Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I am speaking today on the underlying bill, but I do want to indicate, supporting my friend from Pennsylvania, that there is incredible, exciting work being done with the National Institutes of Health that is focused on those cures. I think the challenge for us is that the budget that was passed will actually end up cutting NIH, and with this very bad policy of sequestration that I hope we are going to be able to fix--if that continues, then we will not only not have the ability to move forward on exciting cures, but we will actually be seeing NIH cut, which I think would be foolish and devastating to all of us in the long run and, for a lot of reasons, going in the wrong direction. So I hope we can work together on a bipartisan basis to fix that. Amendment No. 1299 Madam President, let me first say, coming to the floor on the Portman-Stabenow amendment, that I ask unanimous consent to add two more cosponsors today: Senator Tester and Senator Markey. That brings us to a total of 30 bipartisan cosponsors on this very important, commonsense amendment outlining the importance of the biggest 21st- century trade barrier, and that is currency manipulation. So I thank everyone who has joined together to cosponsor this.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, you have just heard a former U.S. Trade Representative who has led negotiations, a Senator who supports fast- track, tell you that this is a reasonable policy to include in TPA. Sixty Members signed a letter a year ago to the President of the United States saying any new trade agreement must include enforceable currency provisions. This amendment makes that letter mean something. Currency manipulation has cost us 5 million jobs and counting. Enough is enough. Please join us in supporting the amendment.

Ms. STABENOW

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I want to take a moment to add to what my partner on the Portman-Stabenow amendment has said on the floor. I appreciate working with Senator Portman on this important issue. I find it very interesting, as we are debating--as other colleagues have said--a policy that allows the administration to go ahead and negotiate a trade agreement where we voluntarily give up our right to change, to amend, and that we voluntarily, as a Congress, say we are not going to allow anyone to object to make it a 60-vote threshold. So we are giving them the fast-track authority. The tradeoff, the way we are supposed to be doing that is by setting up a set of negotiating objectives and expectations for what will be negotiated in the agreements. That is the deal here--fast-track authority, setting up the expectations. What we believe on behalf of our constituents, the people we represent, are the most important things that we want to make sure are covered: enforcement, strong labor and environmental standards, and the No. 1 trade distorting policy in the world today, which is currency manipulation. We want to be able to say, if you are going to get this special ability to take away our right to change something, then we expect certain things. We expect that we are going to be negotiating from a position of strength so that we are racing up in the world economy, bringing other countries up in terms of wages, what is happening in terms of protecting our environment, protecting our intellectual property rights, stopping other countries from cheating on currency or other trade violations. We want to create a race up, not a race to the bottom, not a race to the bottom where the comments are this: Well, if you would only work for less, we can be competitive. If we only take away your pension, if we only take away your health care, if we only make sure that we do not enforce our trade laws, we can be competitive. Obviously, that makes no sense. In the area of currency, what Senator Portman and I are doing is putting forth the very straightforward case that there should be a negotiating objective that is enforceable, that is tied to IMF definitions. It makes it clear that we are not talking about our domestic policies. We are not talking about Fed policies. We are not talking about quantitative easing. We are talking about the foreign currency policies that under the International Monetary Fund, 188 countries, including the Asian countries we are negotiating with, have all signed up to agree to. All signed on the dotted line--the United States, Japan, all the countries that we are talking about--that they will not manipulate their currency. The problem is they still do. The problem is that Japan, after signing on the dotted line under the International Monetary Fund, has over the last 25 years manipulated the currency 376 times. We are saying that if we are going to let you go into a negotiation and come out with a trade agreement of 40 percent of the global economy in Asia and where we are seeing the bulk of the currency manipulation, then we believe there ought to be an enforceable standard, that we ought to have an expectation of a currency manipulation provision that would be enforceable at least as a negotiating objective. That is what we are talking about. You would think--it is unbelievable the reaction. I understand after working with many, many Secretaries of the Treasury--and I have incredible respect and admiration for our current Secretary--but every Secretary under every President I have had the opportunity to work with--Democrat or Republican--all believe the same: Do not get into this area of policy. I understand that. I do. I respect it. I disagree in this case, but I understand that reaction. But when we are talking about a 21st-century framework on trade and what we need to do in enforcement--and we passed a customs bill that has incredibly important enforcement provisions in it. I am pleased that a number of those are ones that I have been working on--that Senator Lindsey Graham and I have been working on for years--provisions that are in that bill. I am very pleased to see that the broader currency issue is addressed in there that Senator Schumer, Senator Graham, Senator Brown, and I and others have been working on for years, trying to not be in the Trans- Pacific Partnership negotiations, as we know. All of these things are good to be able to do. But if we are going to do that, we need to address--as has been quoted by one of our auto manufacturers--the mother of all trade barriers, which is currency manipulation. We know it is going on. On the one hand, we hear from those on the other side that it is a poison pill to put this in the fast-track authority. The question is, Why? Why is it a poison pill? Why is it a poison pill? Well, because Japan will not like it. Japan will walk away from TPP. Well, on the other side we hear that the Bank of Japan does not do currency manipulation anymore. They do not do it anymore. Why do we have to worry about it if they do not do it anymore? If they do not do it anymore, then why in the world would they walk away from a negotiation if we have a negotiating objective on currency? It makes you wonder. Do they want to go from 376 times to 377 times? That is what I would assume, if that is that important that it would kill an entire agreement with 12 different countries to have a negotiating principle in there on currency. It is not just Japan, although, that is the major concern. We have seen this happen in Singapore, Malaysia, and other countries. If they do not intend to use that as a way to get an edge, to beat us on an unlevel playing field, then why in the world would they care? That is the question. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say they are not doing it anymore. But if we put this in there, somehow we are not going to be able to get this agreement. Our job in a global economy is to make sure the rules are fair for our businesses and our workers. So far, it is estimated that we have lost some 5 million jobs and counting because of just one thing--currency manipulation. What is that? That means that Japan builds an automobile, and they sell it someplace else. When they are using the Bank of Japan to manipulate their currency, they are able to get a discount on the price artificially. We are told, on average anywhere from $6,000 to $11,000 on the price of an automobile. That is a lot when you are competing. It is not a differential because they are more efficient at manufacturing or even paying their people less. It is because they cheat. It is because they cheat. It is not about selling into Japan, which is very difficult right now. But we also know that even if we took away the nontariff trade barriers, they have a culture of wanting to buy their own automobiles, which I wish we shared. It would be less of an issue if we in America were buying American. But the concern is that in a global economy, American companies are competing with Japanese companies to go into India--over a billion people--or Brazil or the Middle East or everyplace between America and Japan. If we are creating this huge trade agreement and we do not address the fact that they can compete with us for those customers in other countries in an unfair way and we do not deal with that, we are forcing our manufacturers to try to compete with their hands tied behind their back. Why would we do that? It is our job to make sure they have every opportunity to succeed-- every opportunity--and that their playing field is level. How many times do we all say those words: ``level playing field,'' ``level