Congress can do is guarantee the pipelines are safe. I would ask my friends to join with Senator Peters and me in saying that before we authorize the building of a new oil pipeline in America that we have to consider and strengthen the safety of pipelines, the pipelines we already have. In 2010, a pipeline that runs from Canada through Michigan spilled nearly 1 million gallons of tar sands oil into the Kalamazoo River--this has been talked about before--causing the largest inland oilspill in U.S. history. So we need to vote on Senator Peters' and my amendment. The cleanup itself cost $1.2 billion. Nine days ago, another pipeline broke in Montana. For the second time in 4 years, tens of thousands of gallons of oil emptied into the Yellowstone River, making that water unsafe to drink. So would my friend from California agree with me and share concerns that under the Straits of Mackinac--and our gorgeous, beautiful Great Lakes--we have a 61-year old pipeline that runs through environmentally sensitive areas, goes right under the water, and has only been upgraded a couple of times since 1953? Before we pass this Keystone Pipeline bill, we should make sure our Great Lakes have the pipeline safety we need, as well as all of our pipelines across the country. Would my colleague agree with that?

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise today to pay special tribute to Rev. Michael C. Murphy, a dear friend of mine, a man of great faith who for decades inspired the people in Lansing, MI, and who passed away recently in Washington, DC, a city where he had only just begun to make his mark. Reverend Murphy talked often about being called--being called in the spiritual sense--into service. In the spiritual sense of the word, he followed that calling at pivotal moments in his life, and we are all better for it. For instance, even though he was born and grew up in Chicago, Reverend Murphy felt a calling not long after he arrived in Mid-Michigan. While enrolled at Michigan State University in pursuit of a master's degree in counseling, he got a job at the Michigan Consumers Council. As he learned about the legislative process and how public policy affects families and individuals and communities, he decided he wanted to devote himself to that kind of important work. Yet at the same time he felt a spiritual call to the ministry, which led him back to a seminary in Chicago. For some time he drove back and forth from Lansing to Chicago, balancing a public service mission with a mission that was more personal and spiritual. Ultimately, in 1987 my friend Mike Murphy, as a recently ordained minister, founded St. Stephen's Community Church in Lansing. It would belong to the United Church of Christ, a denomination that appealed to Reverend Murphy because it was multicultural, committed to social justice and human rights, just like Reverend Mike Murphy himself. For the next 22 years these causes were consistent themes of Reverend Murphy's sermons. Even as the minister of a growing congregation, however, Reverend Murphy felt the calling to serve a broader public, a broader community beyond his church. In the mid-1990s he won election to the Lansing City Council, and then in 2000 he won a seat in the Michigan Legislature. I was honored that year to be on the ballot with Reverend Murphy, as I came to the U.S. Senate at the same time. During Reverend Murphy's three terms in the Michigan house, he was a champion for improving education, enhancing access to health care for all citizens, and policies that would promote job growth in his great district and all across Michigan. More than anything, though, Reverend Murphy's constituents knew that when times were tough, he would be their champion. In May 2003 a 13- year-old middle school student named Jasmine Miles was struck by a car and killed. She was walking home from school on a road that didn't even have sidewalks. Reverend Murphy decided that the best way to help Jasmine's family was to prevent any other family from being devastated in the same way, so he gave Jasmine's family a role in the bill he sponsored in the Michigan house to require crossing guards, skywalks, and other safety enhancements at crossings used by schoolchildren. Since the Jasmine Miles School Children Safety Act became law--and with his leadership, it is law--there is no telling how many young lives have been saved. That was one of so many ways his actions impacted the people in Lansing and in Michigan. Even after he stepped down due to term limits, he continued working with the State as an activist who offered tips on how transportation officials could improve the safety of walking routes for children across Michigan. He also continued to be a force for bringing neighbors closer together. Lansing never felt more vibrant than it did on the day of the Capital City African American Parade--a great celebration, an annual event Reverend Murphy founded. There were marching bands, floats, delicious foods, music, and dancing. About 5 years ago Reverend Murphy was called again, and this time he was called to come to Washington, DC, where he would become pastor of the Peoples Congregational United Church of Christ. We tend to find comfort in knowing that a person we loved passed away while doing the thing he or she was most passionate about, and that is certainly most true about Reverend Murphy. He spent his final moments in prayer preparing for one of those wonderful sermons he always gave that were uplifting to everyone who was fortunate enough to listen. He brought his spirituality into his service to the community, and his service to the community is what strengthened his spirituality. He was a wonderful man who touched so many lives, including mine, in very powerful ways. To Reverend Murphy's son Brandon, his daughter Rachel, and all of his family, we will keep you in our thoughts and prayers. We are grateful to you for sharing your father's gifts with us, and we will dearly miss him. Thank you, and I yield the floor.

