February 13, 2013/United States/U.S. Senate Congressional Record (raw)

= Congressional Record (raw) = undefined

Call to order
The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable, a Senator from the State of North Dakota.

Let us pray.

Architect of the universe, before the mountains were formed and the hills were born and the Earth received its frame, You are God. You fill the universe with the mysteries of Your power, and we are in awe of Your handiwork.

Inspire our Senators to unite with You in the great cause of bringing healing to our Nation and world. May they sense Your presence continually, think of You consistently, and trust You constantly, receiving Your divine guidance for the path ahead. Lord, inspire them to think imaginatively about how to do Your will on Earth even as it is done in Heaven. We pray in Your great Name. Amen.

Page: S663

Page: S663

The clerk will please read a communication to the Senate from the.

Page: S663

The majority leader is recognized.

Page: S663

Madam President, following leader remarks, the Senate will be in morning business. The Republicans will control the first 30 minutes and the majority will control the second 30 minutes.

We will seek an agreement for the consideration of the nomination of Senator Hagel to be Secretary of Defense during today's session.

In addition, sometime this afternoon, we hope to have a vote on the Kayatta nomination to be a circuit court judge for the First Circuit.

Vision of Fairness
Page: S663

Madam President, last night the President of the United States laid out an agenda to strengthen the middle class and expand upon our economic progress. He outlined an agenda that will restore the core value that makes this Nation great: fairness.

Senate Democrats stand ready to work with the President to make this vision--a vision in which every American shares the prosperity as well as the responsibility--a reality. President Obama's agenda calls for commonsense investments in our future, investments which will breathe new life into a struggling middle class, investments which will make America a magnet for jobs and manufacturing once more, investments which have been deferred for too long due to the worst recession since the Great Depression.

The President's plan will give American manufacturers the support they need to thrive, while ending giveaways to companies that ship jobs overseas. His plan will create jobs building world-class roadways, railways, and bridges which our economy may rely upon tomorrow.

The plan will prepare current and future workers to compete in a global economy by making K-12 schools the best in the world again and college affordable for every graduate. His plan will break our addiction to foreign oil and encourage investments in reliable energy, a change which will be good for the environment and for the economy.

As he said last night, it will be done without adding a single penny to the deficit. These investments in a strong middle class are not just right for our country, they are right for our economy as well. Our efforts to restore prosperity will mean little unless Congress acts immediately to deal with arbitrary, across-the-board spending cuts set to take effect.

If the looming sequester strikes, 70,000 young children would be kicked off Head Start and 10,000 teaching jobs would be at risk. The Small Business Administration will be forced to reduce loan guarantees to small businesses by up to $540 million. Democrats believe we should replace this harsh austerity with a balanced approach that targets wasteful spending, tax loopholes, and asks the wealthiest among us to contribute a little more to reduce the deficit.

The American people know we can't cut our way to prosperity. They agree. We can't ask the middle class to bear the burden of the entire deficit reduction. Later this week Democrats will release a plan to avert the so-called sequester.

Republicans say they agree the deep cuts they voted for will be damaging to our economy and to national security. Republicans would rather cut Medicare, education, and medical research than close a single wasteful tax loophole or ask a single millionaire to contribute a little more. The Republicans should stop protecting millionaires, billionaires, and wealthy corporations and start working with us to pass an alternative to these terrible cuts that protect the middle class. We want to start to do something to begin changing this so we protect the middle class. We must not jeopardize the progress of the last 4 years.

Even though our work to restore economic prosperity must continue, we should take pride in the 35 months of private sector job growth and 6.1 million new American jobs. Imagine how many more jobs could be created with just a little cooperation from our Republican colleagues.

Now our friends across the aisle have another opportunity to engage constructively. They have a second chance to work with Democrats to rebuild the middle class by investing in that which in the past has made Americans strong--world-class roads, bridges, dams, peerless schools, industrial factories, and creative entrepreneurs who are the best in the world.

President Ronald Reagan, in his first address of a joint session of Congress, spoke of these building blocks of prosperity. Ronald Reagan said:

Substance and prosperity of our Nation is built by wages brought home from the factories and the mills, the farms, and the shops. They are the services provided in 10,000 corners of America: the interest on the thrift of our people and the returns for their risk-taking. The production of America is the possession of those who build, serve, create, and produce.

He didn't say the substance of our Nation is built on profits gleaned from shipping jobs overseas. He didn't say the prosperity of America is the possession of investment banks or wealthy oil companies alone. Rather, he said, our substance and prosperity are earned in factories, mills, farms, and shops. The rewards belong to all those who build, serve, create, and produce--not only to the few strong enough or rich enough to take for themselves.

It is time to return to those roots. It is time to remember fairness is not just a principle for which to strive but a powerful engine of growth and prosperity for all Americans.

Page: S664

The Republican leader is recognized.

State of the Union
Page: S664

I would like to say a word about last night's State of the Union. To me, at least, the occasion cried out for bold and courageous leadership from a reelected President who has run his last campaign. It called for a President who was willing to stare down America's challenges, reject the easy choices, and step outside his political comfort zone to unite a deeply divided public behind a common goal.

Sadly, history will record no such moment. An opportunity to bring together the country instead became another retread of lip service and liberalism.

For a Democratic President entering his second term, it was simply unequal to the moment. Following 4 years of this President's unwillingness to challenge liberal dogma, we have more of the same. The President spoke about energy infrastructure but didn't even mention the Keystone Pipeline. He chose the Nation's biggest stage to promote something that is inefficient and costly, such as solar panels, instead of something that is proven, reliable, and domestically produced, such as coal.

He advocated tax reform but mostly as a way to increase the size of government, not as a way to increase our competitiveness. He spoke of workers' minimum wages instead of their maximum potential.

In short, with the exception of his impressive delivery and trademark style, last night's speech was pedestrian, liberal boilerplate that any Democratic lawmaker could have given at any time in recent memory. Gun control, cap and trade, tax increases, and spending programs are exactly what we have come to expect from a liberal President who seems perfectly content to preside over a divided country and a stagnant economy.

Of course, everyone recognizes the President is a very good campaigner. We all acknowledge his skill in that area. He will be doing more of that today down in North Carolina.

A State of the Union Address should be about something bigger. Instead of dividing Americans, it should unite them. Instead of inflaming passions, it should show what is possible when the two parties actually work together.

I am glad he mentioned things such as expanding trade opportunities with Asia and Europe. That is an area where we can cooperate, and I look forward to working with colleagues from both parties to do just that.

Overall, I am disappointed. I am especially disappointed he chose not to seriously address the transcendent issue of our time, which is finding a way to control our spiraling debt before it controls us. If we don't do that, we will not be able to leave our children the kind of country our parents left us; that is, a goal all of us should share.

Take the Obama sequester as just one example. The President had a chance last night to offer a thoughtful alternative to his sequester, one that could reduce spending in a smarter way. That is what Republicans have been calling for all along, and it is the kind of thing the House has already voted to do not once but twice. We want to work with him to actually make that happen.

Instead we just heard gimmicks and tax hikes, just one more plan from the President that is designed to fail so he can blame others when it does fail. It is too bad for the country. It truly is.

The American people, in their collective judgment, decided to send divided government to Washington. I am sure the President wishes that weren't so, but it is the reality, and Americans look to him to use forums such as the State of the Union to bring people together and get things done with the government we have, not the one the President wishes he had. That is what Ronald Reagan did, and he accomplished great things. President Clinton was able to get quite a bit done with divided government too.

Why is it this President can't seem to demonstrate the same kind of leadership? He says he wants balance--balance. His approach so far has been anything but. Just as ``investment has become a Washington code word for more spending, ``balance has now become a code word for my way or the highway.

Remember, the President already received the additional revenue he wanted in January. He didn't agree to a single cut in spending then, just revenue. Obviously, the balanced thing to do now would be to look at cuts. Last night the President didn't propose any real cuts; he just demanded more and more taxes. With a $16 trillion debt, he actually called for more spending too, although he didn't say how he would pay for it or even how much it would cost. Pretend, for a moment, the Republicans agreed to go along with all those taxes and all that spending.

What do you think he would demand the next time and the time after that? Of course, more taxes and more spending. And we all know Washington uses tax increases to fund even more spending on things such as robosquirrels and Solyndra, not to reduce the deficit. That is what history shows us. It is how we got in this mess in the first place.

So we are not going to play the Washington game. The stakes for American families are too high to keep taking the easy way out, with more taxes and more wasteful spending. Republicans believe taking on this massive burden of debt should be more important in this town than winning the next election. That is why we need commonsense reforms, such as a balanced budget amendment. All Republicans support it, and Democrats should too. But we won't get anywhere as a nation if the President refuses to lead. We just can't. So the question is, Will he lead or will he continue this endless campaign?

I want to end on a positive note, so I would like to point out that there were areas of agreement last night, and I particularly appreciated the President's reference to Burma. And Senator Rubio did a great job with the Republican address. I hope the President will actually listen to some of the things Senator Rubio said, and I hope he will come back to Congress with some different ideas. We can get important things done in his second term, and if he is ready to come to the center, to the political center, we will.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Page: S665

Under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

Page: S665

Under the previous order, the Senate will be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to peak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the Republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the second 30 minutes.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

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

Without objection, it is so ordered.

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

The clerk will call the roll.

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

Without objection, it is so ordered.

A Case of Amnesia
Page: S665

Madam President, after listening to President Obama's State of the Union speech last night, I was left scratching my head. Essentially, the President wants us to pretend the last 4 years never happened. He wants us to pretend his economic policies have delivered a strong recovery from the recession of 2008; he wants us to pretend his administration has made real progress on reducing the national debt; and he wants us to pretend that more taxes, more spending, and more debt are the key to middle-class prosperity. In other words, the President is hoping we all have a case of amnesia.

He wants us to forget about $5.8 trillion in new debt that was racked up during his first term--$5.8 trillion. He wants us to forget our gross national debt is now larger than our entire economy--100 percent of our gross domestic product. He wants us to forget the debt is projected to grow even further, to $26 trillion, by 2023; and he wants us to forget his health care bill will increase taxes by $1 trillion over the next 10 years. He wants us to forget America's credit rating has been downgraded for the first time in our history.

He also wants us to forget we have been suffering through the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression, as well as the highest, longest period of high unemployment since the Great Depression.

He wants us to forget that nearly 4 out of every 10 unemployed Americans have been jobless for at least 6 months. He wants us to forget that the average family median income has fallen by nearly $2,500 since the official end of the recession. He wants us to forget that the cost of health insurance for the average American family has increased by more than $2,300. And he wants us to forget that as part of the fiscal cliff negotiation, the payroll tax went back up, taking an additional bite out of the check of middle-class workers.

Last night President Obama said we should ask ourselves three questions every day--those of us with the privilege of serving here in the Nation's Capital in the Congress and in the administration. He said: No. 1, how do we attract more jobs to our shores? No. 2, how do we equip people with the skills they need in order to get those jobs? And No. 3, how do we make sure hard work leads to a decent living? I may have my differences with President Obama on a number of policies, but I actually think those are really good questions.

If the President is truly serious about finding the answers to those questions, this may not surprise my colleagues, but he need look only to the model reflected in my home State of Texas.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an article entitled ``The Texas Growth Machine'' at the end of my remarks.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 1.)

The fact is our State relies on a simple economic model the Federal Government could emulate if it would like to have similar positive results: lower taxes, limited government, sensible regulations, and progrowth energy policies.

I know the occupant of the chair comes from a State that I believe is the second largest producer of oil and gas in the country--second only to Texas--and I know the Presiding Officer has seen the economic engine that is created when we unleash our potential when it comes to our energy resources. These are policies that recently helped Texas turn a $5 billion deficit during the recession into an $8.8 billion surplus. These are the policies that made our State a robust engine of job creation that is attracting Americans from all across the country. The total number of jobs in Texas since 1995 has grown at the rate of 32 percent. When we compare that with the rate of growth of jobs in America nationwide, we see it is 12 percent--32 percent to 12 percent. That is not an accident.

Texas is also a leader in the creation of high-paying jobs. Between 2002 and 2012, our State accounted for close to one-third of all U.S. private sector job growth in industries that pay more than 150 percent of the average wage, even though we have only 8 percent of America's total population.

Last night the President talked about, How do we get middle-class wages up? His prescription was an increase in the minimum wage, but I say why don't we look at ways to achieve a maximum wage by creating private sector, high-paying, good jobs, as we have been successful in doing in Texas and as a few other States have done as well.

After 4 years of trillion-dollar deficits and historically high unemployment--right now our unemployment rate is roughly 7.9 percent, but that doesn't really account for all of the people who have since given up looking for work, and it is estimated that more than 20 million Americans either are out of work or they are working part time when they would like to work full time, but they can't find those kinds of jobs.

I believe it is time for the President and this Congress to try a new approach. The great thing about our system of government--of shared sovereignty between the States and the National Government--is that we have essentially laboratories of democracy all around our country where we can try different things to see what works and what does not work. I only hope the President and Congress will look at those places around the country where the policies actually work in creating jobs and economic growth.

I believe it is time for the President to embrace policies that will encourage private entrepreneurship, private sector job creation, income growth, and greater domestic energy production. In short, it is time for him to embrace the Texas model.

With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

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

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

For-Profit Colleges
Page: S666

Madam President, the President's State of the Union Address is an annual event where each President comes forward, talks about the agenda, the plans, and what we hope to achieve in Washington during the course of the next year.

There were many elements in the President's State of the Union Address last night. There was one in particular I was struck by. He talked about establishing a college scorecard. He talked about the challenges families are facing across America paying for college education. It has become an enormous expense. It is the fastest growing debt in America--$1 trillion in student loan debt.

Sadly, many students are getting in too deeply. They are getting too far in debt, and they may not be able to get a job to pay it back. Many students are defaulting on those loans because they don't have an income. Sometimes their parents help them go to college and sign the papers. Sometimes the efforts to collect the money go beyond the defaulting student to the parents--in fact, sometimes to grandparents.

There was a case reported of a grandmother who wanted to help her granddaughter, so she signed the student loan application. The granddaughter didn't get a job, perhaps didn't finish school. There came a time when, in collecting the student loan, they actually garnished the Social Security check of the grandmother. That is the most extreme case I have heard.

When it comes to indebtedness and student loan default, there are different categories of debt. Some students are lucky and don't have to borrow a penny. Most do, and those who borrow money, we find, borrow the lowest average amount from public universities--community colleges and public schools. Next come private universities and then a special category--the for-profit colleges. This is an incredible industry of which most Americans are not aware.

When we think of for-profit schools, we should remember three things, three numbers. Twelve percent of students coming out of high school go to for-profit schools. The biggest ones, the most well-known schools, include the University of Phoenix, DeVry University, and Kaplan University. There are a number of names which, when we hear them, we say: I have heard a lot about those. They advertise a lot.

Twelve percent of the students coming out of high school go to those for-profit schools. However, those for-profit schools receive 25 percent of all of the Federal aid to education--12 percent of the students, 25 percent of the Federal aid. Why? Because they are expensive. For-profit schools are very expensive, and the tuition is high. So a student, to be able to go there, may qualify for a Pell grant, which is an actual grant of money for students from low-income families. Then, for loans beyond that--and it turns out that 25 percent of all of the Federal aid to education goes to for-profit colleges that have 12 percent of the students.

That is not the most important number to remember--not 12, not 25, but this final number: 47 percent of all the student loan defaults come out of for-profit schools, which means that students who start at those schools either don't finish and then can't pay back their loans or finish and can't find a job to pay back their loans. For-profits schools, 47 percent of the student loans default.

The stories are heartbreaking. Imagine, 19, 20, 21 years old, papers are being shoved across the desk in the financial office at a for-profit school, and a student is basically told: Well, you can start school next week; all you have to do is sign up for these loans.

What is a student to think? I have been told my whole life to go to college. Mom and dad are counting on me to go to college. This is the way to get a good job. I will sign up. I want to start.

What the student doesn't know is whether that school is worth the money. How could they know? I think back to those days when I started college. I hate to go back that far in time, but I didn't know whether borrowing $1,000 in those days was a good idea or a bad idea. I knew a lot of my fellow students were borrowing. But now students are getting in much more deeply. It isn't just $1,000 or $5,000 or even $10,000. At the end of the day, it turns out to be much, much more.

I have come to the floor a number of times to tell the stories about these for-profit schools to warn students and their families to be careful. Some of these schools are good; many of them are awful--just plain awful.

Last night the President said he wanted to create a college scorecard. I want to hear more. I hope there will be a scorecard and a Web site, maybe, where students--high school students or others across America--can take a look at every college opportunity, not just their pretty catalogs or their great Web sites but to find out how many of these students who graduate from this college actually get a job, and those who get a job, how much do they actually get paid. Of the students who borrow money to go to this college, how much do they borrow? How many of them fail to make the payments on their student loans later in life?

Oh, there is one important thing I left out. Here is what you are going to learn about loans to students. They are different than other types of loans. You see, if I decide to buy a home and a car and a boat and then lose my job and go broke and cannot pay them back, under the most extreme cases I can go to court and put all my debts on the table in front of a judge and say: Here is all the money I owe and here is all the money I have. I do not know where to turn--and go through something called bankruptcy.

In bankruptcy, the judge says: Well--let's say you have $10,000 in the bank and you owe $50,000. You are going to lose your $10,000. You cannot pay back the $50,000, but you no longer have an obligation to pay it. You are judged bankrupt. You start over, wipe the slate clean.

Not a lot of people do that, but when things get really bad, they have to. Guess what. When it comes to student loans, they are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. The debt that a 19-, 20-, and 21-year-old student signs up for is a debt for life. They pay it back forever--until it is paid. So these are serious debt obligations, and it is hard to imagine that many young people without a great deal of life experience really know what is too much debt, really know whether that school is any good.

Let me tell you a story of one student.

Ramon Nieves attended the American Intercontinental University, a for-profit college owned by Career Education Corporation. Like many who attend for-profit colleges, Ramon was the first person in his family to go to college. The recruiters at these for-profit schools look for these students.

Without guidance from his family--a family that had no experience with college--he trusted the school when they advised him about student loans. He said the school just told him to sign his name. That is all he had to do. They never explained the difference between the kinds of loans that students could take out; that there are government loans, Federal loans, and then there are loans from private financial institutions. He was never told what his balance would be--how much he owed--or what he could expect his monthly payments to be when it was all over.

He signed up. He wanted to get started with college. And he kept signing and signing, semester after semester, year after year, until he graduated. He graduated from this for-profit school with $90,000 of debt--$90,000.

He works several jobs, almost 80 hours a week, so he can pay his monthly student loan payments, which are $1,000 a month, right off the top.

His student debt is a constant burden for him and his family. He owns a home, and he thinks he is going to lose it because of the student loans. He decided to try to file for bankruptcy because he was in debt so deeply, but he learned the hard way that the bankruptcy court cannot help him when it comes to student loans.

Ramon says he wishes he had not gone to college at all; that he was better off before he got that deeply in debt. Now he is at a community college--a community college--trying to get an education because the $90,000 in the for-profit college turned out to be a waste of time. He is now where he should have started.

Students who are not sure, start at a community college. You are near home. You can commute. They offer a lot of options. They are not expensive. You will learn a lot about yourself, about your education, and your dreams by sitting in those classrooms and going through community college courses. After a year or two, if it sounds right and feels good for you, it is time to move on to another college or university, and you will move on to that third year of college without a lot of debt. Start at a community college.

Ramon ended up at a community college finally trying to get the education the for-profit school failed to give him. He says he wishes he had known that at the beginning--starting at that community college instead of the American Intercontinental University. Then, he says, he would have received the same education but without $90,000 of debt.

Why does he have so much debt? According to a recent committee report in the Senate, the American Intercontinental University costs 250 times more than a nearby community college--250 times more.

Federal student aid cannot cover the tuition costs, so students are forced to turn from Federal student aid, government loans, which are low-interest loans, to private student loans, which are high-interest loans. Some students do not know, as they are sitting there, the differences between a 3.2-percent annual rate of interest and an 18-percent annual rate of interest, and that can be the difference between a government loan and a private loan.

To put it in shorthand from someone who has paid off loans, the higher the interest rate, the more your monthly payment is going to the bank rather than reducing the amount of money you owe.

Federal student aid cannot cover the tuition costs. The private loans are signed up for, and they do not come with any consumer protections. Government loans do. Government loans allow you to consolidate. Sometimes they take into consideration the job you end up with in life. Sometimes there is forgiveness of government student loans. It is a much more flexible, low-cost program than private student loans.

Sometimes students will need private student loans, but for-profit colleges are using these private student loans for another important reason to them. For-profit colleges encourage students to take out private loans, at least in part, because private loans allow these schools to continue to get more Federal funds. It is a complicated formula, but in order to get the maximum amount of Federal dollars, the for-profit schools push kids into private loans even when they are still eligible for the better government loans.

The rule I am talking about is the 90/10 rule which requires for-profit colleges to receive at least 10 percent of their revenues from sources other than the Federal Government--10 percent of their revenues from sources other than the Federal Government.

If you took the Federal money we send to for-profit schools in America--roughly $32 billion a year--if you took that money and translated it into a Federal budget, for-profit colleges in America would be the ninth largest Federal agency--$32 billion going to this sector of the economy.

When they push the kids into the private loans that are not as good, not as generous, much more expensive, that covers the 10 percent they have to come up with in real money as opposed to government money. It means that 90 percent of the revenue of these extremely profitable schools comes right out of the Federal Treasury.

Even though for purposes of this rule Federal revenue includes only funds from the Department of Education's Federal student aid programs--GI bill funds, for example, are not even considered Federal funds--many for-profit schools are close to 90 percent of their revenue coming from the Federal Government. If you add in GI bill funds, sometimes it is closer to 100 percent.

Where is the accountability? If these schools are dragging kids deeply into debt, if the kids are defaulting at rates twice as fast and twice as serious as those going to public and private schools, where is our responsibility? How is a student--a high school student in Illinois or in North Dakota--supposed to know whether that Web site about that college is true?

How would they know when that school says ``we are accredited,'' that the accreditation is phony? Most of these for-profit schools belong to an organization that accredits all the schools that are for-profit schools. They take care of one another. They ignore the obvious when these schools are failing the students and their families.

The Federal aid is keeping the doors open for these for-profit schools. Can we afford that? Can we afford to get students across America deeply into debt for a largely worthless education? Do we have that much money sloshing around here in Washington when it comes to helping students get through school?

That is why the President's statement last night about student debt, about the rising college costs, and a scorecard for colleges and universities is right spot on. It is time we tell families across America the truth about colleges and universities, and it is time for those same colleges and universities to wake up to a reality. The reality is the sky is not the limit when it comes to the cost of higher education.

I have talked to a number of them--respected institutions--that give good degrees, good diplomas, and I have told them the same thing: You just cannot keep raising the cost of higher education. Middle-income families, working families do not have a chance. Madam President, $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 a year to go to school? It is just something that ordinary families cannot even consider.

Congress needs to act now to stop this for-profit school industry from exploiting students and their families and taxpayers. Why we are spending so much money--money we can no longer afford--to subsidize these highly profitable schools is beyond me. I cannot explain it.

These schools that leave these kids high and dry break my heart. Every time I fly out to O'Hare Airport, on the Kennedy Expressway in Chicago, right before I get to the Cumberland exit, I look up at one of these office buildings, and up there in big, bold letters is ``Westwood College.'' Wow, the campus of Westwood College.

I know a little bit about that college. I have met students who have gone to that college, and let me tell you, I want to put a sign right under there that says, ``Please Avoid This Ripoff.''

A young lady who went to Westwood College testified in Chicago. She watched a lot of shows on TV about forensic criminal investigation, and she wanted to get into criminal investigation. She signed up at Westwood College. It took her 5 years to finish.

When she finished, she had a debt of $90,000. But she wanted a degree in law enforcement. She wanted to be on CSI in the real world. Guess what happened. She went to every law enforcement agency in the Chicagoland area, and they pushed it back and said: Westwood is not a real college. You have wasted your time--5 years--and your money.

Here she sits now living in her parents' basement at a time in life when she thought she would be starting her own career, her own life. What is she doing? She is paying back a loan for a worthless education from Westwood College.

I have been after these folks for a long time. They exploit these kids day in and day out. Sadly, we subsidize them. We send them millions of dollars in Federal funds to continue this exploitation of students.

This has to come to an end. This is not the kind of thing we need to encourage if America is going to have well-educated and trained students so they have good lives and America continues to prosper.

One of my colleagues, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, has been a leader on this issue. As chairman of the HELP Committee, he has had hearings on for-profit schools, and I commend them to anyone interested in this subject. Take a look at Tom Harkin's hearings. I could go on for a long time--TOM could too--about the schools across America that are exploiting students.

We owe it to the students to tell them the truth. We owe it to their parents. And we beg teachers and high school counselors and others, who really care about young people: Look long and hard at these for-profit schools before you recommend them to a student.

