Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2013

Mr. President, I too want to spend a couple of moments reflecting upon my long friendship and association with Senator Carl Levin from Michigan.

Much has been said this morning about Carl the person and the Senator. Let me say this: I don't know of anyone in this body who has exhibited more of an intellectual honesty, a calm demeanor, and a sense of fierce loyalty and perseverance. I don't know who exhibits those qualities more than Carl Levin.

Carl embodies the best of what I think it means to be both a citizen and a U.S. Senator. Barbara and Carl, Ruth and I have enjoyed many meals together over the years, having great conversations about everything. I want to say to my friend Carl, I hope that Michigan and Iowa are not so far apart, and that we can continue to get together in the future.

I will say, Carl, right now I hope you don't hold it against me for all of the times the Hawkeyes will beat the Wolverines in the future. Don't let that be a stumbling block.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, almost 2 years ago I announced I was not going to seek a sixth term in the Senate. That decision and that announcement didn't seem all that difficult or hard at that time. After all, 2 years was a long time off. Since then, I have been busy with hearings, meeting constituents, getting legislation through the HELP Committee, and working on appropriations.

But now, knowing this will be my final formal speech on the floor of the Senate; knowing that in a few days a semitruck is going to pull up to the Hart Senate Office Building and load hundreds of boxes of my records of 40 years--30 in the Senate and 10 in the House--and haul all of that off to Drake University and the Harkin Institute on Public Policy and Civic Engagement in Des Moines, IA; seeing my office at 731 Hart Senate Office Building stripped almost bare and the shelves cleaned; when I will soon cast my last vote; when I will no longer be engaged in legislative battle; when I will no longer be summoned by the Senate bells; and when I will soon just be No. 1,763 of all of the Senators who have ever served in the Senate--now the leaving becomes hard and wrenching and emotional. That is because I love the Senate. I love my work here.

It has been said by a lot of pundits that the Senate is broken. No, it is not. The Senate is not broken. Oh, maybe there are a few dents, a couple of scrapes here and there--banged up a little bit--but there is still no other place in America where one person can do big things--for good or for ill--for our people and our nation.

I love the people with whom I work. This is a deaf sign. ``I-L-Y'' means ``I love you.''

To the Senators, staff, clerks, Congressional Research Service, doorkeepers, cloakroom, police, restaurant employees, and, yes, the pages--and especially to those who labor outside the lights, the cameras, and the news stories--who make this Senate function on a daily basis, I thank you.

I particularly thank my wonderful, dedicated, hard-working staff, both present and past, both personal and committee staff. When I say committee staff, I mean the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, which I have been privileged to chair or be ranking member of since 1989; also the Committee on Agriculture, on which I have served since 1985 and which I chaired twice for two farm bills, once in 2001 and 2002 and the second one in 2007 and 2009; and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, which I have chaired since the untimely death of Senator Ted Kennedy in 2009.

I first heard Pat Leahy say this, so I always attribute it to him: We Senators are just a constitutional impediment to the smooth functioning of staff. This is truer than most of us would probably like to admit.

Also in thanking my staff, I don't just mean those who work in Washington. I would never have been reelected four times without the hands-on, day in, day out constituent service of my Iowa staff. The casework they have done in helping people with problems is every bit as important as any legislative work done in Washington.

In 2012 our office marked a real milestone--100,000 constituent service cases that we processed since 1985. I cannot count the number of times Iowans have personally thanked me for something my staff has done to help me.

There is a story out our way that I have heard for a long time. It is a little story. If you are driving down a country road and see a turtle--see that image of a turtle--sitting on a fence post, you can be sure of one thing: It didn't get there by itself.

I can relate to that turtle. I didn't get here by myself. My staff helped. I thank my staff, both past and present, who so strongly supported me when I was right and so diplomatically corrected me when I was wrong and who all labored in a shared commitment to provide a hand up, a ladder of opportunity to those who had been dealt a bad hand in the lottery of life.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of the names of my staff so they will be forever enshrined in the history of the Senate.

Most of all, I thank my wife, Ruth, the love of my life, my wife of 46 years. You have been my constant companion, my soul mate, my strongest supporter, and my most honest critic. You have been my joy in happy times and my solace when things just didn't go right. So I am looking forward to more adventures, love, and excitement with her in the years ahead.

To our two beautiful, smart, caring, and compassionate daughters, Amy and Jenny, I thank you for always being there for your dad, for giving me such wondrous joy in being a part of your growing up. I am so proud of both of you.

To my son-in-law Steve and to my grand kids, McQuaid, Daisy, and Luke: Look out, because here comes grandpa.

There is so much I want to say, but I want to be respectful of those who have come to share this moment with me--my staff, here and there, my family, friends, and fellow Senators.

But I want to state as briefly as I can why I am here, what has propelled me, and what has been my guiding philosophy for all these years.

It has to do with that ladder of opportunity I just mentioned. You see, there is nothing wrong in America with being a success. There is nothing wrong with having more money, a nicer home, a nicer car, sending your kids to good schools, having nice vacations, and a great retirement. That is a big part of the American dream.

But I believe when you make it to the top, and you make it to the top, and you make it to the top, and I make it to the top, one of the primary responsibilities of our free government is to make sure we leave the ladder down for others to climb. Now, mind you, I said a ladder. I didn't say an escalator. An escalator is a free ride. Don't believe in that.

If you follow my analogy a little bit more, with a ladder you still have to

exert energy, effort, and initiative to get up. But, in order to do that, there must be rungs on that ladder. That is where government comes in, to put some rungs there--the bottom rungs--everything from maternal and child health care programs, Head Start, the best public schools, the best teachers, affordable and accessible college, job training.

Sometimes people fall off that ladder. Sometimes, through no fault of their own, they have an illness, they have an accident. That is why we have a safety net, to catch them--programs like disability insurance, workers' compensation, and job retraining programs to get them back up on that ladder once again.

Thirty-five years ago we looked around America and we saw millions of people who, no matter how hard they tried, could never climb that ladder of success. No matter how hard they tried, they could never do it.

These were our fellow Americans, our brothers and sisters with disabilities. So what did government do? We built them a ramp and we called it the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Again, we didn't build a moving walkway, did we? See, with a ramp, people still had to show energy and initiative to get up. I have often said there is not one dime, not one nickel in the Americans with Disabilities Act given to a person with a disability.

What we did is we broke down the barriers. We opened the doors of accessibility and accommodation, and we said to people with disabilities: Now, go on, follow your dreams, and in the words of the Army motto, be all you can be.

I can remember standing on the floor and leading the charge on the Americans with Disabilities Act. Once again, I felt a lot like that turtle, with a lot of people helping. When I think of the Americans with Disabilities Act, I think of people in the Senate such as Senator Lowell Weicker, Senator Bob Dole, and Senator Ted Kennedy; in the House, Tony Coelho, Steve Bartlett, and Steny Hoyer; and in the executive branch, at the head of it all, President George Herbert Walker Bush, Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, and Boyden Gray. On the outside, there are people like Ed Roberts, Marca Bristo, Bob Kafka, and the indomitable Justin Dart.

Here the one person who worked his heart out to bring it together--it is that staff again I tell you about--is Bobby Silverstein. It would have never happened without him.

So I believe government must not be just an observant bystander to life. It must be a force for good, for lifting people up, for giving hope to the hopeless.

I have never had an ``I love me'' wall in the office. What I did have were two items by my door when I walk out to vote or go to a committee meeting or whatever. One is a drawing of a house in which my mother was born and lived in until she was 25 years of age when she immigrated to America. That little house was in Suha, Yugoslavia, and is now Suha, Slovenia. That little house had a dirt floor and no running water. That was my mother's house.

The second item on my wall is my father's WPA card. It says: Notice to Report for Work on Project, WPA Form 402, to Patrick F. Harkin, Cumming, IA. You are asked to report for work at once on a project as a laborer for $40.30 per month. There is a signature by a supervisor. It is dated 7/1939, 4 months to the day before I was born.

My father was then 53 years old. He had worked most of the time in a coal mine in southern Iowa, was not in the best of health. There were no jobs--no jobs. Life looked pretty bleak. Things looked hopeless. And then my father, who only had a sixth-grade education--as he told me later--got a letter from Franklin Roosevelt. He always thought Franklin Roosevelt sent this to him personally. He always said: I got that letter from Franklin Roosevelt, and I got a job.

That was important for a lot of reasons, not only for the money and the dignity of work, but it gave my father hope--hope that tomorrow would be better than today and that our family would stay together. You see, there were five kids and a sixth one on the way--me. It gave him hope that his kids would have a better future.

The project he worked on is called Lake Ahquabi. My friend Senator Grassley knows about Lake Ahquabi. It is right south of Des Moines. It is a State park now, with a lake and recreation, and people still use it today.

Every Federal judge who is sworn in takes an oath to ``do equal right to the poor and to the rich.'' Let me repeat that: to ``do equal right to the poor and to the rich.'' Can we here in Congress say we do that, that we provide equal right to the poor and the rich alike? Our growing inequality proves we are not. Maybe we should be taking that oath.

There are four overriding issues I hope this Senate will address in this coming session and in the years ahead:

No. 1, as I mentioned, the growing economic inequality in America. It is destructive of lives, it slows our progress as a nation, and it will doom broad support for representative government. When people at the bottom of the economic ladder feel the government is not helping them and, in fact, may be stacked against them, they will cease to vote or they will turn to the siren song of extreme elements in our society. History proves this to be true.