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I also wish to pay tribute to a man I have admired throughout my career in this Chamber, Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota. I am proud to call Tim my friend. Long before Senator Johnson and I crossed paths in the Senate, we were both studying at Michigan State University--I was an undergrad while Senator Johnson was doing postgraduate studies. In fact, his parents retired in the East Lansing area. I know that Senator Johnson considers the University of South Dakota to be his alma mater, but I will always think of him as a fellow Spartan. All of us here are committed to public service, to defending the Constitution and to protecting our Nation against foreign threats, but few of us have had our commitment tested as Senator Johnson has. In 2004 Senator Johnson learned that he had prostate cancer, but he was determined to beat it and to continue representing the people of South Dakota. ``I wish this was something that wasn't happening to me,'' he said. ``But I will deal with it head on,'' and he did. He had surgery, then he made a full recovery, and was soon back to work. In 2006 we were all shocked to learn that Senator Johnson suffered a brain hemorrhage--and for weeks we hoped and prayed for him and his family. Incredibly, he again made a full recovery--and he again came back to work. That is commitment. That is a Senator with a deep appreciation for the privilege of serving the people of South Dakota. That is Tim Johnson Despite the personal health issues Senator Johnson experienced, he succeeded in leading passage of the Safe and Fair Deposit Insurance Act of 2005, a law that 3 years later was critical to keeping America's deposits safe during a time of great economic turmoil. As chair of the Senate banking committee we have relied on his leadership and judgment in reducing risk in the financial sector and in ensuring that Dodd- Frank reforms were implemented effectively. I will miss our work together to improve the health care of American veterans, and I will miss the opportunity I have had through the years to work with Senator Johnson on empowering small family farms to compete in the modern marketplace and to help ethanol producers expand their place in our Nation's renewable energy future. Knowing how important it was for ranchers to be able to tell consumers their meat products came from the U.S.A., Senator Johnson has been a champion of country of origin labeling since going back to the 2002 farm bill, and since then he has helped to strengthen and fully implement the law, a mission that carried over to the 2014 farm bill that I authored as chair of the agriculture committee. In addition, Senator Johnson has been a forceful advocate for the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration rules that ensure that family farmers and ranchers are able to compete on a level playing field. I know how much Senator Johnson has loved policymaking, so I know he must have agonized over this decision. But I also know that the love and devotion he has for his family comes first, and now he will be able to spend more time with his wife Barbara, his two sons, his daughter, and all his grandchildren. Tim, thank you for being such a strong, resilient, and resourceful partner and friend through the years. I wish you a happy and successful retirement with your family. Mary Landrieu Mr. President, at the end of this session of Congress, the Senate will be bidding farewell to my colleague and dear friend, Senator Mary Landrieu, who has served the people of Louisiana with such devotion over the last 18 years. I don't think it is possible to overstate the magnitude of the challenges that she has faced on behalf of her constituents. Hurricane Katrina may have been the most horrible natural disaster our country has ever experienced--and Senator Landrieu's native city of New Orleans was ground zero. No one was more engaged in the recovery effort that followed that calamity. Senator Landrieu fought tenaciously to secure the funds it would take to repair and revitalize the gulf coast with infrastructure improvements that would protect the coast against another major event. In the 10 years since Katrina, Senator Landrieu has been a champion for homeowners who were struggling to afford flood insurance, most recently by winning passage of the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act, this past March. Of course, just as the gulf coast appeared close to making a full recovery, it was struck by another disaster--the Deepwater Horizon oilspill. Again, Senator Landrieu was on the vanguard of that recovery, winning passage of the RESTORE Act so that the vast majority of the fines collected by the U.S. Government would go back to the gulf coast to help pay for the cleanup. It is the single biggest investment in environmental restoration in American history. These were the moments when the people of Louisiana needed Mary Landrieu most--and she delivered as only she can. At the same time, Senator Landrieu has always understood that the oil and gas industry is vital to her State's economy, and so it was a major milestone when she became the first woman to chair the Senate energy committee. She fights so hard for Louisiana, but over the years of working with her, I have learned how much she is driven by a deep feeling of compassion, not just for those displaced by hurricanes or those whose livelihood was jeopardized by the Deepwater Horizon but for the children of her State and our country who were given up