I encourage all my colleagues to take a look at legislation that Tom Harkin and I have introduced. We are trying to drop the Federal subsidy to these for-profit schools just a small bit. It will be hard to do. These for-profit schools are pretty powerful in Washington. But if we are going to do our job to protect families and students across America--following the President's lead from his State of the Union address to make sure we are sensitive to student loans, student indebtedness, that we hold colleges and other training institutions accountable for what they are doing to and for students--it is time for us to turn the page and join the President.

The President's speech last night is a challenge to all of us on both sides of the aisle, both sides of the Rotunda, to take this student debt crisis seriously.

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

The clerk will call the roll.

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

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Unanimous Consent Agreement — Executive Calendar
Page: S668

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m. today the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 8, the nomination of William J. Kayatta, to be circuit judge for the First Circuit, with 30 minutes for debate, equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination; the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that President Obama be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Is there objection?

Without objection, it is so ordered.

. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

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

Without objection, it is so ordered.

State of the Union Reaction
Page: S668

Madam President, last night President Obama had the opportunity to present to the American people a plan envisioned for how he plans to strengthen the state of our Union.

While I am pleased he finally turned his focus back to the ongoing jobs crisis in our country, I was left feeling disappointed and frustrated that the President continued to call for higher taxes to pay for more and more government spending.

I don't believe the President acknowledges--or at least he didn't last evening--the seriousness of our debt and fiscal crisis. We are nearly $16.5 trillion in debt, and $6 trillion of that debt is from the President's spending over the last 4 years--and he now has 4 more years to go.

Yet rather than tell the American people specifically how he will reduce this unsustainable debt, he once again pulled out the same tired playbook and made it clear his basic fiscal plan is ever higher taxes. It's almost an obsession with tax hikes and telling the American people: You are just not taxed enough, when we are practically taxed to death. When you add not just the Federal but the State and the local and the sales and the excise and gasoline and the entertainment and all the other taxes that American people pay in their daily lives, it cuts into their paycheck in a very significant way each week. The real question is, Is the solution to our problems more taxes on the American people?

Mr. President, you got your taxes in the fiscal cliff debate. You had campaigned for this and you won the election. These tax levels were going to expire and hit every American with a massive tax increase. We clawed back a significant amount of that to protect the majority of Americans. But you got your taxes, Mr. President. Now is the time to address the other side of the so-called balanced approach that you have been promising: spending reductions.

Sadly, last night gave us no indication that the President is committed to leading on this critical issue and fixing our economy and, more important, getting more people back to work.

Instead of detailing a plan to reduce the record-high debt, he outlined a liberal laundry list of new government programs and initiatives. I could almost hear the sound of a cash register in the background--ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching--with every new program he put forward.

Some of these ideas were worthy ideas, but we cannot afford them. How are we going to pay for them? What is the result? The President said in a most disingenuous way that none of these initiatives would add a dime to the already unsustainable debt. If they do not add a dime to the debt and you are proposing all kinds of programs that are going to cost a lot of money, there is only one way you can pay for them, and that is to raise taxes--either that or to continue to borrow money and put us in an ever-deeper hole of debt, more obligated to our creditors with each day that goes by.

Hoosiers and Americans across the country are taxed enough. Washington cannot keep asking hard-working Americans to dig deeper and pony up more money so that the Federal Government can spend more. The American people no longer are falling for that. Hoosiers tell me they want to do their part to restore the fiscal health of this country. They want to do their part to help America become a better place and a more prosperous nation for their children and their grandchildren. They are willing to step up and do what it takes to help. But Hoosiers and the American people are not willing to be enablers to Washington's spending addiction. They want to see their lawmakers and this administration reform the outrageous, out-of-control spending, not continually call for higher taxes to pay for greater spending coming out of Washington.

I have to say I was somewhat encouraged that the President mentioned he was willing to make modest reforms to programs like Medicare. Both Republicans and Democrats, including the President, agree that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security represent the biggest portion and ever-growing percentage of government spending. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently reported that spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security and the interest on the debt for that spending will consume 91 percent of all Federal revenues in 10 years. That, then, takes all the wind out of our sails in terms of those necessary functions of the Federal Government, such as preparing adequately for our national security and defense and a number of other things the Federal Government is involved in that are essential functions. But with mandatory spending eating up, in 10 years, 91 percent of all we take in, we still are not going to have the ability to pay for those programs.

With 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day, we know the status quo is unsustainable. We cannot afford to continue the way we are. These programs are in jeopardy. We are not trying to take away the programs, we are trying to save the programs. They are in jeopardy, though, if we do not take steps now to structure them in a way that will control costs and preserve benefits for current and future recipients.

Hard-working Hoosiers and millions of Americans have spent a lifetime paying into these programs, and they rely on the health and security benefits they receive from them. But these benefits will not last if we ignore the facts about the current fiscal status and insolvency these programs are careening toward and do nothing. I was glad the President at least acknowledged that we need to make modest reforms. I think we can do that.

The reason we are dealing with this across-the-board sequester and the reason we are talking about potential cuts that have to be made is we have not had the courage and the will to stand up and recognize and acknowledge that it is the mandatory spending reforms that will put us in a place of fiscal health so we can continue the effective and essential functions of the Federal Government.

According to the International Monetary Fund, to cover current obligations for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, our younger generation--our young people--will either have to pay 35 percent more taxes and receive 35 percent lower benefits. Those are the facts. Do the math, do the arithmetic. This is not ideological. This is not Republicans versus Democrats, liberals versus conservatives. This is pure numbers, pure math. It is an unsustainable course, and it is going to result in a massive decrease in benefits for those who pay into those programs over a lifetime or a massive increase in taxes on those who have to have that deducted from their paychecks and put into these programs in order to keep them solvent.

We have to deal with that problem and deal with it now. We should have been dealing with it years ago. We have seen this train wreck coming, and it is getting ever closer. Now it is time for the President, having recognized the need to address this issue--now is the time that he needs to show the American people he is willing to lead, not from behind but from the front, and offer a specific plan to reform and strengthen our health and retirement security programs.

The President said the sequester--the across-the-board cuts where everyone gets nicked--is a terrible idea. It is his terrible idea, and it is not the best way to address our spending plight. It is not the best way to deal with this because it basically assumes that every program is of equal value, that what is spent to provide security for the American people by having an adequate and strong military is at the same level as some program that has been proven years ago to be totally dysfunctional and efficient. But they would both get cut.

I will be laying out a number of things, as others have--like Senator Coburn to highlight some of those programs that need to be reevaluated. Not that we think all of these ought to be eliminated or trimmed or that they don't fall into an essential category in terms of the role of the Federal Government but there are several programs that nonpartisan agencies, such as the General Accounting Office, or even the President's own Office of Management and Budget have recommended, are not worthy of the support they receive because they are not an essential function or they are even dysfunctional programs altogether.

We do not have to delve into the across-the-board sequester, which we have no choice but to do now because we failed to live up to what we needed to do--and I will be talking about that later, as I said.

I urge us to focus on fixing the country's fiscal health. We do not do that by raising taxes, we do it by enacting broad spending reforms. We do it by reducing our debt. We do it by creating a budget so we can live within our means. And we do it by promoting growth, growing our economy. A growing economy can solve a lot of problems and get a lot of people back to work. This is how we strengthen America, and this is how we get Americans back to work.

It is time we get to work and accomplish this task that lies before us now, not later--no more deferrals, no more pushing it down the road. It is time to step up now, as the President said, putting the interest of our country ahead of our own personal political interest, rising above the political to do what is right for America.

That is the challenge, and, Mr. President, we need your leadership.

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

The clerk will call the roll.

The Senator from Louisiana.

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

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my Republican colleague from Alabama, as well as any other Members who may join us.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Immigration Policy
Page: S670

Madam President, Senator Sessions and I take to the floor to talk about immigration, which is obviously a very important and very hot topic. The first point I would like to make is just a simple statement and suggestion. There has been a lot of activity and a lot of discussion about immigration in the Senate and in the Congress and Washington, DC. If we merely listen to a lot of beltway, so-called mainstream reporting about this, they would give the impression that there is near universal consensus around a model we have tried before, which is a so-called comprehensive approach.

First, I don't think there is anything near universal agreement. I don't think there is consensus. I think there are real questions and concerns among many of us in the Senate and in Congress but, much more importantly, in America and the real world.

I think those fundamental concerns come down to one thing; that is, we have tried this so-called comprehensive approach before. We have tried proposals that marry an immediate amnesty with promises of enforcement. That model has not worked before. In fact, it has failed miserably.

The most notable example was major immigration legislation in 1986. It was the same model. It had comprehensive and immediate amnesty with promises of enforcement. There were promises that we will have to do this just once, never have to look back, and the problem will be solved. Of course, the problem was not solved. It didn't even just continue. The problem has quadrupled.

The amnesty did happen immediately. As soon as the bill passed, that virtually and immediately kicked in. The promises of enforcement were just that, promises. Those promises were not kept, and as a result what happened with that model? The problem of 3 million illegal aliens didn't go away and was not solved once and for all. It quadrupled and became the present problem of 11 or 12 million--or more--illegal aliens. That is the fundamental concern I have with most of the so-called comprehensive proposals being put forward. That is the fundamental concern of Louisianans I talk to every day.

We want to solve the problem. We don't want to perpetuate it, much less quadruple it. I think it is important to discuss alternative, more effective, more workable approaches. I have several ideas about what those approaches might look like, and, in fact, I am introducing a package of immigration bills today. I will talk about that further, but I certainly want to recognize and thank my good friend and colleague, Senator Sessions from Alabama, for joining me on the Senate floor today.

I thank the Senator for his leadership and in-depth study and knowledge about how these laws are working--and really not working--in America today.

I just left a hearing in the Judiciary Committee. The chairman of that committee, Senator Leahy, basically said--referring perhaps to me--they want enforcement first, but it seems they don't have any interest in amnesty--or words to that effect. I would say the American people's view is exactly the opposite. What the American people have been asking for and what they are afraid of is that we will have a deal like 1986 where the amnesty provisions become law and were immediately applied, but the promises of enforcement never occurs. So I believe that is a danger again.

It feels to me so much like 2007 when I, Senator Vitter, and others engaged and asked tough questions about the legislation which really resulted in its failure because it would not have done what the authors of it said it would do. So for 30 or 40 years the American people have said: End the lawlessness. That is what they have asked of us first. They will work a way to be compassionate if the lawlessness has ended, but that has not happened.

In fact, in a number of ways we have gone in the opposite direction. Improvement has occurred at the border in real numbers because over the last several years--before President Obama took office--we agreed to increase the number of Border Patrol agents. With the help of Senator Vitter, I forced through legislation to build a fence. I am sure Senator Vitter remembers that debate.

Now everybody talks about how we have a fence, and they are bragging about it. It is only 36 miles of the real fence we asked for. I am sure the Senator from Louisiana remembers how they opposed every foot of it and how they resisted it in every way possible. They didn't favor adding border agents. There was a vote for border agents--and I remember speaking about it--but they never produced the money. So we authorized border agents. People said they were for border agents, but they would not vote for the money to support that. We had a big discussion and debate about that, and eventually we added some border agents. That has helped, but the problem is not fixed.

Internally, this administration has systematically dismantled enforcement inside the United States. Chris Crane, who is head of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Union, is a marine and a great guy. The ICE union has unanimously voted no confidence in John Morton, the head of the ICE Department. They have sued the ICE Department because Morton blocked them from doing their sworn duty to enforce the law.

Today I asked Crane if he had ever met with Secretary Napolitano. Chris testified about the bad morale that ICE agents have. A little over a year ago I asked Secretary Napolitano about the bad morale that ICE agents have. Crane said he had never met her and has never shaken hands with her. At this point, we don't have the kind of commitment in law enforcement that I think gives the American people confidence that we are moving forward on the right path.

Finally, I would just share with the Senator that I do think that means this is no sure thing. People are awfully confident that as long as some big names are on the bill, it is just going to pass. I am not confident that is so.

I thank the Senator, and I certainly agree. Again, the fundamental issue is, Is the model that has been tried before really going to work--an immediate amnesty with promises of enforcement? Unfortunately, history is littered with examples of that exact model failing and those promises of enforcement never being kept.

What do I mean by that? I mentioned 1986, which is the biggest historical example: An immediate amnesty where we are going to get serious about enforcement, we will never have to look back, and we will have to do this once. We will solve the problem.

Of course, it didn't solve the problem; it quadrupled the problem. There were 3 million illegal aliens back then. There are 11 to 12 million illegal aliens now. There have been promises of a U.S.-VISIT Program with an entry-and-exit system to track everyone entering the country and making sure they exit in time. That was first promised back in 1986. Ten years later, in 1996, Congress passed another act to require a fully integrated entry-exit system with full implementation by 2005. Guess what. 2005 has come and gone. It has been 30 years since that initial promise was made. We still don't have an operational and effective U.S.-VISIT system.

My colleague from Alabama mentioned another glaring example: the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which we actually passed in legislation. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 promises to achieve operational control for the entire border. It defined ``operational control as ``the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband. We have not achieved that.

In fact, we are so far from that goal, DHS has had to weaken the definition so it only now talks about effective operational control. They had to stick the word ``effective'' in there because we never had operational control. Who knows exactly what that means, but GAO tried to define and tried to measure it in a recent report.

In their recent report they found that only 44 percent of the southern border was under any sort of operational control. Only 15 percent of that is under full operational control. Even if we use the loosey-goosey word ``effective,'' we have less than one-half of the border under that control. More than one-half of the border is under what they call managed control, which often means no control. It means a lot of almost fully unfettered, illegal crosses.

Now we come to today with this debate, and the new promise: If you just give us immediate amnesty, we are going to have this enforcement. We promise, we promise, we promise. Again, we are concerned that we are reliving history in a negative way.

For instance, when the Gang of 8 declares they ``will ensure ..... a successful permanent reform to our immigration system that will not need to be revisited,'' that sure sounds like 1986, with this one fix that we will never have to look back. But, of course, we are looking back because the problem has grown. It is interesting to note that the very day after the Gang of 8 announcement, there was even disagreement between some of the gang members regarding what they announced and what they promised.

Many of the Republican members of that Gang of 8 emphasized that enforcement has to happen; otherwise, nothing else is triggered. Yet on the other side of the political spectrum, Senator Schumer--also a member of that Gang of 8--walked back any commitment to fully secure enforcement before citizenship happened. He said: ``We're not using border security as an excuse or a block to the path to citizenship.''

So there we have it. After the announcement, there is apparent inconsistency about how serious they are about ensuring enforcement, and that is the fundamental question. I think that is a very legitimate concern given the past history.

We have proposed a different path forward with a targeted, step-by-step approach to prove to ourselves and the American people that we are serious about these enforcement and related reforms, to do those, and to have them working before we move on anything else.

Today I am introducing a series of bills that fall into that targeted, step-by-step approach. I do not use the word ``comprehensive'' because I think that word is a negative. It is targeted, and it is step by step. I will outline those bills in a minute.

Again, I certainly want to thank and recognize the Senator from Alabama.

Would the Senator from Mississippi say the enforcement of immigration laws is an area--based on the Senator's experience in Congress, in the House and in the Senate--where the difference between the promises of what is going to happen and what actually happens is greater than almost any other issue we have dealt with, where people are promising this and only delivering something else?

Absolutely. Unfortunately, that is the history, tried and true: lots of promises. No single major promise has been kept. Whether it is the fence, whether it is the US-VISIT Program, whether it is the overall promise of enforcement in 1986, none of those promises has been kept.

According to some news reports--to follow up on the point the Senator made about sending two messages, one promising the people one thing and the other telling special-interest groups another thing--one report said Democratic Senators have assured immigration activists that the so-called enforcement trigger is just a ``talking point'' to give Republicans, who are supporting this scheme, this plan, as cover and there will not ever be an impediment to the achievement of amnesty. Does that make the Senator from Mississippi uneasy, that people who are supposed to be speaking in good faith, telling their Republican colleagues and the American people they have a plan that is going to guarantee enforcement while they are telling, apparently, the activists something quite different?

That makes me very nervous and very uneasy. It is exactly what Senator Schumer said the very next day after the announcement: ``We're not using border security as an excuse or a block to the path to citizenship.''

In other words--well, the words Senator Schumer is saying are quite plain. I have a great deal of respect for him. I know he wants to accomplish something valuable here. But it does seem to me he is saying, Well, if enforcement doesn't occur, we promise there will be a trigger and there will be no amnesty unless enforcement occurs; but if we get there and enforcement doesn't occur, you are still going to get your amnesty.

That is what it sounds like to me. It sounds to me as though the trigger is meaningless. The amnesty and even full citizenship--to me, amnesty is any legal status, but they are actually talking about a path to full citizenship will happen ultimately, no matter what on the enforcement side.

I will conclude and yield to my esteemed colleague to lay out some ideas he has to actually improve enforcement so that if we get to the point where we can achieve a legal system that operates effectively in America, we will know it when it happens. We can get there. Without some of these provisions Senator Vitter will recommend, I am confident we will not get there. If people won't support these kinds of provisions, then it raises questions about whether they are serious about their promises to end the lawlessness.

I just left a Judiciary Committee hearing. Mr. Vargas testified, who was here apparently illegally, came at the age of 12. I asked him: Should a good Nation have a legal system that has clear laws, clear policies, and those laws are in force? And he said yes. So there is nothing wrong, nothing immoral, nothing unconstitutional for the American people to say we should have a lawful system of immigration. Everybody is not able to come. You have to wait in line and wait your turn and meet the qualifications before you come. And if you try to enter illegally, there will be consequences. There is nothing immoral about that. It is only common sense. It is only the right thing to do.

I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his work on this and the ideas he will be presenting to us.

I thank the Senator from Alabama for his leadership on this issue and on the Judiciary Committee.

There is, Madam President, an alternative way forward, a positive, productive way forward, a targeted, step-by-step approach that is appropriate, particularly given all the broken promises of the past.

The American people need to be convinced, and who can blame them? Again, the landscape of this issue is littered with utterly broken promises. We need to rebuild that trust and rebuild that confidence, and we can only do that in a targeted, step-by-step way.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but I am introducing today seven bills--actually, six bills, and I am joining Senator Grassley as a coauthor of a seventh bill--that would be important parts of this targeted, step-by-step approach. Let me briefly mention what those seven bills are.

First of all, the STEM Jobs Act of 2013. This would make up to 55,000 visas available to qualified immigrants whom we need in this economy--well educated, qualified. We have jobs here ready for them, and it would be an enormous economic boost. They would have a doctorate degree in the field of science, engineering, technology, or math from a U.S. doctoral institution and would have taken all doctoral courses in the STEM field while in the United States. We train, we educate those superqualified folks all the time and then, all too often, we send them back to their native countries and don't allow them to remain here to get on a pathway to citizenship and to contribute, as they would, to our economy.

A child tax credit law. This would amend the IRS Code to simply put in place significant identification requirements for the child tax credit to require taxpayers to provide that valid ID, to cut out what is admitted to be rampant fraud in the system. The IRS itself and its inspector general office have said there is at least $1.3 billion of fraud a year in the child tax credit. These checks from the taxpayer, actual checks going out to illegal recipients who do not qualify under the law, in some cases, dozens, allegedly, at a single address, a single family, are clearly fraud. We must meet some basic requirements to cut out that fraud. The IRS itself, under this administration, has asked for those tools. We should give them those tools under this child tax credit legislation.

Sanctuary cities reform would prohibit appropriated funds from being used in contravention of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1986. I am joined by Senator Grassley and Senator Fischer in that legislation.

Too many jurisdictions in the United States are self-proclaimed sanctuary cities. By doing that, they are in contravention of Federal immigration law when they say they will not cooperate in the enforcement of that law in any way. That is unacceptable, and those cities should not get appropriated funds.

E-Verify I mentioned is an initiative and legislation by Senator Grassley. I am proud to join him as a coauthor. I am an original cosponsor of that bill. It would take the present E-Verify system and make it mandatory and expand it so that is our workforce system of enforcement. E-Verify works. The problem is it is a pilot. It is not mandatory and it is not broad enough. We need to broaden and make mandatory that workable E-Verify system.

The Voter Integrity Protection Act would amend the INA to make voting in a Federal election by an alien who is unlawfully in the United States an aggravated felony, which makes it a deportable offense. If a person is illegally participating in our elections, that is a serious offense to any democracy. That should be a deportable offense.

The Birthright Citizenship Act would also amend the law to consider a person born in the United States ``subject to the jurisdiction'' of the United States for citizenship only if the person is born through at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful permanent resident alien in the United States or an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces. Right now it is, in my opinion, an accident of history and a mistake that any child physically born here, even of two parents here illegally and improperly, automatically becomes a U.S. citizen. Virtually no other country in the world has this rule. This reform would simply amend U.S. law to have the same basic rule as virtually every other country in the world I am aware of. A person doesn't automatically become a citizen just because they are physically born here; at least one parent has to have that legal status.

Finally, US-VISIT reform, finally, after decades of promises, after decades of broken promises, to require that the US-VISIT system--the biometric border check-in/check-out system first required in 1996 that is well past its implementation date of 2005--be finished, be done, be fully in place before any of these other triggered aspects of so-called comprehensive reform happen. On that reform, I am proud to be joined by Senator Sessions and Senator Lee as coauthors.

Again, I am introducing these six bills today. I am also an original cosponsor of Senator Grassley's E-Verify bill, a seventh bill. I think this is a targeted, step-by-step approach which is the right alternative to so-called comprehensive reform, which historically means immediate amnesty married to promises of enforcement that never happen, that never fully materialize.

I urge my colleagues to look hard at these measures and hopefully support some or all of them. I urge them even more to go back home and listen to their constituents, to listen hard at the neighborhood coffee shop and the townhall meetings, because I think these sorts of concerns, as Senator Sessions and I have expressed today, are the core concerns, the core questions of a great majority of the American people.

Thank you, Madam President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

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

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Page: S672

Nomination of William J. Kayatta, Jr., to Be United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit
Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to executive session and consider the following nomination, which the clerk will report.

Under the previous order, there will be 30 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form.

The Senator from Maine.

In Favor of Nomination
Mr. President, I am delighted to rise in strong support of the confirmation of William Kayatta of Maine to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Mr. Kayatta was originally nominated to this position more than 1 year ago. He was approved by the Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan vote last April. Unfortunately, despite his exceptional qualifications, his nomination was stalled by election-year politics. That is finally behind us, and I am pleased the President renominated Mr. Kayatta in January.

I wish to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, my colleague from Vermont Senator Leahy; the ranking member Senator Grassley; and, indeed, all the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for acting promptly and positively in favor of Mr. Kayatta's renomination.

Let me also express my gratitude to the two leaders, Senator Reid and Senator McConnell, for moving his nomination so quickly to the Senate floor.

Mr. Kayatta is an attorney of exceptional intelligence, extensive experience, and demonstrated integrity. I cannot tell you how highly regarded he is in Maine's legal circles. In fact, if you ask virtually any attorney, judge, prosecutor, law professor or anyone involved in the legal profession in Maine, they will tell you the President could not have made a better choice than Bill Kayatta. He graduated magna cum laude from both Amherst College and Harvard University Law School, where he served as a member of the Law Review.

After graduating from law school, Mr. Kayatta clerked for the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Frank Coffin. It is a wonderful symmetry that he now, assuming the confirmation goes well this afternoon, will be joining the court for which he clerked many years ago.

In 1980, he joined the prestigious law firm of Pierce Atwood in Portland, ME, where over the subsequent 32 years Bill specialized in complex civil litigation at both the trial and appellate levels. Bill Kayatta has served as chairman of both the Maine Professional Ethics Commission, the Maine Board of Bar Examiners, and as president of the Maine Bar Association.

In 2002, Mr. Kayatta was inducted into the American College of Trial Lawyers, and in 2010 he was elected by his peers to the college's board of regents.

Mr. Kayatta has simultaneously maintained a very substantial pro bono practice. In the year 2010, he received the Maine Bar Foundation's Howard H. Dana Award for career-long pro bono service on behalf of low-income Mainers.

In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court appointed him as a special master in Kansas v. Nebraska and Colorado, an original water rights case. That too is an indication of the Court's confidence in Mr. Kayatta's legal abilities.

Finally, Mr. Kayatta has earned the American Bar Association's highest rating: ``unanimously well-qualified,'' reflecting the ABA's assessment of his credentials, experience, and temperament.

Mr. Kayatta's impressive background makes him eminently qualified for a seat on the First Circuit. His 30-plus years of real-world litigation experience would bring a valuable perspective to the court.

The First Circuit has only six authorized judgeships, the fewest of any circuit. It acutely feels any vacancy that arises. The First Circuit has not been at full strength since January 1, 2012, when Judge Kermit Lipez took active senior status. Now the circuit's caseload must be distributed among just five judges who continue to do their best to provide the timely and measured justice for which the First Circuit has long been known.

The State of Maine is very proud of its history of providing superb jurists to the Federal bench. I am confident William Kayatta will continue in that fine tradition, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for his confirmation, a vote that is long overdue but has finally arrived.