I don't have a cookie-cutter answer or a solution, but it must include more fair tax laws and trade laws, more job training and retraining, rebuilding our physical infrastructure, and manufacturing. I believe it must include some things seemingly unrelated, such as quality, free early education for every child in America.

The answer to closing the inequality gap must include rebuilding labor unions and collective bargaining. If you traced the line over the last 40 years of the growing economic inequality in America and also put that over another line showing the loss in the number of union workers, they are almost identical. I do not believe it is a stretch to say that organized labor--unions--built the middle class in America, and they are a part of the answer in strengthening and rebuilding our middle class.

I believe another part of the answer is raising the minimum wage to above the poverty line and indexing it for inflation in the future.

We need more flex-time laws, especially for women in our workforce.

We need to strengthen Social Security, as in Senator Brown's bill-- not cutting, not raising the retirement age, but strengthening Social Security.

We need a new retirement system for all workers in America--not another 401(k) but a system in which employers and employees contribute and which can only be withdrawn as an annuity for life after one retires. I ask you to look at what the Netherlands has, that type of retirement system. Lack of a reliable retirement is one of the most underreported, unexamined crises on our national horizon, and it is a big part of our growing inequality.

Finally, we must continue to build on the Affordable Care Act. The cost and availability of good health care has in the past widened that inequality gap, and we are now starting to close that element of the inequality. I believe we need to add a public option to the exchange as another choice for people. We must continue support for prevention and public health, moving us more and more from sick care to real health care.

I believe that the second overriding issue confronting us is the destruction of the family of man's only home--our planet Earth--through the continued use of fossil fuels. We know what is happening. The science is irrefutable, the data is clear, and the warning signs are flashing in neon bright red: Stop what you are doing with fossil fuels. We must shift massively and quickly to renewable energy, a new smart electric grid, retrofitting our buildings for energy efficiency, and moving rapidly to a hydrogen-based energy cycle.

The third issue I commend to the Senate for further development and changes in existing laws is the underemployment of people with disabilities. As you all know, ensuring the equal rights and opportunities for people with disabilities has been a major part of my work in the Senate for the past 30 years.

We have made significant strides forward in changing America to fulfill two of the four goals of the American with Disabilities Act; those two are full participation and equal opportunity. We have done all right on those. The other two goals--independent living and economic self-sufficiency--need more development.

I ask you all in the next Congress to do two things to advance these two

goals of independent living and economic self-sufficiency: First, help States implement the Supreme Court's decision in the Olmstead case to more rapidly deinstitutionalize people with disabilities and provide true independent living with support services. This will save money, and the lives of people with disabilities will be better and more truly independent. Second, we must do more on employment of people with disabilities in competitive integrated employment.

We all get the monthly unemployment figures every month. Last month unemployment held steady at 5.8 percent officially. My friend Leo Hindery has better calculations to show the real rate is probably about twice that figure. Also, we know the unemployment rate among African Americans is about twice that--11.1 percent. How many of us know, though, that the unemployment rate among adult Americans with disabilities who can work and want to work is over 60 percent? Yes, you heard me right, almost two out of every three Americans with a disability who want to work and who can work cannot find a job. That is a blot on our national character.

Thankfully, some enlightened employers have affirmative action plans to hire more people with disabilities. Employers are finding many times that these become their best employees; they are more productive, and they are the hardest working, most reliable workers.

I ask you to meet with Greg Wasson, the CEO of Walgreens, and Randy Lewis, who was the senior vice president there and is now retired. Walgreens has hired many people with disabilities in their distribution centers, and now Mr. Wasson has set a goal of 10 percent of all of their store employees will be people with disabilities. This needs to be emulated by businesses all over America. There are others making strides in this area. I will mention a few: Best Buy, Lowe's, Home Depot, IBM, Marriott. These are some of the other large companies that are moving forward, hiring people with disabilities. We need to learn from them what we, the Federal and, yes, maybe the State government can do to help in this area. We also need to implement policies to help small businesses employ more people with disabilities.

I dwell on this perhaps because I feel I haven't done enough on this issue of employment for people with disabilities, and we have to do better. I will say, however, that our HELP Committee passed this year and President Obama signed into law a new reauthorization of the old Workforce Investment Act, now named the Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act. In this law there is a new provision I worked on with others to get more intervention in high school for kids with disabilities to prepare them for the workplace through things such as summer jobs, job coaching, internships. However, this is just starting and funding is tight, but it will do much for young people with disabilities to enter competitive integrated employment. I thank all members of the HELP Committee for their support of this bill but especially Senator Murray and Senator Isakson for taking the lead to get this bill done, along with Senator Enzi, Senator Alexander, and me.

While I am mentioning the HELP Committee, let me thank all members of the HELP Committee for a very productive last 2 years, during which we passed 24 bills signed into law by the President. These are important bills dealing with things such as drug track and tracing, compounding drugs, the Workforce Investment Act that I just mentioned, the Child Care and Development Block Grant Newborn Screening Act, and many more.

I would like to publicly again thank Senator Lamar Alexander for being such a great partner in all these efforts. Senator Alexander will be taking the helm of this great committee in the next Congress. Senator Alexander certainly has the background to lead this committee, but he also combines that background with a keen mind and a good heart, and I wish him continued success as the new chairman of the HELP Committee.

The fourth issue I hope future Senates will take care of concerns the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities. I don't think anything has saddened me more in my 30 years here in the Senate than the failure of this body to ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, or the CRPD, as it is known. It has been ratified by 150 nations. It is modeled after our own Americans with Disabilities Act. It has broad and deep support throughout our country--supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, veterans groups, every disability organization, every former living President, every former Republican leader of this Senate: Senator Dole, Senator Lott, Senator Frist. In November we received a letter from the National Association of Evangelicals supporting it.

I would also point out that Senator Dole has worked his heart out on this. If you remember, he was here on the floor 2 years ago this month, right before we brought it up. I thought we had the votes for it. Under our Constitution it takes two-thirds, and we failed by six votes. But Bob Dole has never given up on this--never.

Well, I hope the next Senate will take this up and join with the rest of the world in helping to make changes globally for people with disabilities.

I came to Congress--the House--in 1974 as one of the Watergate babies. But with my retirement and the retirement in the House of Congressman George Miller and Congressman Henry Waxman, we are the last of the so-called Watergate babies, with two exceptions. Among all of the Democrats elected in that landslide year of 1974, there were a few Republicans, and one is left--my senior colleague from the State of Iowa, Senator Chuck Grassley.

I have the greatest respect for and friendship with Chuck. Several weeks ago, here on the floor, he said some very gracious things about me, and I thank him for that. I especially appreciated his observation that even though he and I are like night and day when it comes to political views, there is no light between us when it comes to Iowa. We have collaborated on so many important initiatives for the people of Iowa, and I think we made a heck of a good tag team on behalf of our State. So, again, I salute and thank my friend and colleague of nearly 40 years, Chuck Grassley. Carry on, Chuck.

The other exception I mentioned is again my lifelong dear friend, Rick Nolan, who was in the 1974 class who voluntarily left Congress after three terms, returned to the House in 2012, and was recently reelected.

So 40 years later, this Watergate baby has grown up, gray.

I came to the Senate 30 years ago as a proud progressive, determined to get things done. As I depart the Senate, I can say in good conscience that I have remained true to my progressiveness.

I have worked faithfully to leave behind a more vibrant Iowa, a more just and inclusive America, and a stronger ladder and ramp of opportunity for the disadvantaged in our communities.

You might say that my career in Congress is the story of a poor kid from Cumming, IA--population 150--trying his best to pay it forward, saying thank you for the opportunities I was given by leaving that ladder and ramp of opportunity stronger for those who follow.

If I have accomplished this in any small way--if any Americans are able to lead better lives because of my work, I leave office a satisfied person.

So I am retiring from the Senate, but I am not retiring from the fight. I will never retire from the fight to ensure equal opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for every disabled person in America. I will never retire from the fight to give a hand up and hope to those who have experienced disadvantage and adversity. And I will never retire from the fight to make this a land of social and economic justice for all Americans.

Let me close with a single word from American sign language.

On July 13 of 1990, I stood here and gave an entire speech in sign language. It confused Senator Kerry who was sitting in the Chair. He didn't know what to do. And the recording clerks didn't know what to do, either. But then I had to give it verbally. Well, I didn't want to do that today.

But there is one sign I want to leave with you. It says something powerful--powerful. One of the most beautiful signs in American Sign Language. And might I teach it to you?

Take your hands and put them together like this, put your fingers together, put your hands together like

that. You kind of close them, and it looks like an A when you do that. Now move it in a circle in front of your body.

That is it, pages, you have got it.

This is the sign for America.

Think about it. Think about it. All of us interconnected, bound together in a single circle of inclusion--no one left out. This is the ideal America toward which we must always aspire.

With that, Mr. President, for the last time, I yield the floor.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

Thank you.

Mr. President, I inquire of the Senator from Wisconsin how much time she is going to need to take.

I would prefer she go ahead and I will do all mine in consequence, if I may.

Mr. President, I first congratulate my colleague from Wisconsin. There is a lot of controversy over lands packages, and her very pleasant example is what isn't controversial.

The reason we have a discussion about what is going on is the very mundane--the very things we can get done have never been brought forward on the floor without being brought forward with a very controversial land project. So I agree with her 100 percent that what is happening for her and the people of Wisconsin and her tribal nation is absolutely appropriate.

