Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, April 18; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that following the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Plumb nomination postcloture; further, at 11:30 a.m., the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination; that the Senate recess following the cloture vote on the Solomon nomination until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings; further, that if cloture has been invoked on the Solomon nomination, all postcloture time be considered expired at 2:15 p.m. and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, I am really proud to join today with my colleagues to speak on behalf of American women of the fundamental rights of all pregnant persons and our freedom to make our own healthcare decisions.

Thanks to a radically conservative Supreme Court, reproductive freedom is no longer a constitutional right in the United States for any American. Roe v. Wade protected our freedoms for 50 years, until it didn't, and now today's young women have fewer freedoms than their mothers and their grandmothers ever did. And we are furious. Do you want to know how furious?

In Michigan, we turned our anger into action. In November, we had the largest voter turnout for a midterm election ever. One of the measures on the ballot enshrined the right to reproductive freedom in our State's constitution. It passed by a strong 13-point

margin, because Michiganders understand that health decisions should be made by individual people, not by judges and not by politicians.

Unfortunately, a lot of folks didn't get the message. Republicans in Congress have pushed for a nationwide abortion ban. State legislatures across the country are making it harder and harder for people in their States to receive reproductive care. There are 24 States that have already banned abortion or probably will soon, and any day now, a Federal judge--one man in Texas--let me repeat that. One man in Texas is expected to hand down a ruling that could ban a medication that has been used to safely end pregnancies for 23 years. That decision would prevent patients from getting the healthcare they need even in States where abortion is legal.

That is why it is so incredibly important that we pass a law that says, once and for all, that women in America have the freedom to make our own healthcare decisions. That is just what the Women's Health Protection Act will do, and I am very proud to join my colleagues in introducing this bill.

It will protect all Americans from State laws that limit access to abortion services. Right now, your freedom to make your own healthcare decisions depends on the ZIP code you happen to live in, and that is simply wrong. Women in Michigan and Mississippi and Montana all deserve to make decisions about our own healthcare, our own lives--not extreme Republican lawmakers, not extreme members of the Supreme Court, not one extreme judge in Texas. It is critical that we pass the Women's Health Protection Act now. Our freedom depends on it.

Let's be clear. We will continue to fight until our reproductive freedom as Americans is restored.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have two important things I would like to speak about today. And let me first start with a confirmation vote we will be having this afternoon on Judge Jonathan J.C. Grey to serve as the U.S.

district judge for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Both Senator Peters and I are strong, strong supporters and thank President Biden for nominating him, and we look forward to colleagues joining us in a bipartisan vote, just as we had on the cloture vote, to make sure that he is confirmed today.

Senator Peters and I were both honored to introduce him and his family during his hearing in the Judiciary Committee in November, and I know his family is so very proud of him--as we are. Judge Grey is an outstanding choice to support the people of Michigan because he has been doing just that. Judge Grey is currently serving as a U.S. magistrate judge for the Eastern District of Michigan. As a magistrate judge, Judge Grey has presided over both civil and criminal cases.

Before that, he served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Michigan and the Southern District of Ohio, where he prosecuted criminal offenses.

During the past 10 years, 95 percent of Judge Grey's practice has been in the Federal courts, whether as a magistrate judge or an assistant U.S. attorney.

He also worked as an associate at a law firm in Chicago, where he practiced labor and employment law and served as a law clerk for two Federal judges.

Given his incredible breadth of experience, it is no surprise that the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously found him to be ``well qualified'' for this position.

Judge Grey was born in Mississippi and is a proud graduate of Morehouse College and the Georgetown University Law Center. And in the spirit of those two institutions, Judge Grey is a deep believer in giving back, both in Michigan and through his alma maters.

I can think of no better place for Judge Grey to continue to serve the people of Michigan and our country than on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and both Senator Peters and I urge our colleagues to vote yes to confirm Jonathan Grey this afternoon.

