[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 160 (Wednesday, December 12, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7766-S7774]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         FAREWELL TO THE SENATE

  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I rise today to address my colleagues on 
a

[[Page S7767]]

number of issues important to the future of the United States and to 
offer some perspective on Senate service.
  In a few weeks, I will leave the Senate for new pursuits that will 
allow me to devote much deeper attention to a number of issues that 
have been a part of my Senate service. Among these are preventing the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and developing more 
efficient ways to feed the world. I am especially pleased that I will 
be serving on the faculty of the University of Indianapolis and helping 
that institution establish a Washington internship program. I look 
forward to announcing additional endeavors of service in coming weeks.
  My service in the Senate would not have been possible without the 
encouragement and constant support of my loving wife Char, our four 
sons--Mark, Bob, John, and David--and the entire Lugar family. Their 
strength and sacrifices have been indispensable to my public service. I 
also am indebted to a great number of talented and loyal friends who 
have served with me in the Senate, including more than 300 Senators, 
hundreds of personal and committee staff members, and more than a 
thousand interns. In my experience, it is difficult to conceive of a 
better platform from which to devote oneself to public service and the 
search for solutions to national and international problems. At its 
best, the Senate is one of the Founders' most important creations.
  A great deal has been written recently about political discord in the 
United States, with some commentators judging that partisanship is at 
an all-time high. Having seen quite a few periods in the Congress when 
political struggles were portrayed this way, I hesitate to describe our 
current state as the most partisan ever. But I do believe that as an 
institution we have not lived up to the expectations of our 
constituents to make excellence in governance our top priority.
  Many of us have had some type of executive experience as Governors, 
mayors, corporation chiefs, and cabinet officials. I had the good 
fortune of serving two terms as the Mayor of Indianapolis prior to my 
Senate service. For the last 36 years, I have attempted to apply 
lessons learned during those early governing experiences to my work in 
the Senate. As mayor, my responsibility for what happened in my city 
was comprehensive and inescapable. Citizens held the mayor's office 
accountable for the prosaic tasks of daily life, like trash collection 
and snow removal, but also for executing strategies for the economic 
and social advancement of the city.
  In legislative life, by contrast, we are responsible for positions 
expressed through votes, cosponsorships, interviews, and other means. 
It takes courage to declare dozens or even hundreds of positions and 
stand for office, knowing that with each position, you are displeasing 
some group of voters. But we do our country a disservice if we mistake 
the act of taking positions for governance. They are not the same 
thing. Governance requires adaptation to shifting circumstances. It 
often requires finding common ground with Americans who have a 
different vision than your own. It requires leaders who believe, like 
Edmund Burke, that their first responsibility to their constituents is 
to apply their best judgment.
  It is possible to be elected and re-elected, again and again and gain 
prominence in the Senate while giving very little thought to 
governance. One even can gain considerable notoriety by devoting one's 
career to the political aspects of a Senator's job--promoting the party 
line, raising money, and focusing on public relations. Responsibility 
for legislative shortcomings can be pinned on the other party or even 
intractable members of one's own party. None of us are above politics, 
nor did the Founders expect us to be. But, obviously, we should be 
aspiring to something greater than this.
  Too often in recent years, Members of Congress have locked themselves 
into a slate of inflexible positions, many of which have no hope of 
being implemented in a divided government. Some of these positions have 
been further calcified by pledges signed for political purposes. Too 