The question we ought to ask and the question that causes all the trouble is, Why in the world does the Federal Government own 640 million acres of our land and have all sorts of rules--of our land-- that say we can't utilize it in a way that is best for our citizens, best for our States, best for our region, best for the ecology, and best for preservation of history? Until Congress solves that problem, we are going to continue to have these battles.

What is disappointing to me is we spent 1\1/2\ years looking at the National Park Service--which nobody in this body read. It is quality scholarship. It is scholarship that the Park Service agrees with. It is scholarship that the historians of the Park Service agree with. It is scholarship that the people who write about the parks agree with.

So today we have before us a bill that has 68 separate land items in it, of which 40 are totally noncontroversial, which could have been run across the floor 2 years ago, I would tell my colleague from Wisconsin, but they were chosen not to because the desire is to get recognition at home and expand the National Park Service.

If we were to happen to just take the couple hours to read this, we would see right now why expanding the National Park Service is a disastrous idea. The reason it is a disastrous idea is our parks are falling apart--a $12 billion backlog on our most pristine, greatest national monuments and parks with which we have set the pace for the rest of the world in terms of recognizing and valuing such wonderful natural landscape and creation. But we have ignored that because the desire to please a parochial benefit at the expense of harming these most precious resources cannot be resisted by most of our colleagues.

So I find myself on the floor today. I know I won't win this battle, but I won't quit fighting. We should fight for what we have already invested in. We should preserve what we have already invested in. We are falling behind $250 million a year.

It is ludicrous to say this bill doesn't cost anything. It costs $320 million a year, the ``no cost park program'' that we are putting out and saying it doesn't cost anything.

I was born in Wyoming. I love Yellowstone. I love the Great Rocky Mountains national forest. I love our wonderful programs. But the vast majority of the parks we have created in the last 20 years are nothing but drains on the National Park Service. We have the data--this has the data to show that. We are going to do the largest expansion of national parks since 1978 in this bill, and we don't have the money for it.

So what will happen as this goes through? And I say to my colleague from Wisconsin, you are absolutely right--yours should fly through here. It is not a significant cost. You are absolutely right. But fixing the real problem is restoring the right to the States to the lands that are there, taking it out of the hands of the Federal Government, and letting the States make the decisions about what happens to the land within their confines.

So it is disappointing to me that when great scholarship is done and is recognized, parochialism trumps even the reading of the information with which to make good decisions. And it is a blight on the Senate. We don't have to agree with everything in this, but we can't deny the facts that are totally documented in this. We can't deny the statements of the National Park Service. We can't deny the people we are actually charging to do this--we can't deny their concerns about what we are getting ready to do.

Let me read for a moment what Harry Butowski, a historian who recently retired from the National Park Service, said about this bill. He summed up how Congress is out of touch with National Park Service needs and priorities when he was expressing his opposition to the lands package in the national defense authorization bill, of all places.

He said:

I think it is irresponsible for Congress to create so many

new parks, heritage areas and expansions of existing units

and not provide the funding and manpower necessary to manage

what we now have.

I think the National Park System should not be added to or

expanded until we can fund and staff all of our parks and

programs. To add more units at this time is just not

responsible. It is the opposite of good management.

Here is the historian for the Park Service telling us as Members of the Senate: You are irresponsible in what you are doing.

I know we will blow that off. That doesn't mean anything. But this is somebody who has had his eye on the Park Service for years.

. . . Perhaps what Congress should do is an analysis of the

entire National Park System and start getting rid of marginal

units that cost many dollars and have few visitors.

That is exactly what this report recommends. But nobody read it, studied it, considered it, to try to solve the problem. And it doesn't mean we cannot have new national parks--we can--but we ought to have a plan to take care of the ones we have now before we add additional national parks and put at risk the most fantastic National Park System in the world.

Here is what the first National Park Director stated--the first one-- and we ought to pay attention to him.

The national park system as now constituted should not be

allowed to be lowered in standard, dignity, and prestige by

the inclusion of areas which express in less than the highest

terms the particular class or kind of exhibit which they

represent.

Let me tell you, this is exactly what he is talking about.

Hinchcliff Stadium in Patterson, NJ, is going to add $100,000 to the Park System. Does it have historical significance? Yes. Should it be part of the Park System? Absolutely not. Does it look good for those who sponsored it back home? Yes. Get the attaboys back home. But what damage do you do to Yellowstone, Yosemite, Rocky Mountain National Park, Grand Mesa, Grand Canyon? What pain, what lack of maintenance, comes across from that?

I have stated before, I have no problem with land swaps and conveyances. I think we ought to make them easy, and the best way to make them easy is to get the Federal Government out of them, and return the land that is in Wisconsin that the Federal Government owns to the people of Wisconsin. They will be the best stewards of that land. Same thing in Oklahoma, in Colorado, in California, in Washington State, and Arizona, and in Nevada, where it has the largest percentage ownership by the Federal Government. We have to kowtow to a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington for the people in the State of Nevada to do what is in the best interests in the State of Nevada of the land that is there? That makes no sense.

I have mentioned the bill is not deficit neutral--$310 million, including

more than $200 million in cost to the National Park System, is going to come through with this bill, and unless you assume that nothing is going to happen that is authorized in this, there is no way you can deny this doesn't cost another half a billion dollars a year. As a matter of fact, I found it interesting listening to the chairwoman of the energy committee this past week when she was excited about this land package because we are clearing all the old land pieces of legislation.

So we are taking care of the politicians, but are we taking care of the parks? Are we doing what is in the best long-term interest of preserving the pristine, unique aspects of our country as we add ballfields or the old Colt manufacturing facility in Connecticut? Really, a national park? Does it meet the requirements as set out in parks? No, it doesn't come close to meeting requirements for a national park, but it is in there, because it is going to look good to a politician back home.

I kind of used the commonsense test. The country is broke. We had a $460 billion deficit last year. We are going to add a half a billion dollars on to a park system that has a $12 billion deficit in terms of backlog of repairs of what we already have. Most people with any semblance of common sense would say that is really stupid. It is really destructive of the whole goal of the National Park System in the first place.

The final point I would make is the NDAA. Even though it is a necessary bill, I want it to pass, I want us to have what we need for our military, this bill represents the worst of Washington; because what we have added to a must-pass bill are measures that are very low priority in terms of the long-term priorities of the country and fiscal soundness of the country, but are really high priorities for the politicians in this body. It is amazing how we can take something as important as the Defense authorization bill--the measure that is going to give our military leaders what they need to make the decisions to defend this country in this very dangerous world today, and lard it up with things that don't need to be happening right now--shouldn't be happening right now, and can be happening in other ways.

The reason I will assuredly lose this vote is because it has already been bought and paid for, because 35 States have something in title XXX, and most politicians up here don't have the courage to vote against their State interests when it harms the national interest. It is just not there.

Alaska: Two provisions, $3 million; backlog on Alaska parks, $121 million. Arizona: Two provisions worth $2 million; backlog, $592 million in terms of their national parks. California: Four provisions that reduce the deficit by $225,000, but a backlog of $1.6 billion at Yosemite and other parks throughout California. Colorado: A provision worth $500,000, backlog, a quarter of a billion dollars. Connecticut: One provision, $9 million, backlog, $6.2 million. This is the Coltsville National Historic Park.

But none of that--none of that--meets the requirements as set out by the National Park Service of meeting the requirements for a park. So we just violate the rules--to heck with the rules--because we are going to do it.

Georgia: $400,000--they have a $100 million backlog. Idaho: $17 million backlog. Kentucky: $112 million backlog. Maryland: One provision worth $12 million, and a $363 million backlog on our parks in Maryland. Massachusetts: Quarter of a billion dollars in backlog. Maine: $72 million in backlogs. Mississippi: A $26 million provision--a quarter of a billion dollars in backlog in our battlefield parks in Mississippi. Montana: Five provisions--great parks out there--$348.8 million in backlogs. But we are going to spend this money. North Carolina: One little small provision--6 million bucks, but a backlog of a half a billion dollars in our pristine parks.

I won't continue.

I understand the frustration of my colleagues in terms of trying to get land conveyances. We can do them, but not if we always hijack them with something that is of better parochial and political benefit for the Member, and that is why they don't go through. The land conveyances aren't hard to get through. We always add them with something that is controversial that shouldn't be there, to the benefit of a politician.

Motion to Refer

Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk.

Madam President, I will be asking for a vote on this motion. I am sure it will be tabled, and I understand that, but I hope the American public has gotten a flavor of what we are doing.

Here in the end of December, we are trying to get one of the most important pieces of legislation out, which is the Defense authorization bill. We are trying to get the appropriations bill through December 30 of next year, and what we do is put the politicians' interests first.

Maybe that is too harsh. Let me take that back. Maybe we put the Park Service's best interests last, which is even worse.

I have asked direction from the Chair. I have three other areas that I need to speak on today. I will hold those or follow the direction of the Chair in terms of bringing forth both motions and discussions.

I would also ask unanimous consent to have an article by Kurt Repanshek, dated December 9, 2014, entered into the Record, the ``Traveler's View.''

I thank Senator Reid for coming to the floor. Since we last asked this unanimous consent on the Taxpayers Right to Know, I have had a conversation with the administration and Shaun Donovan, the head of OMB. When Shaun came to see me in our committee of jurisdiction over his nomination, one of the things he assured me is that he would try with all due haste to move forward on the things for transparency for the Federal Government, one of President Obama's key projects. He assured me he had the capability to lead that organization, even when things are hard and difficult.