Remembering the Victims of the Michigan State University Mass Shooting

Mr. President, as everyone knows, I am an incredibly proud MSU Spartan. I earned both my undergraduate and my graduate degrees from Michigan State University. And I have been so proud to represent the university in the Michigan Legislature, in the U.S. House, and the U.S. Senate.

I am a Spartan, as is Senator Peters, and I am horrified and heartbroken and I am angry because we are mourning three lives that were lost on February 13 when a gunman came to campus and randomly started shooting students.

Arielle Anderson, Brian Fraser, and Alexandria Verner were each full of hopes and dreams and so much promise. Arielle, age 19, graduated from Grosse Point North High School in 2021. She was known for her confidence, her kindness, and her incredible drive. She was studying to become a surgeon.

Brian, age 20, graduated from Grosse Point South High School, where he competed on the swimming and diving teams. He was studying business and was president of the Phi Delta Theta fraternity.

And Alexandria--her friends called her Alex--was a 20-year-old graduate of Clawson High School, where she excelled in volleyball, softball, and basketball. She was studying integrated biology and anthropology and had hoped to graduate next year.

Arielle, Brian, and Alex had their whole lives ahead of them, and my heart aches for everyone who loved them and is missing them today.

We also know that gun violence isn't just about the lives that are ended; it is also about the lives that are forever--forever--changed. At Sparrow Hospital in Lansing, Spartans are still fighting just to survive. Thousands more students and employees and community members have been left with scars you can't see, but they are there. They hurt as much and take as much time to heal as anything else.

It is crucial that we ensure that everyone receive the mental healthcare that they need at this time. Last year, my initiative to bring high-quality mental health and addiction services to communities across the country was signed into law in the gun bill that we passed and right now is helping to make a difference in meeting the needs in the East Lansing, Lansing, Mid Michigan community, and I want to thank the Community Mental Health Authority of Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham Counties for working so closely with Michigan State University right now to provide support for everyone who needs it.

So many different things are happening on campus and across the community. Just one example: Counselors from Community Mental Health have set up a place in the East Lansing Public Library where they are providing resources and immediate, free support from therapists, and people are coming forward to volunteer their time to help make this happen as well.

They brought in support animals to comfort those in pain. Clinics like Community Mental Health don't just provide help after a crisis though. This is about helping people every day, helping people in the first place so that there is a place to call, and there is. And people in the community, family members concerned, people in neighborhoods that are seeing something that they are concerned about need to call and ask for help.

But better mental health isn't enough. We also need to make it harder for people who harm others to get their hands on guns because it is one thing if you are somebody who is unstable and have a knife; it is another thing if you have a gun. The consequences are very different depending on what you are holding in your hand.

Firearms are now the leading cause of death for American children and teens. Think about that: not car accidents, not cancer--guns. We can change that. We must change that.

The Michigan Legislature is taking action to strengthen our State's licensing process and background checks, require safe storage, and pass a red flag law. What we did last summer was provide dollars to States to develop red flag laws, and I am so proud of our Governor and our new majorities in the statehouse and senate for taking action now. I strongly support their efforts. I am grateful as a citizen, as a mom, as a grandmother whose children are in the schools that they are taking these actions.

On a Federal level last year, I was proud to support the Safer Communities Act, which was an important step, but we need to do so much more.

We need to pass a military assault weapons ban--legislation that I am cosponsoring. And while we are at it, let's close the gun show loophole and ensure that all gun sales in America require background checks. It is just common sense.

We owe it to Arielle, Brian, and Alex, and the whole MSU community, to those who have been impacted across the country. These stories are way too common and should be absolutely unacceptable to everybody.

Thoughts and prayers are not enough. It is pretty hollow, as the Presiding Officer knows, as we all have spoken about. It is pretty hollow when we are not willing to take the actions that can save lives, and that is the way that we remember those who have been lost.