often we have failed to listen to one another and question whether the 
orthodox views being promulgated by our parties make strategic sense 
for America's future. The result has been intractably negative public 
perceptions of Congress. A Rasmussen Reports poll conducted this month 
found that only 10 percent of likely voters gave Congress a rating of 
``excellent'' or ``good.''
  For me, the irony is that having seen several generations of 
lawmakers pass through this body, I can attest that the vast majority 
are hardworking, genuinely interested in public service, and eager to 
contribute to the welfare of our country. Often, the public does not 
believe that. It is easier to assume that Congressional failings arise 
from the incompetence or even the malfeasance of individual 
legislators. Or perhaps, as some believe, Washington, D.C. itself is 
corrupting. It is far more disconcerting to think that our democracy's 
shortcomings are complex and defy simple solutions, but the Founders 
were realists who understood the power of factionalism, parochialism, 
and personal ambition. They understood that good intentions would not 
always prevail. Accordingly, they designed a system to check abuse and 
prevent power from accumulating in a few hands. But they knew that the 
efficient operation of such a republic would require a great deal of 
cooperation. They knew that it would require most elected officials to 
have a dedication to governance, and they trusted that leaders would 
arise in every era to make their vision work.
  The Senate has a unique role to play in good governance. We have 
attributes not possessed by the executive branch, including staying 
power. Administrations turn over every 4 or 8 years. But Senators can 
have careers spanning decades that allow them to apply expertise and 
political understanding to problems over many years, even as 
administrations come and go. We also can confer a bipartisan framework 
on a policy. Even a small bipartisan group of Senators cooperating on a 
difficult problem is a powerful signal of the possibility for a 
unifying solution.
  My hope is that Senators will devote much more of their energies to 
governance. In a perfect world, we would not only govern, we would 
execute a coherent strategy. That is a very high bar for any 
legislative body to clear. But we must aspire to it in cooperation with 
the President because we are facing fundamental changes in the world 
order that will deeply affect America's security and standard of 
living.
  The list of such changes is long, but it starts in Asia with the rise 
of China and India as economic, political, and military powers. The 
Obama administration has conspicuously announced a ``pivot'' to Asia. 
At the center of this pivot is China, which exists as both an adversary 
to certain U.S. interests, and a fellow traveler sharing mutual goals 
and vulnerabilities on others. The ongoing challenge will be for the 
United States to discern, sometimes issue by issue, whether China is an 
adversary or a partner. This calibration will impact America's 
relations with the rest of Asia and may ultimately determine prospects 
for war or peace in this world.
  While visiting Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines in October, I 
was reminded of the economic vitality of Southeast Asia and the fact 
that the ten countries comprising ASEAN represent the fourth largest 
export market of the United States. These countries are center stage to 
the circumstances with China. We must stand firm with our friends 
throughout Asia and actively pursue prospects for free trade with open 
sea lanes and other policies that will strengthen America's economic 
growth.
  More broadly, we face the specter of global resource constraints, 
especially deficiencies of energy and food that could stimulate 
conflict and deepen poverty. We have made startling gains in domestic 
energy production, but we remain highly vulnerable to our dependency on 
oil. Perhaps equally important, even if we are able to produce more 
energy at home, we cannot insulate ourselves from energy-driven shocks 
to the global economy. In other words, we have to cooperate with other 
nations in improving the global system of manufacturing and moving 
energy supplies. Currently, a key to this is helping to ensure the 
completion of the southern energy corridor serving Central and 
Southeastern Europe and unleashing our own liquified natural gas 
exports to address the energy vulnerabilities of our closest allies.
  The potential global crisis over food production is less well 
understood.