So I would like to describe for a minute what the Taxpayers Right to Know is. President Obama, myself, John McCain, and Tom Carper passed a bill when President Obama was in the Senate, which was the Federal Transparency and Accountability Act. It made it so that Americans could start seeing where their money was spent. We have since then passed the DATA Act which would be an improvement on that, and the third and final step in that is the Taxpayers Right to Know.

Now what does that mean? That means the taxpayer has the right to know where their money is being spent. The taxpayer has the right to know what programs are out there. The taxpayer has the right to know what is working and what isn't.

So we hear from the administration in a long conversation that this is too hard. You know, we didn't tell that to our troops in Afghanistan or Iraq, that this is too hard. And their real complaint is under the definition of a program. Well, most of us know what a program is. We know it when we see it. But the fact is, we will never control spending nor will we accentuate what is working well until the Taxpayers Right to Know Act is implemented.

What I told the Director of OMB is there is one agency already totally compliant with this. It is called the Department of Education. If they can do it, why can't everybody else? They know what the definition of a program is. They figured it out. I see this as an excuse not to be transparent with the American public. This has 38 bipartisan cosponsors in the Senate, and it passed the House unanimously. There is only one objection in the Senate, and that is from the OMB. Everybody else recognizes this is commonsense, good- government transparency.

I recognize the important role the majority leader has in terms of representing the administration's views. I just happen to say he ought to tell them to take a hike this time because the American people will benefit greatly, and it really is not that much more work.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2113

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 531, S. 2113. I ask that the committee- reported substitute be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

I wish to also note that this bill is going to pass next year. The President is going to get it anyway. Either he is going to veto it or he is going to make Shaun Donovan implement it. Why don't we get after good government now rather than wait 3 or 4 months?

I yield the floor.

I reserve the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, later today I will be offering a motion to attempt to undo a precedent set in 2011 that took away the right of all Senators, a right that was provided by Senate rules for Senators to suspend the rules in a postcloture environment to offer an amendment.

It is a very high bar. It requires 67 votes to ever pass an amendment under that. This right allowed the minority or individual Senators to circumvent parliamentary obstacles, namely the filling of the tree to receive votes. History now shows us that the filling of the tree has occurred two times more under the leadership of Senator Reid than all of the leaders in the past--91 times.

The question will essentially be, Do we want to keep the Reid motion to suspend the precedent prohibiting motions to suspend the rules postcloture by sustaining that precedent? This is not a nuclear option, does not have anything to do with that.

As I thought about bringing this forward, I thought about how important it is for the new minority. I am not going to be with you. But it is my valid opinion, I believe, that you are not going to see the limitations on your amendments that we have seen in the last 6 years under the new leadership of the Senate. But if we were to see that, this is a particularly good way to have the Senate vote on a topic of interest to the American public.

So when this is offered, voting yes keeps the Reid precedent which says even postcloture you cannot offer to suspend the rules, even with a 67-vote margin and have a vote. Voting no will reverse the Reid precedent. If the precedent is overturned by a majority of Senators voting against the ruling of the Chair, the rights of all Senators, as written in the Senate rules to suspend the rules postcloture, would be returned--Democrats, Republicans, all.

If I am successful in overturning this precedent, I am not planning on following up with another motion allowing me to offer an amendment at this time. The whole goal is to try to restore the Senate. So I have no ulterior motive with another amendment if I were to win this attempt.

The distinguishing characteristics of the Senate are the right to offer amendments and the right to debate. That is what makes it unique. That is what forces consensus. Throughout his tenure, my colleague, the Senator from Nevada, has aggressively deployed a tactic to block other Senators from offering amendments to legislation. This tactic is known as filling the tree. It fills all available slots for all amendments with shell legislation, preventing all other Senators from offering amendments, both of his party and the opposition party.

He has done this 91 times during his tenure as the majority leader. From 1985 to 2006, it only occurred 40 times. What this tactic effectively does is shut down every other individual Member of the Senate from even input into legislation and carrying on the responsibility they were granted by the citizens of their State to offer amendments to pieces of legislation coming through the Senate.

Starting in 2010, as Senator Reid continued to use the filling-of- the-tree maneuver, Senators in both parties resorted to other procedural options to assert their rights as Senators. Under rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the other rules may be suspended, including blocking amendments by filling the tree.

From 2010 until October 6, 2011, Senators filed more than 30 notices and the Senate held 15 separate votes to suspend the rules and allow amendments to be offered during postcloture debate, as was the history of the Senate for its entire history.

On October 6, the majority leader interpreted Senate rules with a simple majority, ending the right of Senators to suspend the rules postcloture. He called up a motion to suspend the rules that had been filed on the previous day by myself. He made a point of order that a single motion to suspend the rules was dilatory. A single motion to suspend the rules was dilatory under rule XXII.

Never before had the Senate ruled that a single motion to suspend the rules was dilatory. In fact, the Senate Parliamentarian had previously upheld the maneuver. As such, the Presiding Officer correctly ruled that the postcloture amendment was not dilatory under rule XXII. A single motion to suspend the rules cannot be considered a delaying tactic.

Senator Reid's point of order was, therefore, not sustained. He then appealed the ruling of the Chair and held a vote to overturn it by a simple majority of 51 to 48. The Chair's decision was overturned. Every Republican and one Democrat voted against this appeal, instead voting to uphold the Presiding Officer's decision which reflected the written rules of the Senate.

This vote established a new precedent to interpret the meaning of the word ``dilatory.'' Only it did so in the most heavyhanded way, fully intended to block the ability of Senators to offer amendments. From that point forward, it was considered out of order to offer postcloture motions to suspend the rules, despite such right being explicitly provided for under Senate rules.

In order to overturn this precedent, a Senator must offer another postcloture motion to suspend the rules for the purpose of considering an amendment.

The Presiding Officer most likely will rule that the motion is not in order based on the 2011 precedent.

At that point, the Senator offering the motion will appeal the ruling of the Chair on the basis that a single motion to suspend the rules postcloture is not dilatory. The Senator would then ask for the yeas and nays.

If a simple majority of Senators vote to overturn the decision of the Chair, the precedent will be reversed, restoring the right explicitly provided in the rules that allows Senators to offer motions to suspend the rules postcloture as before.

This issue is unrelated to the nuclear option and will have no impact on the outcome of that debate.

Senators who support or oppose changing that issue can both support this effort.

At the appropriate time, I will be offering that motion. I came to the floor today to put my colleagues on notice of my intent.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I move to suspend rule XXII for the purposes of proposing and considering amendment No. 4098, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, a motion to suspend the rules postcloture is not dilatory, and on those grounds I respectfully appeal the decision of the Chair, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Madam President, earlier there was a lot of discussion about the NDAA--the Defense authorization bill--and the very important provisions which are contained in that which will provide for our men and women who serve us so honorably. I concur with all who have spoken today about the importance and significance of this bill and why we should pass it and why we should pass it today.

An area of controversy that has certainly come up--and my colleague from Oklahoma has pointed it out very clearly--is the public lands package that has been attached to the NDAA. I will speak a little bit about where we are today and why we are dealing with this issue and why it is important that the Senate and Congress advance these public lands provisions for our country.

I had an opportunity to speak in greater detail yesterday, but I felt it was important to let colleagues know why we deal with public lands bills traditionally in a package.

The Presiding Officer comes from a Western State, but Hawaii does not have large portions of land held by the Federal Government.

In the 12 Western States, which includes Alaska--93 percent of the Federal lands that are held by this country are contained in these 12 Western States. What does it mean when you are a State like Alaska where some 68 percent of your lands are Federally held? What does it mean when you are a State like Nevada, where our majority leader is from, where 85 percent of your State is held in public lands? It means that when you want to do a conveyance, a conveyance doesn't come about just because you are able to get a real estate attorney and you have a transaction; it literally requires an act of Congress.

We are dealing with one provision in this public lands bill that Senator Franken, from Minnesota, has been working on. It is a conveyance of one acre of land that is currently held by USGS, and it is a conveyance to a school district. Most people around this country-- or certainly on this end of the country--would say: Wow, that really requires congressional action? That really requires a vote? That really requires the President to sign it into law? The answer is in the affirmative.

We have been processing, as a committee--on the Energy Committee and committees on the House side--public lands bills throughout this Congress. We have been working on some of these public lands measures not for months, not for years, but in several instances a decade. It has taken a decade to bring about some of these conveyances and these exchanges.

I believe it is important to set the record straight--for those who are suggesting that somehow or other this was conjured up in the dark of the night or that there has been no process for these bills--and let colleagues know about the procedural process that has led to its inclusion in the NDAA.

For the record, I will note that the process included not only the committees of jurisdiction for the lands bills but the committees who crafted the NDAA bill, leadership from both sides, and individual Members who all agreed to cobble together a package that was fair and balanced, bipartisan, bicameral, revenue neutral--which is exceptionally important--and also addresses the need for conservation on one end and economic development and jobs and prosperity on the other end. With this package of bills, one can see that compromise come together.

It has been noted that these public lands bills have nothing to do with defense authorization, but I will say that this is not without precedent. Adding lands to an NDAA bill has been done in the past. We have seen it in the past several NDAAs. What we did here was to amend the existing lands package within the House-passed NDAA--which is hardly out of balance or unusual.