playing field.'' We are hearing from manufacturers who want to trade. These are global companies that always support trade agreements. They are saying to us: Pay attention here. This is an issue that has gotten out of hand, that we need in the framework when we are negotiating a trade agreement with 40 percent of the global economy. For the places that manipulate the currency, we need to make sure they are not doing that. That is what the Portman-Stabenow amendment takes a step to do. I would like to go even further and say that you do not get fast-track authority unless you have strong currency enforcement in the agreement. This is not that far. This is, in fact, the reasonable middle. It says we are going to have a strong negotiating objective that is tied to enforceable standards under the International Monetary Fund, the WTO, that it is a negotiating principle and we expect that to be in there. We expect it to be in there. But it does not have the hammer of saying you would not get fast-track authority because we want this to be something that has strong bipartisan support, that comes to the middle here in terms of what is viewed as reasonable and supporting the ability to have flexibility in negotiations and so on. For the life of me, I do not understand the reaction on the other side in terms of the statements that this is a poison pill or that this is some outrageous thing to say that along with protecting intellectual property rights and focusing on labor standards and environmental protection, that we would have a negotiating objective on currency. We do not dictate the outcome of it, which I would love to do. We do not do that. We say, you have to put forward your best efforts here, and you have to put folks on notice that we are serious because this is one of our negotiating objectives. When it is time for the vote, I hope that it will be in this next group of amendments. We appreciate very much that the amendment is pending, and we look forward to a vote. We would like very much to see that happen this evening. There is no reason not to have it. We are ready to have that vote. I think we have about 25 percent of the whole Senate now as cosponsors, and we would love to have more. This is a bipartisan amendment. It is reasonable, and it tackles the No. 1 trade distorting barrier right now in the global economy, which is currency manipulation. It does it in a responsible way. I will close by saying this. Again, we hear that this is a poison pill because the main folks who have been currency manipulating, who would be part of the TPP, do not want this, do not want anything saying the word ``currency'' that would be possibly enforceable. We are hearing that the Bank of Japan is not doing it anymore, so you do not need the language. But, by the way, they will walk away from the agreement if you have it in the language in there. You cannot have it both ways. Either they intend to do it again, and that is why they are objecting to an agreement with any kind of currency manipulation enforcement, or they are not going to do it again and it should not matter. They can't have it both ways on this debate. The fact that folks are trying to have it both ways makes me very concerned about what is really going on in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Portman in passing this very reasonable amendment to make currency manipulation a priority in our negotiations. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I know Senator Whitehouse is here and I have already spoken, but I wish to echo Senator Brown's strong appeal that we vote on the leveling the playing field amendment. It is critical. We have seen communities across Michigan as well as throughout the country that have been devastated. We not only lose good-paying jobs when a plant closes, but we lose small businesses from across the street, and it affects the whole community. This is an incredibly important amendment. I hope we will get a vote on it. I believe the votes are here to support that amendment on a bipartisan basis, and I think it is critical that we vote and adopt it.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter dated September 23, 2013, signed by 60 U.S. Senators, that calls on the administration to include strong and enforceable currency provisions in all future trade agreements.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, before speaking specifically to our amendment, I wish also to indicate that there are a number of very important amendments coming before us in this open debate process. I am pleased we have a number of amendments pending that, hopefully, will be offered and voted on that relate to other very important topics. One of those topics is an amendment currently pending offered by Senator Brown. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of that amendment. It will clarify the process for new countries to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership and to ensure that additional countries, including China, cannot join the agreement without congressional approval. So I hope we will get a vote on that amendment, which is certainly part of this whole discussion on currency manipulation when we look at Asia, when we look at Japan now, and when we look at China. This is an important amendment. I also wish to indicate that I have terrific respect for the chairman of the Finance Committee. I wish to address an amendment that I believe will be offered as a side-by-side to the Portman-Stabenow amendment. I urge colleagues to reject what is essentially nothing more than a rewrite of pretty much the same weak language that exists in the underlying bill. It changes some words around. It basically would not put us on record as 60 Members of the Senate to make sure we have enforceable currency provisions in this trade agreement moving forward. At this point in time, when we look at currency manipulation, it is the most significant 21st century trade barrier there is. To quote the vice president of international government affairs for Ford Motor Company in the Wall Street Journal: Currency manipulation is the mother of all trade barriers. We can compete with any car manufacturer in the world, but we can't compete with the Bank of Japan. We want our businesses and we want our workers to have a level playing field in a global economy. When we are giving instructions-- when we are giving up the right to amend the Trans-Pacific Partnership through this fast-track process involving 40 percent of the global economy--we have the right and obligation to make sure we have a negotiating principle in there. We are not mandating exactly what it looks like. We are just applying a negotiating principle that addresses the No. 1 trade barrier right now to American businesses, which is currency manipulation. By some estimates, it has cost the United States 5 million jobs. If we don't address it in this reasonable way, it will cost us millions more. Our people, our workers, and our businesses are the best in the world. We know that, but they have to have a level playing field. Currency manipulation is cheating--plain and simple. A strong U.S. dollar against a weak foreign currency, particularly one that is artificially weak due to government manipulation, means that foreign products are cheaper here and U.S. products are more expensive there. One U.S. automaker estimates the weak yen gives Japanese competitors an advantage of anywhere from $6,000 to $11,000 in the price of a car, not because of anything they are doing other than cheating by manipulating their currency. It is hard to compete with those kinds of numbers: $6,000 to $11,000 difference in the price of an automobile. At one point it was calculated that one of the Japanese company's entire profit on a vehicle was coming from currency manipulation. Frankly, this is not about competing between--the U.S. going into Japan--that has also been a red herring. It is about the United States and Japan competing against each other in a global economy for the business of the developing countries. For instance, we are talking about Brazil having 200 million people. We are competing for that business. India has a population of 1.2 billion people. We are competing--Japan and the United States--for everything in between, everything else. That is what this is about, and it is about whether they are going to continue to be able to cheat. Also, it is not just the auto industry. It is other manufacturers, as well. This is also about companies that are making washing machines or all kinds of equipment or refrigerators and all of the other products that we make and create using good middle-class jobs here in America. It also affects agriculture. Anything that impacts the distortions in the economy affects agriculture and every other part of the economy. So what we are asking for is something very simple and straightforward--very simple--which is that just as we have negotiating objectives in the TPA fast-track for the environment, for labor standards, and for intellectual property rights, we should have a negotiating objective that is enforceable regarding currency manipulation. We are not suggesting what that would look like in a trade agreement, any more than we are specifying exactly what the other provisions would look like. We are saying it is important enough that if we are giving up our right to amend a trade agreement--we are giving fast-track authority--currency manipulation is the No. 1 trade distortion, trade barrier right now