One of the most important things, the most beautiful things about Michigan State and our entire Michigan community is how we came together to support one another. It is amazing. I have been incredibly touched by the stories of how people have helped one another, both on that tragic night and the days since. From the dispatchers and the first responders who immediately and calmly responded to a chaotic and dangerous scene to the selfless staff at Sparrow Hospital giving comfort and lifesaving care every day, to East Lansing residents, and Lansing residents and everyone from across Michigan who came together and put up yard signs to greet students as they returned to campus, and, yes, to the incredible support shown by our rivals. An enormous crowd of University of Michigan students gathered in Ann Arbor on February 15 to show solidarity and support at the same time Spartans were gathered at The Rock in East Lansing.

A number of Wolverine sports teams have worn special warmups honoring Michigan State. And even Ohio State, even Ohio State, a great rival as well, hired an airplane to fly above Michigan

State's campus pulling a banner that read: ``We are with you. Spartan Strong. Love, Ohio State.''

The MSU community and the community of East Lansing are so grateful, we are all so grateful for the outpouring of support. We will get through this, but we shouldn't have to. But we will get through it. We just need to take action to stop this from happening again. We are all Spartan Strong.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 118th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, on behalf of myself and Senator Boozman, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the committee rules be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, last month, I received a message that reminded me of just how important the work we do here is for people and families in Michigan and all across the country.

Diane of Bloomfield Hills wrote to me about the cost of her prescription medicine. Diane is diabetic and she takes two types of insulin or four injections per day. Diane is retired. She is on Medicare, with a supplemental policy for prescriptions.

Diane told me that usually, when she goes to the pharmacy, she owes a copay of $650, and sometimes more, for a 3-month supply of just one of her prescriptions.

But the good news is, not anymore.

Thanks to a unified Democratic majority last year, people on Medicare now have the cost of their insulin capped at $35 a month--$35 a month for anyone who is on Medicare.

Last month, Diane went to the pharmacy like usual. The pharmacist told her that her 3-month supply would now be $105 instead of $650.

She says:

I paid and walked away with a big smile.

She added this:

I know that for many seniors, the cost of insulin has been

difficult, or impossible, to afford if they have a limited

income or live on the margins.

Thank you for your support of this important legislation

helping seniors (and others) by reducing the cost of insulin.

Mr. President, this $35 cap per month on insulin is helping millions of people on Medicare breathe a little easier, and I know because of your strong ``yes'' vote, as well as mine, this is the reason we get up every day, to be able to help people, to be able to reduce costs, to be able to make sure that they can enjoy their life and actually have a life--save their life. Insulin is a serious medication.

And so this was a really important accomplishment that we came together on.

It was disappointing we didn't have one Republican colleague join us in the House or the Senate, but we stood together and were able to get that done.

Unfortunately, people who need insulin and aren't on Medicare are still paying outrageous prices for a medication their lives literally depend on.

We tried to cap insulin costs per month for everyone, for children. We know for children with juvenile diabetes, this is incredibly serious. We have families who come here to DC every year. We have a wonderful group from Michigan who comes every year to share their stories; the children sharing their stories, showing us pictures, talking about what it is for them to manage this every day; their families talking about the cost. And we tried to cap their costs at $35 a month as well.

But, unfortunately, because of budget rules, the Republicans were able to force that to be a 60-vote margin, and they blocked it. Shockingly to me, they blocked it. So they blocked a $35 insulin cap for children.

Why?

Unfortunately, to protect pharma profits. I am going to repeat that. Democrats tried to ensure that families wouldn't have to spend more than $35 a month on insulin that keeps their children alive. Republicans blocked it.

It was just one more gift to an industry that has received quite a few gifts in recent years from Republicans.

First, let me start with the fact that from 2010 to 2019, American taxpayers contributed more than $230 billion in research funding that helped drug companies develop new medications. I support that. I support public-private partnerships. I support public financing of research. We want that. We want new medications.

But then you turn around and you look at between 2016 and 2020, drug companies spent $577 billion on stock buybacks, 10 times more than they spent on research--10 times more than they spent on research.

And they also significantly increased executive compensation. Now, drug companies CEOs can definitely afford insulin for their children. We want it for all the children of America.