Again, I wish to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the ranking member, and the two leaders, Senator Reid and Senator McConnell, for moving this important nomination to the Senate floor.

The Senator from Vermont.

In Favor of Nomination
Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Maine for her kind words, and I would note both for William Kayatta and for the people of Maine she has fought long and hard for this nomination. She did last year and she has this year. I am glad we are going to be finally voting on it because every time I would meet her anywhere in the halls or anywhere else it would be: What about Kayatta? She knows he, of course, had my strong support, as did another New Englander, former Justice and now judge, David Souter. I am sorry it has taken so long.

I look at a nominee like this, where the senior Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, her former colleague, Senator Snowe, and now her current colleague, Senator King, have all supported this person from Maine. In the past, especially with somebody extraordinarily well qualified, as he is, a nomination like that would be out of the committee and off the floor within a week. We have to go back to those times.

If we have a contentious nominee, if we have somebody who needs to be debated, let's debate them. But when we have a person strongly supported by their home State Senators and who has the advantage of being highly qualified by anybody's standards--Republican, Democrat, or anybody else--then they ought to get a vote.

It makes no sense for Senate Republicans to have stalled nominations like that of William Kayatta, but this is their track record and their pattern over the last 4 years. Senate Republicans used to insist that the filibustering of judicial nominations was unconstitutional. The Constitution has not changed, but as soon as President Obama was elected they reversed course and filibustered President Obama's very first judicial nomination. Judge David Hamilton of Indiana was a widely-respected 15-year veteran of the Federal bench nominated to the Seventh Circuit and was supported by Senator Dick Lugar, the longest-serving Republican in the Senate. They delayed his confirmation for 7 months. Senate Republicans then proceeded to obstruct and delay just about every circuit court nominee of this President, filibustering 10 of them. They delayed confirmation of Judge Albert Diaz of North Carolina to the Fourth Circuit for 11 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Jane Stranch of Tennessee to the Sixth Circuit for 10 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Ray Lohier of New York to the Second Circuit for 7 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Scott Matheson of Utah to the Tenth Circuit and Judge James Wynn, Jr. of North Carolina to the Fourth Circuit for 6 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Andre Davis of Maryland to the Fourth Circuit, Judge Henry Floyd of South Carolina to the Fourth Circuit, Judge Stephanie Thacker of West Virginia to the Fourth Circuit, and Judge Jacqueline Nguyen of California to the Ninth Circuit for 5 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Adalberto Jordan of Florida to the Eleventh Circuit, Judge Beverly Martin of Georgia to the Eleventh Circuit, Judge Mary Murguia of Arizona to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Bernice Donald of Tennessee to the Sixth Circuit, Judge Barbara Keenan of Virginia to the Fourth Circuit, Judge Thomas Vanaskie of Pennsylvania to the Third Circuit, Judge Joseph Greenaway of New Jersey to the Third Circuit, Judge Denny Chin of New York to the Second Circuit, and Judge Chris Droney of Connecticut to the Second Circuit for 4 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Paul Watford of California to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Andrew Hurwitz of Arizona to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Morgan Christen of Alaska to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Stephen Higginson of Louisiana to the Fifth Circuit, Judge Gerard Lynch of New York to the Second Circuit, Judge Susan Carney of Connecticut to the Second Circuit, and Judge Kathleen O'Malley of Ohio to the Federal Circuit for 3 months.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has reported that the median time circuit nominees have had to wait before a Senate vote has skyrocketed from 18 days for President Bush's nominees to 132 days for President Obama's. This is the result of Republican obstruction.

This obstruction is also why a damagingly high level of judicial vacancies has persisted for over 4 years. While such tactics are bad for the Senate, they are also bad for our Nation's overburdened courts. Persistent vacancies force fewer judges to take on growing caseloads, and make it harder for Americans to have access to justice. While they have delayed and obstructed, the number of judicial vacancies has remained historically high and it has become more difficult for our courts to provide speedy, quality justice for the American people. There are today 90 judicial vacancies across the country. By way of contrast, that is more than double the number of vacancies that existed at this point in the Bush administration. The 173 circuit and district judges that we have been able to confirm over the last 4 years fall more than 30 short of the total for President Bush's first term.

Over the last 4 years, Senate Republicans have chosen to depart dramatically from Senate traditions in their efforts to delay and obstruct President Obama's judicial nominations. Until 2009, Senators who filibustered circuit court nominees generally had reasons to do so, and were willing to explain those reasons. When Senate Democrats filibustered President Bush's controversial circuit court nominees, it was over substantive concerns about the nominees' records and Republicans' disregard for the rights of Democratic Senators. On the other hand, Senate Republicans have filibustered and delayed nearly all of President Obama's circuit court nominees even when those nominees have the support of their Republican home State Senators.

At the end of each calendar year, Senate Republicans now deliberately refuse to vote on several judicial nominees who could and should be confirmed in order to consume additional time the following year confirming these nominees. At the end of 2009, they left 10 nominations on the Executive Calendar without a vote. Two of those nominations were returned to the President, and it subsequently took 9 months for the Senate to take action on the other eight. This resulted in the lowest 1-year confirmation total in at least 35 years. For the next 2 years, Senate Republicans left 19 nominations on the Senate executive calendar at the end of each year. It then took nearly half the following year for the Senate to confirm these nominees. Last year they insisted on leaving 11 judicial nominees without action and another four have had hearings but they refused to expedite their consideration. William Kayatta is one of those judicial nominees who should have been confirmed last year.

Until 2009, when a judicial nominee had been reported by the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support, they were generally confirmed quickly. Until 2009, we observed regular order, usually confirmed nominees promptly, and we cleared the Senate Executive Calendar before long recesses. Until 2009, if a nominee was filibustered, it was almost always because of a substantive issue with the nominee's record. We know what has happened since 2009. The median district nomination is stalled 4.3 times as long as it took to confirm them during the Bush administration, and the median circuit court nomination is stalled 7.3 times as long as it took to confirm them during the Bush administration. Nor has any other President's judicial nominees had to wait an average of over 100 days for a Senate vote after being reported by the Judiciary Committee.

Senate Republicans have also forced the majority leader to file cloture on 30 nominees, which is already more than 50 percent more nominees than had cloture filed during President Bush's 8 years in office. Almost all of these 30 nominations were noncontroversial and were ultimately confirmed overwhelmingly. Barely 80 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees were confirmed during his first 4 years compared to almost 90 percent of President George W. Bush's first term nominees.

While this is not even close to a full account of the precedents broken in the last 4 years, the record is clear: Senate Republicans have engaged in an unprecedented effort to obstruct President Obama's judicial nominations. Pretending it has not taken place is an insult to the American people. The American people know better. Chief Justice Roberts, in his year-end Report on the Federal Judiciary in 2010 pointed to the ``[P]ersistent problem [that] has developed in the process of filling judicial vacancies ..... This has created acute difficulties for some judicial districts. Sitting judges in those districts have been burdened with extraordinary caseloads ..... There remains, however, an urgent need for the political branches to find a long-term solution to this recurring problem.'' Despite bipartisan calls to address the judicial vacancy crisis, Senate Republicans have continued their obstruction of judicial confirmations.

Today, the Senate is finally being allowed to vote on one of the nominees held over from last year. Judicial vacancies right now stand at 90. And I mention that because during President Bush's entire second term--the 4 years from 2004 through 2008--the vacancies never exceeded 60. I worked very hard to keep the vacancies down, but since President Obama's first full month in office, as far as we can see, there have never been fewer than 60 vacancies, and for much of that time many, many more. This is a prescription for overburdened courts and a Federal justice system that does not serve the interests of the American people. It means people who come to our courts looking for impartial justice can't get it because there are no judges.

This is hurting the integrity of the judicial system. I hear this from judges nominated by Republican Presidents and those nominated by Democratic Presidents. They say these delays politicize the courts and destroy the impartiality the Federal courts have to have.

I commend President Obama for nominating such a diverse group of qualified judges. In his first 4 years, President Obama has appointed as many women judges as President Bush did during his entire 8 years in office. In just 4 years, President Obama has also nominated more African Americans, more Asian Americans, and more openly gay Americans than his predecessor did in 8 years. Americans can be proud of President Obama's efforts to increase diversity in the Federal judiciary and to ensure that it better reflects all Americans.

I hope that this year and over the coming 4 years, Senate Republicans will end their misguided and harmful obstruction and work with us in a bipartisan manner to do what is right for the country. President Obama has nominated qualified, mainstream lawyers, and the Senate should consider them in regular order, without unnecessary delays. That is what we had done for as long as I have served in the Senate, whether the nominations came from a Democratic or a Republican president. We should work together to restore and uphold the best traditions of the Senate.

Last Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported three judicial nominees, William Kayatta, Robert Bacharach, and Richard Taranto. They are all superbly qualified, consensus nominees. All have received the highest possible rating of unanimously well qualified from the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, and with last Thursday's Judiciary Committee votes, all have twice now received overwhelming, bipartisan support from members of the Judiciary Committee from both sides of the aisle. All have something else in common too: Their nominations were stalled before the Senate for at least 7 months last year without a vote. That is why they each had to be re-nominated by the President this year.

This is sadly typical of how Senate Republicans have treated President Obama's consensus judicial nominees. Even nominees who are supported by Republican home state Senators and by all the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee are stalled for months for no good reason. They are delaying votes on all nominees, including nominees they support. This is unprecedented.

For example, Senator Coburn said that ``[Judge Bacharach] has no opposition in the Senate. . . . There's no reason why he shouldn't be confirmed.'' That was before Senator Coburn joined a filibuster against voting on his nomination last year. Last year's filibuster of the Bacharach nomination was the first time in the history of the Senate that a circuit nominee reported with bipartisan support had been successfully filibustered. When I say unprecedented, I mean unprecedented.

I am glad that William Kayatta is finally getting a vote. The nominee spent the entirety of his 32-year legal career in private practice in the Portland, ME, law firm Pierce Atwood LLP, where he is currently a partner. Over his career, he has personally argued over three dozen appeals, including two before the United States Supreme Court. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he served on the Harvard Law Review. Upon graduation, he clerked for Chief Judge Frank Coffin on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the court to which he is nominated.

William Kayatta has held a prominent leadership role in numerous professional organizations, including serving as the lead investigator for the American Bar

Association Standing Committee of the Federal Judiciary during its review of Justice Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court. He was also appointed by the U.S. Supreme Court to serve as Special Master in an interstate dispute, where he was charged with managing proceedings and submitting a report and recommendation to the Court. The ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Mr. Kayatta well qualified to serve on the First Circuit, its highest possible rating.

While it is good that William Kayatta will finally receive a vote today, it is also well past time for the Senate to vote on Robert Bacharach and Richard Taranto. Perpetuating these vacancies on the Tenth and Federal Circuits, and preventing Judge Bacharach and Mr. Taranto from getting to work on behalf of the American people, does not benefit anyone. The Judiciary Committee has again done its work to vet, consider, and vote on these nominations. It is time that the other two circuit nominees who were renominated and considered again by the Judiciary Committee and again reported to the Senate, be given an up-or-down vote.

The Senate could confirm all three nominees this week. In June 2005, the Senate confirmed four circuit court nominees of a Republican President in just 2 days, including highly controversial nominees such as Janice Rogers Brown to the D.C. Circuit and William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit. In July 2006, the Senate confirmed Bobby Shepherd to the Eighth Circuit, Neil Gorsuch and Jerome Holmes of the Tenth Circuit within 1 week. There is ample recent precedent for confirming Judge Bacharach and Richard Taranto without further delay. Neither is controversial.

William Kayatta is strongly supported by both of Maine's Senators, Republican Senator Susan Collins and Independent Senator Angus King. When George W. Bush was President, Senate Democrats worked quickly to hold votes on consensus circuit nominees. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, half of President Bush's circuit nominees received a confirmation vote within just 18 days of being reported by the Judiciary Committee. Not a single one of President Obama's circuit nominees has received a vote so quickly. In fact, the median wait time for President Obama's circuit nominees is more than seven times that for President Bush's circuit nominees.

This continued obstruction is one of the reasons we remain so far behind the pace set during President Bush's time in office. By February of President Bush's fifth year, the Senate had confirmed 205 of his circuit and district nominees, and judicial vacancies stood at 40. In contrast, just 173 of President Obama's circuit and district nominees have been confirmed, and the vacancy rate has risen again to 90, or more than 10 percent of the Federal bench. Judicial vacancies are nearly back at historically high levels.

Perpetuating these vacancies on the Tenth and Federal Circuits, and preventing Judge Bacharach and Richard Taranto from getting to work on behalf of the American people, does not benefit anyone. The Judiciary Committee has again done its work to vet, consider, and vote on these nominations. It is time for the Senate to act to confirm them.

I will speak more on nominations as we go along, but I do want to congratulate not only the senior Senator from Maine but also Senator King and the people of Maine, and the people of the First Circuit. The circuit needs to have its vacancies filled, and I am glad we have such a good person.

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

The clerk will call the roll.

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

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I yield back all time on both sides.

Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.

All time having been yielded back, the question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of William J. Kayatta, Jr., of Maine, to be U.S. circuit judge for the First Circuit?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.

Rollcall Vote No. 20 Ex.
Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. The President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Page: S675

The Senate will resume legislative session.

The Senator from Washington.

Page: S675

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

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

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Tribute to General Chuck Yeager
Page: S675

Mr. President, few Americans have helped this great country reach for the stars more than Gen. Chuck Yeager. Long before there were astronauts there was Chuck Yeager, a fearless test pilot, a true aviation pioneer paving the way for America's exploration of the galaxy. But Chuck Yeager's military career involved so much more than just testing cutting-edge aircraft and, as almost everyone knows, becoming the first man to fly faster than the speed of sound. Few Americans have been as unwavering or as relentless as Chuck Yeager in defense of this great country, in war and in peace, from World War II to Vietnam.

He was part of the ``greatest generation'' of Americans, the generation that fought and won World War II and then came home and made America the world's greatest superpower. Among the greatest in that generation was Chuck Yeager.

Today is Chuck's 90th birthday, and I invite the entire Senate to join me in congratulating him. I am so proud of this man. Not only is he a native son of West Virginia but he is also a dear friend of mine. Chuck lives in California now, with his wife Victoria, but he still comes to West Virginia to hunt with me and roam the hills where he grew up.

He also visits the State from time to time to promote the foundation which bears his name, and which supports a scholarship program at Marshall University.

When I was Governor, Chuck and Victoria would sometimes visit Gayle and me at the Governor's Mansion. Some of you know I am a pilot, and during one of his visits to West Virginia I got him to join me on a flight. We were trying out a new airplane for the State. It was a real honor, but it was a little bit daunting, if you will, that I am flying left seat and Chuck is right behind me, evaluating the entire flight. Looking over my shoulder, having the greatest pilot who ever lived sitting there, was something I will never forget.

Some of the story of Chuck's life you probably know and some of it you may not. Chuck grew up in the small town of Hamlin. That is in Lincoln County, WV, so deep in an Appalachian holler that folks there used to say you had to pump in the sunshine.

His father Albert Hal worked as a driller in the gasfields. His mother Susie Mae took care of Chuck, his two brothers, and two sisters.

Chuck and his father went hunting and fishing together. Chuck also worked with his father in the oilfields. He was fascinated by the drilling equipment. He liked cars--real fast cars. He especially liked his old man's Chevy truck. He not only drove it, he studied all of its mechanical details. He could basically take it apart and rebuild it.

Looking back, it is not surprising that in the middle of World War II, a patriotic kid from West Virginia who was good with rifles, mechanical equipment, and fast cars enlisted in the U.S. Air Force as an airplane mechanic--his first step toward becoming the single greatest pilot who has ever lived.

A new ``flying sergeants'' program eventually gave him his first chance to fly. Up until that time it was officers only. His first couple training flights didn't go so well. Some people might not know this, but he had to overcome airsickness. Can you believe that Chuck Yeager got airsick? Before long he found a new home in the sky in the cockpit of an airplane.

During World War II, Chuck flew numerous combat missions over Europe and shot down 13 enemy aircraft--5 in 1 mission. He was shot down over German-occupied France in 1944 but escaped capture to fly another day. But before he could do that, he had to argue his case against being sent home under a no more combat rule. The rule was basically if a pilot was shot down, they could not let them go back, because if they were captured, they could basically tell who the people who saved them were. He pushed his way all the way up the chain of command to Supreme Allied Commander General Dwight D. Eisenhower. Ike ultimately granted Chuck's request to stay with his men.

After the war, Chuck became a test pilot. On October 14, 1947, he did what no man had done before--he broke the sound barrier in the experimental X-1 plane named the ``Glamorous Glennis,'' after his late wife. His fabled flight ushered in a new era of aviation that prepared America for its greatest leap into space and so began the legend of Chuck Yeager.

Tom Wolfe wrote in ``The Right Stuff''--a movie most of us have seen. If you haven't seen it, I suggest you do. Tom Wolfe wrote:

There were ..... other pilots with enough Pilot Ego to believe that they were actually better than this drawlin' hot dog.

Chuck had a way with words, if you ever have a chance to speak with him.

But no one could contest the fact that as of that time, the 1950s, Chuck Yeager was at the top of the pyramid, number one among all the True Brothers.

Throughout his long military career, General Yeager flew more than 10,000 hours in more than 330 models of aircraft. In 1966, he flew 127 missions in South Vietnam. He received numerous awards, including the Distinguished Service Medal, the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the special peacetime Medal of Honor. He was the youngest military pilot to be inducted into the Aviation Hall of Fame in 1973.

Chuck officially retired from the Air Force in 1975 but maintained his status as a test pilot for another three decades, occasionally flying for the Air Force and NASA as a consultant.

In 1997, on the 50th anniversary of his historic flight breaking the sound barrier, he again flew past Mach One in an F-15D Eagle named the ``Glamorous Glennis III.'' It was his last official flight with the Air Force. Of course, nothing stops Chuck Yeager. So last October on the 65th anniversary of breaking the sound barrier, he did it again, in another aircraft, at the age of 89.

Whenever he is asked about all his exploits, Chuck says he was just ``doing his job, and that all he is he ``owes to the Air Force. He has never ever wavered from that.

In his autobiography, he wrote:

My beginnings back in West Virginia tell who I am to this day. My accomplishments as a pilot tell more about luck, happenstance, and a person's destiny. But the guy who broke the sound barrier was the kid who swam the Mud River with a swiped watermelon, or shot the head off a squirrel before school.

Tom Wolfe believed Chuck Yeager to be the ``most righteous of all possessors of the right stuff. Wolfe himself struggled to explain what he meant by ``the right stuff. His best explanation was that ``the right stuff is that rare, almost indefinable mix of bravery, heroism, hard work, and focus that someone brings to ``a cause that means something to a people, a nation, to humanity, to God. That describes Gen. Chuck Yeager as well as anything else I know.

He is a man of extraordinary skill and legendary courage. He has an unparalleled sense of duty and service to his country. He risked his life over and over. He is a great West Virginian. He is a great American. On his 90th birthday he is still, without a doubt, a man with ``the right stuff.''

I wish my dear friend the happiest of birthdays, and I urge every Senator to join me in saluting Gen. Chuck Yeager for his long and courageous service to this great country.

Thank you, General Yeager.

I note the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

The Senator from Kansas.

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

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in morning business for such time as I may consume.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

150th Anniversary of Kansas State University
Page: S676

Mr. President, I rise to commemorate--along with my distinguished friend and colleague Senator Jerry Moran--the 150th anniversary of Kansas State University--home of the ever-optimistic Wildcats.

Since its beginning--even before Kansas joined the union as a free State--all the way up to today, Kansas State University continues to provide a first-rate education for thousands and thousands of students.

To quote the K-State alma mater lyrics: ``I know a spot that I love full well.'' I--along with more than 200,000 alumni--am proud to call Kansas State University my alma mater, as did my father and also my son.

The year was back in 1858, when Kansas was only a territory--not even a State--that a group of local settlers founded Bluemont Central College. Then, in 1863, only 2 years into statehood, the State legislature and Governor became some of the first to accept the terms and conditions of the Morrill Act, thus creating the land grant system of colleges and universities.

On February 16, 1863, the Kansas State Agriculture College, formally known today as Kansas State University, received a land grant charter and became the first operational land grant institution in the United States. Over the past 150 years, Kansas State University has progressed and expanded to accommodate the students and the people living in the State of Kansas--the people it has served so well.

Today, Kansas State University is comprised of nine academic colleges ranging from liberal arts to veterinary medicine. The university expanded its campus in Manhattan to include an aviation and technology school in Salina and an innovation campus in Olathe, KS. Also, Kansas State University Research and Extension has a presence in every county in Kansas--all 105. These offices are a source of vital information to every farmer and rancher in our State. We are staying true to our land grant roots.

Back in 1863, Kansas State University's first enrollment totaled a mere 14 students. This school year Kansas State University reached a record enrollment of more than 24,000 students. These students hail from all 50 States and over 90 countries. Out of this diverse population, the university has produced industry leaders, heads of States, humanitarians, generals, gifted scientists, and a few public servants.

Kansas State University has received national recognition for the exceptional education it provides students year after year. Kansas State continues to have college programs ranked the best in the Nation. The university has been recognized as a leader among public universities in total number of Rhodes, Truman, Marshall, Udall, and Goldwater Scholars.

I cannot talk about my alma mater without mentioning Kansas State University's athletic program, especially over the recent years. Since its first football game way back in 1883, dedicated fans have been coming to the sports arenas to support our athletes and our team. This intercollegiate athletic program has complemented the education provided by the university and has been a great source of purple pride for both alumni and Kansas.

As Kansas State University looks toward the future, it sets new goals for the institution and for its students. Launched by president Kirk Schulz in 2010, K-State 2025, the university's strategic plan, strives to make Kansas State University a top 50 public research institution within 15 years. Thanks to the work that has been done throughout the past 150 years and the research that continues, I have no doubt Kansas State University is on track to achieve this very important goal.

Throughout this week and weekend, students, staff, alumni, and friends of the university will gather in Manhattan, KS--the ``little apple''--to celebrate the history of Kansas State University.

On behalf of the Senate, it is my honor to congratulate Kansas State University on its accomplishments over the past 150 years. As the alma mater song says, it is truly ``a spot that I love full well.'' Every man a Wildcat.

I yield to my distinguished friend and colleague, Senator Moran.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas.

There is no K State alumni, no individual from our home State who bleeds the color purple more fervently than the senior Senator from Kansas. It is an honor to join him here today to recognize the significant accomplishments on the 150th anniversary of the first land grant university college in the Nation.

Senator Roberts comes to the Kansas State University through his family--his father as well as his son.

I have become acquainted with Kansas State University as a citizen of our State in which we see each and every day the benefits that accrue to the citizens of our State because of the academic research, the education, the extension of education across our State that benefits each and every citizen. So it is with great pleasure that we honor the accomplishments today of this university. It has had tremendous leadership.

In my early days in Congress, President Wefald in many ways created a great opportunity for Kansas State University to excel, to become something different than it had been, to move forward into the future. Now, under the leadership of president Kirk Schulz, his leadership only accelerates the opportunity for Kansas State University to provide new and beneficial services, education, and benefits to the people of our State, to our country, and to students around the globe.

Kansas State University is known for its agricultural background, for its support for that significant industry in our State--farmers and ranchers look to Kansas State University for education and for technical support, and we know of their importance in that No. 1 industry in our State--but, as Senator Roberts said, engineering and aerospace; now a campus at Salina, KS, dealing with aviation and avionics, with UAVs moving into the future; a campus in Johnson County, the suburbs of Kansas City, in which additional research in bioscience is being accelerated. So in each and every circumstance, Kansas State University contributes to the economy and well-being of our State and our country.

As a parent, I know Kansas State University. Both our daughters attended Kansas State University, and one remains a student there. I remember the first day I wandered with my 17-, 18-year-old daughter onto campus for a campus tour, and at the end of the day--I will admit we had visited other universities as well, but at the end of the day Kelsey said: Dad, there is no place more welcoming, no place more like home, no place where I feel like a part of a family more than Kansas State University.

That is something I think K State exhibits so well and causes Kansas to be so proud of the Wildcat tradition, which is a sense of family; that we are in it together and people are friends. It is a very comfortable and enjoyable learning environment for students, and we have seen it in our family.

Our youngest daughter followed her older sister to Kansas State University and is now a beginning student at the College of Veterinary Medicine. Another area in which Kansas State University is highly regarded is the study of animal science. K State in Manhattan, KS, is the western border of the animal science corridor, the eastern border being that place that all Kansans, regardless of alma mater, despise--the University of Missouri. So from west to east, the animal science corridor is bounded by the research scientists and educators and the schools that increase the likelihood that Americans are going to have nutrition, be well fed, and have a safe and abundant food supply.

It is an honor to be here to pay tribute to the many leaders at Kansas State University, those who have come before and those who will follow President Wefald and President Schulz to make sure Kansas State University remains that place of higher education and learning in our State but also to make certain Kansas State University in Manhattan, KS, is always that place called home where students from across our State and around the globe feel as though they have found family and a place to learn to improve their lives and to make certain they contribute to the betterment of our world.