As I said before, I would much rather have us move individual bills through the floor as we process them, but many Members have said to me: Well, your small lands transaction is important, but does it really rise to the level of occupying floor time? It is tough to win the undivided attention of the Senate on some of these measures.

Just because this issue doesn't rise to a level of keen interest in this body doesn't mean these issues are not critically important for individuals, communities, and States around our country, and so it is hard to put that together. But just because it is small or more localized or perhaps more parochial--like this one acre of land we are

trying to convey to this school district--doesn't mean we should disregard it or overlook it or not try to enact it because somehow or other it is not as important as the other things we do around here.

So knowing how valuable and precious floor time is around here, we worked together. We have been working together for months--again, in a bicameral and bipartisan way--to combine many of the bills that are in the package. The result of what we have in front of us is provisions that will help boost natural resources and community development while we are also advancing conservation. We are moving toward economic development in certain areas, creating jobs. We have opportunities in both Nevada and Arizona to create thousands of good-paying jobs and will increase our resources and our minerals security.

Other aspects of the bill focus on conservation. There are additional wilderness provisions that are in there, but again, as we attempt to achieve that balance, what we have in front of us is a good structure.

I want to make sure colleagues recognize that when we are discussing the concern my colleague from Oklahoma has raised, the concern he has so well articulated that within our National Park System we have a maintenance backlog that is awful--and in many cases it is overwhelming. To his credit, he has given keen attention to this maintenance backlog we have and has pressed us to do more to improve that situation. He put together a very considerable report that we are using in the energy committee to help build a series of necessary reforms that will be required to deal with our issues within the National Park Service. Thanks to Senator Coburn's good work on this issue, we will be able to see some true reforms.

I met yesterday afternoon with Director Jarvis in my office, and I made it clear to him as the head of Park Service that this is going to be an area on which we must be focused. Our national parks are a national treasure, but when we can't attend to their needs and ensure that they are maintained to the level that, as Americans, we all want, then we are failing on that.

He has a very good point when he says we need to be doing something about maintenance and backlog. I agree. We actually have a couple of provisions in this public lands bill that will help us with that, and one of them is the bill Senator Coburn has sponsored which will allow for donors to have discreet recognition within our parks. So if you want to give a private donation, there is a way for recognition. We also have a provision in here that will allow for minting of a coin, which again will help with private dollars. Those private pieces are very important, but we need to do more, we will do more, and my commitment is to help do that.

One of the things that I think are important to recognize with the park provisions that are included in title XXX is that it is critically important to recognize the local support these park provisions have that will encourage economic development, tourism, and recreation. The agreement includes five new national historic parks, and it transfers management of two existing Federal areas to the Park Service. All of the new historical parks have been formally studied and have been recommended for inclusion in the National Park System. They focus on specific historic sites of national significance.

Studies have also been done--and my colleague has referenced that--on potential additions to the National Park System. These study authorizations have previously passed the House under suspension or gone through the Senate by unanimous consent. Again, we are not trying to go through the backdoor. The study that has been conducted and the process that has taken place in both the House and Senate is to ensure that there is that local support and that this is not just something a Member wants to attach his or her name to, that this has local support, and that in turn will help us with some of the funding issues we are going to need to address for our park systems.

I wish to conclude my remarks quickly because Senator Flake was asked for a few minutes and I would like to defer to him. First, the issue has also come up about existing national heritage areas. I think it is important for colleagues to know that we do provide for limited extensions for existing heritage areas, but there are no new heritage areas that are created. I think it is important to recognize that when we talk about extensions, it is extensions of existing heritage sites.

So with that, if I may, I wish to yield to my colleague from Arizona, Senator Flake. We have been working not only with Senator Flake but with Senator McCain on a provision that will certainly not only benefit his State, but it will benefit the United States in terms of jobs, economic opportunity, and a mineral resource; namely, copper, that is extraordinarily important to us.

With that, I turn to Senator Flake.

I thank my colleague from Arizona. As he has pointed out, not only is this measure important to the State of Arizona, but the State of Nevada will also gain the benefit of being able to access copper resources in that region as well, bringing jobs and bringing a resource.

So contained in this package--and again a balanced package--we are talking about the Federal land conveyances for economic and community development. We have mentioned the opportunity for mineral production with two copper mines, one in Arizona, one in Nevada; an opportunity for increased timber production in my State. We will finally realize the obligation to settle the land claims with the Native people of the southeastern part of the State in

the Sealaska region, 40-some years after the promise for their lands conveyance. They are still awaiting their conveyance. This measure we have in front of us will not only fulfill that decades-old promise, but it will allow for a continuation of timber within their region, albeit very, very, very reduced.

But in order to move to that second growth transition the Forest Service is always talking about, we have to have an industry that is just staying alive, and this Sealaska lands provision will help with that. But it was also crafted in a way that took into account the concerns of the fisheries, the stewardship for other lands, placing additional lands in a conservation area--so again a key balance.

The other provisions that relate to our Federal lands and our ability to access them I think are important, making them productive. The provision allows for land management agencies with the needed authority to renew and process grazing permits and leases. This is a measure that my colleague from Wyoming and my colleague from New Mexico have been working on, and in terms of something that provides certainty to America's ranching community, this is so key, this is so important.

We also worked to expand the successful BLM permit streamlining program to boost oil and gas production from the Federal lands. So it is kind of the economic development piece, but the conservation piece I think is equally important. It does designate wilderness. It designates approximately 245,000 acres of wilderness in total. But I think what is important for colleagues to recognize is that just about half of those acres are already managed as if it were wilderness. In other words, they are in wilderness study areas or roadless areas. So again we looked at those measures where there was support at the local level, at the State level, represented by the Members of Congress who had worked over the years to gain the level of support for these provisions. There is no cram-down. There is no designation from the executive as to monument status. This is how the process is designed to work.

We also returned 26,000 total wilderness study areas to multiple use, again for greater activity on those lands.

We protect private property rights in all of our special land designations. There is no private property that can be condemned or acquisitions through eminent domain. Private activities taking place outside of the special land designation are not going to be precluded by such designations, and we have insured that there are no buffer zones or protective perimeters that would encroach on personal and public rights.

I have been asked about the impact on hunting and fishing on our public lands, because that is something that particularly those of us in the West care a great deal about. I have heard some concerns that there may be negative impacts. But I want to be clear that the wilderness bills in this agreement actually affirm the responsibility and the authority of the States for the management of fish and wildlife.

In the wilderness bills that we have in New Mexico and in Nevada, they have incorporated restating the law--this is section 302 of FLPMA--to provide assurances that the wilderness designations do not give the Secretaries any new authorities to close Federal lands to hunting, fishing or trapping that they don't already have.

So we have put in place protections again trying to find the balance between the conservation and the development, providing for access, ensuring that private rights are respected, ensuring that our opportunities for use and enjoyment as well as economic activity are preserved; trying to find a package that is balanced from the bicameral, bipartisan perspective, making sure we are not imposing costs; again, a revenue-neutral proposal. I think that is also worth stressing.

I have seen something out there that suggests there is an impact on direct spending from title XXX. The fact is it is revenue neutral over these next 10 years. We do not take anything from the Defense authorization perspective within this bill with this lands package. That was never the intent. It was not the design, and it will not impact that.

With that, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam President, I understand there is still 5 or 6 minutes remaining of my time. If there are other colleagues who would care to speak on the significance of title XXX of NDAA, natural resources, and the related provisions, I am certainly happy to yield to them.

I thank my colleagues who have come to the floor on both sides of the aisle to speak to some of the specifics that are contained within this bill because I think it helps to understand why we are at this late point in the calendar with a package of different bills focusing in different areas, whether it is a small land conveyance, whether it is the creation of a wilderness area that has come about through a great deal of compromise and collaboration, or whether it is a collaboration that will allow for economic opportunity through mineral development, timber harvest, or grazing opportunities. I think it does speak to the diversity of what we are dealing with, with so many of our public lands and the reality that they are different all over. It is very different in Alaska from what my friend in New Mexico experiences. The similarity we have is that we don't have the ability to do it on our own; we have to come to the Federal Government.

What will happen is, whether you are in New Mexico or whether you are in Alaska or points in between, you have local consensus emerge around an issue. They bring it to the State, and the State works with us at the Federal level, Members of the House and Members of the Senate. We continue to work this process. It usually is a very collaborative process.

Just because it is collaborative does not mean we agree on every issue. There is a great deal of give and take that goes on, because when you are talking about your public lands, every acre is precious to somebody. I know that full well in the legislation we have been working on, the See Alaska bill, for almost a decade now.

The fishermen have certain interests, those who harvest timber have certain interests, the conservationists have certain interests, the school district has certain interests. So how we build this takes time. But it seems as though the only place we do not get time is here on the Senate floor. We do not have the time allocated to us, nor do--I would be happy to spend hours and perhaps days discussing issues such as we have raised in this public lands bill. But I do not think most of my colleagues are interested in debating a reversionary clause for a parcel of land in downtown Anchorage that can be sold so they can have an opportunity, in Anchorage, to build something new there. It just does not rise to that level of immediacy and concern.

So, again, we do the best we can to try to be balanced, to try to put together something that works for all. It is a balancing act. It requires a level of finesse. If we were to have put together a package that was overly weighted towards new wilderness or new parks, not only would my constituents back home not support it, I could not support it. We have to work together on bill packages of this nature.