for adoption or placed in foster care. Senator Landrieu knows the joys of adopting firsthand, having adopted her two children, Connor and Mary Shannon, and she wants other parents to feel that joy. So she sympathizes with parents who wish to adopt a child but who are struggling to do so--especially since she knows there are children desperate for parents but who remain wards of the State. By matching those parents with that child, she knows that she can create a true family. So she has led the efforts in the Senate to improve child welfare systems internationally and to make it easier for American parents to adopt children in other countries. She has pushed for Federal funds to create foster care mentoring programs, so that children who are in the foster system have better guidance during the most critical years of their social development. I know I speak for other Members of this Chamber when I say that we will do our very best to continue the momentum that Senator Landrieu has created for finding a permanent, loving home for every American child. I will deeply miss having her with us but I have absolutely no doubt that Mary Landrieu will find new ways to express her devotion to the people of Louisiana and our country. It is not just a tradition in her family; it is her singular passion. I thank her for her amazing service here and I look forward to all the great achievements that are in her future. Mark Udall Mr. President, I wish to express my gratitude to a dear colleague and friend who has been a champion for our national parks and for preserving the natural splendor of our Western lands: Senator Mark Udall. Just as the Great Lakes are part of my DNA, the Rocky Mountains are part of Senator Udall's. He likes to quote the saying that we did not inherit this earth from our parents but that we are borrowing it from our children--and that is the perspective that has guided him as Chair of the Senate National Parks Subcommittee. He has worked to expand national parks and to revitalize our natural resources. Recognizing that our dependence on fossil fuels poses a threat to our land, water and wildlife, Senator Udall has been a leader in pushing for investments in renewable energy. I know how proud he was that Colorado was the first State to pass a voter-approved renewable energy policy. A key to making it happen was Senator Udall teaming up in a bipartisan way with the speaker of the Colorado House. When Colorado was struck by floods, forest fires, and beetle infestations, Senator Udall fought to make sure the State had the Federal resources to contain the damage and aid the recovery. We learn a lot about our leaders during a time of crisis, and time and again, Senator Udall has proven the strength of his character and his convictions. In the wake of the mass shooting in Aurora, CO, Senator Udall threw his support behind a ban on combat weapons, as well as an amendment to expand background searches for gun purchases. It was a bold position to take politically, but the Udall family has a long tradition of taking bold positions whose wisdom is borne out by history: His grandfather issued a court decision that recognized Native Americans' right to vote; his uncle challenged discrimination by Washington's football team; and his father helped integrate the University of Arizona. It is fitting that in Senator Udall's last full week with the Senate he gave a stirring speech on the floor, demanding transparency in the way that our Nation treats suspected terrorists. Senator Udall has also been one of the Senate's most vocal advocates for civil liberties, arguing passionately that our government's conduct must always respect both our values and the Constitution. Personally, I have had the honor of working alongside Senator Udall as co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus on Parkinson's Disease, teaming up on behalf of the National MS and Parkinson's Disease Registries Act. This past month we joined forces on an amendment that ensures women in the military will have access to quality health services, with a specific focus on maternity and preventive care. I will miss our talks and our collaborations. But leaving the Senate will allow Senator Udall to become an even more avid outdoorsman. While he has already climbed Mt. Everest and the 100 tallest peaks in his home State of Colorado, I have no doubt that he will soon conquer new and exciting challenges in the great outdoors. And from listening to his farewell address, it is already apparent to me that Senator Udall has achieved a clarity that will serve him forever after. ``As a lifelong mountain climber,'' he said, ``I have learned far more from the mountains I did not summit, than those that I did.'' I know I speak for many of us here when I say that I have learned a great deal from Senator Udall, and I thank him for serving Colorado and our Nation in the U.S. Senate--and for being a great friend. Happy trails, Senator. kay hagan Mr. President, I also wish to pay tribute to my dear friend and colleague, Senator Kay Hagan from North Carolina. Kay Hagan has quite a collection of hats. There is the hat she wore as a lawyer in Greensboro. She wore one hat as a banker, another as a State legislator helping to write North Carolina's State budget. And when she excelled in each of these roles, the voters of North Carolina gave her another hat to wear, as their U.S. Senator. Kay Hagan joined us in January 2009, which was a difficult time for our Nation's economy. With her background in the banking sector and her knowledge of