It is an honor to be here with one of the most distinguished alumni of Kansas State University, my colleague and friend Senator Roberts, to wish Kansas State University many more years of success in providing education to our students and moving our State forward in ways that will benefit not only this generation but those that follow us.

So congratulations, Kansas State University, and happy 150th birthday.

Mr. President, I yield back to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. President, I thank my dear friend and colleague more especially for highlighting what K State is all about, and that is family. If one chooses to attend Kansas State, as many do--many come from small town America, and many come from big cities, but I think they are all struck by the family atmosphere.

The thing I think is rather remarkable, even in having the privilege of talking to some of K State's football team and some of the athletes, both basketball and football--all sports at K State--I am always able to tell the thousands and thousands of fans from K State who know their history, know where they are coming from, and always support them regardless of the outcome. So K State is a family.

K State's legendary coach Bill Snyder, who has achieved miracles on the football field with team after team, always stresses family and togetherness and the proper role of athletics in education.

My son David went to K State, and he fell in love with K State. He didn't have much of a choice as far as I was concerned, but he did really enjoy himself at K State. Basically, I am struck by the fact that many of his friends who are graduates--when that day comes when you graduate or when you leave K State, those generations really stick together, and they are friends for life. It is in that vein that I think the Senator's remarks are certainly right on target.

If the Senator would yield.

I would be happy to yield.

Mr. President, Senator Roberts raises something that I wish to make clear, which is that Kansas State University has been so kind and so beneficial to our two daughters. While they found it to be home and like family, they have excelled and learned, advanced their lives both personally and professionally in ways that are so important to us as parents. We have nothing but commendation to offer to Kansas State University for the kindness and opportunities they have created for our own daughters as they pursue their goals in life.

So it is a very personal opportunity for me to express this gratitude to Kansas State University for making it so good for the things a mom and dad care so much about. For our two daughters Kelsey and Alex, K State is an important component of their lives, and we are so appreciative of the role that university has played in educating our children.

I yield back to the Senator from Kansas.

150th Anniversary of Emporia State University
Page: S677

Mr. President, we have a double privilege here today in that we obviously are celebrating Kansas State University being 150, representing 150 years of outstanding academic service to our people, but also Emporia State University is 150 years old at the same time--a rather remarkable achievement. I know we would like to congratulate Emporia State on its 150th anniversary.

Emporia State University is in the beautiful Flint Hills of Kansas, and it is also very dear to my family. My mother attended Emporia State and studied education. She went on to become a teacher. Emporia State is a teacher's university, second to none. But she, in her day and time, spent a lot of time educating Kansas children up in Atchison, KS, and was very much like the other proud and accomplished alumni from Emporia State.

If a person wants to know about education, all they would have to do--as well as teacher involvement and teacher progress and some of the very serious challenges we face today in education--is stop by Emporia State. They have many fine programs and nothing but the best in terms of graduates who do such a great job.

Throughout the past 150 years, Emporia State has grown to accommodate the needs of the State and the 6,500 students it currently serves. What was once the Kansas State Teaching College, Emporia State has now expanded greatly, offering a wide range of academic programs.

In true Kansas fashion, the university has faced challenges head-on from its earliest days. Adversity is not uncommon. In fact, our State motto is ``to the stars through difficulty.'' But the outstanding faculty and staff have persevered on behalf of their students to provide a quality education, and that continues today with teachers who also provide a quality education. We can't do any better than that. It is with great pride as a Kansan and as a son of an Emporia State graduate that I recognize and congratulate Emporia State University on its 150th anniversary.

I am more than happy to yield to my friend and colleague, Senator Moran.

The Senator from Kansas.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding, and I appreciate being recognized.

It is true that our State places a high priority on education--certainly K-12 but also universities, including public, private, community colleges, technical colleges, and today we honor one of those universities in this milestone in its history, Emporia State University, Emporia, KS, on its 150th anniversary.

Benjamin Franklin said, ``Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I may remember. Involve me and I learn.'' Through learning, students' lives have been changed for the better for more than a century at Emporia State University. This is a historic occasion, their 150th anniversary, and I wish to recognize the significant impact Emporia State has had on our State and on our Nation.

In 1863 Emporia State was founded as a school for training teachers. Back then it was known as Kansas Normal School, and in its first year the President and only teacher, Lyman Kellogg, taught 18 students on the second floor of the district schoolhouse. At the university's first commencement on June 28, 1867, President Kellogg presented diplomas to its two graduates, Mary Jane Watson and Ellen Plumb.

In the years that followed, Emporia State was faced with many challenges, including tornadoes, fires, and a lack of funding, but the university survived and continued each and every year to change the lives of the students.

Today 6,500 students from 45 States and 55 countries are enrolled at Emporia State University. Consistently ranked as a tier 1 regional university by U.S. News and World Report, ESU offers students a wide range of academic programs to choose from and the opportunity to participate in more than 130 student organizations.

Emporia State also remains fully committed to its original mission of training teachers through a nationally acclaimed teacher education program. If a person has somebody who made a difference in their life, nobody ever says: It was my Senator. It is not mom and dad. It is a teacher.

Educating teachers is a noble calling. In fact, the Teachers College holds the International Reading Association Award and Certificate of Distinction for the Reading Preparation of Elementary and Secondary Teachers--one of only five programs honored internationally in 2009. In a national study of teacher education programs, Emporia State was named one of only four postsecondary institutions in the Nation to be identified as an exemplary model teacher education program.

I congratulate Emporia State for their success in equipping our Nation's educators. As we know, the work of a teacher impacts the lives of every American now and in the future.

Given Emporia State's long history and dedication to training teachers, the university, as one might expect, now hosts the National Teachers Hall of Fame. Each year five of the Nation's most outstanding educators are recognized and honored for the jobs they do. By recognizing the difference one teacher can make, the National Teachers Hall of Fame works to promote education and inspire a new generation of teachers.

Whether ESU students pursue a career in education or another field, many students who continue their studies will return to ESU for graduate work. Among the Kansas Regents universities, ESU students earn the highest percentage of graduate degrees. On average, one-third of the degrees earned annually are graduate degrees. So whether students leave Emporia with an undergraduate or graduate degree, they are well prepared in the field they have chosen.

Students today are involved in community service, and Emporia State exemplifies that. Students at Emporia State spend much time giving back to the local communities. Students have cared for the elderly, provided food to the hungry, and built homes for the homeless. They have also spent their free time mentoring young students through a program called YouthFriends. Currently, about 50 Emporia State students are involved in volunteer work once a weak with children.

One of the teachers at a local elementary school said this about that program:

What a great way to make a difference in the development of lifelong compassion for others.

The alumni of Emporia State University now number more than 75,000 from 50 States and 80 countries, and they are all proud to be called Emporia State Hornets. Alumni from Emporia State have gone on to accomplish great things. Among the many distinguished alumni are Minnie Grinstead, who was the first woman elected to the Kansas State Legislature in 1918, and Robert Mott, a World War II veteran who later helped create National Public Radio.

For the past 150 years, Emporia State has been changing lives. One alumni said this about the impact on her life:

I was told by a high school guidance counselor that I would never make it in college. ESU gave me an opportunity to ``try.'' Not only did I earn a bachelor's degree, I earned a masters, and Ph.D. Thank you ESU, you changed my life in a positive way!

On this historic anniversary, it is with great pleasure that I join my colleague from Kansas in submitting a resolution to congratulate the students, faculty, alumni, and the new president of Emporia State University for 150 years of excellence in higher education. May the next 150 years be even brighter than the last.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

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

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Fiscal Challenges
[Page: S678]

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the fiscal challenges facing this country, and particularly the spending problem we have and how it impacts not only the economy but also the lives of the American people.

Last week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released the latest Budget and Economic Outlook, which confirmed the threat that long-term fiscal imbalances pose to the Nation's economy. The Congressional Budget Office found that the national debt will climb by $10 trillion, to $26 trillion, over the next 10 years if Federal spending continues on its current trajectory.

Spending on mandatory programs will remain on auto pilot, resulting in high annual deficits. To kind of put things in perspective, if you go back to 2007 and you look at what the Federal Government spent, it was about $2.7 trillion annually. If you look at what the Federal Government spent in fiscal year 2012, which ended September 30 of last year, it was $3.5 trillion, an increase of nearly 30 percent.

Inflation during that same time period was 10.8 percent, meaning that government grew at almost three times the rate of inflation. Again, I want to emphasize what I think is an important point here, because in the discussion we are having about spending and debt, there is somehow this assertion that has been made that this is not a spending problem, that actually this is more a revenue issue.

Well, again, if you look at what has happened just in the past 5 years, spending has increased nearly 30 percent, Federal spending, or at a rate of almost three times the rate of inflation. So clearly spending has increased dramatically just in the last 5 years. The trend is projected to continue over the next 10 years and beyond, with spending exceeding its historical average over that time period, and then ballooning in the years beyond that.

Such levels of spending will cause the Federal debt to grow, and according to the Congressional Budget Office, ``Such a large debt would increase the risk of a fiscal crisis during which investors would lose so much confidence in the government's ability to manage its budget that the government would be unable to borrow at affordable rates.''

Again, why is this important? Well, obviously, if the deficits continue to continue year after year, adding more and more to the Federal debt, eventually investors are going to lose confidence in our government. They are going to demand a higher return, higher interest rate when we borrow money. That obviously has an impact all across the economy. Because when interest rates go up, everything else that is pegged to it goes up. If you look at middle-class Americans who are trying to borrow money, for example, to buy a home or to get a college education or for a small business to make investments in order to create and expand jobs, the interest rates go up for everyone. Inflation also goes up if the Nation's fiscal challenges are not addressed, meaning that the hard-earned dollars are not going to go as far. That is going to put further pressure on hard-working middle-class families.

The threat of the budget challenges facing this country and our economy is very real, because of this report that came out last week from the Congressional Budget Office. It confirmed we are headed toward Greece if we do not take the steps that are necessary to change the direction we are on.

A lot of that reality, however, unfortunately, is lost on lots of people here in Washington, DC. As I said earlier, there has been this debate about whether we do, in fact, have a spending problem. Over the weekend, the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, repeated what has become doctrine to many in the Democratic Party; that is, the idea that the U.S. Government does not have a spending problem.

She said, ``It is almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem.'' This comes from the top Democrat in the House of Representatives. ``It is almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem.'' Well, obviously the White House scrambled quickly the next day to come out: Yes, yes, we know we have a spending problem.

But there is reporting out there that suggests the President of the United States has also made this assertion, that this is not a spending problem. I do not know how you can examine the Federal budget projections and not come to the conclusion that we have a spending problem. It is driving our national debt, a debt that is very harmful to our economy.

You have to look no farther than the Congressional Budget Office report last week to see that this is a spending problem, not a revenue problem, because that same CBO report said that the revenue--money that is raised by the Federal Government--is returning to its historical average of 17.9 percent of GDP. That is the way we have measured the amount of revenue coming into the Treasury as a percentage of our entire economy. You measure that over time, and getting back to the historical average, the 40-year average would be 17.9 percent.

If you look at the year 2015 as a case in point, the revenues get back to 19.1 percent of GDP, which is a 25-percent increase in 2 years, significantly exceeding the historical average. If you look at the 10-year outlook the CBO came up with, they said revenues would average 18.9 percent over the next decade, which is almost a full percentage point more than the 40-year historical average.

The point is this: Revenues are not only at historic levels, will be there by 2015 and stay there for the next decade, but they will exceed the historic average for revenues over the next 10 years. So clearly, what we are talking about here is not a problem of Washington taxing too little, it is a problem of Washington spending too much.

I know that truth is hard and that math is hard to accept for the people who want to grow government, but we absolutely have to govern in reality. What the math shows is that mandatory spending, which as I said is on auto pilot, continues to squeeze the Federal Government and the Federal budget to a point where we are going to face a Greece-style fiscal crisis if Washington continues to punt on the hard decisions that have to be made.

Mandatory spending comprised roughly 60 percent of Federal spending in fiscal year 2012. If you look at the big drivers of mandatory spending, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security represented 40 percent of that total, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Congress and the administration have an opportunity in the coming months to reform these entitlement programs not only to get this country back on a more sustainable fiscal track but also to save and protect these programs not only for current retirees but for future generations of Americans as well.

That is why I was disappointed last night that the President, in his State of the Union Address, failed to lay out a plan to address the fiscal challenges our country faces. I hope the President and my colleagues here in the Congress will come to the table and work with us to solve these problems, particularly as we consider ways to address the sequester, the continuing resolution which follows after that, and the fiscal year 2014 budget resolution.

We cannot simply wait and watch these programs crumble under the weight of looming insolvency. We know Social

Security operated at a cash deficit in 2010. The Medicare trustees have told us that Medicare will be insolvent by the year 2024 and the HI trust fund actually as early as the year 2016. If we are going to keep the promises we have made to current retirees and to future generations of Americans, we have to make these programs solvent. That means we have to reform them in a way that saves and protects them and makes sure they are fiscally sustainable not only for today but for the future as well.

I have to say, as I listened to the debate about the issues of spending and debt, there is an argument that is made by those on the other side that this is just because of the two wars, and the two wars drove up spending; you know, they were not paid for and that is the reason we have this $16.4 trillion debt. Well, obviously the wars have contributed to that. But if you look at through 2012, that is about $1.4 trillion. Obviously, I would say, to be fair, Republicans have contributed to this as well as Democrats. When Republicans were in charge of the Congress, we did not do a good enough job of keeping spending under control.

But the fact is even if you count in spending on Iraq and Afghanistan, that is about $1.4 trillion. The total debt now, as I said, is over $16 trillion, scheduled to go to $26 trillion 10 years from now. Over the course of the first 4 years of this President's term, his first term in office, the debt has increased almost $6 trillion. So it is hard to feature any objective analysis of these facts and this data and say it was the wars that somehow caused all of this.

Washington has been overspending for a long time. It is high time for those habits to change. If you look at the war that is winding down, the cost of that, the resources we are putting into these conflicts, those dollars are not going to be showing up again as expenditures in the next few years. We still have the Congressional Budget Office telling us at the end of the next decade we will have added an additional $10 trillion to the debt. So clearly that has certainly been a factor, but it has not been the main factor.

There is again no objective analysis that would suggest spending on the wars has been the driving reason for why we are facing the debt crisis we have today. I would simply say too that when you are in a hole, it is advisable to quit digging.

Obviously, we continue to look at ways to add more and more spending and, therefore, more and more debt. The health care bill is not something anybody on my side here in the Senate supported when it passed in 2009 and early 2010. But that too is going to drive up spending and is going to drive up debt as we head into the future.

You heard from the President last night a whole new series of new spending initiatives, ``investments,'' he called them, in a whole range of areas. As he was sort of laying that out, those of us who were listening to that message were thinking to ourselves: Okay, if you put a calculator on this thing, it keeps going and going and going. Yet the President said we did not need to add a single dime to the deficit. Well, I do not know how anybody could accept that with a straight face. It flat does not pass the smell test.

We have a spending problem here in Washington, DC. The facts bear that out. The revenues are going up. They are going to go up 25 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in the next 2 years. In 2015 they will be at 19.1 percent of GDP, an average we have not seen--or a number we have not seen in a long time. Then they will stay roughly at that for the next decade. This is not a revenue problem. This is not a problem where Washington taxes too little. This is a problem where Washington spends too much.

If you look at the other side of the equation, spending continues to go up as a percentage of GDP. We see a little bit of relief here in the next few years, but then when the cost of the Affordable Care Act starts hitting, when you start seeing the demographics of the country, as they continue to change, if we do not do something to save and protect Social Security and Medicare for future generations, it is going to bankrupt us.

We are headed for a train wreck. We have to do something about that and recognize what that problem is. That problem purely and simply is that Washington spends too much. It is a spending problem. That is why, again, when I heard the top Democrat, the minority leader in the House of Representatives, say over the weekend that it is a false argument to say this is a spending problem, I was shocked, because I think most Americans would argue, as they look at this, and they can do the math, Washington has a very serious spending problem which needs to be addressed. It needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

I thought the report that came out from the Congressional Budget Office last week was instructive for a number of reasons. It pointed out the impact that debt is going to have as we face this debt crisis in terms of interest rates, in terms of inflation, in terms of loss of jobs, and a more sluggish economy. We know from history that when you get a certain amount of debt, it becomes such a drag on your economy that it reduces economic growth. So we have seen this anemic, sluggish economic growth which is going to be continued now for the foreseeable future. We have slower growth, fewer jobs, massive amounts of debt. Eventually what that is going to mean for the middle-class American is higher interest rates when it comes to buying a home, when it comes to buying a car, when it comes to financing a college education. It is going to mean lower take-home pay when the economy slows down and there is not the demand for workers out there. There are so many adverse impacts on our economy from carrying the kind of debt load we are carrying today. I think we have a responsibility to lead.

I hope the President of the United States will lead on this issue; that he in his budget will put forward the types of remedies that are necessary not only to deal with our short-term crisis in the sequestration but also to put us long term on a sustainable fiscal path by proposing reforms, reforms to these programs that are driving Federal spending, that are going to add massive amounts to our debt over the course of the next decade and beyond, and at the same time look at things we can be doing that would generate economic growth, that would create jobs in this country. Because when the economy is growing and expanding, then all of these other problems look much smaller by comparison.

Republicans here in the Senate are ready to work with the President, work with Democrats.

We are anxious to go to work on entitlement reform to save Social Security and Medicare. We are anxious to go to work on reforming our Tax Code in a way that would unleash economic growth to obtain the robust growth we need in the economy to create jobs and make the debt crisis we face look much smaller by comparison.

I hope in the days ahead the President of the United States, the leadership on Capitol Hill, and the Congress will do what we should have done a long time ago. It is long overdue for action. It is high time that we become busy and do the work of the American people, which is about providing a more secure, prosperous, and a safer, debt-free future for future generations. Anything less is negating or undermining the responsibility we have to the American people.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

We are not in a quorum call.

Miracles never cease.

That is true.

The Senator from Nevada.

Mr. President, I have spoken with Senator Inhofe, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. It is very clear that he and a number of Republicans are not willing to enter into an agreement on the Hagel nomination.

Page: S680

Nomination of Charles Timothy Hagel to Be Secretary of Defense
Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 10.

The clerk will report:

Without objection, the motion to proceed is agreed to.

CLOTURE MOTION
Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk and ask the clerk to report.

The cloture motion having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.

This is the first time in the history of our country that a Presidential nominee for Secretary of Defense has been filibustered. What a shame, but that is the way it is.

I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

I also ask that under the rule the cloture vote will occur on Friday. Membership should plan accordingly.

The senior Senator from Michigan is recognized.

Mr. President, now that the nomination of Senator Hagel is before us, I want to begin this discussion and debate with a few remarks about him. The committee approved this nomination and sent it to the floor of the Senate yesterday by a vote of 14 to 11.

Senator Hagel has received broad support from a wide array of senior statesmen, defense, and foreign policy organizations. At his January 31 nomination hearing before the Armed Services Committee, Senator Hagel was enthusiastically introduced and endorsed by two former chairmen of our committee, chairmen who have huge bipartisan support and respect by everybody in this body and everybody outside of this body who knows them. Those two chairmen are Sam Nunn and John Warner.

Senator Hagel's nomination has been endorsed by five former Secretaries of Defense who served under both Democratic and Republican Presidents: Bob Gates, Bill Cohen, Bill Perry, Harold Brown, and Melvin Laird. He has been endorsed by three former Secretaries of State--Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, and George Shultz--and by six former National Security Advisers who served in that position for more than 20 years under six of the last seven Presidents.

Let me just share with our colleagues a few of the words of Senator Nunn when he introduced Senator Hagel to our committee:

Continuing:

Senator Nunn continued:

Senator Warner's extraordinarily powerful and warm comments included as follows:

Senator Hagel has received a letter of endorsement from 11 retired senior military officers who say Chuck Hagel is uniquely qualified to meet the challenges facing the Department of Defense and our men and women in uniform.

He has received a letter of endorsement from nine former Ambassadors who worked with him on Middle East issues. That letter says, in part:

That is from nine former Ambassadors who worked with Senator Hagel on Middle East issues. Let me read who those Ambassadors are: Nicholas Burns, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Ambassador to NATO and Greece; Ryan Crocker, former Ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan; Edward Djerejian, former Ambassador to Israel and Syria; William Harrop, former Ambassador to Israel; Daniel Kurtzer, former Ambassador to Israel and to Egypt; Samuel Lewis, former Ambassador to Israel; William Luers, former Ambassador to Venezuela and Czechoslovakia; Tom Pickering, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Ambassador to Israel and Russia; and Frank Wisner, former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Ambassador to Egypt and to India.

Senator Hagel's nomination has been supported by the major groups of American veterans, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, AMVETS, Vietnam Veterans of America, and the American Legion. He has received support from the Military Officers Association of America, Foreign Area Officer Association, and the Non Commissioned Officers Association.

Senator Hagel has been endorsed by numerous newspapers, including USA Today, which stated:

I would like to read just a few quotes from those organizations of veterans who have endorsed him. The Veterans of Foreign Wars says the following:

That is signed by Robert Wallace, who is executive director of the VFW.

The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America wrote the following:

The AMVETS National Commander Cleve Geer endorsed President Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel with the following comments:

The organization votevets.org wrote the following in a petition signed by over 8,000 veterans and military families:

That was signed by John Soltz.

The Military Officers Association of America wrote the following:

That was signed by ADM Norbert Ryan, USN, retired, President of the Military Officers Association of America.

The Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United States wrote the following:

That was signed by Richard Schneider, executive director for government affairs.

The Vietnam Veterans of America wrote:

The American Legion wrote:

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, Jan Scruggs, founder and president, wrote the following:

Senator Hagel's credentials are underscored by the service in war and in peace that has been described so eloquently in all those letters from those veterans organizations. As a young man, Senator Hagel enlisted in the Army and served in Vietnam, where he received two Purple Hearts, the Army Commendation Medal, and the Combat Infantryman Badge for his service.

He volunteered to go to Vietnam. He answered the question, where are you, by answering, here I am. Senator Hagel served as Deputy Administrator of the Veterans' Administration during the Reagan administration. He was twice elected to the Senate, where he served on the Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees.

Since he left the Senate 4 years ago, Senator Hagel has served as chairman of the board of directors of the Atlantic Council. The Atlantic Council counts among its other directors and honorary directors seven former Secretaries of State and four former Secretaries of Defense, along with numerous other senior officials from the administrations of both parties. The Atlantic Council is very much a part of the mainstream of the American foreign policy establishment.

Much of the time and attention at our committee hearing was devoted to a handful of statements Senator Hagel made over the course of his career that raised questions about his views on Israel, Iran, and other issues.

Senator Hagel explained and clarified these things and placed them in context. He apologized for one remark, and told the committee he would say other things differently if he had the chance or was making them over. Senator Hagel was clear in the positions he takes today and that he will take if confirmed as Secretary of Defense. In particular, Senator Hagel stated unequivocally, first:

Second, he is ``..... fully committed to the President's goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon ..... all options must be on the table to achieve that goal ..... and his policy, if confirmed, will be ``one of prevention, not of containment.

Third, while he believes ``engagement is clearly in our interests, ``engagement is not negotiation. He stated:

Finally, he said that he is ``a strong supporter of Israel, and believes that ``we have a special relationship with Israel. If confirmed, he ``will ensure our friend and ally Israel maintains its qualitative military edge in the region, and will continue to support systems like Iron Dome, which is today saving Israeli lives from terrorist rocket attacks.''

Senator Hagel has also recognized the very real risks posed to our national security as a result of the unique budgetary pressure arising out of cuts previously agreed upon by Congress, the budgeting by continuing resolution, and the impending threat of a sequester. Senator Hagel told the committee:

One of our colleagues has alleged that Senator Hagel has failed to provide complete financial disclosure and suggested, despite the admitted lack of evidence of any kind, that Senator Hagel may have received money that ``came directly from Saudi Arabia, came directly from North Korea.'' There is no evidence for that, but that is the kind of innuendo which was made and I believe should not have been made.

As a matter of fact, Senator Hagel has provided the exact same financial disclosure the committee requires of all nominees, including at least the last eight Secretaries of Defense. As required by the Armed Services Committee and by the Ethics in Government Act, he has disclosed all compensation over $5,000 that he has received in the last 2 years. As required by the Armed Services Committee, he has received letters from the Director of the Office of Government Ethics and the Acting Department of Defense General Counsel certifying that he has met all applicable financial disclosure and conflict-of-interest requirements. As required by the Armed Services Committee, he has answered a series of questions about possible foreign affiliations. Among other questions, the committee asked whether, during the last 10 years, the nominee or his spouse have ``received any compensation from, or been involved in any financial or business transaction with, a foreign government or an entity controlled by a foreign government. Senator Hagel's answer was, ``No.