in terms of the global marketplace, so we should make sure there is a negotiating principle there. We also say that it is consistent with existing International Monetary Fund commitments and it does not affect domestic monetary policy. I have heard over and over that somehow what we do through the Fed is impacted. That is not accurate. We are looking, in fact, at over 180 countries that signed up under the International Monetary Fund, saying: We won't manipulate our currency. Yet, even though that has happened-- we have seen, in fact, in the case of Japan, for the last 25 years, they have manipulated their currency 376 times. We should say enough is enough. Now, I also understand we are hearing from the administration. By the way, I am very supportive of their efforts, this current administration's time on trade enforcement efforts. They have won a lot of excellent cases. I wish to commend them for that. I disagree with them on this one position, because they are saying, first of all, that Japan is no longer manipulating their currency--the Bank of Japan. OK, fine. The administration says if we put a negotiating objective into fast-track authority, Japan will walk away. Why would they walk away if they are not doing it anymore? Maybe they want to do it again right after we sign the TPP. Maybe they will do it again, and it will be 377 times. If they aren't doing it anymore, why should they care? It makes no sense. Either we can trust them and they are no longer manipulating their currency or we can't trust them and we need this provision. It can't be both. Right now, what they are talking about makes no sense. Again, we are not talking about domestic policy; we are talking about direct intervention in foreign currency markets, and that if there is direct intervention in foreign currency markets, we would like to see meaningful consequences that fit with the IMF definitions that countries have all signed up for saying they will not manipulate their currency and that it should comply with WTO enforcement, as we do for every other trade distorting policy, every other trade barrier. This is actually very straightforward. I am very surprised that it has not been accepted. Frankly, I would have gone further. In the Finance Committee I had an amendment I would love to do which says that TPP doesn't get fast-track authority unless it is clear that there are strong, enforceable provisions on currency in the agreement. This doesn't say that. This is a reasonable middle ground to say, for the first time, that currency manipulation is important, it is a negotiating principle, and we leave flexibility in terms of how that is designed, just as we do with other provisions. We have strong bipartisan support for this amendment. I wish to thank Senators Brown and Warren, Senators Burr and Casey and Schumer, Senators Graham, Shaheen, Manchin, Klobuchar, Collins, Baldwin, Hirono, Franken, Menendez, and Heitkamp for understanding and supporting this amendment. We have other support as well. I wish to thank Senator Graham. He made a comment, because we care deeply--we were so pleased to get the Schumer-Graham-Brown-Stabenow and others' efforts in the Customs bill related to China and currency, which is so important and which we also need to get all the way to the President's desk. But we know that if we don't put language in the negotiating document we give to the White House, then we are not really serious. Senator Graham said: This amendment is the real deal. That is firing with real bullets. So if we are serious, if the 60 people who signed the letter are serious--and I hope and believe we are--then we need to make sure the negotiating position we take is to ask--and to direct--the administration to put this in the final negotiations on TPP. We have, as I mentioned before, enforceable standards language on labor and environment and intellectual property rights. This is not complicated. We need to make sure we are clear on currency manipulation. The IMF has rules about what is and what is not direct currency manipulation. They are clear rules. There are 187 countries, in addition to Japan, that have already signed up saying they will abide by that definition. We just don't enforce it, and we have lost millions of jobs. Again, Japan, after signing, has intervened--the Bank of Japan has intervened 376 times in the last 25 years. We are being asked to rely on a handshake and good-faith assurances that there won't be 377 times. But we are being told if we even put language requiring a negotiating principle into this document, that somehow Japan will walk away. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. We have a responsibility, if we are giving up our rights to amend a document, to amend a trade agreement. If we are giving up our rights to require a supermajority vote in Congress, if we are doing that, we have a responsibility to the people we represent to make sure we have given the clearest possible negotiating objectives to the administration as to what we can expect to be in a trade agreement. That is what TPA is all about. If, in fact, currency manipulation is the mother of all trade barriers, why in the world would we not make it clear that currency manipulation should be a clear negotiating objective for the United States of America? Let me just say again that we can compete with anybody and win. Our workers, our businesses, our innovation can compete with anybody and win. But it is up to us in Congress, working with the White House, to make sure the rules are fair. I hope colleagues will join us in passing the Portman-Stabenow amendment to make it clear we understand in a global economy what is at stake and that we are going to vote on the side of American businesses and American workers. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Portman- Stabenow amendment. First, I wish to say a word in support of the efforts by Senator Cochran and Senator Wicker. I was a partner with Senator Cochran in the 2014 farm bill. I support their position as it relates to the catfish provision. Hopefully, we will be able to retain that provision. Amendment No. 1299

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Hirono as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1299.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I want to say, first of all, thank you to our distinguished leader of the Finance Committee for including the Portman-Stabenow amendment. First, before calling it up, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Donnelly as a cosponsor and thank Senators Burr, Graham, Collins, Baldwin, Brown, Casey, Heitkamp, Klobuchar, Manchin, Schumer, Shaheen, and Warren for being cosponsors as well.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1299.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise today on the floor of the U.S. Senate in memory of a young woman whose life was extraordinary and meaningful and whose passing has left so many of us so profoundly sad. On Tuesday night, Rachel Jacobs left work and boarded a train to go home to her husband Todd and her 2-year-old son Jacob. Rachel's life, so filled with passion and purpose, was lost that night, along with at least seven others, when her train--and we all know now about the train--derailed just outside of Philadelphia. Rachel touched so many lives all across the country. Today, all of those hearts are broken. The loss is so profound. Her family has lost a wonderful wife and mother and daughter and sister, and all of us have lost someone who had accomplished so much already in her young life and would have done so much more to make the world a better place if only she had been given the time. I want my colleagues in the Senate to know Rachel. I want them to know the life she lived. She grew up in the Detroit area, where she was a smart, engaged young woman who was active in her community and always looked for ways to make a difference. She was an exceptionally talented and bright young woman. She went to college at Swarthmore and then to Columbia for her MBA. Two months ago, she became the CEO of ApprenNet, an online workforce training startup. She had a vision to use technology to help people get the right skills to be successful in the fastest growing sectors of our economy, such as health care. She was also the cofounder and chair of Detroit Nation, which brought together native Detroiters around the country to stay engaged and connected to their hometown in an effort to create jobs and economic growth. Rachel did so much for others--something I know she learned from her parents, Gilda and John Jacobs. Gilda is a dear friend of mine and someone who has devoted her own life to public service. I cannot imagine the sadness of her family today. It is small comfort that Rachel's dedication to her family and community is a testament to the wonderful person she was. She was an inspiration to so many and that inspiration will endure. Rachel's life was not the only one lost on Tuesday night. A Navy midshipman from New York, a college dean, an award-winning Associated Press technology staffer, and five other Americans with families and friends and with so much going for them, and we are finding more who have lost their lives--so many lives cut short in their prime, so many people who were doing so much good in the world. There are many questions as the investigation into this crash gets underway. Federal authorities are doing their work right now, and the families of those killed or injured deserve answers. So I