After the Trump tax giveaway, some giant, profitable drug companies now have an effective tax rate of under 10 percent. Republicans lowered it for all corporations to 21, but some of the big drug companies got even a bigger gift--below 10 percent for an effective tax rate. That is less than the tax rate a typical postal worker or a typical preschool teacher pays.

And between 2000 and 2018, big pharmaceutical companies raked in $8.6 trillion in gross profit--trillion with ``t''--trillion dollars in profits.

Here is the CliffsNotes version: Pharmaceutical companies employed 1,587 lobbyists last year, almost 16 for every Senator--almost 16 drug company lobbyists for every 1 Senator.

Then, Republicans provide huge tax cuts for them and block legislation that would help families afford medication that keeps their children alive.

It is clear whose side they are on--the wrong side, in my opinion.

Diane is lucky. She is on Medicare and can afford a $35-per-month copay for insulin. A lot of Michigan families aren't so lucky.

Consider the Lockwoods. Three children in the Lockwood family have type 1 diabetes and take insulin--three children.

A change to their insurance coverage meant that the family went from paying no copay to paying $600 a month in a copay for insulin for each child--$1,800 a month in a copay for their three children.

They couldn't afford it so they began driving to Canada--not that far from Michigan--driving across the bridge to Canada, where the same medication costs $71 because the Canadian Government negotiates the best price for Canadians.

Then the pandemic closed the border. Jim Lockwood needed to find a job with better health insurance, and he did--in Ohio.

American parents shouldn't be forced to either drive to Canada in order to pay for their children's prescriptions or they shouldn't be forced to uproot their families and move to another State in order to find a job with good insurance so they can afford their children's medicine.

It is time for Republicans to stop working on behalf of their wealthy buddies and join us in working on behalf of American families.

Children with diabetes, people under age 65 need a $35-per-month cap on their insulin, just like we have been able to do as Democrats coming together for seniors, people on Medicare.

I think that is what we should be focused on here together and invite our Republican colleagues to join us.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to express concerns other colleagues on this side of the aisle have as well, that in the midst of what is the most robust economic turnaround and growth in a generation, with wages up and unemployment down and almost 11 million new jobs created, most of those small businesses--we love that in Michigan. I know the Presiding Officer does in Maine as well. With all of the positive indicators and with all of our efforts to bring down costs, because that is the big thing for people right now, bringing down their costs--and this month, the good news is a $35 cap on insulin for anyone on Medicare. A senior citizen who is a diabetic--a $35 cap on insulin.

We need to do more to bring down costs, but instead of joining with us, the new House Republican majority has decided, well, let's see, when things are turning around for the American people, I know--let's crash the economy. Let's say we are not going to pay our bills. Let's cause interest rates to go up. Let's cause people to be hurt, maybe jeopardize people getting their Social Security, Medicare, veterans' benefits, or paying the military. This makes absolutely no sense.

I know it is difficult, this antiquated thing called the debt ceiling, because, really, it is about whether or not we are going to pay our bills. So we decide as a family we are going to get a mortgage, and then 2 years into it, we decide, you know, I think we are going to stop paying the mortgage. I don't want to pay my bills anymore on that. And we just stop paying bills. I mean, our country can't just make commitments to families, to veterans, to the military, to seniors, to children, to other countries, and say: Nah, I think we will just stop paying our bills. It is outrageous, it is irresponsible, and the consequences, as we know, will literally crash our economy.

So what do the Republicans say they want to do? In return for not crashing the economy, in return for the United States meeting its obligations and paying its bills, what do they want to do? What do they say that somehow we have to agree to?

Well, the first thing they have already done, which is an extension of how their focus is very much on keeping money in the pockets of the wealthy and the well connected, the very first bill--they are talking debt. Oh, we have so much debt. We have all this debt. The first thing they do, the very first bill, very first week, may have been the first day--I am not sure--after the 15 votes to create a Speaker, they turn around and they pass a bill that will add $114 billion to the national debt--$114 billion to the national debt. Why? Because they think that if you are a wealthy tax cheat, you should be able to continue doing it. So they want to take away the capacity for the IRS, for investigators to go after the tax cheats.