Senator Hagel, like all of our nominees, has undergone a thorough FBI background investigation. Senator Inhofe and I have reviewed the FBI file. The innuendo that Senator Hagel could somehow be hiding the fact he is on the payroll of a foreign power is offensive to those of us who have served with him and beneath the dignity of the U.S. Senate.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a series of letters in which certain Senators requested certain financial disclosure and the letter with which I responded.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the, as follows:

Mr. President, the Department of Defense right now needs its new leader. Its current leader, who has done a great job, has announced he is leaving and has set a time for that departure.

We face a budgetary challenge of immense proportions--not just in the Department of Defense but in all of our agencies. Our military is engaged in combat operations overseas. North Korea has exploded a nuclear device--highly provocative, highly objectionable--and must be countered. The absence of senior leaders in the Department of Defense will harm our national defense, will harm our men and women in uniform, and sends exactly the wrong message to both our friends and our adversaries around the world.

If confirmed, Senator Hagel would be the first former enlisted man and the first veteran of the Vietnam war to serve as Secretary of Defense. This background gives Senator Hagel an invaluable perspective not only with respect to the difficult decisions and recommendations a Secretary of Defense must make regarding the use of force and the commitment of U.S. troops overseas but also with respect to the day-to-day decisions a Secretary must make to ensure our men and women in uniform and their families receive the support and the assistance they need and deserve. It would be a positive message for our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, and our marines in harm's way around the world to know that one of their own holds the highest office in the Department of Defense and that he has their backs.

The President needs to have a Secretary of Defense in whom he has trust, who will give him unvarnished advice, a person of integrity, and one who has a personal understanding of the consequences of decisions relative to the use of military force. Senator Hagel certainly has those critically important qualifications and he is well qualified to lead the Department of Defense.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

The senior Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when Senator Lee concludes his remarks, I be recognized.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator from Utah is recognized.

The senior Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the nomination of Senator Chuck Hagel to be the next Secretary of Defense. He comes to this job at an extraordinarily challenging time for the Department and for our Nation. Among the many issues he will confront, Senator Hagel will oversee the drawdown of our forces out of Afghanistan, the enhancement of our cyber defenses, and the management of various fiscal constraints on the defense budget. In fact, I cannot think of a more critical juncture of national security issues, budget issues, and technology issues, all coming together, facing the next Secretary of Defense.

I have known Chuck for many years, and I know he is particularly well-suited to tackle these challenges. Chuck was born and raised in Nebraska, the oldest of four sons of a World War II veteran. Public service, military service is in that family's core. When his father died suddenly at the age of 39, Chuck quickly shouldered the responsibility of helping his mother raise his brothers. And when our Nation was in the midst of a bitter and divisive fight in Vietnam, he volunteered to fight, serving alongside his brother Tom. This was an era when there were many people who were looking for ways through deferments to avoid service, to avoid wearing the uniform of the United States. He was unusual in that he not only sought service, but he sought service in Vietnam alongside his brother.

He rose to be an infantry sergeant, and both he and his brother were wounded twice, with each saving the other's life. In that experience as a combat infantryman, he knows, perhaps better than anyone who has been nominated for this office, the ultimate cost of our policies that are made here in Washington.

When he returned home, Chuck used the GI bill to attend the University of Nebraska in Omaha, and after graduating from there, he went to Washington to work for a freshman Congressman from his home State.

In 1980 President Reagan, recognizing his skill, his talent, his patriotism, and his devotion to the country, nominated him to be Deputy Administrator of the Veterans Administration. He ultimately left that post on a matter of principle. He thought there was inadequate support from that department for veterans suffering from exposure to Agent Orange. At that time, the effects of Agent Orange were being dismissed by some as nonconsequential, as something that was just a made-up malady by these veterans.

Chuck knew differently, and later the science would prove him right. He continued to fight as he left the Veterans Administration, helping to ensure that these veterans who were physically affected by their service in Vietnam received compensation as the victims of Agent Orange.

In that tenure as the Deputy Administrator of the Veterans Administration, he had the responsibility of running a large Federal department. So he is now bringing not only his service as a common infantryman but his service running a large department devoted to the veterans of these United States. That will serve him well as Secretary of Defense. Again, it makes him singularly if not uniquely qualified.

But it doesn't stop there because he has extraordinary experience in the private sector. In the mid-1980s he cofounded Vanguard Cellular Systems, which became one of the largest independent cellular systems in the country. Again, someone from modest means with great imagination, after serving his country both as a soldier and as an administrator under the Reagan administration, went back and started a business and made it successful--so successful that he was able to devote himself to other public activities.

He served as deputy commissioner general of the United States for the 1982 World's Fair. He was president and chief executive officer of the USO, the agency devoted to helping servicemembers and their families. Again, his commitment to the American soldier, sailor, airman, and marine has been consistent, constant, and unrelenting.

Then he became chief operating officer of the 1990 Economic Summit of Industrialized Nations--the G7 summit--in Houston, the president of an investment bank, and he was on the board of some of the world's largest companies.

So you already have at this juncture a soldier, a successful entrepreneur, and a successful Federal administrator.

Then in 1996 he came to the Senate to represent the people of Nebraska. He was the first Republican Senator from Nebraska in a generation. We came here together. He came with all of these skills, and he added more skills, understanding the political process from the inside and from the outside that helped shaped national security policy, the budgets and the policies of the Department of Defense and every other Federal agency.

During his time in the Senate as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees, he championed national security policies with the goal of ensuring that our military remains the strongest in the world. Senator Hagel believes in working closely with our allies and partners and that, in his words, ``a nation must strategically employ all instruments of its power--diplomatic, military, economic--to defend its interests.'' So he brings a broad, comprehensive approach to national security, which is essential for our next Secretary of Defense because so many of the national security challenges we face are not simply military; they are diplomatic, they are economic, and they are environmental. They require the kind of broad-ranging approach that he takes to national security policy.

As he stated during his nomination hearing 2 weeks ago, he has one fundamental question he has asked himself on every vote he took while serving in the Senate: Is the policy worthy of the men and women we were sending into battle and surely to their deaths? Is this going to be worth the sacrifice, because there will be sacrifices.

It is one thing to study the art of war in lecture halls and to speak profoundly as a pundit. It is something else to be in the mud, under fire, seeing others fall. I have not had that experience. I served 12 years in the U.S. Army, but very few people, very few people in this Chamber, very few people who would be considered for Secretary of Defense, have been under fire, have seen comrades fall, know that ultimately what we do here is borne by what those brave young Americans do across the globe. He knows it intellectually and viscerally. I know he will bring that perspective, that concern for our men and women in uniform, to every decision before him as Secretary of Defense.

In this role, he will continue to focus our efforts on fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and throughout that region. We are facing a crucial turning point. In his State of the Union Address last night, the President announced his plan to further reduce our force levels in Afghanistan next year as the Afghan National Security Forces will take full responsibility for securing their nation. I think Senator Hagel is very well positioned to carry out this policy, to ensure it is done effectively, to ensure that our forces are protected and that we are able to help enable the Afghan forces to carry the burden to defend their country and provide stability.

Senator Hagel will also lead the Department in preparing for emerging threats to our national security, such as attacks on our cyber infrastructure. We are at a critical point in our history, perhaps akin to the 1920s when air power first began to emerge as a credible military dimension, then later as space became a possible military dimension. Cyber is now a new dimension in warfare.

We are at a similar juncture to the one when some of our colleagues in the 1920s were wondering how we use these contraptions that fly around the sky. But in a short period of time, air power made a profound difference on the world. The attack on Pearl Harbor was launched by aircraft from aircraft carriers, not by the bombardment of battleships and not by the landing of military forces. You can see the effect it had not only through World War II but in every conflict to today.

We are at another critical juncture, and that is with respect to cyber security. How will we defend ourselves? What policies will we adopt to use this new technology to protect the United States and our allies? It will require integration across our government. It will require thoughtful, conscious deliberation. I believe he is prepared to do that and will do that very well.

I am pleased that President Obama has just issued an Executive order that will improve coordination and information sharing with our industry partners so we can better protect our Nation's critical infrastructure, but there is more to be done, and I believe that in the context of a Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel can do it.

Perhaps most challenging of all, Senator Hagel will lead the Department in a time of great fiscal constraints and uncertainty. As our Nation continues to find a path forward to rebound from the economic challenges of the last few years, there is an ever-growing pressure to reduce the size of the defense budget, which has nearly doubled over the past 10 years. But we must be very careful to do so in a way that eliminates unsustainable and unproductive costs without losing vital capabilities. That is a great challenge. As a result of the high operations tempo of our services, the multiple operations and deployments, all of our services are facing serious reset and recapitalization needs in terms of equipment and also significant efforts to help our military members and their families readjust, retrain, reequip, and prepare for a challenging future.

Serious decisions will have to be made about the threats we face and as we anticipate new and emerging threats. Again, he is well prepared through his entire life of public service, military service, private service, administrative and business activity to confront this extraordinary range of challenges.

A lot has been made about some comments Senator Hagel has made in the last years, going back 5, 7, 8, or more years. But I know, indeed, which was reflected in his testimony, that he did not seek out this position. President Obama chose to nominate Chuck Hagel because he knew of his record, of his service to our country. He knew of his incredible commitment to the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States. He knew about his experience in the private sector. He knew about his experience as a governmental leader. He knew there was an ability to rely upon his judgments, Senator Hagel's judgments, with confidence in times of crisis. I expect that the President of the United States is not going to turn to Chuck Hagel, particularly among crises, and ask him if can he quote verbatim what he said 10 years ago. He is going to say: What are my options? What is your advice? You know about war better than anyone. You know about military policy. You know about international security. You know about the interaction of diplomacy, economics, and environmental policy. Give me your judgment. I have to make a decision.

I believe, reflecting what the Senator, my chairman, Carl Levin, has said, that in this difficult moment, the President of the United States needs a Secretary of Defense to provide that kind of perspective, and the men and women of the Department of Defense have to have the ability to have their voice heard decisively and definitively in those serious discussions, particularly about the deployment of military force.

As I said, I am extremely confident he can do this. Let me also say I am impressed with those who have served our country in diplomatic and military roles who have endorsed Chuck Hagel strongly and enthusiastically. These endorsements are from men and women who have served in both Democratic and Republican administrations. Among them are Bob Gates, William Cohen, Madeleine Albright, William Perry, Brent Scowcroft, Ryan Crocker, and Thomas Pickering. These men and women have devoted themselves to protecting the United States, and they have done it with extraordinary energy and effectiveness. This list of Secretaries of Defense will rank as some of the best we have ever had, and they are absolutely confident Chuck Hagel can and should do this job.

There are Ambassadors on this list who have handled delicate and difficult issues involving international law. There are several Ambassadors who have been Ambassadors to the State of Israel and strongly support Senator Hagel. All of these individuals know him. They also know as well--if not better than I and many of my colleagues--of the threats, dangers, and opportunities which face this country, and they are strongly supporting Chuck Hagel. In fact, they have concluded in a letter that he is ``uniquely qualified to meet the challenges facing the Department of Defense and our men and women in uniform.''

There has been a lot of discussion about Chuck Hagel's appreciation of the strong, important, and critical relationship between the United States and State of Israel. All I can say is I was so impressed by the comments of the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, who was also the Ambassador to Washington, and who has met and dealt with Senator Hagel on a number of issues involving the relationship with the United States. The Deputy Foreign Minister said: ``I have met him many times, and he certainly regards Israel as a true and natural U.S. ally.''

In another quote he said:

Here is an Israeli patriot who understands and has spent a great deal of time devoted to the relationship of the United States and Israel. In his own words, he concludes that Chuck Hagel regards Israel as a true and natural U.S. ally and will act accordingly. He is a dedicated patriot. He is an individual who has served this country in so many different ways. I support his nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Also, I think it is important to state that this nomination--as we have done with every Secretary of Defense for decades--deserves an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. People may choose to cast a vote against him for many reasons, and that is the prerogative of that Senator. I strongly believe, if we want to stay true to the traditions of this body and to the presumption that the President should be allowed to at least have his nominee voted up or down, then we have to bring this vote to the floor of the Senate for an up-or-down vote as quickly as possible.

With that, I yield the floor.

The Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my colleague, the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

SEQUESTRATION
Mr. President, Senator Collins and I are here because we agree we must take action in this body and in this Congress to avoid sequestration. Sequestration is a term we have all been throwing around, and it refers to the automatic cuts that are scheduled to take effect on March 1. Those cuts were designed to force Congress to make a tough decision and to take comprehensive action on our debt and deficits.

I think we all agree there is no question we need a comprehensive and balanced plan to put us on a more sustainable fiscal path. I think that plan should look at all areas of spending. It should look at domestic, mandatory, and defense as well as comprehensive tax reform. I think there are many areas of bipartisan agreement on deficit reduction, including controlling the long-term cost of health care.

Unfortunately, Congress has missed several opportunities to enact a long-term plan to get our debt and deficits under control. That is why we are again facing a deadline at the end of this month to address those automatic cuts. As a result of that, we are starting to see the very real and negative consequences of our inaction. We are seeing it on our national security, and we are seeing it on our economy as businesses and agencies alike begin to prepare for the automatic cuts under sequestration.

Last week, Senator Collins and I wrote to the leadership in the Senate urging bipartisan action on sequestration and the need to find a better approach. In our letter, we talked about the impacts we are starting to see in New Hampshire and Maine, including the threat to jobs, our national security, and to the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, which is critical not only to New Hampshire and Maine but also to this country's national security. We called attention to the drastic effects we face for our economy, for our jobs, and for our national security.

Today we are here to reiterate the importance of addressing sequestration and doing it now.

I wish to thank the senior Senator from Maine, my colleague, for joining me to talk about this important issue, and I am looking forward to hearing her remarks. I know it is something she cares about as much as I do and as much as I think most of the Members of this Chamber do.

The Senator from Maine.

Mr. President, first, let me say, I am very pleased to join with my friend and colleague from New Hampshire to speak out against the indiscriminate meat-ax cuts known in Washington as sequestration that are scheduled to take effect in just 2 weeks' time. We simply must take action to avoid this self-inflicted harm to our economy and to our national security. But what I find inexplicable is a growing acceptance that sequestration is going to go into effect despite the fact that virtually everyone should concede that across-the-board cuts where we don't set priorities do not make sense.

There are good programs that deserve to be preserved, there are programs that have outlived their usefulness and should be eliminated, and then there are programs that could be cut and reduced. That is not the approach we are taking. We are not going through the budget in a careful way by identifying programs that could be eliminated or reduced, setting priorities, and making investments.

No, we are allowing to go into effect across-the-board cuts that fall disproportionately on the Department of Defense.

Indeed, we are already seeing the effects of these cuts on our military because each of the military services has begun planning for the likelihood of deep budget cuts. The Navy is preparing for a civilian hiring freeze and cutting workers at shipyards and base-operated support facilities.

I wish to be clear exactly who these employees are. These are the nuclear engineers, the welders, the metal trades workers repairing submarines and ships at the Navy's four public shipyards, including the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in my home State of Maine, which employs half of its workforce from my colleague's State of New Hampshire. I know the senior Senator from New Hampshire shares the concern about this particular installation on the border we share. But, of course, the damage of sequestration extends far beyond just one installation or two States.

Just this morning I was over at the Pentagon, and I took advantage of the opportunity to sit down with the Navy's top shipbuilding official to discuss what the impact of sequestration would be for our naval fleet. Well, one example we have already seen. The Navy will keep the USS Abraham Lincoln, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, in port rather than repairing and deploying it. Across the fleet, the Navy is being forced to reduce deployments, maintenance, and overhauls for critical repairs. When we look at the shipbuilding budget, it is evident that sequestration and the continuation of a partial-year funding resolution, known as the continuing resolution, would be absolutely devastating for our Navy, for shipbuilding, and for our skilled industrial base. That includes Bath Iron Works in Maine, which I am so proud of, which builds the best destroyers in the world. This has consequences not only for our workforce, but also for our national security.

It is important to note Secretary Panetta has made clear that allowing these sweeping cuts to go into effect would be ``devastating,'' in his words, and would badly damage the readiness of the U.S. military.

The fact is defense has already taken a huge reduction in future spending. The defense budget has been slated to be cut by $460 billion over 10 years, and that is before sequestration. When this number is added to the defense cuts scheduled to begin on March 1, we are looking at an enormous impact on our national security.

Now, it is important to recognize we are not saying the national debt is not a problem. Certainly, when we have a $16.4 trillion debt, that is not sustainable, and the national debt is a security concern in its own right. Just last year, in 2012, the Federal Government spent $223 billion in interest payments alone. That means we are spending more on interest on the national debt each month than we spent in an entire year on naval shipbuilding and the Coast Guard budget.

Just think about that. The interest payment in one month exceeds the entire Coast Guard budget and the entire budget for shipbuilding in the Navy. The estimates are that by the middle of this decade--not some distant year--our interest payments to China, our largest foreign creditor at $1.2 trillion, will be covering the entire cost of that Communist country's military. Think of the horrific irony of that. At the same time America is bound by treaties to defend our allies in Asia against Chinese aggression, the American taxpayers are bankrolling the threat through the interest payments we are paying to the Chinese.

Neither the Senator from New Hampshire nor I am saying the Pentagon should be exempt from budget scrutiny or even future cuts, but the disproportionate impact that sequestration would have on our troops and on our national security is dangerous and it must be averted. The Department cannot continue to operate on a continuing resolution that increases costs, prevents long-term planning, and makes it impossible for the Department to function effectively.

I yield to my colleague from New Hampshire to expand on some of these points. Then we will talk further about the impact.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for laying out what we are seeing in terms of the potential impact of those automatic cuts. The comments and the statistics the Senator from Maine had about China and what they are going to be able to do with the money we are paying is really eye-opening and scary.

The Senator from Maine spoke about some of the impacts we are beginning to see at the ports of naval shipyards. As the Senator pointed out, it is something very important to both Maine and New Hampshire. It employs about 4,000 workers, almost evenly split between our two States. As a result of the sequester, starting March 1, one of their major projects, the repair of the USS Miami, which was damaged in a fire, is going to be halted immediately. Just stopped--16 days from now. The Navy is going to cut over 1,100 temporary civilian workers, mostly from shipyards such as Portsmouth. The needed maintenance and military construction will be postponed indefinitely. It is not just about those jobs at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard or at the shipyards across the country, but that has a ripple effect across our economy, and it affects the grocery stores and the restaurants and all of the small contractors and small businesses doing work at those shipyards.

There will be ramifications for our national defense across the services. Yesterday, we had some harrowing testimony in front of the Armed Services Committee from all of the chiefs of the military outlining what they see coming as a result of the consequences of the sequester and the continuing resolution the Senator from Maine spoke about.

DOD-wide--so across the Department--they expect to lay off a significant portion of the 46,000 temporary and term employees. All services and agencies will likely have to furlough most DOD civilian employees for up to 22 working days. Imagine that. That is a whole month of paychecks that those workers are not going to have to support their families, to be able to spend into the economy, and that is going to have a huge impact.

It is possible that DOD might not have enough funds to pay for TRICARE, health care coverage for our veterans through the end of the fiscal year. As we saw on the front pages of the paper this week, the Department delayed the deployment of the USS Harry Truman, the carrier strike group that was headed to the Persian Gulf. If sequestration goes into full effect, the Navy will shrink by about 50 ships and at least two carrier groups.

By the end of the year, the Navy, if we do nothing, will lose about 350 workers a week or 1,400 a month from our civilian industrial base. That will have a huge impact in New Hampshire, as I know it will in Maine as well.

So there are real, significant impacts, as the Senator from Maine pointed out, on the defense industry, on this country's national security, and on the domestic side of the budget. It is already starting to have ramifications on our economy and job growth. We saw in the last quarter of 2012 that our economy contracted for the first time since 2009, and much of that decline was due to sharp reductions in government spending in anticipation of the sequester coming into effect.

We saw it in New Hampshire, in some of our businesses that are dependent on government contracts, particularly in the defense industry. So our failure to act is not only irresponsible, but it is beginning to have a real impact in slowing down this economy.

It is simply unacceptable that we are not addressing this issue. We need to act. If we let the sequester go into effect, we stand to lose, according to the Congressional Budget Office, up to 1.4 million jobs. A recent forecast from Macroeconomic Advisers suggests that sequestration would reduce our gross domestic product by .7 percentage points this year.

We can't risk putting our economic recovery in jeopardy with these indiscriminate cuts. They are going to have an impact on research and education vital to our ability to grow this economy and remain competitive.

The National Institutes of Health would face a $2.5 billion cut. They would have to halt or curtail scientific research, including needed research in cancer and childhood diseases. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would see a $464 million cut. States and local communities would lose billions of Federal education funding for title I, for special education grants, and for other programs.

As many as 100,000 children will lose their places in Head Start, 25,000 teachers could lose their jobs, and we will see those impacts immediately in Maine and in New Hampshire.

I wish to turn back to the Senator from Maine to share what she is seeing in Maine.

Mr. President, first I wish to commend the Senator from New Hampshire for broadening the debate and reminding all of us of the macroeconomic impact, as well as the impact on our two States.

The estimate is that Maine's defense industry--which includes not just the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Bath Iron Works, and our Pratt & Whitney plant, but a lot of smaller contractors and suppliers--could lose as many as 4,000 jobs as a result of sequestration. Think about that. That means, as the Senator from New Hampshire pointed out, these are people who are supporting their families and who are supporting other businesses in the community. The impact, the ripple effect, is just devastating.

That is why it does not surprise me that the Congressional Budget Office has pointed to sequestration as the primary cause for the slow growth we have seen already, and CBO projects as well; that our economy would grow at a faster rate--at 2 percent--if we averted sequestration. These aren't meaningless numbers. They affect real people. The estimates are that we would lose between 1.4 million and 2 million jobs if this is allowed to go into effect nationwide.

It is also a failure on the part of Washington to make decisions. If we are going to allow these mindless, indiscriminate cuts to go into effect, why are we here? We might as well have computers or robots making decisions for us. Our job is to do the hard, painful work of setting priorities and making decisions. That is why I am so frustrated by the approach we appear to be on the verge of taking.

The Senator from New Hampshire makes a very important point. While the Department of Defense would take a disproportionate impact from sequestration, and I am extremely concerned about that, there are other important programs that would be affected as well. The superintendents groups have met with me and talked about what it would mean for schoolchildren in Maine if halfway through the school year--more than halfway through the school year--all of a sudden they get a reduction in title I money that goes to low-income schools, to special education grants, to other important programs such as Head Start, and the TRIO Program, which helps low-income and first-generation students attend and excel in college.

Think about the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, biomedical research that is so critical, cuts in the FAA workforce that could reduce air traffic control, disrupting air traffic during the busy summer months.

The list goes on and on: essential education, health care, research, transportation programs that deserve support that do not deserve to all be treated the same.

Again, I want to emphasize that we recognize spending must be cut and the debt, at $16.4 trillion, is way out of control. That amounts to something like $52,000 for each man, woman, and child in this country.

We are committed to seeking pragmatic solutions through compromise and to avoiding this devastation of our economy and our national security. We recognize we have to look at all areas of spending and that we need to overhaul our Tax Code and make it more pro-growth, simpler, and fairer. If ever there were a moment when Members of Congress and the President should put aside their politics for the greater good of the Nation, now is the time.

So I, for one, want to thank the Senator from New Hampshire for caring so much about this issue. We have agreed to work together--and continue to work together--to address this. These automatic cuts were never supposed to take effect. I remember being told: Do not worry. It is never going to happen. It is too unpalatable. It will just never occur.

Well, they were supposed to force us to make the difficult decisions necessary to put our economy on a sound footing and to deal with our unsustainable debt. Our Nation's leaders--the President, Democrats and Republicans alike--have denounced sequestration for the most part, and yet here we are.

So I hope we can work together to avoid this fiscal cliff which will have such damaging effects for the people of this Nation.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Collins very much for her kind words. I know we both care a great deal about this situation we are in, as I think most of the Members of the body do. What is so frustrating is that it is avoidable. This is not something that has to happen because we are facing a crisis. This is happening because of what we have done in our actions. So we can undo these actions, as the Senator points out.

I share the Senator's belief that we need a comprehensive solution. We have to look at all aspects of the budget. We need to look at domestic, defense spending, mandatory programs, and we need to look at revenues. Comprehensive tax reform--that is a way we can address that.

There are areas of bipartisan agreement that we ought to be able to take action on right away. We have had a number of GAO reports that make recommendations on duplicative programs within government. We are already working to control the long-term costs of health care, to close tax loopholes, and on defense spending, we all know there are still reforms that can be done, as the Senator pointed out. We can get better physical controls. We can end some of the fraud and abuse in contracting. That is just the beginning of a list that, I am sure, if we all dedicated ourselves to coming up with a compromise on how we avoid the sequester, we could do.

We should not delay because our failure to resolve this issue is having damaging effects on our economy, and it is only going to get worse if we do not find the solution.