[[Page S7768]]

Whereas research is opening many new frontiers in the energy sphere, 
the productivity of global agriculture will not keep up with projected 
food demand unless many countries change their policies. This starts 
with a much wider embrace of agriculture technology, including 
genetically modified techniques. The risks of climate change intensify 
this imperative.
  Even as we deal with potential resource constraints, our country 
remains vulnerable to terrorism and asymmetric warfare. Access to the 
internet and social media has deeply altered international politics, in 
most cases for the better. But it also has contributed to instability 
through sudden upheavals like the Arab Spring; it has allowed 
destructive terrorist movements like al Qaida to franchise themselves; 
and it has intensified risks of cyber-attacks, espionage, and the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The potential catastrophe 
remains of a major terrorist attack on American soil employing weapons 
of mass destruction. If that happens, in addition to the lives lost, 
our expectations for economic growth and budget balancing could be set 
back by a decade or more. Having devoted considerable time to this 
problem, my experience is that there are no silver bullets. Protecting 
the United States from weapons of mass destruction is a painstaking 
process that every day must employ our best technological, diplomatic, 
and military tools.
  Amidst all these security risks, we must maintain the competitiveness 
of the United States in the international economy. We should see 
education, energy efficiency, access to global markets, the attraction 
of immigrant entrepreneurs, and other factors as national security 
issues. My own view is that the fundamentals of American society still 
offer us the best hand to play in global competitiveness. No other 
country can match the quality and variety of our post-secondary 
education. We have the broadest scientific and technological base and 
the most advanced agricultural system. Our population is younger and 
more mobile than most other industrialized nations. We still can 
flourish in this global marketplace if we nurture the competitive 
genius of the American people that has allowed us time and again to 
reinvent our economy.
  But we must deal with failures of governance that have delayed 
resolutions to obvious problems. No rational strategy for our long term 
growth and security, for example, should fail to restrain current 
entitlement spending. And no attempt to gain the maximum strategic 
advantage from our human resource potential should fail to enact 
comprehensive immigration reform that resolves the status of 
undocumented immigrants and encourages the most talented immigrants to 
contribute to America's future.
  Faced with immense responsibilities, there is a need to elevate our 
Senate debate. It is vital that the President and Congress establish a 
closer working relationship, especially on national security. This is 
not just a matter of process. It is necessary to undergird national 
unity in the event of severe crises, such as war with Iran or another 
catastrophic terrorist attack.
  This cooperation depends both on Congressional leaders who are 
willing to set aside partisan advantage and on administration officials 
who understand that the benefits of having the support of Congress is 
worth the effort it takes to secure it. Currently, the national 
security dialog between the President and Congress is one of the least 
constructive that I have ever witnessed. There is little foundation for 
resolving national security disputes or even the expectation that this 
can occur. Before the next 9/11, the President must be willing to call 
Republicans to the Oval Office to establish the basis for a working 
partnership in foreign policy. And Republicans must be willing to 
suspend reflexive opposition that serves no purpose but to limit their 
own role in strategic questions and render cooperation impossible. All 
parties should recognize the need for unity in the coming year when 
events in Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, North Korea, and other locations 
may test American national security in extreme ways.
  I commend each of you, my Senate colleagues, for the commitment that 
led you to stand for election to the United States Senate. Running for 
office is a difficult endeavor that is usually accompanied by great 
personal risk and cost. Each one of you is capable of being a positive 
force for changing the tone of debate in our country. Each one of you 
has a responsibility not only to act with integrity and represent your 
constituents, but also to make the informed and imaginative choices on 
which good governance for our country depends.
  I am optimistic about our country's future. I believe that both 
internal divisions and external threats can be overcome. The United 
States will continue to serve as the inspiration for peoples seeking 
peace, freedom and economic prosperity. And the United States Senate 
should and will be at the forefront of this advancement.
  May we seek each day from God our creator, the wisdom and the will to 
do our best in the governance of our country. And may God continue to 
bless the United States of America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the service of 
Senator Richard Lugar and to pay tribute to his legacy. I served 
alongside Senator Lugar as the junior Senator of Indiana during my two 
tours of service in the Senate. All of us who seek public service want 
to make a difference, and most certainly Senator Lugar has done that.
  At an early age Dick Lugar developed a passion for knowledge. A 
native of Indianapolis, he was valedictorian at Shortridge High School. 
It was then and is still a distinguished institution where knowledge is 
at the forefront of everything done in that school. One of our former 
Members, Ted Stevens, was also a graduate of Shortridge High School.
  Dick Lugar went on then to become valedictorian in college when he 
graduated from Denison University with a bachelor's degree in 
economics. He went on to attend Pembroke College at Oxford University 
as a Rhodes Scholar and obtained a second bachelor's degree and 
master's degree in politics, philosophy, and economics. Today he is one 
of the most decorated scholars in the Senate with 46 honorary degrees 
from 15 States and the District of Columbia.
  Following these most impressive academic achievements, Senator Lugar 
spent several years in the U.S. Navy ultimately serving as an 
intelligence briefer for ADM Arleigh Burke, Chief of Naval Operations. 
The Navy and Admiral Burke chose the best person they could for that 
particular job. Dick Lugar quickly became well known for not only his 
hard work but his leadership ability and his intellectual prowess. 
Senator Lugar then returned to Indiana where at the young age of 35 he 
became the mayor of Indianapolis, serving two terms from 1968 to 1975. 
There is no question that Dick Lugar is recognized as one of the most 
influential and visionary mayors Indiana has ever seen, and maybe the 
country has ever seen.
  Having just left military service myself, I was working full time 
attending Indiana Law School at night. That didn't leave much time for 
Marsha and me to enjoy the amenities of Indianapolis but, frankly, 
there were very few amenities to enjoy at that particular time. It was 
then that our newly elected mayor began a remarkable transformation of 
Indianapolis into now what has become one of the most attractive and 
livable cities in America.
  As mayor, Dick Lugar worked carefully with the Indiana General 
Assembly and then-Governor Ed Whitcomb to extend the boundaries of the 
city and merge the governments of Indianapolis and Marion County to 
provide common essential services more efficiently--a concept then 
called Unigov. Unigov wasn't without controversy, but because of Dick 
Lugar's vision, careful negotiations, and decisive action, Indianapolis 
became a model for other cities across the Nation.
  When the law took effect in 1970, Indianapolis's population rose from 
476,000 to 793,000. Indianapolis moved from the 26th largest city to 
one of the Nation's largest dozen cities literally overnight. When I 
think of the numerous positive changes in Indianapolis over the past 40 
years, I see the fulfillment of the vision of then-Mayor Dick Lugar.