Now, they are OK if you are going after a poor person who is on the earned income tax credit. In fact, they are OK with the fact that the most audited county in the United States right now is in Mississippi, Humphreys, MS. Forty percent of the residents are poor, Black residents, and they have the highest audit rate. They are on the earned income tax credit. Now, that is OK, but don't go after our buddies--oh no. They are the ones with all the accountants and the attorneys. You know, we have seen it play out with the former President of the United States. Do everything you can not to have to pay your fair share of taxes.

Now, we as Democrats know that everybody should have to pay their fair share, and, in fact, in the Inflation Reduction Act, we made a big step on that point where the corporations are not paying. But what do they want? OK, protect tax cheats.

Then they say: Well, we have to cut Social Security and Medicare. We can't afford that anymore.

A great American success story. Lifted over half the country's retirees out of poverty. A great American success story--brought to you predominantly by Democrats, I should say--but they say: Let's cut Social Security and Medicare before we pay our bills, because we have too much debt. Even though we can add to the debt for rich people, we need to cut Social Security and Medicare.

Then the one that is like on top of everything else, when they all ran on how costs were too high in the election--I mean, we are the ones fighting to bring down energy costs, $1,000 per family back in their pockets, $35 cap on insulin for seniors right now--right now, happening right now.

So what do they say we should do to deal with the debt they are talking about? Oh, let's have a 30-percent sales tax increase. Let's increase the cost of an automobile by $10,000. That is pretty personal to me, coming from Michigan. We make a lot of those vehicles. We are pretty proud of making those vehicles. People drive those vehicles. A $10,000 increase on somebody--try to have a car to get the kids to school, get people to work, and so on. Increase the cost of a house. We don't know what all of this is. Food, electric bills, transportation-- we don't know what it is.

But now we are at a point where they want to say: We are not paying our bills unless you do what we want. So now the question is, OK, pass the bills. Show us what you have got. You want this? Vote on it. Vote on it. Pass your agenda. You already voted on step 1, adding to the deficit about $114 billion. So you have all these other ideas that will hurt seniors and children and the majority of Americans, hard-working Americans, but if that is what you think, if that is really what you think, then pass the bills. Pass the bills.

So what they really don't want to tell you while they are talking about all of this and talking about how we have a high national debt, which we do, and we need to come together and continue to do things to address that, what they don't tell you--the dirty little secret is that almost 30 percent of the national debt was accumulated during 4 years of President Trump, that they voted for, and most of that was a huge tax cut for the wealthy and well connected.

Now, they were willing to pay the bills--raised the debt ceiling three times during the Trump years--because it was about giving their buddies, the wealthy and well connected, a big tax cut. The truth of the matter is, if there hadn't been that tax cut, if we had truly required wealthy tax cheats to pay their fair share of taxes, if we had done those two things, we wouldn't even have to raise the debt ceiling right now. We wouldn't have to do that. There wouldn't be a need.

So they do this shell game here. So it is tax cuts for the wealthy, don't let their wealthy buddies have to pay their fair share of taxes, and then turn around and argue that they are going to crash the economy, not pay our bills, unless we cut Social Security and Medicare and add a 30-percent sales tax and a whole range of other things.

This is not our priority. We certainly, as Democrats, do not believe that this should be the priority of the American people.

By the way, when we talk about it, I forgot to mention that the other half of the story is that while they were doing this, in the last 2 years, the deficit fell by $1.4 trillion under President Biden--$1.4 trillion--while we have invested in people, rebuilding the country, bringing jobs home, invested in those things that will create opportunity for everybody to succeed. While we have been investing in people--not the powerful, not focused on profits but people--while we have been doing that, we have also been focused on bringing the deficit down.

So I hope our colleagues on the other side of the building and the other side of the aisle will take a step back here from the brink and understand the dangerous situation they are putting us in with not being willing to pay the bills, with crashing the economy, all for a radical, radical MAGA agenda that will hurt the majority of the American people.