the housing finance system, she got right to work on rebuilding our economy, with a stronger foundation. At the same time, she never allowed herself to be distracted from the needs specific to her North Carolina constituents. She recognized that North Carolina workers and small businesses were being threatened by unfair trade practices abroad, and she sought to address it. She recognizes how vital military bases are to North Carolina's economy and to its culture, so she worked to protect them from cuts and closures. She was a leader for military families who care for disabled children, seeking to provide payments for them from the Survivor Benefit Plan. And it was Senator Hagan who stepped up to help families at Camp Lejeune get access to health care, following one of the worst cases of water contamination in American history. With two daughters of her own, Senator Hagan knows about the demands of balancing child care with a career, and as Chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Children and Families, she called attention to the need for paid leave. Senator Hagan and I share important health care priorities: She cosponsored a bill to improve the care of mothers and babies by establishing higher quality standards for maternity care through Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. And she has been a valuable ally on the HOPE for Alzheimer's Act, which would help doctors detect this disease earlier and provide more support for those taking care of a family member with Alzheimer's. I had the distinct honor of teaming up with Senator Hagan earlier this year to help pork farmers get disaster assistance after a deadly virus devastated their livestock. And we worked together to sound the alarm on student loan debt and to try to stop interest rates on Federal loans from rising. We both come from States where hunting, fishing, and wildlife are important components to residents' quality of life. So I was pleased this past year to help Senator Hagan push for her Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act, which sought to expand access to Federal lands while taking significant steps toward conserving the land we use for recreation. I deeply regret that I will not be able to work with Senator Hagan in the next Congress. But knowing how dear public service is to her, and how deeply that tradition is established in her family, I have no doubt that she will find new ways to serve the people of her beloved home State, and our Nation. Senator Hagan, thank you for your service and thank you for being a wonderful friend. I wish you the very best of luck in all your future endeavors. Mary Landrieu

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to an amazing colleague from my home State of Michigan, who has served in Congress for 59 years, the longest tenure of any Member in history: the dean of the House, John D. Dingell. In fact, his service to our Nation goes back even further: In 1938 he worked as a congressional page and on December 8, 1941, he was on the floor to hear President Roosevelt declare that the bombing of Pearl Harbor was a day that would live in infamy. In fact, a 15-year-old John Dingell helped record that speech. Three years later he served America in Europe in the fight against Nazi Germany. He would have been in the Battle of the Bulge if he hadn't been hospitalized with meningitis. Then he joined the fight in the Pacific, making preparations to be in the first wave of American soldiers for the ground invasion of Japan--except that the Japanese surrendered before it could happen. So John Dingell proved his patriotism long before he joined Congress in 1955, following the death of his beloved father, who preceded him as Representative for Michigan's 15th Congressional District. It is hard to imagine, but Congressman Dingell was a Member of Congress before Medicare and Medicaid existed. In fact, he helped vote those programs into law. When he joined Congress, the Interstate Highway System did not exist. Alaska and Hawaii were not yet States. Congressman Dingell is not merely a witness to history. He is a maker of it. His original family name, translated into Polish, meant ``blacksmith,'' and this is a man who hammered out our Nation's laws, forging a stronger Union that could weather the challenges of the future. I would like to list all of Congressman Dingell's accomplishments, but I would be accused of staging a filibuster. For the sake of brevity, I will list only the most exceptional moments in Congressman Dingell's legendary career. Perhaps his most courageous vote occurred in 1964, in favor of the Civil Rights Act. Advisers told him that vote would destroy his chances at reelection, but he had more faith in his constituents--and he refused to compromise the principles of social justice. Health care was a great passion--one he inherited from his father. John Dingell, Sr., introduced a bill for universal health care in 1943, and though it failed, he continued to fight for it until the end of his life, and John Dingell, Jr., adopted that cause from his first day as his father's successor, proposing a bill to reform the health care system in every Congress since 1955. He has always believed that every American should have access to health care. So I know that voting for the Affordable Care Act was one of Congressman Dingell's proudest moments in Congress. As a boy he lived through America's Great Depression, and as a Congressman he helped to overcome America's great recession. He witnessed the rise of the automobile industry and saw