I want to recognize the good work of those on the energy committee who have worked with us to construct something that is good, balanced and fair. I will acknowledge my chairman of the energy committee, Senator Landrieu, who has worked with us to find that level of balance.

I do hope that as we look at a new Congress, we will be working together as colleagues to try to figure out a better path for the endgame for these smaller bills. I have been part of way too many lands packages now where we have the same debate: Why is it attached to this? Why are we doing this now? I would like to get us to a place where there was a more certain process so that Members knew their small conveyance bill, their small study, did not get caught up in end-of- session kind of madness, or caught up in things that distract from what it is that delegation has been attempting to do for that State, for that part of the country.

I would ask my colleagues--I have spoken with many on this side of the aisle as well as the Democratic side of the aisle--let's be working together to figure out how we can relieve this bottleneck, because I sincerely want to do that. But what we have in front of us today is our opportunity to bring some finality, to bring some conclusion, to bring some resolve to issues that have been outstanding for a considerable amount of time, as I mentioned, in several instances almost a full decade.

Let's clear the deck. Let's move this lands package on this NDAA bill so that next Congress we can begin with the many public lands bills that are still in the queue, that are still waiting for a process. But you can count on me to be working with my colleagues to ensure that we have a way forward that will be more expeditious than we have seen historically.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, after 36 years as a Member of the United States Senate, this is likely my last opportunity to address its Members as colleagues, and to address the people of my State as constituents, and to thank them for placing their trust in me.

The highest honor any citizen of a democracy can receive is to be elected to represent his or her fellow Americans to be their fiduciary.

To the Senate staff, including the floor staff, the Capitol Police, and those throughout the Capitol complex who work so hard to keep things here moving, thank you for your service and support for us through the long days and nights.

To my staff, thank you for your strong loyalty to the people of Michigan, to our Nation, and to me. And thank you for believing in public service. I am immensely proud of what the men and women who have worked on my staff for the last 36 years have helped to accomplish.

My staff back in Michigan has helped make communities across our State safer and more prosperous. Countless times they have helped individual constituents resolve an issue, making a real difference in thousands of lives.

The Armed Services Committee and Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations--PSI--staffs have worked tirelessly through long hours and complex issues, sacrificing nights and weekends and vacations to help address the pressing issues of our Nation.

My personal office staff has been instrumental in addressing a breathtaking range of issues--from preserving our American auto industry, to making our tax system fairer, to protecting our irreplaceable Great Lakes, to making medicine available to fight addiction, and much, much more.

As to my mentor, my big brother Sandy, Congress is keeping the better half of ``Team Levin,'' as I retire to Michigan while Sandy remains in Congress.

To Barbara, my wife of 53 years, to our three daughters Kate, Laura, and Erica; to their husbands Howard, Daniel, and Rick; and to our six grandchildren, Bess and Samantha, Mark,

Noa, and Ben Levin, and Beatrice and Olivia Fernandez--thank you for your love and support, which has meant so much to me.

I have been asked many times if I am leaving the Senate out of frustration with gridlock. The answer is: No. My family and friends, and those of you with whom I serve, know how much I love the Senate and that I will love my work until the last day here, and that I will leave here with unabashed confidence in the Senate's ability to weather storms and to meet the Nation's needs.

I know firsthand the challenges before this Senate. I believe one of the greatest is the need to meet the fundamental economic challenge of this era: the growing gap in our society between a fortunate few and the vast majority of Americans whose fortunes have stagnated or fallen.

While I believe that the economists who tell us this inequality is holding back economic growth are right, this isn't just about economic data. It is about our Nation's heart and soul. This growing gulf between a fortunate few and a struggling many is a threat to the dream that has animated this Nation since its founding, the dream that hard work leads to a better life for us and for our children.

To restore the connection between hard work and greater opportunity, I hope the next Congress will act on many fronts, strengthening education and worker training programs, making greater investments in infrastructure and research that foster growth. And as I have said here many times, it should pay for these needed investments by closing egregious tax loopholes that serve no economic purpose, but enrich some of the wealthiest among us and our most profitable corporations.

Many foresee a continuation of polarization and partisanship in the Senate and say it is naive to suggest that the next Congress might come together, break out of gridlock, and accomplish great things. But I know the Senate can do better because I have seen it happen with my own eyes.

The Senate has indeed demonstrated, even in our own era, that bipartisanship is not extinct. The Senate Armed Services Committee has upheld a more than 50-year tradition of bipartisan cooperation to produce an annual Defense Authorization Act that advances the security of our Nation. I am grateful to the members of the U.S. military and their families for their selfless sense of duty. But I am also grateful for the way they have inspired us, year after year, to come together across lines of party and ideology to support them. They not only protect us, they unite us. Congress has come together over the years to make improvements in pay, benefits, and health care for the men and women of the military; to reform the way in which we buy the weapons they use to carry out their missions; to adopt policies to protect them from sexual assault; and to provide improved education benefits through a modern GI bill, and reform the way in which we care for our wounded warriors. We are training and equipping the militaries of nations under assault by extremists and religious fanatics so that those nations can depend more on themselves for their own security and less on America's sons and daughters.

We have passed a defense authorization bill to accomplish these things each year for more than half a century by laying aside partisan differences for the common good. We have never allowed disagreements over policy to interfere with our duty to our troops and their families, and I am deeply grateful to the many ranking Republican partners I have been fortunate to work with in that endeavor: people such as John McCain and John Warner and Jim Inhofe.

John McCain, my great friend, who has demonstrated extraordinary courage in war and in this Senate, will take the gavel of the Armed Services Committee, and my trusted wingman and friend Jack Reed will become ranking member. At a pivotal moment for the Senate and for this Nation, the Armed Services Committee will be in strong hands.

I have seen firsthand additional powerful evidence that the Senate can work together to meet the Nation's needs, and that is in the work of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations--PSI--which I have been privileged to chair for 10 years, working with Republican partners--and I use the word partners advisedly--such as Tom Coburn, John McCain, and Susan Collins. Our subcommittee has exposed the tax avoidance schemes of some of the most powerful corporations and wealthiest individuals. We have shined a light on abusive credit card practices. We have investigated wasteful and ineffective government programs. We have confronted market manipulators and exposed conflicts of interest, mortgage fraud, and reckless schemes by some of the most powerful banks, schemes aided by some of the largest accounting and law firms. We have demonstrated how those activities helped bring our economy to its knees, destroying jobs, reducing the value of our homes, and damaging our neighborhoods. The work of PSI has helped lead to reforms that have strengthened our financial system and reduced credit card abuses.

The power of PSI lies in the in-depth work of our staffs, and in the willingness to confront powerful and entrenched interests. Like the Senate Armed Services Committee, PSI is strengthened by a dedication to bipartisanship and a respect for the rights of the Senate minority. We have recognized the danger of using investigative power for partisan or political purposes, and we have ensured that our great staffs, majority and minority, participate together in every investigation.

Indeed it is protection of the minority that is the singular hallmark of the Senate. The majority cannot always have its way. The Senate is more than just a place where the hot tea is cooled in the deliberative saucer that President Washington famously spoke of. Protections for the minority make the Senate more than just a place to slow things down; those protections make it a place where we work things out. It is those protections that force compromise that is essential to unifying and governing our country. Making progress in the Senate requires solutions that while they may not provide everyone with everything they want, are broadly accepted as in the common interest. When compromise is thwarted by ideological rigidity or by abuse of the rights that our rules afford us, the Senate can become paralyzed, unable to achieve the lofty task that the Founders set forth before us.

Polarization is exacerbated by forces outside this Chamber. For instance, we seem to make news more often these days by our responses in the corridors outside this Chamber to reporters questioning us about the latest breaking story or rumor than we do by debating or legislating inside this Chamber. The viral nature of information and disinformation and the expectation that public officials will be immediately responsive to every news flash with but a few seconds to think through the implications or consequences or pros and cons has led too often to less thoughtful discourse, and that has helped drive rhetorical wedges between us.

The incoming Senate has an opportunity to restore a greater measure of bipartisan compromise by revisiting one of the most contentious issues we face, one that we struggled with at the beginning of this Congress; that is, the Senate rules.

I believe the excessive use of the filibuster to obstruct confirmation of President Obama's nominees was damaging to the Senate and to the Nation. Any President--Democratic or Republican--should have the ability to choose his or her team. But the Senate majority eliminated obstructions to Presidential nominations through the use of the nuclear option, effectively accomplishing a rules change outside the rules, a method I could not support. In doing so, a precedent was established that the majority could effectively change the rules as it wished by overruling the Chair and the Parliamentarian. That precedent will not serve the country well in the future because it leaves the minority with no protection, diminishing the unique role of the Senate.

I hope the Senate next year considers reversing that precedent while simultaneously--and I emphasize simultaneously--amending the rules so as to assure the President's ability to fulfill his or her constitutional duties. Put simply, I believe the Senate should do the right thing in the right way. It

should amend the Senate rules, as provided for in the rules, to adopt the substance of the changes we made last year. I know my good friend Senator Lamar Alexander, who was part of the bipartisan Group of 8 who worked closely and successfully together on this issue in 2012, has proposed something similar. Such action by the Senate next year would be a welcome victory for comity and for compromise, and it would I hope represent a step back from a precedent that leads to effective rules changes by simple majority. It would be a step toward a better functioning Senate.