They want to debate that agenda separately from crashing the economy. Let's pay our bills, and if they want to debate that and they want to pass bills and send them over to us, that is the legislative process. They can do that, and we will have that debate. And we will send them bills that make sure wealthy tax cheats pay their fair share, just like we did in the Inflation Reduction Act with a 15-percent minimum corporate tax. And we will continue to put people first, not just the wealthy and the powerful in this country.

It is a very different vision. It is a very different view of how you grow the economy. It is a very different view of whom we are fighting for, whom we are working for.

I am glad to be on this side. I am glad to be on this side with the majority of the people. And I would argue what we have done the last 2 years, putting people first, investing in people and bringing jobs home and rebuilding the economy and investing in science and bringing down costs and continuing to focus on that, as well as the deficit, has worked. This is not just rhetoric. It actually has worked. It actually has worked.

So I hope our Republican colleagues, particularly in the House, will join us in those things that will actually move America forward.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object.

First of all, let me say that I take a backseat to no one on wanting to get out of China. There is no question about that. I authored the ``Buy America'' provisions with Senator Braun that are in the infrastructure bill. We have a ``Made in America'' offer. We are bringing jobs home. We are making sure that we are putting Michigan and American businesses and workers first--absolutely.

I also agree and Senator Manchin has--he and I have worked together on the clean energy manufacturing tax credits, 48C, which is critical; the advanced battery production tax credits; the things Senator Braun talked about that are bringing jobs to Indiana from the Inflation Reduction Act; and the credits that we have done for batteries and solar and wind and manufacturing and so on. They were all in that bill, which I was proud to help author and to support those efforts.

I support when Senator Manchin has said to those in other countries that if you want to benefit from our tax structure, move your plants to America. I said that myself. I am all for that.

This particular credit is confusing. It was not well vetted. It is not supported by anyone in the industry who believes that they have the capacity immediately, right this minute, to meet the complicated formulas. They would love to. We would love it if we didn't have to worry about lithium from China. They are working feverishly. In fact, there is a free-trade agreement with Chile coming before this body. They have lithium deposits that would be very, very helpful to us. I strongly support being able to make them part of the free-trade agreements in the legislation so that we can get the lithium from there, as well as other parts of the world.

But we are not there yet.

This does not create any path for success for American automobile workers, for American automobile companies, for suppliers, for consumers who are interested in being able to purchase electric vehicles and benefit from a credit, which, by the way, every other country has, including China. They have their own consumer credit.

So this is a situation where we disagree on how this was put together, how it is written, how the effect of it is in terms of the dates and so on.

But I have to say, on behalf of Treasury, which was given thousands of regulations they have to write by December 31, that it is not unreasonable that they took the time to listen and be thoughtful about how they did it, and they announced that they would be bringing these rules forward in March. That is not an unreasonable thing. It affects a huge industry, a foundational industry.

Henry Ford is from Michigan. We are proud to have Henry Ford from Michigan. By the way, he and Thomas Edison first tried to create an electric vehicle. That was the first choice until we decided, as Congress, to invest in oil and gas subsidies that took them in a different direction.

The bottom line: It is not unreasonable, what Treasury is doing, the path they are on. They have been given, I believe, an incredibly complicated task to try to figure out how this consumer credit will work for consumers and for the companies and workers. I don't disagree with the goals talked about. I don't disagree with anything that has

been said, except that it doesn't relate to what is happening in this credit, which doesn't work on a practical level. I am for whatever support and flexibility that we can provide to achieve what are the stated goals.

So on behalf of American automobile companies, all the auto workers and American consumers, I object.

Yes.

Not all.

Ford didn't hit it.

They haven't hit it, no.

First of all, China cannot flood the market because we are not going to be able to meet these criteria in terms of being able to get the credit. They have their own credit, and there is no reason they are not going to be able to flood the U.S. market. I have a difference of opinion about what this actually means.