how those unionized workers powered the rise of America's middle class. Then we fought together to make sure that American autos and American workers could compete with foreign competition on an even playing field. Congressman Dingell recognized that this was the key to a new golden age of American cars and trucks. We are seeing that today. While scientific consensus was still forming about threats pollution posed to our air and animals, John Dingell wrote the Endangered Species Act in 1973 and the major expansion of the Clean Air Act in 1990. In 2001, he created the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge--the very first of its kind in North America--and in the years since he has worked to expand refuge protection to more acres. He loves Michigan dearly. He understands the connection our people have to manufacturing, to agriculture and to the land and Great Lakes that power our tourism industry and our Michigan way of life. Even during the years he spent chairing the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, when Congressman Dingell was one of the most powerful Members of Congress, you could still find him waving to the crowd from the open top of a Ford Mustang convertible at Dearborn's Memorial Day Parade or at a booth at the Monroe County Fair, always with that same big smile. As Tip O'Neill once said, ``All politics is local,'' and local people are what John Dingell loves about politics. The people of his district never doubted his dedication. That is why they would still put ``Dingell for Congress'' signs on their lawn, long after his district boundaries had changed. If a piece of Southeast Michigan was ``Dingell Country'' once, then it was Dingell Country forever. And now he feels great pride--and his constituents feel great comfort--knowing that the district will remain in his family's hands. His beloved wife Deborah, who has been his closest confidant and understands him more intimately than anyone, will carry on his legacy long into the future. So if you go back to Congressman John Dingell, Sr., it means that Southeast Michigan has been under the Dingell name for 81 years--and counting. While Congressman Dingell will no longer be in Congress, we can still follow him on Twitter. Even at age 88, he is constantly evolving, charging boldly into the future, driven by a very simple principle: We are put on this earth to help people. John D. Dingell, Jr., has helped many people and yet he will insist that he has received much more than he has been given. He claims to be the ``luckiest man in shoe leather,'' and we are lucky that he has served Michigan and our Nation, so long and so faithfully.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. And he gave new strength to the farm safety net for all of our growers. He has been at the forefront of an energy future that he talked about today, driven by renewable energy and moving forward to get us to cleaner sources of energy. That creates jobs, as I know has happened in Iowa because of his leadership. So we thank you. There are so many things--the fresh fruit and vegetable program in schools where children in low-income schools have an opportunity to eat an apple rather than something out of the vending machine that isn't good for them, the opportunities for children to have healthier choices. Senator Harkin has led over and over and over again. I can go over every part of our agriculture and food policy improvements that have been made that have been led by Senator Tom Harkin, and we are so grateful. Senator Tom Harkin has been a personal mentor for me. In the toughest times of getting this last farm bill done, Senator Harkin gave me words of advice and wisdom--and many times encouragement--and for that I am very grateful, and have learned so much. I secondly want to thank Senator Harkin for being a hero for generations of people with disabilities, including people in my own family, who have had doors opened because of what he has done. The Americans with Disabilities Act revolutionized the possibilities and the opportunities for people. And it is about opportunity; it is not about giving people something for free, but opening doors which they still have to walk through. Senator Harkin has done that in a way that will be with us forever, when we look at building structures and opportunities in workplaces for people who want to work but just need a little different kind of opportunity and now have that available. It was clear when Senator Harkin spoke about his family how it shaped his sensibilities and passions. I remember his speaking about growing up in a two-bedroom house in Cumming, IA, that he shared with his parents and five siblings. That is pretty challenging. Growing up with his brother Frank who was born deaf gave him an understanding of the obstacles to those with disabilities and a commitment came from his heart and soul about making life better--and he has. You have. I recall also when he talked about his father losing his 40-acre farm, and the New Deal giving him a chance to support you and to support your family despite the fact that he had a sixth grade education. He had the opportunity to move ahead and work hard because somebody out there, who didn't know his name, gave him an opportunity to do so, which is what is our job to do. I know Senator Harkin's crusades to protect workers on the job was influenced by witnessing his father struggle with black lung disease, looking at him as a coal miner and what he went through. I believe Senator Harkin is the definition of a self-made