No leader alone, no single Senator, neither party by itself, can determine the Senate's course, but together the Members of this body can move the Senate forward and in doing so help move forward the Nation we all love. I will enjoy reading about the Senate's progress in the years ahead as Barbara and I are sitting on a Lake Michigan beach or showing the world to our grandchildren.

I thank the Chair, I thank my dear friends, the leaders of this body, and I see my brother sitting here, and I am not allowed to refer to my family in the Gallery, so I will not do that.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

Thank you.

I know that Senator Harkin is waiting to speak. Senator Harkin is truly one of the greatest Senators I have ever served with and Senator Harkin is one of the greatest people I have ever known. He, Ruth, Barb, and I have spent quality time, which is not always true for many of us in the Senate to have that opportunity.

I thank everyone. The words have meant so much to me and my family today.

I am going to join my family now. I know Tom will forgive me for not listening, but I will be reading what you say. You, Ruth, Barb, and I will have some more quality time together--perhaps not as much fun as being in the Senate, but we will make the best of it.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object.

I will not support the unanimous consent proposal of Senator Lee for several reasons. He may want to state his motion first before I give the reasons for objecting to it, but I will object and, if necessary at this point, I do object.

I have no objection to the Senator stating his purpose.

Madam President, the reasons that I object to the offering of the amendment at this time are several.

First, the amendment which Senator Lee asks consent to offer is not germane to the bill, it is not in order postcloture, and it would amend a statute of jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee relative to a subject not addressed in this bill.

Second, when we included a similar provision in our bill several years ago, the House objected and insisted the provision be dropped. So the inclusion of this provision would require, at the least, difficult discussions with the House when there is no time for such discussions.

When I voted for a similar provision which was offered several years ago, the language was somewhat different than it is now.

The bottom line is there is simply not enough time left before we adjourn to debate even a single amendment, and surely not a single amendment of this complexity, to vote on it, and to reconcile the provision, if it were adopted, with the House of Representatives and to pass the bill again in both Houses.

And those are the reasons for my objection.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I first thank my friend from Oklahoma, my partner as well in the Armed Services Committee. I have enjoyed the presence of the Presiding Officer on our committee, and I think she knows how well that committee works together, and Senator Inhofe and I guess both sides--both parties have worked very closely together for our troops. That is what this is all about is pulling together for our troops. They inspire us, they unify us, they protect us, and the least we owe them is a Defense authorization bill.

We haven't missed in 52 years. This would be the 53rd straight year that there would be a Defense authorization bill--coincidentally, the same number of years I have been married. So this may be the gift to my wife for our anniversary if we are done with this bill, if we finish it today.

This bill takes provisions critical to our national security, to the well-being of our men and women in uniform, to our retirees and their families. If we fail to enact this bill, the Department of Defense's statutory authority to pay combat pay, hardship duty pay, enlistment and reenlistment bonuses, incentive pays for critical specialties, assignment incentive pay, accession and retention bonuses for critical specialties, will expire on December 31. We cannot let that happen.

After that date, the statutory authority to provide combat pay to our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq will lapse. We cannot let that happen. We would lose some of our most highly skilled men and women with specialties that we vitally need. We cannot let that happen.

Not only would we be shortchanging our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, we would be denying our military services critical authorities they need to recruit and retain high-quality servicemembers, and to achieve their force-shaping objectives as they draw down their end strengths.

And there is more. If we fail to enact this bill, school districts all over the United States that rely on supplemental impact aid to help them educate military children would no longer receive that money. If we fail to enact this bill, the Department of Defense will not be able to begin construction on important new military construction projects in the coming year. That would mean our troops don't get the barracks, the ranges, the hospitals, the laboratories, and the other support facilities they need to support operational requirements, conduct training, and to maintain their equipment.

It would mean that military family housing will not receive needed upgrades, and that schools to educate the children of our servicemembers will not be built or modernized.

If we fail to enact this bill, we will not enact provisions that strengthen survivor benefits for disabled children of servicemembers and retirees. We would not then enact provisions addressing the employment of military spouses, job placement of veterans. That is an issue which the Presiding Officer knows an awful lot about, because she has been so directly involved in that and so many other issues.

We would then not be enacting provisions relative to military hazing, military suicides, post-traumatic stress disorder, and mental health problems in the military.

If we do not enact this bill, we would then enact none of the 20 provisions in this bill addressing the scourge of sexual assault in the military. We will not eliminate the good soldier defense which is eliminated in this bill, as it

should be. We would not give victims of sexual assault a voice in whether their case is prosecuted in military or civilian courts. They should have that voice. We would not give survivors of sexual assault the right to challenge court-martial rulings that violate their rights and to challenge them in the Court of Criminal Appeals. They should have that right.

If we don't pass this bill, we would not be strengthening the psychotherapist-patient privilege.

So this bill includes critical authorities for the Department of Defense. It provides essential support to our men and women in uniform, military retirees, and their families.

If either of the motions we are going to be voting on is adopted, this bill then will not pass and not become law, because it would then in one instance be open to amendments, and that could be endless because there are so many amendments that people would like to offer. I have gone into the reasons why we are in a position where that simply is not practical or possible.

We are asking our colleagues to allow this bill to come to a final passage today and become the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015.

Again, with thanks to all of our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, thanks to my partner Senator Inhofe who has worked so closely, he and his staff, with myself and our staff.

I hope this would have an overwhelming vote and that we would not adopt any motion which would lead then to our not adopting this critically needed bill.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, before asking for the yeas and nays, I want to thank my friend again, Senator Inhofe, for mentioning our staff. John Peter has done such good work with all of our staffs. We put the names of our staffs in the Record a day or two ago and they deserve that and a lot more.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I will be very brief because I know we have some other things coming up before going on to the NDAA, and I will be standing here with my good friend and brother Carl at that time. I recall when I was first elected to the House of Representatives--it is hard for me to believe that was 28 years ago-- and I became good friends with a guy named Levin. It was not Carl. It was his brother. There was a real sincere, lovable attitude about him. I can remember talking over some of these sitting by him during some of the debate on very partisan things. I thought this guy is really neat. It is the kind of thing where you can't dislike him. Then I came over here 20 years ago, and there is another one. I have two major committees, Environment and Public Works and the Senate Armed Services Committee. I thought this is remarkable because while on occasion we will differ--I am talking about the chairman and me--and I am the ranking member of that committee--occasionally we will come up on an issue where we don't agree. On two occasions, last year and this year, we had to go into this process of the ``big four.'' That is where it gets contentious because at that point you have to come up with a bill. There was never a time that, yes, we have to give in. I don't know whether he gave in more than I gave in. But whatever it was, it all had to happen and it did happen and it happened because of Carl more than me.

Chairman Levin and I can both say the same thing, and people will hate me and they love him. I always wonder how you get by with doing that, but you do. He is a lovable guy whom I will sincerely miss and that relationship, and I hope you will be back often so you can be here to remind other people what a real statesman is.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry. It is my understanding that we were to begin at 12 o'clock for 3 hours until the first motion on the NDAA, and that would begin now, it looks like, about an hour late; is that correct?

Thank you, Mr. President. Before the Senator from Iowa leaves, let me make one comment. I look at him and all of those who are saying nice things about the Senator from Iowa--and I am from Iowa, so I can say this. My colleagues need to remember that even conservatives can love Tom Harkin. I think it is important for people to understand that.

I have to say that I have been to I think at least 10 of the airshows, and spending 90 percent of my time--my wife and his wife, the four of us together, because we are both pilots--sitting around and lying about airplanes, we got real close to each other.

I can say the same thing about my good friend Senator Sanders, and I have said this on the floor before: The two of you are two of my favorite in-the-heart liberals because you are not ashamed of it. You stand up--exactly what the Senator from Vermont just said. The things that I have seen you do, you have a big heart. You have your own philosophy. You are not a demagogue. You live your philosophy.

So I just want you to know there are a lot of Republicans who love Senator Harkin just as much as the liberals do. All right. Thank you.

We should have started with Senator Levin and myself kicking this off. I think we were a little bit late in starting, so Senator Levin is not here now. He will be here in about 30 minutes.

Let me make one comment about Senator Levin. I did so this morning. This person chairing these committees--and he has been through 16 of the NDAAs in the past, and no one else can say that. No other Member has ever done that. Over his 36 years of service, he has concentrated on his concern for the defense of America. This is interesting because as the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, he and I have worked together. We even participated in two of the events called the Big 4.

The Chair knows this, but some of my colleagues may not. When it comes time and the committees are unable to pass a bill, then the ranking member and the chairman of the House and the ranking member and the chairman of the Senate--the Big 4--get together and they draft a bill. That is what happened this year and last year.

Last year I was getting panicky because we didn't pass that bill until December 26. What would happen if we didn't, then it would be a crisis on December 31. So I want to say, Senator Levin, I have enjoyed--I regret we won't be able to have the same positions because, of course, Senator Levin is--such as our friend from Iowa--retiring after this term.

Let me mention the NDAA bill is the most important bill we do every year. I don't think anyone is ever going to debate that. We had the 52 consecutive years--and this is going to be the 53rd consecutive year we have been able to pass it. It seems as though each year it is always hard to do, because at the last minute there are other people who want to get things in the bill that were not there. But we have to keep in mind, in defense of the big-four approach to this, we passed this bill. We passed it out of the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 23. We have been wanting to get it on floor since May 23.