was truly stunned yesterday when the House of Representatives voted in committee to slash funding for our infrastructure, including Amtrak. I could not believe that happened. There is something deeply wrong when an unthinkable tragedy such as this occurs--that should serve as a wakeup call to all of us to work together--and not even 24 hours later, Republican Members of Congress act as if nothing had happened. Our roads and bridges and railroads carry people. They carry young mothers such as Rachel who want to get home to hold their babies. They carry young men such as Justin Zemser, the 20-year-old midshipman at the Naval Academy--a patriot whose contributions to his country could have been incredible. I know, from speaking to Senator Schumer who nominated him, he was an incredible young man. We have a responsibility to the people of this country, to the people who sent us here to represent them, to make sure our infrastructure is secure. Yet we see on the horizon the very real possibility that our highway trust fund will soon be empty. We see the events of yesterday, with a vote in the House Appropriations Committee to slash funding for trains and roads and bridges. It is personally very alarming to me. As we engage in these discussions over the next few weeks about how to fund transportation in this country, I hope my colleagues will not forget the people who use our transportation system--people like Rachel Jacobs. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, this is a very important debate. I was here earlier this week and I look forward to more debate next week. I look forward to a vote on the Portman-Stabenow amendment addressing currency manipulation. At this point in time, I wish to speak as in morning business, and I ask unanimous consent to do so.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue that, by some estimates, has cost the United States as many as 5 million jobs, which is a lot of jobs, and that is the issue of currency manipulation. We are going to have an opportunity, now that there is an agreement, to move forward on all of the issues related to trade, whether it is fast-track or helping workers or enforcement issues or the other pieces that will be in front of us. We will have an important opportunity to seriously move forward in a positive way for our manufacturers and for agriculture and for all those who are impacted by currency manipulation. In fact, currency manipulation is the most significant 21st-century trade barrier that American businesses and workers face today and is the least enforced against. We take the least amount of action against currency manipulation, and yet it is the most significant 21st-century trade barrier. If we don't take meaningful action to address this issue, we stand to lose even more jobs at a time when our economy is desperately trying to recover. Our workers are the best in the world, and we can compete with anybody--our businesses can compete with anybody as long as there is a level playing field and the rules are enforced. But we can't win when our trading partners cheat, and that is what is happening right now. When they manipulate their currency--when Japan does it, when China does it, when other countries do it--they are cheating. A strong U.S. dollar against a weak foreign currency, particularly one that is artificially weak due to government manipulation, means foreign products are cheaper here and U.S. products are more expensive there. For example, one U.S. automaker estimates that the weak yen gives Japanese competitors anywhere from a $6,000 to $11,000 advantage on the price of a car, depending on the make and model. It is hard for our American carmakers to compete when they are effectively seeing a $6,000 to $11,000 higher sticker price--more expensive than Japanese vehicles not because of any other difference at all, just currency manipulation. That is a large difference that is based on currency manipulation. In fact, we have seen some numbers that--at some points in time, the entire profit on a vehicle will be from currency manipulation. We keep hearing about opening Japan's markets to U.S. automakers. While that is fine and that sounds nice, it is really a red herring when we look at what is going on because Japan right now has zero percent tariffs on U.S. cars. So it is not the tariffs that are keeping out our cars; it is the complicated web of nontariff barriers that Japan uses to keep out American automobiles. Beyond that, what is significant and what we have learned is there is little appetite for American cars in Japan. Last year, Ford's share of imports in Japan was 1.5 percent. Chevy was less than one-third of 1 percent. There were 13 times as many Rolls Royces imported into Japan last year than Buicks, but that is not because there were all kinds of Rolls Royces going into Japan. It is because there were only 11 Buicks, not 1,100, not 11,000--11. One of the things that is interesting is that in Japan they buy Japanese vehicles. I wish in America we bought American-made vehicles. We would not be seeing as much of this challenge. It is a different culture there in terms of the pride of buying Japanese vehicles and, in fact, doing what they can to keep others out through nontariff trade barriers. Taking down the trade barriers is a good thing. I support it, but it is not enough. That is not what this is about when we are talking about the transpacific trade agreement and the worries of American automakers and other manufacturers as we do that. That is not the big challenge. It is not about just trade barriers, making life easier for the handful of Japanese consumers who are looking to buy an automobile from outside their country. Our manufacturers tell us that is not the main concern. It is not about competing in the United States or Japan; it is about competing everywhere else in the world. That is the problem. Japan has a population of 120 million people, but Brazil has a population of 200 million people. India has a population of 1.2 billion people. In emerging markets, American-made vehicles are at a severe competitive disadvantage compared to vehicles produced in Japan or Korea, when those countries choose to manipulate their currency, which has happened many, many times. We are competing, Japan is competing, and the United States is competing for those 1.2 billion customers. If they can artificially bring down their price $6,000, $7,000, $10,000 or more to sell into those areas, even though it is illegal in terms of the international community--they have signed up saying they will not do it. But if they are allowed to do it and if our trade agreements allow them to do it, it is not fair. Why would we do that to American companies? Why would we do that to American workers? Why would we allow that kind of cheating to occur? That is what the amendment that Senator Portman and I have is all about, that we will be offering and asking support for. This is not an issue that only impacts the auto industry or other manufacturers. As everyone knows, I care deeply about agriculture, as the current ranking member and former chair of the agriculture committee. Agriculture is impacted by currency manipulation as well. As a competitive sector in the global economy, any practice that distorts the economy, disrupts trade, and threatens employment has an impact on U.S. farmers and ranchers as well. Unfortunately, the language currently included in the TPA bill does not adequately address these issues, because if we are going to be effective around currency provisions, we have to make sure they are enforceable. There is some language there, but unlike other parts of the TPA, there is not language requiring that any provisions in a trade agreement be enforceable. That is why Senator Portman and I have introduced an amendment to this bill--to the TPA bill--that simply adds clear language to require that any future trade deals must include enforceable currency provisions. Very importantly, the provisions will be consistent with existing International Monetary Fund commitments that all of these countries have made. They signed up saying they are not going to do currency manipulation, but we do not have enforcement to make sure it does not happen. Also, importantly, this does not affect domestic monetary policy. I understand the arguments. I have great respect for our Secretary of the Treasury, whom I work with all the time, and 99 percent of the time we are singing the same song--not on this one and the same thing with the President, someone whom I admire deeply. I have to say this administration has done more than any other White House, I think, that I have worked with as a Senator or even in the House, to make sure we are enforcing our trade laws, taking trade actions, winning trade cases in the WTO. I am very grateful for that. But when it comes to currency, there has been a debate saying that somehow our Fed policy, quantitative easing--what we do inside our country is somehow impacted by the definitions of the IMF, which is not accurate. A country can say it is. Anybody can say anything, but it would not hold up because it is not accurate. We are talking about foreign transactions, the monetary policies of foreign competitors in the global economy. I am very pleased that we have bipartisan support for our amendment. We are adding supporters all the time. Senator Rounds, Senator Burr, Senator Casey, Senator Shaheen, and we have other Senators that will be joining us as well. We have growing support and