man. He grew up taking advantage of opportunities as well as enduring the challenges and the circumstances of his life, transforming and using that experience to create better opportunities for everyone across the country. He is a patriot, having served in the Navy. He gained his education through the GI bill and understands that is an important part of creating opportunity and giving back to people who serve for us and lay their lives on the line for us. I know you are totally committed in your heart and soul to education starting at birth right on through for the rest of our lives. So I want to thank you, finally, for your leadership on the HELP Committee, your hard work and your passion in health care, your support working with me on mental health care, your efforts on education, your efforts in pensions--which, by the way, are promises we need to keep. All of the things you have done through the HELP Committee are things that will last for a long time to come. I know in Iowa, thanks to you, there are 8 times more community health centers then there were 25 years ago--wow--so somebody can see a doctor and they can take their children to a doctor, which will live on in their lives. I want to thank you for being someone who knows how to make laws, somebody who wants to solve problems, who in his heart and soul is passionately, lovingly concerned about our country. I know that you and Ruth and your daughters and your grandchildren will have many more opportunities to enjoy each other's lives but know there are people in this country who are enjoying opportunities because of you, and we salute you. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I start by saying that as Senator Harkin was so eloquently speaking today, it reminded me of a story of those going by the casket of President Roosevelt. A reporter stopped someone and said: Did you know President Roosevelt? And he said: No, but he knew me. There are people across this country--people with disabilities, workers, folks trying hard to get up that ladder--who want to know there are rungs on it, or want to be able to stay in the middle class, who may not be able to say they know Senator Tom Harkin personally, but he knows them. We are so grateful, and I am personally grateful, for your friendship and your leadership and mentorship. I want to speak for a moment as Chair of the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, where I had to follow the tough act of Senator Tom Harkin writing the previous two farm bills. He has shaped agriculture and food and nutrition policy in the House and Senate for 40 years, having a tremendous impact, more than we can even imagine, in terms of not only advocating for Iowa farmers--and I knew every day what Iowa needed; that is for sure--and having both Senator Harkin and Senator Grassley on the committee gave the one-two punch for Iowa. But I have to remind all of my colleagues that Senator Harkin really is the father of modern conservation, of protecting our water and our soil and our air, our wildlife habitat, our forests. Senator Harkin is the father of modern conservation. He wrote the conservation stewardship program that he created in 2002 and expanded on in 2008, and we protected it in the last farm bill.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, Senator Carl Levin has been my Senator for 36 years, and it has been one of the great honors of my life to serve for the last 14 years as his partner, as well as his friend, representing Michigan. The year he was elected, ``Grease'' was the year's highest grossing movie and ``Staying Alive'' was music's biggest hit, and you should see Senator Levin dance. So Senator Levin has outlasted disco, the Soviet Union, and all six of the people who challenged him in elections, including an astronaut. That is because integrity never goes out of style. Senator Levin has never wavered in his devotion to Michigan and to his country. As we heard today and as we each know, he has brought that patriotism to the Armed Services Committee. No one has done more to ensure that our men and women in uniform are battle-ready, with the supplies and technology they need to be the best military in the world, than Senator Carl Levin, or to make sure they receive fair pay and full health benefits. Carl Levin puts his coalition together year after year to make that happen. He has never lost faith in government's capacity to be a force for good, and we heard that again in his comments today. This was passed down to him from his parents, who saw how the New Deal rescued families from desperate poverty. A young Carl Levin admired President Harry Truman--especially Truman, the Senator who drove cross-country, stopping in cities where defense contractors were committing fraud and waste at the expense of America's wartime economy. Truman himself would be very proud to see Senator Levin leading the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. As a former civil rights attorney, Senator Levin relished the chance to cross-examine those he suspected of dishonesty toward taxpayers and the American people. It is not literally a trial-by-fire, but that committee room has definitely become a sweat lodge for unscrupulous executives or anyone who has tried to get rich by getting one over on average Americans. They sweat because they know Senator Levin has done his homework--boy, has he done his homework. He digs so deep, he knows more about what they are going to say than they do. David used a slingshot to bring down Goliath, but Carl Levin can topple a