Senator Levin and I have come down countless times and begged our colleagues on the Democratic side and the Republican side to get their amendments down so we could consider their amendments. We had a lot of amendments that did come down. Of the amendments that came down, I am very proud to say that we incorporated almost all of them. Forty-seven of those amendments are a part of this bill. So it is not as if the amendments were considered.

I know some people who are opposed to this bill may come along later and say we didn't consider all the amendments. We considered almost all of them but adopted 47 of the amendments which is a record. In spite of the pushing for months on the NDAA--I don't know what the reasons were and I am not going to point the fingers, but we didn't get it on the floor--we have to do it at the last minute. I want to just say, in my heart I believe--I know the House wound up most of their business--but if we don't pass this bill, there is no other train leaving this station. There is no other way to do it, because in this bill, when people stop and think about it, there are some things I don't like about the bill. I have to admit that, but there are so many good things. If we go through December 31, and this is the reminder we have to have in our own minds, we have right now 1,779,343 enlisted personnel who are in service right now. They will lose their benefits if we don't pass this bill. I am talking about reenlistment bonuses.

I asked the chair, do you realize--I think he does but not many people do--just flight pay. There is a huge pilot shortage right now because the private sector is hiring them up and we are having a hard time keeping them. We have a flight pay incentive. That incentive would go way.

Does it mean anything? Yes. It is a $25,000 incentive, and it lasts for--it goes for 10 years each year. But if they wake up on January 1 and find out they don't have their flight pay incentive, how many of these existing warriors in the sky are going to drop out and go to work for one of the airlines? I don't know. But a lot of them will, I can assure you of that.

I think we need to remind people how much it costs to train a new one. Instead of a $25,000 bonus to reach the standards of the level of an F-22 pilot, it costs $17 million. Stop and think about the millions and millions of dollars that would be lost just from the flight pay. These things are happening.

A lot of good things are in this bill and some are controversial. The housing starts are in this bill--none of the housing starts. I am talking about military construction for our kids that are out there. One of the controversial areas is in Gitmo. This is one of the very few areas where Chairman Levin and I disagreed with each other. Gitmo is a resource that can't be replaced. He would be for closing it.

We are now keeping the restrictions we have right now and keeping it open for another year so we can look at it next year and spend more time on it.

We have the counterterrorism partnership funds, and so many of these things are in this bill that I think are very significant. We are supporting the needed Aircraft Modernization Program. You hear a lot about the F-35. The F-22 was terminated by the President and terminated 6 years ago. So

what we have in the fifth-generation aircraft, that is it, the F-35.

What we are doing is continuing with that modernization program, a controversial area. The support for ground support is the A-10. The A- 10 is probably the ugliest airplane in the sky, but you ask any of our troops on the ground what they want to see coming when they are in danger, it is the A-10. That is going to continue. There is not going to be one reduction in that.

I know the Armed Services Committee next year will look at that freshly and maybe make changes. AWACS, the President wanted to take seven of the AWACS planes out, and that would be 25 percent of the AWACS fleets. That is a great big plane that has a circle on the top that goes out and brings back information to save lives. That is there.

The authorizing the military construction of family housing projects that has been started, they would come to a stop without this bill. That means we would have paid the contractors. There are going to be breach-of-contract lawsuits and everything else.

I will only mention one other thing--the Russian-made rocket engines. A lot of people hear about that and they say: Why in the world, with all the problems with Putin, with what is going on in the Ukraine, around the world--I just got back from Lithuania, and I also went over to Ukraine. I am seeing things with our allies over there that they would ask the question: Why are you buying Russian-made rocket engines? We are, but those are being fazed out. We have directed the Secretary of Defense to develop a U.S. rocket to replace that rocket. That is going on right now.

By the way, I have to say this. I mentioned Ukraine. I can't tell you, when we look and see what is happening over there--I had a great experience. I was over there just 3 days before our elections. It happened to be 3 days after their elections. In the Ukraine, President Poroshenko was so proud, and he sat there and told me: In Ukraine, we have to get 5 percent of the vote to have a seat in Parliament. The Communists, for the first time in 96 years, didn't get 5 percent. So there will not be one Communist in Parliament in Ukraine. That is incredible. Those are our friends over there. They are the ones we need to keep our defense strong, and we directly address that in this bill.

I will only say one thing about the lands package. It is the most controversial part of this bill because it is something which has nothing to do with Defense. On the other hand, when we are in negotiations and there are some things that should not perhaps come in, in this forum, and I thought--I even characterized it as outrageous at the time that that was made part of this bill. I have to say this--any changes in the bill, by the way, are going to result in not having a bill, and all the things I just mentioned would happen. But I started reading some of these provisions from a conservative Republican's perspective, getting in and being able to produce and drill in some of the public lands, let some of our public lands rejoice in this revolution that we are having out there with shale. The ranchers in Oklahoma tell me the grazing rights issues that are in these land packages are good. I hear some people saying, well, there is something to do with a women's committee starting or something like that.

Let's keep in mind, I say to my fellow conservatives, that if Marsha Blackburn's bill that became a part of this bill--now, it shouldn't have happened, but nonetheless it did. It is so overriding we pass a bill and not allow something like that to actually kill the bill.

I would say we are still a nation at war right now. We will be back to discuss this further, and I do want to have an opportunity to respond to some of the critics of this bill. Keep in mind. This is the last opportunity we have before December 31--before January when we come back in--and on December 31 it would be a crisis. I say to my good friends on the left and on the right, we have to have the bill. This is the last bill we can pass.

I would like to recognize Senator Ayotte, the very courageous Senator who has been a major part of the provisions to this bill, and I will go so far as to say as the most active member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, we are getting close to having votes on amendments and final passage tonight, the most significant vote of the year each year.

For 52 consecutive years, we have passed the National Defense Authorization Act. In almost every year there has been a last-minute misunderstanding as to how these different provisions might affect something that has nothing to do with the defense of America.

In this case, there was--and procedurally I have disagreed with it. I have said several times that a land package was included on the bill. I have felt that once we have gone through the process of what has been referred to as the big four, we have ironed out the differences. There are a lot of things that I don't like, but there are more things that I do like. I daresay to Chairman Levin, he is in the same situation.

I have to say one more time that this chairman has been so incredibly fair to everyone.

We have to keep in mind that we passed this bill. After working on it for 4 months, we passed it to the floor from the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 23. There are a lot of things on here that we had. Of course, it went over and the House then passed their bill. They passed their bill actually on May 22; we passed it out of committee on May 23. The problem is, they were able to pass theirs on the floor; we were not. It is something we should have done a long time ago, and I am hoping that we learned a lesson from last year to this year, and we are not going to let this happen again.

So we have now before us a bill that does the necessary things in this most difficult time. I think most people would agree there has not been a time in our history where we have had more opposition from different parts of the world. I refer to the good old days of the Cold War with two superpowers--we are one, and the Soviet Union was the other one--and they were predictable. Mutually assured destruction meant something. If something happened, we could bomb them and they would do the same to us, and it is now all over. That is not the way it is anymore.

We have forces out there from North Korea and Iraq, and all these things are taking place at a time when--and I don't want to make people angry about what this President has done to the military, but we have virtually disarmed America. Our generals now are facing the possibility of sequestration. So the most important bill is now even more than just most important. It is a must-pass bill. It has to pass. If this doesn't pass, there is no other time we can take it up. Should December 31 get here, it would be an absolute disaster.

We right now have 1,779,343 enlisted personnel in the military. If we didn't pass a reauthorization bill, they would lose their benefits on December 31. I have talked about the benefit of that. I think everyone understands it, and it would be redundant to repeat it. But we can't have people making career decisions predicated on assumptions that they would have hazard pay, the assumption if they are pilots that they would have pilot pay; that critical skills like the SEALs would have bonuses, and then all of a sudden on December 31 we take them away.

We are not going to let that happen. We are going to pass this bill today. The concern I have is that any amendments on it would cause a problem that I think would be insurmountable. It would have to go back. They would have to recall the House and then come back, and timewise it can't happen.

So this is the last train leaving town. We have to have this for the sake of our men and women in uniform. If there is time remaining after the chairman makes his remarks, I will even comment on some specific parts of this bill in terms of how good this bill is and why it is necessary to pass.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, it is just about time for the vote. I want to mention something which hasn't been mentioned.

We have two really great Americans, one serving in the House and one serving in the Senate. We have been talking about Chairman Levin and how fair and open he has been. I think there is not a person of the 100 Members of the Senate who doesn't agree with that.

At the same time, we have Buck McKeon over in the House of Representatives. He is the chairman of the House committee that Carl Levin is the chair of over here. He also is retiring, and he has served for quite some time--not as long as Senator Levin.

Against their objections, we have named this bill the Carl Levin-Buck McKeon bill, so I want to make sure everyone recognizes that proper tribute has been made to the long hours and years and the hard work they have contributed.

This guy over here to my left has been through 16 of these. He has been working about 36 years, and I want to say he is deserving of that recognition.

I also want to mention two other people. One is the guy sitting next to me to my right, John Bonsell; the other is Pete Levine, sitting next to the chairman. Their job is to make us look good and make all this a reality, because it is a very complicated thing. It is a 24-hour-a-day work project. So I thank them for their effort. I know we are just talking about amendments right now and we will have a chance to maybe expand later on, but I think it needs to be said, and it needs to be said more than once.

I yield the floor. The hour is here.

Vote on Motion to Refer