understanding of how critical this is. The inclusion of strong and enforceable currency provisions in our trade agreements make clear to our trading partners that this uncompetitive trade practice will no longer be accepted. We are not just going to talk about it. We talk a lot about it. We talk a lot about this issue and the loss of American jobs because of currency manipulation. But by putting it in the core instructions for our negotiators as they walk into a trade negotiation, to have listed alongside critical provisions regarding labor laws and environment and intellectual property rights and human rights and other areas, to say currency manipulation, your policies around currency we believe are critically important in a global economy if we are going to compete on a level playing field and not continue to lose American jobs. Some would call this amendment a poison pill to the TPA. That could not be further from the truth. It is absolutely possible. In fact, we have Members supporting our amendment who also support TPA, the underlying bill. They want to make sure it is a clear outline of the priorities and instructions for any negotiations. I have not heard from a single one of my colleagues that he or she will oppose the bill because our amendment is not adopted. This is not a poison pill. What I do hear repeatedly, though, is that one of the principal justifications for granting the administration trade promotion authority, fast-track--a process where we can amend it, a simple majority vote--is that Congress sets forth its priorities in trade promotion authority. We are laying out what is important for the people of our country, for our businesses, for our workers in trade negotiations. If that is the case, then how can something deemed appropriate, deemed a priority by all of us be a poison pill? It is not our job to match our priorities with their negotiations. The negotiations are supposed to match our priorities. They are laid out in TPA. Otherwise, why do we give fast-track authority? It is our responsibility on behalf of American businesses, American workers, and American communities to tell the administration what we expect them to fight for on behalf of the people of our country. We already insist on enforceable standards in other negotiating objectives. I support these, and I believe they should be as strong as possible, including issues around labor law, environment, and intellectual property rights. Why should currency manipulation be any different? This is about Congress setting up the list of priorities for negotiating objectives, and then in return for that, we then allow a fast-track process where any final bill cannot be amended. If we are going to give up that authority, that power, I think we have a right to lay out the conditions under which we would do that. If we lost 5 million jobs around the globe--5 million jobs because of currency manipulation coming predominantly from Asian countries that we are now negotiating with--we have a right to say we want that to stop. We expect there to be a strong, enforceable currency manipulation provision in any law we pass that then gives up our right to amend a trade agreement. There is no way that I believe the entire transpacific agreement hinges on whether we include enforceable currency provisions. If that is true, it calls into question what else is in the agreement. Why are there TPP countries that are so concerned about enforceable standards-- which, by the way, they have all signed up through the IMF as part of the global community--they have all signed that they will not do it. If the argument now is that they are not doing it, then why are people fighting so hard to keep this requirement out of TPA if they are so confident this will never occur again? Our ability to address currency issues in trade agreements is not complicated, again, by our own domestic monetary policies, including quantitative easing. In fact, we specifically put in the amendment that it does not affect domestic monetary policies. We have heard this over and over again. There has been confusion that has been spread. The IMF has rules about what is and what is not direct currency manipulation. They are clear rules. They are rules that all of the IMF countries have agreed to. They are rules that the United States has followed while they are doing quantitative easing. They are rules that Japan has flagrantly violated not once or twice but 376 times since 1991. We are hearing that we do not need enforceable language as a negotiating objective in the fast-track bill because Japan is not manipulating the currency anymore. Well, 376 times they have chosen to do that. Once we pass this, there is nothing stopping them from making it 377. What stops them is if they know that Congress is giving direction to the negotiators to make sure there is enforceable provisions in the trade agreement. Let's be clear. The United States is clearly following the rules with our domestic monetary policy. We are following the rules. Therefore, we would not be affected by this, and our amendment specifically references that. We are not talking about domestic policy. Other countries could say that. They would be wrong. They would have no legal standing to say it. You can say anything. But we do know this: Japan has flagrantly violated the rules of the IMF--that they signed on the dotted line to support--376 times since 1991. Adding enforceable currency provisions to a trade deal simply adds enforcement to the commitments that Japan and 187 other countries have already made as a part of the International Monetary Fund. On that point, I appreciate the efforts this administration has made to engage on this issue with our trading partners both bilaterally and through multilateral forms such as the G-20 and the IMF. But, quite frankly, we have not seen enough meaningful progress despite, I am sure, our good efforts. The progress we have seen can be wiped out at a moment's notice and without any meaningful recourse if we do not require enforceable provisions in the fast-track law. Then there is China. While they are not currently a party to the TPP, it is no secret they are interested in joining it down the road. While China's exchange rate may be up nearly 30 percent since 2010, the Treasury's own report to Congress released just last month concludes that China's currency remains significantly undervalued, which, by the way, is the reason we also need to make sure the Customs bill, which will be coming before us, maintains what we did in the Finance Committee. It should maintain the important legislation which Senator Schumer and Senator Graham have been leading for years. I am proud to be a part of that, along with Senator Brown and many others. We came together on a bipartisan basis to make sure that China, which is not involved in the negotiations right now, is also held accountable for currency manipulation. These two issues are not mutually exclusive; they are part of the whole effort. If they are part of a negotiating agreement and it is TPP or any other one, we want to make sure our negotiators put this in the deal. If they are outside of it, we want to also make sure they cannot cheat. That is why both of these are very important policies, and I strongly support both of them in order to move forward in a comprehensive way on currency manipulation enforcement. For too long, we have relied on handshake agreements and good-faith assurances from our trading partners around the world that they would adhere to the same standards we set for ourselves. For too long, we have seen our trading partners ignore their commitments by breaking the rules and leaving American workers and businesses at a competitive disadvantage. It is time for us to say enough is enough. We don't have to keep doing this to ourselves. I am very pleased that we have taken a step forward in a couple of directions. I mentioned the Schumer bipartisan proposal which so many of us have worked on. That is a very important piece of this puzzle. The other piece of this puzzle is the Portman-Stabenow amendment. As I said, these are not mutually exclusive; they are complementary. I hope my colleagues will support both of them to demonstrate a serious commitment. It is not enough to support a policy in one bill and not support a similar policy in the other part of the picture here, the other bill. If you support enforcing against currency manipulation--you either do or you don't. You do or you don't. We want to make sure we are doing it against those not part of the TPP negotiations and those who are. We want to make sure that they get signed into law and that they, in fact, are the law of the land. It is long past due that we take meaningful action on this issue. I don't know how many times I have come to the floor since coming here in 2001 to speak about this and to be a part of this effort. It has always been bipartisan, and I am glad to see that. We need a strong, bipartisan vote on the Portman-Stabenow amendment. We have understood--those of us who represent manufacturing and agricultural States--that this is a critical piece that will help to level the playing field so our businesses, our farmers, our ranchers, and our workers have every opportunity to compete and win. I know they will. I don't have a doubt in my mind. Our job is to make sure that there is fairness, that we have the best trade deals, that they are enforceable, and that we have the tools to enforce them, which is also in front of us with the Customs bill. We have to have all of it. We are in a global economy. Everybody is competing. Our job is to make sure we are exporting our products and not our jobs. If we do not focus in a very serious, real way on addressing currency manipulation, we will, in fact, leave a giant loophole which those companies will drive right through and will allow them to continue cheating and taking our jobs. We can fix that, and I am hopeful my colleagues will join us on a bipartisan basis for a very strong vote so we can send a message to the administration that we are serious-- including this as one of the instructions to them--as to what we expect to be in trade agreements going forward. I thank the Presiding Officer. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. STABENOW