tycoon with nothing but a binder full of subpoenaed documents, and we have all seen him do it. In 2007 he shined a light on abusive practices of credit card companies, leading to laws that have brought about more transparency. Thanks to Senator Carl Levin, your credit card statement contains more disclosures so you know what is going on. Those of us in Michigan also see a softer, gentler side. His heart is in Detroit, where he was born and raised and now lives with his wife Barbara. His soul is nourished by the tranquility he finds in northern Michigan in the Upper Peninsula--Isle Royale, a place to which he has made many trips. If you have been to Detroit recently, you know the city is in the midst of a spectacular comeback. I believe it is the most spectacular comeback in modern history. Everywhere you look, you see evidence of Senator Carl Levin's hard work. He led the way on getting Federal funding for Detroit's International Riverfront, which is spectacular. He worked with me and others in leading the effort to secure critical funding for the M-1 Rail project, championing that every step of the way--a streetcar that will inject even more vibrancy to the historic Woodward Avenue, which is already attracting scores of entrepreneurs and small businesses. Five years ago I was proud to stand with Senator Levin as we passionately worked to rescue our American automobile industry and give them a chance to grow and move forward, and I saw his commitment and fiery passion for making sure we did not let them down, the men and women who worked so hard in Michigan and across the country. That revival has done so much to lift the economy of greater Detroit and all of Michigan. Senator Levin knows that manufacturing is the backbone of our State's economy, but he also knows that the landscapes, the soil, and the water are all part of who we are, including our Great Lakes. It is in our DNA, and I know it is in his. That is why he has pushed for years to help Sleeping Bear Dunes be recognized as a national lakeshore, and we are seeing the outcome of his work as we look at this beautiful national resource. He fought for the Federal sanctuary at Thunder Bay and for the creation of the Keweenaw National Historic Park. It has been an honor for me to stand with him as he chaired our Great Lakes Task Force, our bipartisan task force, and fight for funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, which has had a miraculous effect on the quality of freshwater that is vital for Michigan and the Nation. I could stand here for hours talking about his accomplishments, the footprints and handprints and marks he has made on Michigan and, most importantly, the people and communities of Michigan. But, as we heard this morning from colleagues and will continue to hear, they are small in comparison to the testament of his character, his compassion, his humor, and the unassailable strength of his convictions. Senator Levin, you will be missed in Michigan and certainly by me and the Senate. I know you and Barbara and your daughters and grandchildren, including your one grandson--who is kind of outnumbered--will be grateful to have you so you can show them the world from your perspective and show them the continued beauty of Michigan. You have given so much, and we are grateful.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I just want to add my words to what my other colleagues have said about someone I am going to miss dearly. Senator Mark Begich and I worked together on many things. When I passed the reins from the steering and outreach committee and suggested to our leader that he should seriously consider Senator Begich for that responsibility, he made us all proud as part of the leadership in presenting a very important perspective every single day. I have frequently referenced an energy committee trip I took to Alaska with Senator Begich where--I thought Michigan was big. Michigan is big. But we not only had to travel a long way to get to Alaska, once we were in Alaska we had to travel a long way from one end to another. I remember I ran into a number of people from Michigan because in our Upper Peninsula we also have a lot of snow, and we have a lot of people who were working there. But everywhere we went--and we traveled to Native American villages. We flew to Barrow. We were in every part of the State. Some areas you could only get into by helicopter. We would get there--we went to a Native village that needed a new post office. Senator Begich took me out. We had boots on because there was water coming up. We looked at this little, tiny post office that was maybe a little bigger than a closet, not much. We came out. The whole community was there to urge us to support this post office. To see not only the information, the depth that Senator Begich had about that before we got there, but the way he interacted, his commitment to them--everywhere we went he knew about that community, the leaders in the community. He had a relationship with them. This is somebody who loves Alaska. In his bones, in your DNA, Mark, is your State. I love seeing that. It was so inspirational to see that. I know the Senator has wonderful family support at home. It has been my pleasure to be at your home for dinner and to watch your son. He is growing up. I know we have a lot more that we will benefit from, from your leadership. I know you have a lot more to contribute to Alaska, to our country. Just know you are leaving with incredible respect from colleagues and love and affection. We wish you every Godspeed.