So, again, I thank Senator Collins for her commitment to address this challenge we face, for her willingness to come down and engage with me, and for us to work together, along with our colleagues, to try to get a resolution so we do not have these devastating cuts going into effect.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

The Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator would yield for one moment, without losing his right to the floor.

Yes, I will.

Before the Senators from New Hampshire and Maine leave the floor, I just want to commend them for their statements, for their conversation. It is so critically important we avoid sequester. The more Senators and the more Members of the House who look for ways on a bipartisan basis to avoid it, the better. We only have 2 weeks left to go. With the kind of energy and creativity that these two Senators bring to this body, it makes me a little bit more hopeful that we are going to be able to avoid this unbelievably bad outcome.

So I just want to thank both Senators and thank my friend from Oklahoma for yielding for a moment.

Mr. President, let me, first of all, respond to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I agree. We have talked about the anguish.

We had a hearing yesterday where the service chiefs discussed the disaster facing our armed forces if we go through sequestration. I do not think most Members of this body fully understand what it means, not just to the defense of our country as a whole, but to each of the individual States.

In my State of Oklahoma, I am very concerned about Tinker Air Force Base and its 16,000 civilian employees. What is going to happen there?

Anyway, let me just wind up this part by saying I have been ranked as the most conservative Member for many years. But I have always said: I am a big supporter of using our resources in two areas: One is national defense and the other is transportation and infrastructure.

A short while ago, the majority leader was kind enough to call my office and tell me I would be objecting to the consideration of the nomination of former Senator Hagel to be Secretary of Defense.

However, this is not a filibuster. I keep getting stopped by people out in the hall: Oh, we are going to filibuster. Who is going to filibuster?

What we are doing is not a filibuster. We are seeking a 60 vote threshold for a controversial nomination. If the majority really wanted to move forward quickly, all they have to do is agree to a 60-vote margin, like they did with the Sebelius and Bryson nominations.

In addition, as ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am obligated to assist the members of the committee.

First of all, the vote in the committee was a 100-percent partisan vote. Every Republican there voted against moving the Hagel nomination out of committee. Well, there has to be a reason for that.

One of the reasons--the major reason, I would say--and if you do not believe this, go back and look at the tape of the meeting yesterday where many of our members said: Why is it we are rushing to confirm Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense when he has not given us the information we have requested? One such Member is the junior Senator from Texas, who is in the Chamber with me right now.

But let me first clarify there is nothing unusual about requesting a 60-vote threshold. This happens all the time. I can remember when the majority leader agreed to a 60-vote threshold in the 2009 nomination of Kathleen Sebelius. She was confirmed.

There is nothing unusual about a 60-vote threshold.

John Bryson was nominated to be the Secretary of Commerce. Several of us had concerns about this nomination. Ultimately, he was confirmed. But once again the entire Senate agreed to a confirmation vote by a 60-vote margin.

I can remember when the majority leader--let me say this about the majority leader. He has been exceptionally good to me on things I have been involved in. I have two major bills that were my bills. One was in concert with Barbara Boxer--the highway bill. Frankly, I could not have gotten it passed without them. Another was my pilots' bill of rights. I could not get a hearing on it in committee. I tried for a year. He stepped in and helped me. I have said in national publications I could not have gotten it passed without Leader Harry Reid. So we have a very good relationship, and one which will continue.

However, Senator Reid, on numerous occasions, was concerned about Republican nominations. During the Bush Presidency, Stephen Johnson--who, incidentally, was a Democrat--was nominated to be EPA Administrator. I thought he would be good Administrator. There were several Democrats who thought he would not be good Administrator. So Harry Reid did what he is supposed to do, and he interceded on behalf of the Democrats who opposed him. As result, cloture was filed and, therefore, the nomination needed 60 votes to proceed. Well, the Administrator got 61 votes.

Another example was Dirk Kempthorne. He was nominated to be Secretary of the Interior. My colleagues will remember he is a former Senator from Idaho. Some objected to his confirmation. Of course, this was during the Bush administration. Senator Kempthorne was nominated, and he went ahead and was confirmed. It was a 60-vote margin. There is nothing unusual about this.

Getting back to Stephen Johnson, this is even more analogous to what we have right now because he was a Democrat who was nominated by a Republican President. Unfortunately, once again we were forced by the Democrats to have a cloture vote which requires 60 votes.

Stephen Johnson was a Democrat. So here we had the Republicans wanting Stephen Johnson and the Democrats not wanting Stephen Johnson. It is very analogous to what we have today. Today, we have former Senator Chuck Hagel, who is a Republican.

But in this case, we have a situation where cloture has been filed by the majority leader. I have no objection to voting. I do not want to wait. I do not want to string this out. I have other places to go other than hanging around here. I would vote tonight if we could just get the information that has been requested by the Republican members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Keep in mind, the Hagel nomination was reported out of committee by a 100-percent partisan vote. All Republicans voted against sending him out. Why did they do it? They did it because we have not gotten the information we want.

I have a letter. This is a letter that is signed by 25 Republicans stating that we have not received the information necessary for a proper vetting of the Hagel nomination.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the.

This letter is signed by several Senators, but it was promoted, more than by anyone else, by the Senator from Texas. The Senator has repeatedly requested this information. I have personally heard Senator Cruz request this information, just yesterday, and on several previous occasions.

In a previous letter, he said: We express our concern--several Senators also signed this letter--on the unnecessary rush to force through a vote on Chuck Hagel's nomination before he has been able to respond adequately to multiple requests from members of the Armed Services Committee for additional information.

I'm reading now from the letter: Those requests have included a request to Chuck Hagel for the disclosure of his personal compensation he has received over the past 5 years.

We are talking about Chuck Hagel.

This is information which he controls. He can provide this information. It is there.

The letter also requests the disclosure of foreign funds he may have received indirectly. This is important because some have raised questions of a potential conflict of interest.

Why does he not want to disclose this? Somehow he would like to be confirmed without disclosing this information.

As Senators we have a responsibility here. I do not care if you are a Democrat or Republican. If a member of the Armed Services Committee requests this information and the information is available and he is able to obtain it and does not provide it, we have a process problem.

Mr. President, my primary objection to Chuck Hagel's confirmation is for policy reasons. That is why I think he is not qualified for that job. Others do not agree with that. That is fine. But they have to agree on the process.

In fact, I cannot remember--and I have been on the Armed Services Committee in both the House and Senate for 25 years. I do not remember one time when information that was requested, which was perfectly within the purview of the committee was not provided. This has not happened. This is unprecedented.

I heard some people say: you are filibustering a Cabinet appointee. That is not what we are doing. What we are trying to prevent is an unprecedented event where committee members do not receive information which is important for Members to have in order to consider a nomination.

So I will continue to read the letter.

The letter includes a request for a complete list of his prior public speeches, notably, multiple additional speeches on controversial topics that have been made public by the press.

For example, I understand FOX News is going to run a story tomorrow regarding some speeches made by former Senator Hagel. If so, these speeches would certainly give rise to a lot of interest because, I have been informed, we are talking about speeches which were made and paid for by foreign governments. I have also been told, some of these foreign governments may not be friendly to us.

Therefore, I believe Senators are entitled to review this information. Are we entitled to that? Yes; we are entitled to that.

So this letter includes a request for a complete list of his prior public speeches, notably, additional speeches on controversial topics that have been made public in the press, despite those speeches having been omitted from his own disclosure.

I remember in the early stages of the confirmation process, requests were made of Senator Hagel about information we knew existed because the press had written about it in the past. Some may argue that Senators are not entitled to review these speeches. I disagree. A member of the Armed Services Committee has a responsibility to review that information.

The letter also makes the critical request from the administration for additional information on their precise actions during and immediately following the tragic murder of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.

Regardless, if the administration has answered these questions, the Senate is entitled to review speeches that have been made by the person who is up for confirmation to be Secretary of Defense.

I would say to the majority leader, the request for a 60 vote threshold is based on precedent. It is what the majority leader agreed to on the John Bryson and Kathleen Sebelius nominations. It is what he insisted upon when the Democrats forced cloture to be filed on the Dirk Kempthorne and Stephen Johnson nominations. There are several others. Michael Leavitt was one. John Bolton went through this twice. We all remember Miguel Estrada. We remember ROBERT PORTMAN, now one of our fellow Senators.

So there is nothing unusual about this. But there is a problem with the process we are entering now. That process is, we have made requests--I am talking about Members such as Senator Cruz from Texas and other members of the Senate Armed Services Committee who have made perfectly reasonable requests for information. In this case, it is on speeches reportedly made to foreign audiences. However, these concerns can be clarified in a matter of minutes.

That is why we should not rush. If this information is provided we could resolve this matter tonight. The information is out there. I have personally talked to Senator Cruz. He said: Look, if they will just give us that information we have been requesting now for weeks, we can have the vote tonight.

That is our reasonable request. We are not talking about merits. We are not talking about substance. We are talking about a process. Never before in my memory has a Senate Armed Services member's reasonable request been denied before someone has come up for a confirmation. It is a simple request. It has been done on a regular basis. A 60-vote margin is not a filibuster. We are merely saying the Senate is entitled to this information. Hopefully, this will jar some of the information loose. Maybe we can get it now. I hope we do.

I want to move this on and move it as rapidly as possible.

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

The clerk will call the roll.

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

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

CLIMATE CHANGE
Mr. President, I am here again to talk about the effects of climate change on the health of our families and our communities. Just as we know that secondhand smoke and too much sun exposure are bad for human health, we know pollution and variations in climate conditions are as well.

I wish to thank our chairman on the Environment and Public Works Committee, Mrs. Boxer, for the briefing she held today with a number of scientists, including one who spoke specifically about the human health effects we can see from climate change. Climate change is threatening to erode the improvements in air quality we have achieved through the Clean Air Act.

EPA-enforced emissions reductions have led to a decline in the number and severity of bad air days in the United States. These are the days I know the Presiding Officer is familiar with because I am sure they happen in Connecticut as well as in Rhode Island, where the air quality is so poor that it is unhealthy for sensitive individuals: the elderly, infants, people with breathing difficulties to be outdoors. Even healthy people are urged to limit their activities when out-of-doors.

In Rhode Island, about 12 percent of children and 11 percent of adults suffer from asthma. Both are higher than the national average. Our Rhode Island Public Transit Authority runs free buses on bad ozone days to try to keep car traffic down because these days are so dangerous to the public. Of course, the major air pollutant behind bad air days is ozone, commonly known as smog. Ground-level ozone or smog makes it difficult to breathe, causes coughing, inflames airways, aggravates asthma, emphysema and bronchitis and makes lungs more susceptible to infection.

That all means asthma attacks, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, which, in turn, result in missed school and work and a burden not only of worry but also a burden on the economy. Smog, of course, forms more quickly during hot and sunny days. So as climate change drives more heat, it increases the number of warm days and the conditions for smog and for bad air days become more common.

Climate change is also prolonging the allergy season. I am sure there are a number of people listening who suffer from hay fever in the late summer and early fall. Some people suffer from it most acutely. It is most often caused by ragweed pollen. Since 1995, ragweed season has increased across the country. It has increased by 13 days in Madison, WI. It has increased by 20 days in Minneapolis, MN. It has increased by almost 25 days in Fargo, ND. The further north you go, the greater the increase in the ragweed season. So for folks in Fargo, for instance, it is 25 more days of sniffling and sneezing and 25 more days that ragweed pollen might trigger a child's asthma attack.

Not only does more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere mean warmer weather and therefore longer pollen seasons, it also means a higher pollen count. At 280 parts per million, which was the concentration of atmospheric carbon back in the year 1900, each ragweed plant would produce about 5 grams of pollen.

At 370 parts per million, which is where we are now--year 2000 levels to be precise--pollen production more than doubles. It doubles again at 72 parts per million, which is the concentration that is now projected for the year 2075. So as we work to improve air quality and to reduce respiratory illnesses and the allergic conditions that trigger respiratory distress, we need to fight the growing trigger, climate change.

Warming oceans and lakes can also harm our health. Higher water surface temperature is associated with harmful blooms of various species of algae. These blooms are often referred to as ``red tide.'' They deplete oxygen, block sunlight, and they produce toxins. The toxins are very often captured by clams and oysters and other shellfish.

When they are consumed, it can result in neurotoxic shellfish poisoning, which causes debilitating respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms. A warming climate also is predicted to change the range of disease-spreading parasites, such as ticks and mosquitoes. With longer summers and shorter winters, we will face more exposure to these pests and to the diseases they can carry.

We in New England and Connecticut and Rhode Island and Massachusetts, of course, are very familiar with lyme disease, which is a tick-borne illness that can have very grave and serious effects.

Slow and steady warming is also causing sea levels to rise, which threatens coastal infrastructure and human safety as well. In South Kingstown, RI, Matunuck Beach Road is the only means of access to approximately 500 homes. That road also covers the public water main. For years, the sand erosion has eaten away at the beach. Now the road is immediately vulnerable to storms. Indeed it has been overwashed in recent storms. A breach in Matunuck Beach Road cuts off those 500 homes from emergency services. If it were damaging enough, it could cut off their water.

Our water quality is also threatened. Many of Rhode Island's wastewater treatment plants are in low-lying areas and flood zones near the coast. It is the story in many other States. In California, for example, the rising sea level has put 29 wastewater treatment plants, responsible for 530 million gallons of sewage processing every day, at increased risk for flooding.

As we know, climate change loads the dice for more extreme weather: heat waves, droughts, storms, all serious threats to human health and safety. Climate change has led to an increase in the likelihood of severe heat waves. Extreme heat causes heat exhaustion. It can cause heat stroke.

The need for air-conditioning in heat waves also strains the power infrastructure, which can cause electrical brownouts and blackouts. This hinders emergency services and exacerbates wildfires and drought. These are the kinds of conditions--from extreme heat--that led to literally tens of thousands of deaths in the record-setting Russian heat wave of 2010.

Heavy rainfall can cause physical damage, flooding erosion, and sewage overflow. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 118,000 sanitary sewer overflows occur annually from storms overwashing through combined sewer systems, overloading those systems, and being released directly into the open, releasing up to actually 860 billion gallons of untreated sewage and wastewater. In 2010, heavy rainfall and flooding caused millions of dollars in damage in spilled raw sewage in Warwick, RI, my home State. The flood led to the temporary shutdown of the local wastewater treatment facility. These overflows, like the one in Warwick, can result in beach closures, shellfish bed closures, contamination of drinking water supplies, and other environmental and public health problems.

Extreme rainfall, meaning both way too little and way too much rainfall, promotes waterborne outbreaks of disease. In the northeast United States, heavy rainfall has increased by 74 percent since my childhood in the 1950s.

As we have seen with Superstorm Sandy, Hurricane Irene, and Hurricane Katrina, storms can very quickly affect millions of people and require tens of billions of dollars to clean up. The threat gets worse as sea-level rise allows storm surges to reach farther inland and create more damage than just a few decades ago. Much of the east coast was fearful of flooding during Superstorm Sandy last year, including, of course, southern Rhode Island. Because of erosion and sea-level rise, the storm surges on our shores can reach homes that were originally built hundreds of feet from the coastline.

I had the experience of standing with a man who had a childhood home that had been through at least three generations of his family. He was now actually older than me, and that childhood home--which had stood well back from the beach--was canting toward the sea and tumbling into the ocean. The ocean had claimed his home of multiple generations as its victim.

This map shows by ZIP code where the 800,000 people displaced by Hurricane Katrina sought refuge after that terrible storm. Hundreds of thousands of people were strewn across every corner of the country. Hundreds of thousands of lives were disrupted as a result.

Thankfully, not everybody is sleepwalking through these alarming realities. In 2010, Rhode Island created our Climate Change Commission, which has identified risks to key infrastructure and is analyzing data from events such as Hurricane Sandy and the 2010 flood. Other States have formed similar commissions.

I brought last night to our President's State of the Union Address Grover Fugate, who is executive director of our Coastal Resources Management Council, which has to look at and address every day and plan for the effects of our rising sea level, increased storm activity, and the risk that that portends to the shores of our ocean State.

For the past 3 years, Rhode Island has also been part of a regional greenhouse gas initiative nicknamed ReGGie, along with our neighbors in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. Our region caps carbon emissions and sells permits to emit greenhouses gases to powerplants. This has created economic incentives for both the States and our utilities to invest in energy efficiency and in renewable energy development. And consumers have reaped the benefit of lower prices. In 2012, regional emissions were 45 percent below the annual cap, so just last week the State announced an agreement to cap future emissions at the 2012 rate.

I am proud of the work done in my State, and I know the Presiding Officer's home State of Connecticut is working equally hard on this issue. We are working to both slow climate change and to prepare for what are now its inevitable effects. But sadly, when it comes to this particular threat to our national security and our prosperity, Congress is asleep. It is time for us to wake up. The health and safety of Americans and of people all over the world is at risk. We must awaken to what is happening in the world around us and to the fact that the carbon pollution we are emitting is causing it. This is our responsibility. This is our generation's responsibility. It is, indeed, our duty. It is time for us to wake up.

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

The clerk will call the roll.

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

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Page: S692

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nominations, Calendar Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and all nominations placed on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that the Senate then resume legislative session.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

IN THE AIR FORCE

The following named Air National Guard of the United States officer for appointment in the Reserve of the Air Force to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601:

To be lieutenant general Maj. Gen. William H. Etter

IN THE ARMY

The following named officer for appointment in the United States Army to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601:

To be lieutenant general Maj. Gen. Kenneth E. Tovo

The following named officer for appointment in the United States Army Nurse Corps to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., sections 624 and 3064:

To be brigadier general Col. Barbara R. Holcomb

The following named officer for appointment in the United States Army Medical Service Corps to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., sections 624 and 3064:

To be brigadier general Col. Patrick D. Sargent

The following named officers for appointment in the United States Army Medical Corps to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., sections 624 and 3064:

To be major general Brig. Gen. Brian C. Lein Brig. Gen. Nadja Y. West

Nominations Placed on the Secretary's Desk

IN THE AIR FORCE

PN70 AIR FORCE nomination of Kory D. Bingham, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN71 AIR FORCE nominations (3) beginning MICHAEL A. COOPER, and ending SUSAN MICHELLE MILLER, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN72 AIR FORCE nominations (4) beginning VICTOR DOUGLAS BROWN, and ending RODNEY M. WAITE, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN73 AIR FORCE nominations (4) beginning WALTER S. ADAMS, and ending CARL E. SUPPLEE, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN74 AIR FORCE nominations (6) beginning JOHN J. BARTRUM, and ending GEORGE L. VALENTINE, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN75 AIR FORCE nominations (8) beginning KIMBERLY L. BARBER, and ending JANET L. SETNOR, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN76 AIR FORCE nominations (11) beginning DINA L. BERNSTEIN, and ending WILLIAM R. YOUNGBLOOD, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN77 AIR FORCE nominations (12) beginning TIMOTHY LEE BRININGER, and ending CHRISTOPHER J. RYAN, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN78 AIR FORCE nominations (198) beginning FRANCIS XAVIER ALTIERI, and ending KEVIN M. ZELLER, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

IN THE ARMY

PN79 ARMY nomination of Jonathan A. Foskey, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN80 ARMY nomination of Marion J. Parks, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN81 ARMY nomination of Karen A. Pike, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN82 ARMY nominations (2) beginning Derek S. Reynolds, and ending Brian D. Vogt, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN83 ARMY nominations (2) beginning Edward A. Figueroa, and ending Michael C. Vanhoven, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN84 ARMY nominations (2) beginning JACK C. MASON, and ending TODD B. WAYTASHEK, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN85 ARMY nominations (79) beginning RUTH E. APONTE, and ending MICHAEL J. ZINNO, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN86 ARMY nominations (88) beginning LESLIE E. AKINS, and ending MARC W. ZELNICK, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN87 ARMY nominations (217) beginning TIMOTHY G. ABRELL, and ending JOHN A. ZULFER, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN88 ARMY nominations (225) beginning RAFAEL E. ABREU, and ending R010075, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

IN THE MARINE CORPS

PN91 MARINE CORPS nomination of Jackie W. Morgan, Jr., which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN92 MARINE CORPS nomination of Dana R. Fike, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN93 MARINE CORPS nomination of Samuel W. Spencer, III, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN94 MARINE CORPS nomination of Larry Miyamoto, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN97 MARINE CORPS nominations (2) beginning GEORGE L. ROBERTS, and ending PAUL A. SHIRLEY, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN98 MARINE CORPS nominations (2) beginning RICHARD D. KOHLER, and ending GARY J. SPINELLI, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN100 MARINE CORPS nominations (2) beginning ERIC T. CLINE, and ending ROBERT S. SCHMIDT, JR., which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN101 MARINE CORPS nominations (2) beginning JOSE L. SADA, and ending BRIAN J. SPOONER, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN102 MARINE CORPS nominations (3) beginning FREDERICK L. HUNT, and ending CHAD E. TIDWELL, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN103 MARINE CORPS nominations (3) beginning TODD E. LOTSPEICH, and ending DONALD E. WILLIAMS, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN104 MARINE CORPS nominations (3) beginning JASON B. DAVIS, and ending JOHN F. REYNOLDS, JR., which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN105 MARINE CORPS nominations (3) beginning TRAVIS M. FULTON, and ending GARY S. LIDDELL, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN106 MARINE CORPS nominations (4) beginning BRYAN DELGADO, and ending RODOLFO D. QUISPE, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN107 MARINE CORPS nominations (4) beginning DAVID B. BLANN, and ending ALLEN L. LEWIS, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN108 MARINE CORPS nominations (5) beginning MICHAEL GASPERINI, and ending TIMOTHY W. WILLIAMS, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN109 MARINE CORPS nominations (6) beginning STEPHEN R. BYRNES, and ending JAMES N. TIMMER, JR., which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN110 MARINE CORPS nominations (7) beginning PETER K. BASABE, JR., and ending MICHAEL A. YOUNG, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

IN THE NAVY

PN115 NAVY nomination of Harry E. Hayes, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN116 NAVY nomination of Shemeya L. Grant, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN117 NAVY nominations (2) beginning CHRISTOPHER J. KANE, and ending LUKE C. SUBER, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

PN118 NAVY nominations (29) beginning JEANINE F. BENJAMIN, and ending BENJAMIN F. VISGER, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 23, 2013.

Page: S693

Under the previous order, the Senate resumes legislative session.

Page: S693

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

TRIBUTE TO SPENCER STOKES
Page: S693

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a special class of people who are critical to the success of any U.S. Senator.

During the recent Super Bowl game, one advertisement stood out among all the others. It was an advertisement based on a tribute taken from the great American Paul Harvey. It was entitled ``So God Made a Farmer. While I respect and admire farmers greatly, especially those I know from Utah, I am also certain that my colleagues in this Chamber will agree that when it comes to this institution, we can rightly change that statement ever so slightly to say, ``So God Made a Chief of Staff.

My first chief of staff Spencer Stokes is returning to Utah. He is also returning to his family and to private life after 2 extraordinary years serving me in my office. I offer this in tribute to him and to all great chiefs of staff who labor here on Capitol Hill.

When God looked down on the Senate, He realized that Senators alone could never keep things running and He said, I need a caretaker. So God made a chief of staff. He needed someone whose first thought in the morning and last thought at night would be about helping and serving a Senator; who would rise before dawn and organize the day, set the strategy, deal with the thick and thin of things, and steer the Senator away from bad meetings, bad policy, and bad people; someone who would work all day in and out of the office, would skip holidays, birthdays, and parties in pursuit of their service, who would stay past midnight waiting for a vote, and then be willing to get up at the crack of dawn the next morning to do it all again. So God made a chief of staff.

He needed someone with thick skin, strong will, and at the same time a soft touch; strong enough to herd cats, yet gentle enough to comfort a grieving constituent or staff member; someone to call BS, tame the cantankerous bureaucracy of government, creatively solve problems big and small, and patiently listen to a hostile constituent with an axe to grind, and then tell that same constituent to come back again real soon--and mean it. So God made a chief of staff.

God said, I need someone who can shape a staff, shine shoes, horse trade for furniture and office space, navigate a litany of ethics and rules requirements, and play the role of cruise director for countless constituent tours of Washington, DC; someone who will put in a full 40 hours by Tuesday at noon, and then put in another 72 hours on top of that by the end of the week. So God made a chief of staff.

He had to have someone willing to sprint at double speed to stay ahead of a news story, and yet stop on a dime and pivot to help the real people of this country, no matter the consequences, no matter the circumstances, and regardless of what the press might be doing at the moment. He needed someone who, when the Senator becomes surrounded by ``yes men is willing to say humbly yet firmly and resolutely, ``No, sir. So God made a chief of staff.

He said, I need somebody strong enough to catch arrows, take heat, endure withering criticism, and patiently listen to angry voices; somebody who is just fine with little prominence, praise, prestige, or perks, and who above all is fiercely loyal and forever has the Senator's back. So God made a chief of staff.

I am fairly certain that when God looked down on a newly elected Senator from Utah during the final months of 2010, He knew that any old chief of staff wouldn't do. So, in my case, he actually chose a farmer--a turkey farmer, to be specific--from Bothwell, UT, named Spencer Stokes.