Mrs. STABENOW. Madam President, I wish to reflect on this year's Memorial Day and the importance of this holiday in American life. As I attend Memorial Day parades and commemorations, I am struck by our spirit of national unity. I know that across Michigan--and across our Nation--our fellow Americans are taking part in similar gatherings where we stop and reflect on our history and the sacrifice made by so many in order to bring our Nation to where we are today. Memorial Day is unique among American holidays. On Memorial Day, we do not honor a particular date or event, a battle or the end of a war. On Memorial Day, we do not honor an individual leader--a President or a general. On Memorial Day, we pay homage to the thousands and thousands of individual acts of bravery and sacrifice that stretch back to the battlefields of our Revolution and to those taking place today in conflicts across our world. Last month, I was reminded of the significance of this day when I welcomed 76 Michigan World War II and Korean war veterans to Washington from Michigan's Upper Peninsula as part of the Honor Flight Network. These veterans visited the World War II and Korean war memorials, and at the end of the day, received personalized notes thanking them for their service. The mission of the Honor Flight Network is a fitting tribute to our ``greatest generation.'' This Memorial Day we not only honor past generations, but our current generation of young men and women who are serving or have come home. In April, 350 airmen and 12 A-10 Thunderbolt II planes from our Selfridge Air National Guard Base deployed to the Middle East to fight the terrorist group ISIL as part of Operation Inherent Resolve. This Memorial Day is a reminder of our obligation to honor our commitment to all our generations of veterans by making sure they have the support they need and the benefits they deserve. As we observe this holiday, let us remember the centuries of sacrifice by the many men and women that this day represents. And let us make sure that all who served with honor are honored in return.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I commend Senator Risch, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this resolution, which is incredibly important to people in Michigan as well as across the country. We have a very special man who unfortunately is being held as a hostage in Iran, and he needs to come home now. I have had the honor of getting to know the family of Amir Hekmati. He is a patriotic American from Flint, MI, who served his country honorably and bravely as a marine between 2001 to 2005 in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is an American citizen but also became a dual citizen with Iran in order to be able to visit his grandmother and other family members in Iran. In August 2011, he was visiting his grandmother and was arrested by the Iranian authorities and charged with spying for the CIA, which was absolutely false, absolutely trumped-up charges. He was then deprived of a fair trial and jailed on those totally trumped-up charges. Of those Americans confirmed as prisoners in Iran, none have been incarcerated longer than Amir Hekmati. He has been waiting the longest to come home. He has been tortured and is locked inside a prison notorious for its deplorable conditions. Meanwhile, Amir's father is battling terminal brain cancer. I was very honored to have the opportunity to spend time with his family--his mom and dad, his sister and two brothers--who are passionately engaged in speaking out, coming to Washington, meeting with the State Department, and making sure we are laser-focused on their brother and their son. My heart went out to them. Think about all of us who have children. Speaking to his mom and dad, it is frightening, it is deplorable, it is outrageous, and he needs to come home--now. I can't say enough about the love and devotion of the Hekmati family. I have had a number of different opportunities to meet with them. Amir's sister and brother have frequently been here in Washington making sure we are not forgetting about this brave marine. They have fought so hard for his freedom. I also commend Congressman Dan Kildee, who represents the Hekmati family in Flint, MI, for being a great partner and such a strong advocate and a strong voice on behalf of Amir and his family. This resolution is a clear message to the Iranian Government: If you want a seat at the table with the rest of the international community, free Amir Hekmati now, as well as all the other U.S. citizens who are being held as hostages. Our thoughts and prayers go out to all of their families. I can tell this body that for us, in Michigan, we are laser-focused on making sure that Amir Hekmati's name is lifted up at every opportunity and that it is very clear that this brave, courageous marine who served our country so well has the full support of our government to bring him home immediately. I congratulate and thank my colleague. I am proud to be one of the cosponsors on this resolution. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, in addition to thanking Senator Risch for his tenacity and making sure we are at this point with this resolution, I must also go back to our vote last week and the incredible work of our two colleagues in a bipartisan way, as we saw Senator Corker and Senator Cardin come together and lead us forward with a very thoughtful piece of legislation that makes clear the role of the Senate in a very important process right now in negotiations. I thank Senator Cardin as the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee for his leadership.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I first wish to thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona for his leadership and echo his words that we need a bipartisan solution on this issue, and hopefully we will be able to address it, not only supporting our men and women when they are actively in harm's way but supporting them as veterans, which I know he cares deeply about as well. That is why we need a bipartisan and balanced solution like we had before. I thank the Senator for his leadership. Mr. President, the reality is that this budget--any budget for the United States--is about our values and our priorities. That is what it is all about as a country. I have to say, as a senior member of the Budget Committee, I am deeply concerned about the values portrayed in this budget. I greatly respect the chairman and ranking member and thank them for their service, but when we look at this budget in total, this goes opposite to what the majority of Members talk about every day because this particular budget keeps the system rigged in favor of the wealthy and well-connected against the interests of hard-working, middle-class Americans. Picture this: In this budget, if you are a family with assets of $10 million or more, you hit the jackpot: You get at least a $3 million bonus tax cut in this bill, in terms of the policies laid out in the bill. How is it paid for? It is paid for by everybody else. Sixteen million hard-working Americans will see a tax increase of at least $900 based on these policies. We will see critical investments and services cut. There is nothing done to address jobs going overseas. There is not one loophole proposed to be closed that is sending our jobs overseas. We want to create an economy and really balance the budget? Let's bring those jobs home. There is nothing in this budget about that. If you have wealth of over $10 million, it is your lucky day--$3 million or more in your pocket. There is Christmas in this budget for very wealthy multimillionaires, but if you are everybody else, you are in trouble. There is no focus on creating jobs. And God help you if your family has a mom or dad or grandpa or grandma who has Alzheimer's disease and is in a nursing home because this budget guts nursing home care for millions of Americans, a lot of folks who desperately need that care. One out of five Medicare dollars today goes to treat Alzheimer's. This is an area I have been deeply involved in and I am partnering with Senator Susan Collins on, important work that needs to be done. But if you have someone who has Alzheimer's disease and who needs long-term care, you are out of luck in this budget. This morning, I talked to a group of women who are in town for breast cancer research. This is the month that focuses on breast cancer research. If you care about breast cancer research, in this budget, you are out of luck. If you want to make sure we are investing in cures and treatments--we are now so close in so many areas. American research, innovation, and the best minds in the world are working on opportunities to us to