This is what I would say. We have had three parts of the stool on supporting moving forward on a new electric transportation model. One is charging stations that we did in the infrastructure bill. It is really important to have charging stations. No. 2 is helping to create production through the battery and clean energy tax credits and so on. Third is helping to bring costs down at the beginning until volume comes up.

Now, the reason people are waiting for cars is because of the lack of chips. I mean, they are waiting because of that, and we addressed that as well.

The truth is, what was put in place on this piece was complicated. It doesn't work for several years for American companies. It doesn't stop China. It doesn't stop anybody else from coming into our market. They can come into our market. It stops our companies from fully benefiting from a piece of this with consumers. That is very important.

Thank you very much. I object.

S. Res. 13

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Madam President, I also rise today to pay tribute to someone who is literally a friend across the aisle and across State lines.

Now, you might not think that the senior Senator from Michigan, a Democrat, and the junior Senator from Ohio, a Republican, would be friends. After all, our States share a long and passionate rivalry, particularly on the football field.

This rivalry is especially intense on game day, like recently, when the Michigan Wolverines defeated Ohio State Buckeyes 45 to 23. I am just saying.

I particularly, Senator Portman, wanted to say this out loud to make sure Senator Brown heard it also.

Of course, my friend Rob Portman may have been cheering. And he may never really say this, but, you know, I am often wondering if, behind the scenes, he is sort of cheering both sides on that because he has never advertised it and he has never said it up to this point, but let me say today that he is a graduate of the University of Michigan Law School. Now that he is retiring, maybe he can say it out loud. So we are glad to have him there.

Senator Portman has been a wonderful partner on issues important to both of our States, both Great Lakes and trade.

We have served as cochairs of the Senate Great Lakes Task Force since 2017, and we have gone to bat together on behalf of our beloved lakes time and time again.

We have introduced and passed legislation to stop invasive species from reaching and destroying our Great Lakes. When the Trump administration tried to slash nearly all the funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, we fought back together and we won. And since then, we have passed legislation to reauthorize the program and celebrated when we secured $1 billion through the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the single largest investment ever for the Great Lakes. And it would not have happened without Senator Portman.

I have always said that the Great Lakes shouldn't be a partisan issue, and thanks to Rob, they have not been.

We found ways to work together on the issue of trade as well. We fought for American workers when we served together in the House and then continued a strong working relationship when Senator Portman left to become the U.S. Trade Representative under President Bush.

In the Senate, we have partnered to ensure that American workers have a level playing field. That included a great congressional delegation trip to Vietnam and South Korea, where we met with trade officials, Senator Portman and I, and I got to see how much he is respected by these world leaders.

From strengthening our supply chains to securing funding to revitalized communities to promoting recycling to planting trees to funding our community health centers to keeping plastic pollution out of the Great Lakes--there is no end to the number of issues we have worked on together.

Rob, I am going to miss you. I have so valued your friendship and working relationship here. You have made a real difference, but I know you are going to enjoy spending more time with Jane and Jed and Will and Sally and watching more Michigan games that you can finally admit you enjoy.

I wish you the best of everything and hope we are going to continue to see you.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, it is an honor to join with my colleagues to speak about someone that is a dear friend. And I have often said to the Senator: You are not really leaving; I am putting you in a closet and locking the door, and we are not letting you leave.

But then I know that Abby and Charlie and your whole family would not appreciate that.

We first met back in the 1980s, when Senator Blunt was the secretary of state in Missouri and I was a State legislator. It was the first year that the national Jaycees went from 10 outstanding young men to 10 outstanding young Americans, and I had the honor of being one of three women honored that year. But we met in Tulsa, OK, and Roy has often joked that we met in a hotel room, but then he quickly explains what that was to Abby. But we had the opportunity to be there together.

And then it wasn't until the 1996 election. We were both elected to the U.S. House. We were standing on the steps of the U.S. House, outside, to take a picture of the freshman class, and 1996 it was, the end of the year. I turn around, and Roy Blunt is standing right next to me. And I said: I know you.