Spencer has been a truly outstanding chief of staff. Doing the heavy lifting and providing the Herculean effort required to set up an office and build a staff from scratch proved to be Spencer's forte. It proved to be easy for him--or at least he made it look easy. He has an eye for detail like no other, though we occasionally need to remind him to ``zoom out.'' Straight chairs in the conference room, straight desks, and even straight ties all set the stage for straight talk about issues and policy and serving constituents.

Spencer's love of Utah and its people is unequaled. As a first order of business, he set out to make my office something of an embassy for my State. So when you walk into our office, you are actually walking quite literally into Utah. From the art on the walls to the naming of the conference rooms, from our legendary JELL-O Wednesday to the staff reading of the smalltown Utah newspapers each week--everything leads to an experience in our office, and everything in our office is an experience of Utah.

Spencer will long be remembered and appreciated for his handwritten notes, the best night tour in DC--a true story--bringing people together, confetti cannons, Utah fry sauce, lots of laughter, and a tireless commitment to make bad things good and good things even better.

From Spencer's perspective, there are no small players in this great institution that is the Senate. He did not just preach that philosophy, he lived it every single day he was here. As a testament to that, we noted that when we asked him to provide a list of all the people he wanted invited to his farewell party, at the top of Spencer's list there were people who were not necessarily of high status. No, the top of the list was reserved for the people who really make this place go: cashiers and cooks, security personnel, guides and junior staff from nearly every corner of this building.

I salute Spencer Stokes for his service to this Nation, to this institution, and to the people of Utah. I salute Spencer for his service to me and my family. I will forever be thankful that God made a chief of staff and especially thankful for a particularly extraordinary chief of staff, Spencer Stokes.

TRIBUTE TO U.S. MARSHAL DAVID DEMAG
Page: S693

Mr. President, one of the great privileges in serving in the U.S. Senate is the ability to make recommendations to the President with respect to important nominations for posts in our States. I was pleased 4 years ago to recommend to President Obama the nomination of David Demag to be Vermont's U.S. Marshal, and to help move his nomination through the Judiciary Committee and Senate confirmation. In fact, he was the first U.S. Marshal to be confirmed during the Obama administration.

Since his confirmation, Marshal Demag's tireless devotion to reducing crime rates in Vermont has helped make my home State a safe and comfortable home for its residents.

Marshal Demag began his career in 1971 as a patrol officer for the Burlington Police Department, where he rose through the ranks as corporal, detective, sergeant, lieutenant, and later, commander. I have known Marshal Demag throughout his career. He served as chief of police for both the Essex and St. Albans Police Departments. He also was a member of the Burlington Police Department. He has been a leader in Vermont in the fight against rural crime, and has spent his life and career devoted to public service.

As a U.S. Marshal for Vermont, Dave Demag has remained dedicated to arresting the State's most wanted fugitives and sex offenders and his work in establishing the Vermont Violent Offender Task Force has expanded the ability of the U.S. Marshal's office to catch violent and habitual sex offenders. The task force has not only served as a tool for bringing law enforcement officials throughout the State together, but has also improved Vermont's track record for fugitive arrests to 70 percent while reinvesting assets seized from criminals to address the needs of State and local law enforcement. These results are making a real difference in the lives of Vermonters across the State and should serve as a model for how Federal and State law enforcement can work together around the country.

One of Vermont's local news stations, WCAX, recently ran a story highlighting these accomplishments, and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that story be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. I look forward to Marshal Demag's continued partnership with state and local law enforcement in Vermont.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

I look forward to Marshal Demag's continued partnership with State and local law enforcement in Vermont.

TRIBUTE TO PATTY STONESIFER
Page: S694

Mr. President, it is easy from our perch on Capitol Hill to sometimes forget about the city that surrounds us. Like so many communities across the country, urban and rural, Washington, D.C. wrestles with a population in poverty. Soon, those people will have a new advocate at the head of one of the Nation's capital's leading organizations focused on ending the cycle of poverty among local youth and adults. Starting in April, Patty Stonesifer will become the new C.E.O. and President of Martha's Table.

Patty devoted 9 years of her life to the work of the Gates Foundation. As its chief executive officer, she helped the foundation become the largest philanthropic institution in the world while taking no salary for herself. After her time at the Gates Foundation, Patty's passion for change led her to become part of the U.S. delegation to the United Nations General Assembly Special Sessions on AIDS, and was later appointed by President Obama in 2010 to chair the White House Council for Community Solutions. We have become friends through our shared service on the Smithsonian Board of Regents, and she is active on the board of the Center for Global Development, and is a member of the Circle of Allies and Champions for the National Council of Youth Leaders.

Patty's dedication to philanthropy aligns perfectly with the mission of Martha's Table. This nonprofit is more than a food pantry. Not only does Martha's Table supply more than 1,000 meals each day to hungry Washingtonians, it also works to develop long-term solutions to hunger and nutrition issues, seeking an end to poverty. Martha's Table helps to break the cycle of poverty by providing education, nutrition, and family support services to hundreds of children and families. Martha's Table is lucky to have someone like Patty at the helm. I have no doubt she will successfully prepare the next generation of young people for a bright future. Patty's self sacrifice and dedication to ending poverty and hunger in our Nation's Capital is to be commended, and I wish her the best of luck in her new role.

I ask unanimous consent that an article from The Washington Post entitled, ``Patty Stonesifer, former CEO of Gates Foundation, to lead D.C. food pantry,'' be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

{{bill text|[The Washington Post, January 29, 2013]

Patty Stonesifer, Former CEO of Gates Foundation, To Lead D.C. Food Pantry

(By Steve Hendrix)

It took about six months after moving to Washington for Patty Stonesifer to find her new job. As the former chief executive of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, she had a lot of corner-office options to sift through, including a university presidency and the top jobs at a national charity and an international development agency.

Her choice? She's going to run Martha's Table on 14th Street NW. Starting April 1, she will take over the well-regarded but decidedly local food pantry and family-services nonprofit organization.

Stonesifer, 56, who oversaw the Gates Foundation endowment of $39 billion and a staff of more than 500 for nine years, will manage the D.C. charity's $6 million budget, 81 paid employees, three vans and thrift shop.

Martha's Table plans an official announcement Wednesday. But as word of Stonesifer's unexpected career move began to circulate in recent days, it inspired twin reactions: ``Wow! and ``Why?

Overachievers usually work their way from small to big. Having Stonesifer come run a small local charity is like General Electric business titan Jack Welch showing up to manage the corner appliance store, or one of the Super Bowl-bound Harbaugh brothers deciding to coach high school football.

``If you just look at my résumé, I find that I have to explain this,'' Stonesifer said last week at the temporary office she'd established at a Busboys and Poets table across the street from her new home base. In between a series of briefings from Martha's Table managers, she tried to explain how a top-of-the-charts philanthropy pro came to match fates with an ambitious local charity.

``But if you know me, I don't have to explain it at all,'' she said. ``I absolutely think I can help Martha's Table, but this is going to be wonderful for me.''

A shift in scale

Cathy Sulzberger, the head of the Martha's Table board of directors, was in a taxicab last fall when she got a call from the headhunter leading the board's search for a new leader: A surprising--and exciting--candidate had applied.

``Honestly, my first response was, `Is Patty Stonesifer sure she wants this kind of job?' '' recalled Sulzberger.

Running the 33-year-old nonprofit group will certainly be a shift in scale. Under Stonesifer, the Gates Foundation became the largest philanthropic institution in the world. It has set colossal, planet-shifting goals for itself: eradicating polio and malaria, transforming American high schools, and more.

Before that, Stonesifer was a senior vice president at Microsoft responsible for developing MSNBC, Encarta and Slate magazine (now owned by The Washington Post Co.).

More recently, President Obama asked her to chair his White House Council for Community Solutions, and she has just wrapped up a stint as chairman of the Smithsonian Institution's Board of Regents. Stonesifer has appeared on Time magazine's annual list of the 25 Most Influential People. She is married to journalist and founding Slate editor Michael Kinsley. She is a boldface name.

``There is no phone call that Patty would make that wouldn't be returned, none at all,'' said Diana Aviv, president of Independent Sector, a Washington-based coalition of nonprofit groups and foundations.

Soon after leaving the Gates Foundation in 2008, Stonesifer and Kinsley began splitting their time between Seattle and the District, where he used to live and where she has a daughter from a previous marriage working at USAID. Last year, Kinsley accepted an editor's job at the New Republic magazine, and they decided to make the District their full-time home.

Stonesifer has been wealthy since piling up tens of millions in Microsoft stock in the company's early years. (She also became a director at Amazon.com before it went public and remains on that company's board.) But she retains the modest bent of the Indiana Catholic who grew up with eight siblings in a house where volunteerism was as regular as making the bed. She took no salary while running the Gates Foundation.

After the couple bought a restored brownstone near Dupont Circle, Stonesifer began exploring Washington by foot and Metro.

``I was amazed at how there is a city within a city here,'' she said, reeling off the stats: 110,000 households live in poverty, one in three households with children can't afford enough food. ``This idea that the District has so much child hunger, it's mind-boggling.''

Stonesifer decided she needed some time in the trenches. Nothing would teach her, and her peers in the foundation world, more about these intractable problems than confronting them, year after year, in the faces of the people who suffer them.

And then she saw the CEO-wanted ad for Martha's Table.

``I decided to raise my hand,'' she said.

Her husband said he was surprised, at first.

``I said, `Are you going to be adding the salt to the soup?' '' Kinsley recalled, sitting with Stonesifer in their living room after her coffee-shop meetings were over. The walls were covered with paintings by Seattle artists, misty mountain ranges and tulip fields. ``But I shouldn't have been surprised. You said you wanted to do something hands-on.''

``You didn't really believe me,'' she said. ``You thought I should be a university head.''

``Yes, run a college, he said, ``maybe the World Bank.

``It's nice to have a husband who thinks you can do anything.'' She leaned over to pat his leg.

``You'll get your turn at running Hewlett-Packard, I assume,'' Kinsley said.

She shot him a look.

``Joke! Joke!'' he said.

The right person

First she had to get this job.

``Even if she comes from a major philanthropy and is so well-known, we had to make sure we were hiring the right person for Martha's Table,'' Sulzberger said of the long vetting Stonesifer went through. ``This may be a smaller stage, but it's not a small job for anybody.''

Martha's Table started in 1980 as a place for hungry students to get an after-school sandwich. Its ``McKenna's Wagon'' food vans have been mealtime fixtures at McPherson Square and other gathering spots for the homeless for decades. Now, it serves more than 1,100 people a day with meals and early-childhood and after-school programs.

The group's legion of volunteers is legendary: A roll of more than 10,000 school kids, poor people and the occasional president who chop vegetables and build sandwiches.

Now, the organization wants to make a leap.

``I think Martha's Table is ready for the next stage,'' said Linda Moore, founder of the E.W. Stokes Charter School in Northeast Washington and longtime board member. ``Even though I'm not sure what that is, we were looking for a leader to take us there.''

Stonesifer got the job. The head of the Gates Foundation U.S. programs, Allan Golston, sent congratulations. So did Sylvia Burwell, president of the Walmart Foundation. Even Stonesifer's old boss thought it was a good move.

``I think it blends all the elements she loves in philanthropy,'' Melinda Gates said by e-mail. ``Even when living in Seattle, she did hands-on work at a local charity--anonymously. That type of work keeps you grounded in the real issues in people's lives.''

Again, she will work for free, but she will also work for real. She expects long hours. This is not, she insisted (with some heat) a ``retirement'' job.

She's heard that one before, after she left Microsoft and agreed to run Bill Gates's library initiative.

`` `Oh, she's going to convert libraries to the Internet, how sweet.' Well, it wasn't sweet at all,'' Stonesifer said. ``We added 11,000 libraries to the Web, and that group went on to become the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.''

No stepping back.

On a taxi ride from her house to a meeting of philanthropy leaders at the Hotel Monaco, she described her biggest concern: that people will assume she can connect a funding hose from Martha's Table to the Gates Foundation and the coffers will be full forever.

Not gonna happen.

``That's not what they do, and that's not what Martha's Table needs,'' she said. ``The strength of Martha's Table is in the thousands of small donors and volunteers that ensure we deliver services every day. I don't want my coming here to make people step back in any way.''

The cabdriver leaned back. ``You work for Martha's Table?'' he asked in a strong Ethiopian accent.

Stonesifer hesitated. ``I'm going to.''

``It's a good charity,'' the man said. He picks up volunteers there all the time, he explained, young people who need a ride home. Thinking of his own two children in Virginia colleges, he doesn't take their money.

``You'd have to be mentally handicapped to charge somebody doing what they do,'' he said. ``You work for Martha's Table, I won't charge you, either.''

Stonesifer put a hand on his shoulder, even as she insisted he take the money from her hand. ``You dear, sweet man,'' she said. ``God bless you.''

On the curb, she exulted.

``That's the power of Martha's Table,'' she said. ``A man driving a cab and putting two kids through school. That's what we have to work with. I'm so excited.''

TRIBUTE TO DR. LARRY D. TYLER
[Page: S695]

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a distinguished Kentuckian, a pillar of the Louisville community and a fixture at the University of Louisville, and a very good friend of mine. Dr. Larry D. Tyler is a professor of engineering fundamentals, and this year he celebrates 50 years of service with UofL's J.B. Speed School of Engineering.

Dr. Tyler earned his original appointment at UofL as an engineering instructor in 1963. He received tenure in 1970. He has taught more than 30 different courses in the fields of engineering mathematics and mechanical, industrial, chemical, and civil engineering. He has created innovative instructional methodologies for core engineering mathematics courses, including early detection of prerequisite weaknesses.

Dr. Tyler has earned all of his degrees at the University of Louisville: his undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, a master's in mathematics, a master's of mechanical engineering, and a Ph.D. in engineering and physics. Along the way he has been published in peer-review journals and presented at international conferences on engineering design and automation. He won the Speed School's Outstanding Teacher Award in 1975, 1980, and 1983, the University Faculty Favorite Award in 2007, the Speed School Alumni Outstanding Teaching Award in 2007, the University of Louisville's Distinguished Teaching Award in 2008, and the Departmental Professor of the Year Award in 2012.

Larry has served as a faculty advisor to many fraternity student chapters, and here I should mention that Larry and I are old friends. Not only did we attend UofL together as undergraduates, we were both members of Phi Tau fraternity together; in fact, we were in the same pledge class. So I've had the pleasure of seeing Larry grow into the incredibly accomplished and respected professor that we knew he was always meant to be.

Larry, it has been a privilege to walk alongside you for these many years. I know that we both care deeply about our wonderful hometown of Louisville, and we have both dedicated our careers to serving the people of Louisville and giving back to this city by our own contribution. On this occasion to celebrate your success, I say, well done.

Larry's teaching philosophy is to be both student- and content-centered, in order to instill the qualities of desire, determination, and dedication in his students because, as he says, ``success in any endeavor requires all three.'' The life and career of Dr. Tyler is certainly proof that if you have those three qualities, you can go very far.

Mr. President, I would ask my U.S. Senate colleagues to join me in recognizing the accomplishments of Dr. Larry D. Tyler, and congratulating him upon his 50 years of successful service with UofL's J.B. Speed School of Engineering. I hope he continues to lead our university and our city onward and upward for many years to come.

Page: S696

RULES OF PROCEDURE

Mr. President, in accordance with rule XXVI.2 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I submit for publication in the Congressional Record the Rules of Procedure for the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, as unanimously adopted by the Committee on February 13, 2013.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Rules of Procedure be printed in the Record.

TRIBUTE TO ARIZONA VA MEDICAL STAFF
[Page: S697]

Mr. President, on January 31, one of the most unique and interesting individuals I have ever known passed away while receiving hospice care at the Southern Arizona VA Health Care System. He was my brother-in-law, Joe McQuaid, a 92-year-old veteran of the Second World War.

I will have more to say about this unique individual at a later date. But, today, I want to express my deep gratitude to all of the wonderful professionals at the Southern Arizona VA Health Care System for the extraordinary care they gave to him in the last 2 months of his life.

Joe McQuaid was a strapping 6 feet 4 inches. He was healthy all of his life until last November 15. On that day, after his daily exercise, he fell in a freak accident and broke his hip. He was operated on at the Tucson VA hospital, and his hip seemed to be healing just fine. But after being transferred to a local rehabilitation facility, Joe fell again and re-broke his hip. He was readmitted to the VA hospital, but his condition deteriorated rapidly and he passed away on January 31.

The personnel at the VA medical center in Tucson could not have been more professional, skilled, and compassionate in the care they gave to Joe McQuaid in those final two months. They did everything possible to treat his injury and help him to recover. But once it became clear that recovery was not possible, they took wonderful care of him, admitting him to hospice care, attending to his needs, and ensuring that he had a gentle passing.

As a veteran myself, during all my years in Congress I have always been very supportive of our VA system and our veterans. I have long believed that our nation has a sacred obligation to those who have borne the burdens of battle and national defense, and we must ensure that they have access to first-rate health care.

So it was with great pride that I had this opportunity to witness firsthand the extraordinary care and attention that staff members at the Tucson VA center were giving to this 92-year-old veteran.

At the risk of leaving out the names of others who cared for my brother-in-law, I specifically want to thank and salute Jonathan Gardner, the director of the Southern Arizona VA Health Care System, for his leadership of that institution and for his many years of distinguished service to the VA system. Also Julianne French, a registered nurse and administrative assistant to the chief medical officer, who was so responsive to my inquiries and calls. Also Dr. David Emelity, the acting chief of staff, Dr. Richard Hoffman, and Dr. Joao Ferreira, all of who took a deep personal interest in Joe's medical condition.

And a special thank you to Glenda Riggs, clinical nurse leader in the intensive care unit, who cared for Joe and went out of her way to keep me and members of Joe's family informed at every step of his treatment and care. I can't speak too highly of Nurse Riggs' skill and compassion, and her tireless attention to all of her patients and their families.

The Southern Arizona VA Health Care System has a wonderful team, with great leadership from Jonathan Gardner. It is clear to me that any veteran who comes through the doors of that center is going to get superb treatment.

I am proud of all the people who work in America's VA system, and I am grateful for the care they give to our veterans. My recent experience, seeing firsthand the quality of care and the quality of staff at the center in Tucson, reaffirms my faith in the VA system and my respect for the great work they do.

Again, I just want to thank the entire team at the Southern Arizona VA Health Care System. Thank you for all you did for this 92-year-old World War II veteran, Joe McQuaid. And thank you for the same high-quality care you give to all of the veterans at the Tucson center.

Page: S698

RULES OF PROCEDURE

Mr. President, pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 2 of Senate Rule XXVI, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the rules of the Committee on Foreign Relations for the 113th Congress adopted by the Committee on February 13, 2013.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Page: S701

Mr. President, on February 11, 2013, I was unavoidably detained in Wisconsin due to hazardous weather conditions and was unable to vote on amendment No. 13 in regard to S. 47, the Violence Against Women Act. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

[Page: S701]

REMEMBERING JOHN QUIMBY
Mr. President, I would like to recognize and honor the incredible life of John Quimby, an inspirational leader that guided and touched the lives of so many.

John Quimby was born on February 12, 1935, in Prescott, AZ, to parents Henrietta and Merle Quimby. The family later moved to California and resided in Banning and Riverside. Mr. Quimby was hired as a radio announcer for a brief period of time before being elected to the San Bernardino City Council in 1957. He was the youngest person to ever serve on that body.

In 1962, John Quimby was elected to the California State Assembly, representing parts of Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Mr. Quimby became the first paraplegic to serve in the California Legislature. He contracted polio at a young age and as a result spent the majority of his life in a wheelchair. Mr. Quimby did not allow his limited mobility to prevent him from pursuing his dreams and fighting fervently for the residents of California.

Over the course of his 12 years in the Assembly, John Quimby helped pass numerous laws. Most famously, he drafted the Quimby Act in 1965, which allowed cities to require developers to donate land for recreational use. As a result of this piece of legislation, hundreds of parks now exist in California that might otherwise have not.

Apart from being a dedicated assemblyman, John Quimby was also a beloved figure in California politics who thrived on personal and community interaction. He had the ability to make everyone feel special and cared for.

Please join me in expressing the sympathies of this body to John Quimby's brother Merle, daughter Kimberly, son John Jr., stepdaughters Mary and Virginia George, stepson Kenny, his seven grandchildren, and his seven great-grandchildren. On this day, we celebrate him, his life, and his exemplary contributions to California and the Nation.�

REMEMBERING MONSIGNOR LEO McFADDEN
Page: S701

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of Monsignor Leo McFadden, a priest, an Air National Guardsman, and a spiritual leader for thousands of Nevadans whose recent passing is a saddening loss to the Silver State. Monsignor McFadden was a beloved member of our community, and I am grateful for his work as a priest and chaplain for the less fortunate and spiritually needy in northern Nevada.

Not only was Monsignor McFadden a man of God, but he was also a Pulitzer Prize-nominated columnist who spent 20 years writing and editing for the Nevada Register. He also served in the Nevada Air National Guard for decades, and he was the first Guardsman chaplain to be a general line officer.

Monsignor McFadden was a priest at Saint Teresa of Avila Catholic Church in Carson City and at Reno's Our Lady of the Snows Catholic Church. In 1977, Leo McFadden was given the distinct designation as a monsignor. His work included the formation of the Catholic Newman Club at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and serving as a chaplain at the University of Nevada, Reno.

Monsignor McFadden dedicated his entire life to his faith and to the members of his parish. He was an important figure in our State, and he will be missed. My thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends during this difficult time.

50TH ANNIVERSARY OF PORTAGE, MICHIGAN
Page: S702

Mr. President, one-half century ago this month the residents of Portage Township made a significant and lasting decision. They voted in February 1963 to incorporate, becoming the city of Portage. This decision provided many opportunities for this nascent, vibrant community to grow, enabling city leaders and residents alike to chart a course for future prosperity. This milestone will be commemorated in a number of ways throughout the year, including at Portage's city council meeting last night.

The city of Portage is a part of Michigan's rapidly evolving story. Historically, residents and community leaders relied on fertile farmland for agriculture production. In fact, in the late 1880s and early 1900s, this area was known as ``Celery City.'' Today, it is home to thriving businesses, welcoming neighborhoods and abundant natural beauty. The population of Portage has more than doubled in the past half century, and a number of new businesses, large and small, have helped to transform the city's economic base.

As part of the celebration, Portage recently unveiled its new motto, ``A Natural Place to Move.'' It speaks to the city's continued commitment to preserving its many parks, lakes, and trails in a way that encourages residents to stay active and healthy.

It is fitting that the celebrations planned this year include a mix of activities. A commemorative newsletter in February will highlight the city's rich history; a half-marathon and 5K road race later this month will showcase the city's extensive and impressive park system; volunteer opportunities spread throughout the year offer residents a number of ways to give back to their community; and a 50th anniversary concert this summer as part of the 2013 summer concert series will bring families and friends together to celebrate this important anniversary.

The city of Portage and its residents have much to be proud of. Together, they have steadily moved forward. This year is a moment to pause and reflect on the past, and to ensure that the next 50 years continues to be marked by growth and progress.�

VERMONT ESSAY FINALISTS
Page: S702

Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record finalist essays written by Vermont High School students as part of the Third Annual ``What is the State of the Union?'' Essay contest conducted by my office. These 21 finalists were selected from over 300 entries.

The essays follow.

Sydney Alderman, Mt. Abraham Union High School (Finalist)

Today we often face the problem of excessive violence between people, starvation, and economic problems. People aren't all getting what they need and something needs to be done. What would fix everything, broaden our universal communications skills and get things done quicker would be to unite globally. By working as an entire unit we can all communicate and work toward the same goal we all crave: peace. Uniting globally can solve conflicts causing violence, starvation, and economic problems.

Uniting globally will benefit the people of the world immensely. By uniting globally it would be much easier to distribute the necessary resources to sustain everyone, such as food, water, and energy. When everyone is on the same page and communicating thoroughly between territories, you can maintain fair trade and further discuss what laws and human rights need to be established as well. When we're all united for a common goal, let's assume peace amongst all people, discussion is more productive and conclusive and proper action can be taken at a faster pace. Actions such as bringing food and water to those who have none, and also getting the area with these conditions re-established for suitable living conditions. Everyone benefits from a united world.

The U.S. economy will be heavily benefitted by uniting globally. When we unite globally, trade is faster and we can simply work faster because communication is quicker and more conclusive than when we're all thinking separately. Trade will therefore be quicker and we can be more productive about it with such open communication. It would be easier to discuss the distribution of currency amongst countries and people and how we can fix the current economic problems. Uniting globally will solve the biggest problems of the world. It will broaden the communication between territories and will help us resolve conflicts causing famine, violence, and economic problems universally. When we all band together we can accomplish anything and finally bring a new era of peace.