solve Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease and cancers and all kinds of other areas of concern. But the budget is cut for NIH, the National Institutes of Health. What kinds of priorities does this reflect? On top of that, for 16.4 million people who now have affordable insurance, it will be gone. What is interesting about the budget is it is very creative because all the revenue, all the fees to pay for health care stay to help balance the budget; it is the health care that goes away. So for those breast cancer patients whom I talked to this morning who are now so grateful that if they need go out and get new insurance, they will not be called someone with a pre-existing condition, that goes away in this budget. If you have a child who is 22, 23, just graduated--I spoke at graduation ceremonies this last weekend--and they are on your insurance right now while they are trying to get themselves together and get that first job, that goes away. This budget attacks health care, which, by the way, is not a frill. We do not control when and how we get sick or if our children get sick or if our parents or grandparents need a nursing home or what may happen in terms of medical issues in our families, but health care is directly attacked. The Affordable Care Act--gone. Gutting inpatient care in nursing homes for Alzheimer's patients and others. Research-- gone. We are hearing from our Republican friends that they are making government work. But I will tell you what--it is not working for middle-class families. It is working for you if you are making over $10 million a year or have more than $10 million in assets, but it is not working for you if you are holding down two or three jobs and you are just trying to make it for your family. We believe as Democrats that this ought to be a middle-class budget because everybody deserves a fair shot to get ahead and have a chance to have a better future. For us, that means this budget should have a major focus on creating millions of jobs by rebuilding our roads, rebuilding our bridges, our infrastructure. By the way, the funding for that--the authorization for the highway trust fund--runs out at the end of May. There is nothing in here to address that, no funding in here to address that. We are going to see all kinds of jobs eliminated all across the country if that funding is eliminated. We believe in rebuilding our roads and bridges and creating millions of jobs. We stand up for Social Security and Medicare. This budget has $430 billion in cuts to Medicare, and it doesn't say where they come from. It is proposing a structure that would actually eliminate Medicare as we know it and turn it into some kind of a voucher system or some other kind of system that is not guaranteed care under Medicare. We believe in protecting Medicare and Social Security. We believe everybody ought to have a fair chance to work hard and make it and go to college. This does nothing but increase costs for students going to college. We believe costs ought to go down so that when students leave college, they do not end up with so much debt that they cannot go out and buy a house. People cannot buy a house, as realtors in Michigan have told me, because they have so much debt. They cannot qualify to get a loan for a house or to start a new business. We, as Democrats, want to make sure everybody has a chance to go to college, that it is affordable, that we are protecting Social Security and Medicare, and that we are creating jobs, rebuilding our roads and our highways and the opportunity to invest in America. Finally, we want to bring jobs home. It is insane that we still have a Tax Code that rewards those--sometimes only on paper--who leave this country. They still breathe the air, drink the water, drive on the roads, they just don't have to pay their fair share of taxes as businesses because on paper they are based somewhere else. That is not fair to every small business in Michigan that is working hard every day. It is not fair to every taxpayer across this country and every business we have that is really an American business. There is nothing in this budget which addresses that. I conclude by saying we should resoundingly object and vote no on the priorities and the values set out in this budget. They do not reflect what is good to create and grow a middle class and create opportunity in this country. If you are one of the privileged few, hallelujah. Break out the champagne after this passes. But if you are the majority of Americans, hold on to your seats and put on your seatbelt, because if this is, in fact, put into place, it will be a rough ride for America. Our side is going to do everything humanly possible to make sure that does not happen. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide, widely recognized as the first genocide of the 20th century. April 24, 1915 marked the beginning of a horrific period in our world's history and for the Armenian people. On this day, agents of the Ottoman Empire rounded up and executed Armenian community leaders, poets, and intellectuals. What ensued was the systematic extermination of 1.5 million Armenian men, women and children at the hands of the Ottoman Turkish government. From 1915 to 1923, the world witnessed the attempted destruction of the Armenian people for no reason other than their very existence. Unfortunately, the events surrounding the Armenian genocide are fraught with denial. But the case is simple. When Raphael Lemkin coined the term ``genocide'' in the 1940s, he had what happened to the Armenians in mind as a definitive example. Those who perished experienced some of the worst aspects of humanity. But the campaign to exterminate the Armenian people failed. And those who survived embodied the best qualities of the human spirit: hope, resilience, perseverance, and love. Some survivors made their way to America, and many of them built their new lives in Michigan. They have created thriving communities, built businesses, raised families, and contributed to the fabric of what makes the State of Michigan so great. Their descendants carry on these values, and the richness of their culture is part of what gives vibrancy to our State. The Armenians in Michigan boast a community of well over 20,000. It is the largest in the Midwest, and I am proud to represent them. To commemorate the 100th anniversary, Michigan's Armenian community has organized a number of events, lectures, art exhibits, concerts, and vigils to remember the victims of the genocide, to educate their communities, and to look to the future. I applaud their efforts to preserve their culture and identity. Over the last century, the Armenians of Michigan erected churches, established community centers, and built a day school. They also founded educational centers such as the Armenian Research Center at the University of Michigan-Dearborn. International language and linguistics courses at Wayne State University are located in Manoogian Hall, which was named after the notable Detroit-Armenian philanthropist and businessman Alex Manoogian. These are just part of the Armenian community's contributions to Michigan. While Armenians have found prosperity in their new home, they have not forgotten those who did not live to see what the future held for their people. Many of Michigan's Armenian community members have written books and recorded accounts of what happened to their families in 1915 in an effort to shed light and increase awareness. These stories will carry on for generations, and remind us all that if we do not recognize the atrocities of the past we risk blinding ourselves to the atrocities that could still occur today. Charging toward a peaceful future requires making peace with the past. Denial does not serve our American values. Denial minimizes the great tragedy that fell upon the victims, the survivors, and their descendants. Over 40 States have affirmed the Armenian genocide, including Michigan. I have called on, and will continue to call on, the President to formally recognize that the atrocities committed against the Armenian people were in fact genocide. Recognition of the Armenian genocide is long overdue. A crime like this casts a long shadow. This shadow can be conquered only by light-- the light of truth that comes from fully acknowledging the full scale of the horror that the Armenians endured.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, before my prepared comments, I do want to thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his passion and his leadership in coming to the floor over and over again, ringing the alarm bells about what is happening not only to our country but our world. We are paying the price in lives and in dollars. We are seeing our farmers pay the price because we have not effectively addressed what is happening to our world in terms of climate change. I want to thank the Senator for his continued passion in reminding us over and over again why we need to act right now. Selfridge Air National Guard Deployment Mr. President, today 350 airmen from Michigan, along with 12 A-10 Warthog aircraft, are deploying to the Middle East to take part in Operation Inherent Resolve, our Nation's mission to eliminate the terrorist group known as ISIL. This deployment has special significance for Michigan. Michigan is home to thousands of families and community leaders with loved ones living in the Middle East who have seen firsthand the devastating effect of ISIL as it brutally murders innocent people, drives them from their homes, and destabilizes the region. For so many families in Michigan, the fight against ISIL is deeply personal. Today, that fight is personal to many more families as these airmen from Selfridge Air National Guard Base deploy to the region. The A-10 Warthogs are the very best close air support aircraft in the U.S. military. Known as a tankbuster, the A-10 is ideal against ISIL, which uses tanks stolen from the Iraqi Army. We in Michigan are proud of our fleet. We are proud of our people, their courage, their passion, and their hard work. We are proud for all they have done to protect our Nation. In 2011, the 127th Wing at Selfridge deployed 300 airmen and one dozen A-10s to Kandahar Airfield, a NATO base in southern Afghanistan. Over 120 days, the unit logged over 8,000 flight hours in 2,000 flight missions in an extremely hostile environment. Today, I ask my colleagues in the Senate to keep these 350 airmen in your thoughts and prayers. We wish them Godspeed as they embark on this very important mission, and we remember especially their families and friends who will stay behind and support them with their prayers as well. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a towering figure from Michigan's political past: former Senator Robert Griffin, who died Friday at the age of 91. Senator Griffin was born in Detroit and was educated in the Wayne County Public Schools. By the time he graduated high school, the United States was embroiled in World War II. And in 1943--a year when so many American families came to fully comprehend the horrors of modern warfare--young Bob Griffin enlisted in the U.S. Army, joining the 71st Infantry Division. For 3 years, Bob Griffin served our country in a time of war unmatched in its intensity, including 14 months fighting Nazis in Europe. After returning from war, like so many of our surviving soldiers, he turned his attention to his education, attending Central Michigan University, then getting his law degree at the University of Michigan. Bob Griffin decided to begin his legal career in Traverse City. After practicing law for several years, Bob Griffin felt compelled to practice public service, so in 1956 he ran and won office to the U.S. House of Representatives. He distinguished himself in Congress over the next decade, and following the death of Michigan Senator Patrick McNamara, then-Governor George Romney appointed Bob Griffin to finish the 7 months remaining in McNamara's term. It did not take Senator Griffin long to earn the support of Michigan voters: They elected him to a full 6-year term that fall of 1966. Senator Griffin served the people of Michigan loyally for the next 12 years. He authored major pieces of legislation during his career in this Chamber, and he was a member of the Republican leadership from 1969 to 1977. But he is being remembered most for the role he played in helping our Nation overcome the shock of the Watergate scandal. In August 1974, as that scandal worsened, it became clear that President Nixon was in danger of being impeached. The impeachment process would be an embarrassing spectacle, not just for President Nixon, but for the institution of the President and for our Nation's political system. Senator Griffin was a close friend of President Nixon, but it was the Senator's devotion to the country that led him to write a letter strongly suggesting that the President resign and spare the Nation from having to endure impeachment. That letter is said to have played a major role in Nixon's decision to finally step aside. At a time when our Nation's political system was teetering, it was Senator Griffin who helped it to recover its balance by doing what was best for the country. That is the mark of true leadership. Even those who disagreed with Senator Griffin's policies never found fault with his integrity or his character. Although Senator Griffin left office in 1979, he still had a desire to serve the people of Michigan, and for 8 years he applied his wisdom and judgment on Michigan's Supreme Court, retiring in 1994. Today the Grand Traverse County courthouse bears his name. Senator Griffin's devotion to our State was rivaled only by the devotion he had for his wife, Marjorie, with whom he spent nearly 68 years, and their four children: Paul, Richard, James, and Jill. The couple has 13 grandchildren and 7 great-grandchildren. Senator Griffin's loss will be felt not only by his loving family, but in his home of Traverse City and in every corner of the State he served during his career. Senator Griffin will be remembered for his leadership, his fierce integrity, and his unwavering allegiance to the State of Michigan and the United States of America.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, as we all know, a vote of confirmation for Loretta Lynch to be our next Attorney General has now been delayed 164 days, or 5 months. We have seen this qualified woman waiting for a confirmation vote, and we have had at least 51 Members--a majority-- indicating they will support her confirmation. I remember coming to the floor listening to colleagues during the Bush administration state over and over again that elections have consequences, that Presidents have a right to have their nominees voted on, and that it is our responsibility to make sure, if something comes out of committee, that we vote on a final confirmation. When we look at the fact that we have seen Loretta Lynch wait for a vote on the floor for a combined length of time that equals more than the last seven Attorneys General, I really do believe, as the President has said, enough is enough. I remember a time when we had a controversial nominee--John Ashcroft--and many of us did not support that nomination. I did not support that nomination. But we brought it to the floor for a vote. He waited 42 days. At the time, people said that was a long time. He was not blocked. We did not filibuster. We did not require a supermajority. In fact, there were 42 of us who voted no, so we could have stopped it on a procedural vote. But we allowed the nomination of John Ashcroft to come to the floor for a vote. So we fast-forward. And we have seen this, of course, over and over again, as we look at the President's nominees in the last 6\1/2\ years. Now we see this eminently qualified woman, who has been held up as of today 164 days, waiting and waiting to have the opportunity to have a vote up or down on confirmation. If people want to vote no, they have that right, but she deserves a vote. Today, we are going to vote on the confirmation of a district court judge in Texas. I think it is good that the Southern District of Texas will have a Federal court judge, but the entire country needs a permanent Attorney General. In fact, the Attorney General's office is the one that actually brings the cases to Federal courts and tries them on behalf of all the American people. So it is really ridiculous that we stand at this point where we are having to ask, after more than 5 months, that there be a vote for Loretta Lynch. After she was reported out, we saw a very distinguished nominee for Secretary of Defense come out of committee and immediately come to the floor and be confirmed, but Loretta Lynch has waited and waited. We continue to vote on district judges, and Loretta Lynch is waiting and waiting. We hear all kinds of excuses, all kinds of reasons. We are hearing that Loretta Lynch's nomination to be Attorney General cannot be voted on until we complete another very important bill--the human trafficking bill--that we all want to get done. It has, unfortunately, had a curve ball added because of the politics around choice and abortion that has been interjected into this, and we are having to work our way through that. I have been involved in a lot of discussions, as my colleagues have. I am confident we can address those if people want to get this done on behalf of girls and women in our country. But that has nothing to do with the nomination of Loretta Lynch for Attorney General, other than one thing, which is that as U.S. attorney of the Eastern District of New York, she presided over a very effective antitrafficking program, investigating and prosecuting scores of defendants. In that sense, again, we need Loretta Lynch--her talent, her expertise, and her experience--to be able to tackle what is a horrible situation that way too many of our girls and women find themselves in. We somehow for too long have thought this was something that was happening someplace else. Yet we saw it in Lansing, MI--where I live, the capital of Michigan--where there was a case in the trafficking situation that the FBI and local officials addressed. What we are finding right now is that as we proceed with confirming other people for other positions--Monday nights we are voting on other positions, we are voting on district judges, and we voted on other people for other positions not held up by human trafficking, not held up by trying to get that bill resolved, but for some reason the Attorney General position has somehow been held up. I don't buy it. It makes no sense that we would pick one person--one person--not others but one person and decide that this person and this nomination, this confirmation vote will be held hostage to another issue. It is time to stop it. Now, 164 days is long enough; 164 days is long enough. It is time to give Loretta Lynch the respect and the vote she has been waiting for and she deserves. I yield back the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.