We gathered together again and really struck up a friendship. Then we both were on the House Agriculture Committee, and the very first bill I think either of us ever introduced was this very exciting bill about wheat germ. So I often was asked what was the first bill I ever introduced, and it was a wheat disease bill. But Roy and I got it done and went on to really form a wonderful friendship ever since.

I was very excited when he then joined us in the U.S. Senate. As many people know, in addition to our having led the bills on community health centers, we have partnered together on a new concept of community behavioral health clinics, actually, funding mental health and addiction services the same as physical health, and that started 10 years ago.

We stood on the floor of the Senate when we first introduced the bill and talked about how President John F. Kennedy had actually signed--the last law he ever signed, the last act he ever

signed, in 1963, was an act to create community mental health centers. And the idea was to close, at that time, what they called asylums and give people community care; care close to home, families, support people; to be able to be in the community and be successful. Well, the hospitals got closed, but the rest of it never happened.

So I am so honored to have partnered, and want to continue to partner, with Roy as he leaves here for other things, to move forward the rest of the story, which is effective community care for folks, not in a jail, not in an emergency department, but in the community, with their family, allowing them to be successful and work and living their lives because they are getting the care that they need. So I am very honored to have had the opportunity to work with Roy on that as well.

Now, Senator Wicker was talking, and I thought he might have said something about the trip that we took together to Asia with Senator Blunt. Senator Blunt was wonderful at putting together bipartisan trips, and we had the opportunity to go to a number of places in Australia because part of everything else that he does is that he has been one of the leaders in an interparliamentary partnership with the United States of America and Australia. And I was pleased, I think last year, to see you receive a very significant honor here because of your work.

But we had an opportunity to travel together with Abby and for all of us to be together and really show a bipartisan front to other world leaders.

I will say as an aside that you never want to play cards with him because he is a very good card player, and I have often said that I think he counts cards because he is so good.

On a serious note, I really am going to miss this gentleman from Missouri. I am proud to have him as a friend, as a partner, and someone who really exemplifies what it means to be a statesman, to be a public servant.

And I just send you all my best and all my love for you and your family.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my floor statement on the judge we are about to vote on be completed before the vote.

Having listened already to speak about Senator Blunt, I also want to say my thanks and best wishes to Senator Inhofe and Senator Shelby. I had an opportunity in the EPW Committee to speak more about my work with Senator Inhofe, but to both of you, we deeply appreciate your service to our country.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of Judge F. Kay Behm, who President Biden nominated to serve on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Judge Behm represents the very best of Michigan.

She and her four siblings grew up on a dairy farm in Alma, milking cows and bailing hay and driving tractors and doing all of the other tasks that life on a farm demands. During the 1980's farm crisis, her parents nearly lost their farm.

That experience changed Judge Behm forever. It led her to pursue degrees in business and law so that she could help other Michigan families.

She graduated from Alma College and the University of Michigan Law School. She worked in private practice for 15 years. In 2009, she was appointed as a trial judge in Genesee County by Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

During her time as a judge, she has never forgotten her humble roots, and she has worked hard to ensure that everyone who appears before her is truly seen and heard. As a judge on the Genesee County circuit and probate courts,

Judge Behm has presided over cases related to criminal, civil, juvenile, and probate matters.

In 2011, she led a 2-year pilot program in Genesee County to hire and use social workers to improve outcomes in Child Protective Services proceedings. After the pilot program produced a positive result, Judge Behm worked with her staff to develop the intensive family support program to support parents and families involved in the child welfare system.

As a family court judge, Judge Behm has presided over approximately 1,600 bench trials and 3 jury trials. And since 2019, Judge Behm has presided over 16 bench trials and 18 jury trials.

The American Bar Association gave Judge Behm a unanimous rating of ``well qualified'' to serve on the Federal bench.

She also finds time to serve on the Board of Directors of the Food Bank of Eastern Michigan and Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Flint. I have no doubt that Judge Behm will continue to serve the people of Michigan well on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and I would urge my colleagues to support her nomination.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.