Tyler Bradley, South Burlington High School (Finalist)

Our country needs to invest in clean sustainable energy and decrease our dependence for oil from other nations. Our nation should be investing in wind and solar power. Wind is a renewable source of energy, which will last forever. It does not pollute our environment and is all natural. Solar energy also provides us with clean energy, with no combustion. It too is renewable and causes no greenhouse gases. Although wind and solar, as energy sources, may prove to be expensive, it is a small price to pay for the health and safety of our environment. In contrast, we are eventually going to run out of oil and the high cost of transporting oil and our dependency on other nations needs to be eliminated.

We need to stop relying on foreign nations for our energy supply. If foreign governments continue to control oil profits they can use that money to fund terrorism mischief. In addition, these energy rich countries can restrict the oil supply and therefore make the United States a hostage to their demands. We need to end this cycle and invest in more sustainable energy sources.

We need Congress to work harder to obtain sustainable energy tax incentives like the Investment Tax Credit and Production Tax Credits. These credits will help reduce the cost of wind and solar projects and in the long run help reduce global warming. All across our earth we currently see record heat waves, melting glaciers, rising sea levels and extreme droughts and floods. The United States must lead the world in reversing global warming, to preserve a safe planet for our children and grandchildren.

Annie Arthur, Woodstock Union High School (Finalist)

To be a democracy, our country must be able to hear the voices of every citizen individually and the population as a whole. People all over the world are sacrificing their lives for the hope of the right to vote. In the United States, eligibility is simple. To vote, one must be a citizen of the United States and be 18 or older. However, a country as great as ours does not seem able to succeed in a very seemingly simple task: vote freely. The State of our Union is teetering on the edge.

In the 2012 Presidential Election, only 57.5% of the entire eligible population cast their ballots. About 93 million citizens did not participate in this most basic foundation of democracy. How is the United States supposed to run as an effective democracy if so many citizens remain silent in such a crucial time to make their voices heard? Granted, part of this lack of voting is caused by laziness, indifference or belief that one vote will not change the outcome. However, there are many citizens who want to vote but restrictions imposed at the state level have either attempted or succeeded to suppress participation in this election. In this recent election there were laws passed to hinder voter participation by making it difficult to register to vote, requiring voter photo identifications, miscommunication of date and times, and threatening voters with imprisonment for voter fraud. Officials also succeeded in cutting early voting periods, voting by mail, polling hours and number of locations. Even though courts temporarily struck down many of these efforts, there is no reason to believe that state officials will be deterred from imposing more voting restrictions in the future.

This national issue should not be determined at state level. Restriction on voting is a federal problem and should be addressed by federal powers. This is too important an issue to leave to individual state governments as clearly demonstrated by the blatant attempts to deny citizens their right to vote. The solution is to simply create basic standards on voting. The federal government could pass a bill with minimum guidelines for states to follow on voting laws. This legislation does not need to be a complex list of restrictions; this bill would be freeing up voting laws by listing only what needs to happen to achieve successful voting. Each state would then have the freedom to expand on these basic requirements. This bill could facilitate registration, polling hours and ability to mail in votes. It is an American's right to be able to vote. As the world's greatest democracy, no political party should be able to obstruct voting. The United States, a nation for the people, of the people, by the people needs to set a better example as the standard bearer of democracy.

Jeannine Bissonette, Champlain Valley Union High School (Finalist)

Ever since Woodrow Wilson was elected in 1913, it has been a tradition for Presidents to address the nation with their State of the Union report. As President Obama prepares to present his State of the Union address, many politically concerned citizens begin to ponder the thoughts of what will be produced in the next four years.

With a current national unemployment rate of 7.9%, the numbers appear to be much lower than the 10% that the United States endured during October of 2009. Although these rates suggest a recuperating recession, they have not yet reached a level in which the nation can sit back comfortably. These high unemployment rates understandably result in a greater necessity for more families to reach out to social welfare services such as food stamps and local food shelves. According to a local press interview with food shelf coordinator Mary Ann Castimore, the Vergennes Congregational Church found themselves serving a total of approximately fifty to sixty new families. People are struggling to find and hold steady jobs; feeding their families continues to be growing concern.

Corresponding with the current economy, the United States could certainly do more to address the concerns of the young people. With the lack of vacant positions in the working world, young adults are learning quickly that it does not matter so much what they've majored in, but what is available. As a high school student of Vermont, I have become increasingly aware of my school advisor's push for me to look into which fields are in need of laborers, rather than those that suit me best when determining an occupation. As the pursuit for jobs lengthens, it is important that the government restricts outsourcing jobs to other countries and create said jobs within the nation. Instead of outsourcing jobs, the United States should provide incentives to retain these positions in America.

As the United States adapts to the most severe recession since the Great Depression, the American citizens' fear of a failing economy is justified. Major issues such as the nearing fiscal cliff or changes in Social Security are becoming more common parts of American conversation. As January approaches, politicians in D.C. are running out to time to make the decision of who will be taxed in the coming years. By taxing Americans making over two hundred and fifty-thousand dollars, more taxes can be gleaned by the federal government. Additionally, more citizens being taxed results in more equitable terms. As a federal insurance program, Social Security is praised highly for the benefits it provides the retired population. Since American citizens are now living into their eighties, a shortage in Social Security money has materialized. The inadequacy of funds has led to an extended retirement age which is predicted to continue increasing into the future. The United States must continue to raise the retirement age in order for Social Security to continue operating. It takes time and multiple strategies to solve any major issue: there is no one perfect solution.

Jonah Blatt, Milton High School (Finalist)

Good Evening America,

There are several issues that need to be addressed here tonight that will benefit our nation in one way or another. First off, I'd like to touch on the topic of unemployment. The unemployment rate has dropped significantly. The rate was 10% in November of 2009, which was the highest from January 1st 2009 to January 1st 2013. In the middle of that, the rate bounced up and down between 9% and 9.5% from 2010 to 2011. Now here we sit today on a continuous, steady decline all the way down to 7.7%, and I assure you it is not over. Jobs were being created at a rate of 151,000 per month in 2012 and we look to raise that number this coming year. My new plan allows workers who have lost their job to be placed on temporary jobs as trainees for short periods to retain their skills or gain new ones while still receiving benefits. This was released on April 19th where the unemployment rate was 8.2% and now it is 7.7%. It's working, America.

Cannabis, or better known as marijuana has become a major topic of discussion these days in America. Is it a medical miracle or an addiction amongst many? The Office of National Drug Control Policy and I have stated that we oppose the legalization of marijuana and other drugs since legalization would increase the availability and use of other illegal drugs. Their legalization would bring more health and safety risks closer to your homes. The legalization and selling of marijuana could bring some positive to our attention. A potential boost for the economy if it was sold and taxed heavily. However in the end I strongly oppose the legalization process and it should only remain available for medical use only. The risks strongly outweigh the positives.

Over 50 years ago we created a strong, close relationship with Israel. We have done joint military planning along with military research and weapons development. We have continuously assisted Israel with $3.1 billion in security assistance and I will not be the president to stop that trend. The only way for Israel to achieve peace with their neighbors is to begin with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel. They are also a big export consumer to our economy. We must stand by our ally through these tough times between them and the Palestinians. We will look to both sides to find a common ground to install peace back into the world between these rival nations. I am in support of resumption of the aid to the Palestinian government with a condition that the government renounce terrorism. Israel has a right to defend themselves from these Palestinian rocket attacks, but we will look to peace first in order to draw this to an end. Israel is an important ally in all perspectives. We must help them.

Thank you and good night America.

Allie Bull, Champlain Valley Union High School (Finalist)

The United States of America is known as the land of profuse opportunity for all who come here. Throughout the history of this country, there have been events to be proud of and events that were not too glorious. As the world prepares for the new year of 2013, it is a good idea to reflect as we explore the state of this union, and gain insight into how this country is running.

Congress is seemingly dysfunctional right now. The current Congress has passed the least number of bills in history. This statistic is shocking and embarrassing. The system of checks and balances within our democracy is designed to prevent an abuse of power. It is also a known fact that our system takes longer to pass bills and get things done; however, the current state of gridlock is not okay. The nation is frustrated with the leaders and the lack of compromise in Washington. Congress needs to become a leader of the whole nation, and not individual leaders of each political party. The wall between each party needs to be let down and national issues need to be addressed. It is hard for congressmen to make decisions that could affect reelection; yet, the lack of progress being made is not making the constituents any happier. It is better for these leaders to leave the nation stronger and prosperous than when they arrived, as opposed to an unchanged, struggling country.

In the shadow of the Sandy Hook Massacre, gun control debates have resurfaced. This is a topic that needs to be addressed, swiftly and promptly. Semi-automatic weapons are completely and utterly unnecessary in the United States of America. There is no reason that a person should need or desire to own one. These weapons are killing machines and should be banned. Americans have the right to bear arms, but there is no need for weapons other than hunting weapons. Any weapons that do remain legal in this country need to be regulated and controlled with very thorough background checks. However, the fact that semi-automatic weapons are available isn't the only cause of these tragedies. Hollywood portrays gun violence as exciting and desirable. That, in combination with violent video games, leaves imprints in the brains of impressionable young people (including the mentally ill). Semi-automatic weapons should be banned, and violence movies and games should be regulated. In this country there is freedom of speech and expression, but the production of these movies and games results in harm to other citizens. All of these factors need to be addressed. Politicians who agree with this stance need to step up and speak out despite the possible damage to their reelection. The safety of the people should be more important than reelection.

America is a bright and prosperous place. There are a few issues dragging it down, but with the known strength of this nation, these problems can be solved. The only way to fix big problems is to lay down political barriers and work together, hand-in-hand.

Emma Davitt, Champlain Valley Union High School (Finalist)

The current state of our Union is multifaceted, filled with diverse opinions and numerous obstacles. Our Union faces an interesting future ahead, either a prosperous and promising future, or a destructive and deleterious future. It is up to us, the people of the United States, to do everything we can to ensure a brilliant future, to promise fortuitous and successful lives for our succeeding generations.

We are currently coping with the most intense, severe recession in our country since the Great Depression. 7.9% of the people in the United States are out of work, struggling to find jobs and earn a living. Detrimental taxes are traumatizing families, college graduates' degrees are rarely helping them secure jobs and, throughout these unfortunate situations, many Americans are still focusing on abortions and gay marriage rights. It is time for our nation to accept individuality, embrace the freedom our country was founded upon, and fix the major problems facing the people of the United States of America.

The unemployment rate is uncomfortably high. In 2008, many businesses closed, numerous workers were laid off and the unemployment rate began to rise. As a result, jobs have become more valuable, and at a time where few were comfortable with their living situations and current bank accounts, taxes rose. To address this situation, taxes must be lowered for the lower and middle-class families while returning the economy to a peaceful state, encouraging businesses to grow and expand in the United States.

The economy is not only affecting the working class of our nation, but also the children--the future. If children watch their parents and older siblings with college degrees struggle to find a job, what will make them want to go to college? What will convince them that attending college is a wonderful and beneficial experience? The young members of our national community will one day be responsible for our country and our only option to ensure a bright and promising future is to nurture, teach and help this younger generation. With this in mind, it should be of great importance to the United States to make college education more affordable for the young population. Through grants, aid and scholarships, many more students will have the opportunities to attend universities, and with an economy on the mend, we can look to the future with great hope in the highly educated body that will one day run the country.

Contemplating these issues, our Union has a lot to focus on. We have run ourselves into a deep economic and educational rut and it is our job to work together to climb out of it. The future of our country rests solely in the hands of the upcoming generation, however, how can we have faith in the subsequent decades if our current society struggles to find jobs and attend college? The answer is rather simple, the young people of our country have the chance to make groundbreaking decisions and be amazing leaders, if given the opportunities.

Taryn Druge, Champlain Valley Union High School (Finalist)

In an idealistic world we would work for a common good. Countries wouldn't consider money, land, or rivalry. They would only see how they could create peace and maintain it. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said, ``A point has been reached where the peoples of the Americas must take cognizance of growing ill-will, of marked trends toward aggression, of increasing armaments, of shortening tempers--a situation which has in it many of the elements that lead to the tragedy of general war ..... Peace is threatened by those who seek selfish power.'' It is my opinion that, in this world, we are not driven by the ambition for peace but instead by the ambition for wealth and power. We, the U.S., are no different, as much as we would love to believe otherwise and see ourselves as the peace bearers of the world. We must open our eyes to the truth. Wealth and power must be relevant in our dealings with foreign nations because these are some of the only factors that will drive negotiation.

An example of the struggle for wealth and power is the United States relationship with China. Currently, the U.S. is deeply uneasy about China, to whom we are deeply indebted, for they are our greatest supplier of goods. It is frightening to think that China's withdrawal could destroy our entire economy, yet our withdrawal from China would cripple them as well. Instead of the dependence creating unity among our nations, it has created discomfort and hostility. The power complex each country has creates the belief that dependence upon one another weakens us. When Thomas Jefferson said, ``Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition,'' Jefferson could never foresee that U.S. dependence would extend overseas due to our economies' desire to manufacture cheaper and thus more profitable products.

China and the U.S are two great superpowers, and each is just as self-destructive as the other. Without a strong and desirable alliance with China, the U.S. becomes weakened to possible foreign attacks and a collapse of the economy. The U.S. is feeling out of balance right now: so many goods are being manufactured overseas at the expense of U.S. jobs being taken away. This balance could be found when the U.S comes to the realization that we cannot completely isolate China, and, at the same time, we must create a political environment that nurtures U.S. businesses that manufacture products domestically.

In an ideal world the bonds and alliances of countries would surpass the separation of race, religion, class and culture. We must work towards this ideal world, because in it we will find a far better future we could not possibly foresee today.

TRIBUTE TO TECHNICAL SERGEANT GREGORY M. GRUTTER
Page: S704

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the heroic service of Rhode Island Air National Guard TSgt. Gregory M. Grutter. Technical Sergeant Grutter was awarded the Bronze Medal Star with Valor and the Purple Heart, and I honor him for the courageous actions he took to earn these awards.

In 2008, Technical Sergeant Grutter was assigned as a security officer for the Defense Intelligence Support Office-Afghanistan. On March 20, 2008, while driving a convoy vehicle for the Guard, Technical Sergeant Grutter twice risked his own life to thwart enemy ambushes and save the lives of others.

In the first instance, Technical Sergeant Grutter used his own vehicle as a shield to protect Afghan National Police officers driving an unarmored vehicle. Then, noticing the Afghan National Police's machine gun crew in distress, he dismounted from his own vehicle, ran through intense fire, and helped the police repair their weapons.

While Technical Sergeant Grutter was working with the machine gun crew, enemy insurgents moved in to flank the convoy and began to prepare an attack. With great bravery, Sergeant Grutter ran approximately 200 meters over exposed terrain to engage the insurgents, which forced them to retreat. Shortly thereafter, the enemy disengaged and left the area.

Unfortunately, a second ambush was already in the making. A large number of civilians became trapped by small arms fire from enemy forces. Without regard for his personal safety, Technical Sergeant Grutter provided suppressing fire from an exposed position, which allowed the Afghan National Police to evacuate the civilians to safety.

As a result of the courageous actions taken by Technical Sergeant Grutter, lives were saved and the convoy continued its mission.

I thank Technical Sergeant Grutter for his brave actions and honor his distinguished service and meritorious achievement in earning the Bronze Medal Star with Valor and the Purple Heart. The courage he demonstrated during his combat mission brings great honor to our country, the Air National Guard and the state of Rhode Island.

Along with his fellow Guardsmen, I thank Technical Sergeant Grutter for his outstanding commitment to serving and protecting our country. We in Rhode Island are lucky to call him one of our own, and we are proud of him.�

Page: S704

Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to the Senate by Mrs. Neiman, one of his secretaries.

Page: S704

As in executive session the presiding officer laid before the Senate messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry nominations which were referred to the appropriate committees.

Six-Month Periodic Report on the National Emergency with Respect to Libya that Was Originally Declared in Executive Order 13566 of February 25, 2011 — PM 3
Page: S704

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the President of the United States, together with an accompanying report; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:

Page: S705

At 12:57 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:

An act to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide grants to States to streamline State requirements and procedures for veterans with military emergency medical training to become civilian emergency medical technicians.

An act to reinstate and transfer certain hydroelectric licenses and extend the deadline for commencement of construction of certain hydroelectric projects.

Page: S705

The following bills were read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

An act to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide grants to States to streamline State requirements and procedures for veterans with military emergency medical training to become civilian emergency medical technicians; to the.

An act to reinstate and transfer certain hydroelectric licenses and extend the deadline for commencement of construction of certain hydroelectric projects; to the.

Page: S705

The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated:

A communication from the Paralegal, Federal Transit Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Environmental Impact and Related Procedures'' (RIN2132-AB03) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Secretary of the Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule'' (RIN3084-AB20) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Federal Register and Regulatory Liaison Officer, Office of Protective Services, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``NASA Security and Protective Services Enforcement'' (RIN2700-AD89) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Federal Register and Regulatory Liaison Officer, Office of Protective Services, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``NASA Information Security Protection'' (RIN2700-AD61) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Program Analyst, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Motorcycle Brake Systems'' (RIN2127-AK16) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Program Analyst, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Side Impact Protection'' (RIN2127-AK82) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Program Analyst, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Civil Penalties'' (RIN2127-AL16) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Program Analyst, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment'' (RIN2127-AK99) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Program Analyst, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; New Pneumatic and Certain Specialty Tires'' (RIN2127-AK42) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Program Analyst, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Part 567--Certification Authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30115'' (RIN2127-AL18) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Program Analyst, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``List of Nonconforming Vehicles Decided to be Eligible for Importation'' (Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0127) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Program Analyst, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Consumer Information Regulations: Fees for Use of Traction Skid Pads'' (RIN2127-AK06) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Program Analyst, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Event Data Recorders'' (RIN2127-AL14) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Program Analyst, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Make Inoperative Exemptions; Retrofit On-Off Switches for Air Bags'' (RIN2127-AL19) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Program Analyst, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs'' (RIN2127-AL30) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Program Analyst, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Matters Incorporated by Reference'' (RIN2127-AK89) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Program Analyst, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer Information Program'' (RIN2127-AK83) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Program Analyst, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Final Listing of 2013 Light Duty Truck Lines Subject to the Requirements of This Standard and Exempted Vehicle Lines for Model Year 2013'' (RIN2127-AL21) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Program Analyst, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Schedule of Fees Authorized'' (RIN2127-AL09) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0530)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0488)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0643)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0829)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Aircraft Company Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0846)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0493)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0830)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-1128)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2009-0794)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0340)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-1104)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0143)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0216)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0679)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0806)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0428)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2011-0518)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0498)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2011-1168)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2011-0652)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-1188)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0728)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0427)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; BAE SYSTEMS (OPERATIONS) LIMITED Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0642)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0592)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0719)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0726)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

{{S-EC|113|418. A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0146)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

{{S-EC|113|419}} A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Pratt and Whitney Division Turbofan Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0546)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

{{S-EC|113|420}} A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0640)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

{{S-EC|113|421}} A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Alpha Aviation Concept Limited Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0798)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

{{S-EC|113|422}} A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2010-0856)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

{{S-EC|113|423}} A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2008-0619)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

{{S-EC|113|424}} A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0144)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

{{S-EC|113|425}} A communication from the Paralegal Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2012-0596)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 11, 2013; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Page: S707

The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. JOHANNS, Mrs. BOXER, and Mr. FRANKEN):

A bill to reduce housing-related health hazards, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. JOHANNS, Mrs. BOXER, and Mr. FRANKEN):

A bill to establish the Council on Healthy Housing and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

By Mr. LEE:

A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide a special rule for the period of admission of H-2A nonimmigrants employed as sheepherders, goat herders, or dairy farmers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. LEE:

A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate the per-country numerical limitation for employment-based immigrants, to increase the per-country numerical limitation for family-sponsored immigrants, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. TESTER (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BEGICH, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, and Mrs. SHAHEEN):

A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the disability compensation evaluation procedure of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for veterans with mental health conditions related to military sexual trauma, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

By Mr. LAUTENBERG:

A bill to allow certain Indonesian citizens to file a motion to reopen their asylum claims; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. SCHUMER, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, and Ms. BALDWIN):

A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status in the same manner as spouses of citizens and lawful permanent residents and to penalize immigration fraud in connection with permanent partnerships; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. RUBIO:

A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against tax for qualified elementary and secondary education tuition; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. CORKER, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. RUBIO, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. INHOFE, and Mr. DONNELLY):

A bill to prevent nuclear proliferation in North Korea, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

By Mr. VITTER (for himself, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mrs. FISCHER, and Mr. SESSIONS):

A bill to prohibit appropriated funds from being used in contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. VITTER (for himself, Mr. SESSIONS, and Mr. LEE):

A bill to prohibit the implementation of any program that grants temporary legal status to, or adjusts the status of, any individual who is unlawfully present in the United States until the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that the US-VISIT system has been fully implemented at every land, sea, and air port of entry; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. VITTER (for himself, Mr. LEE, and Mr. BOOZMAN):

A bill to amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. VITTER:

A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make voting in a Federal election by an unlawfully present alien an aggravated felony and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. VITTER:

A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to promote innovation, investment, and research in the United States, to eliminate the diversity immigrant program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself and Mr. WICKER):

A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the State of Mississippi 2 parcels of surplus land within the boundary of the Natchez Trace Parkway, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself and Mr. WICKER):

A bill to authorize the acquisition of core battlefield land at Champion Hill, Port Gibson, and Raymond for addition to Vicksburg National Military Park; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

By Mr. BARRASSO (for himself, Mr. RISCH, Mr. ENZI, and Mr. CRAPO):

A bill to authorize all Bureau of Reclamation conduit facilities for hydropower development under Federal Reclamation law, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. CARDIN, Mrs. MCCASKILL, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. FRANKEN, Mr. REED, Mr. NELSON, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. BROWN, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. MERKLEY):

A bill to reduce the Federal budget deficit by closing big oil tax loopholes, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. BEGICH:

A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make improvements in the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program, to provide for cash relief for years for which annual COLAs do not take effect under certain cash benefit programs, and to provide for Social Security benefit protection; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. BEGICH, and Mr. WYDEN):

A bill to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the World War II members of the Civil Air Patrol; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

By Mr. MORAN (for himself, Mr. WARNER, Mr. COONS, and Mr. BLUNT):

A bill to jump-start economic recovery through the formation and growth of new businesses, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

By Ms. LANDRIEU:

A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating sites in the Lower Mississippi River Area in the State of Louisiana as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

By Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself and Mr. HEINRICH):

A bill to adjust the boundary of the Carson National Forest, New Mexico; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

By Mr. CASEY (for himself, Mr. BURR, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. FRANKEN, Mr. MORAN, Mr. REED, Mr. LEAHY, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. BROWN, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. COONS, Mr. JOHANNS, and Mrs. GILLIBRAND):

A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the tax treatment of ABLE accounts established under State programs for the care of family members with disabilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. LAUTENBERG:

A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to improve the health of children and help better understand and enhance awareness about unexpected sudden death in early life; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

By Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Mr. WICKER, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. ISAKSON, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. LAUTENBERG, and Mr. NELSON):

A bill to reauthorize and extend the Paul D. Wellstone Muscular Dystrophy Community Assistance, Research, and Education Amendments of 2008; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

By Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. FRANKEN, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, and Mr. BROWN):

A bill to recalculate and restore retirement annuity obligations of the United States Postal Service, to eliminate the requirement that the United States Postal Service prefund the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund, to place restrictions on the closure of postal facilities, to create incentives for innovation for the United States Postal Service, to maintain levels of postal service, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

By Mr. JOHANNS (for himself and Mrs. FISCHER):

A bill to require the Inspector General of the Environmental Protection Agency to include certain assessments in reports; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

By Mr. JOHANNS:

A bill to rescind funds made available to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency if the Administrator fails to meet certain deadlines; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

By Mr. JOHANNS:

A bill to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to provide adequate data, modeling, and support in the development of a State implementation plan under the Clean Air Act; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

By Mr. JOHANNS (for himself, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. PAUL, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. COATS, Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin, and Mrs. FISCHER):

A bill to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for congressional review of agency guidance documents; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

By Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. REED, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. HARKIN, and Mr. FRANKEN):

} A bill to reduce the deficit by imposing a minimum effective tax rate for high-income taxpayers; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mr. FRANKEN, Mr. BEGICH, and Ms. HIRONO):

A bill to set the United States on track to ensure children are ready to learn when they begin kindergarten; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. COCHRAN):

A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for extended months of Medicare coverage of immunosuppressive drugs for kidney transplant patients and other renal dialysis provisions; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. HATCH, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. SESSIONS, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. ENZI, Mr. CRAPO, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. BURR, Mr. COBURN, Mr. THUNE, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. VITTER, Mr. CORKER, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. WICKER, Mr. JOHANNS, Mr. RISCH, Mr. KIRK, Mr. COATS, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. MORAN, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin, Mr. PAUL, Mr. LEE, Ms. AYOTTE, Mr. HELLER, Mr. SCOTT, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. CRUZ, and Mrs. FISCHER):

A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to balancing the budget; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Adjournment
= Resources =