[[Page S7769]]

  The Midwest has a way of producing men and women of sense and 
decency. However, not all of us fall into that category. Sometimes that 
sense is questioned, but we do have individuals who have the ability to 
see to the heart of the matter and to find a way to resolve a problem. 
Such skill is extremely valuable in the U.S. Senate, a body that by its 
very design is supposed to foster compromise between legislators on 
issues before the Nation. So it was a natural progression that 
following his success as mayor, Dick Lugar's next job would be serving 
Hoosiers as a U.S. Senator.
  Since 1977, Senator Lugar has represented Hoosiers and served our 
Nation admirably. Without question, Senator Lugar is the type of 
lawmaker and leader who works hard to bring both parties together, find 
common ground, and pass needed legislation. Although his contributions 
are many--including his long and valued service on the Senate 
Agriculture Committee--Senator Lugar's most important role in the 
Senate has to be his leadership on the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee. As a two-time chairman of this committee, he has been one of 
the most influential minds on foreign policy in the Senate's history. 
He has worked tirelessly on policies and legislation to promote arms 
control, control and dismantle nuclear arms, and to address the global 
food crisis.
  Among his many accomplishments in the field of foreign relations, his 
signature piece of legislation, no doubt, is the Cooperative Threat 
Reduction Program, more commonly known as Nunn-Lugar. When Senator 
Lugar joined the Foreign Relations Committee in 1979, he traveled to 
the former Soviet Union on multiple occasions to gain a better 
understanding of how the United States could secure and dismantle 
weapons of mass destruction.
  His experiences led him to champion the landmark legislation that 
successfully resulted in the deactivation of nuclear warheads, making 
this world a safer place. To date, the Nunn-Lugar program has 
deactivated more than 7,500 nuclear warheads that were once aimed at 
the United States. It is a contribution to which Americans can never 
give enough thanks.
  Over his 36 years in this institution, Senators from both sides of 
the aisle have considered Dick Lugar a trusted resource when it comes 
to foreign policy and many other important issues. He has been a 
consistent resource for those who seek thoughtful answers to difficult 
political questions.
  When I first arrived here in 1989, Senator Lugar and I operated a 
unique joint office arrangement in Indiana. We shared office space and 
staff in our State. Many of our colleagues were surprised by this 
arrangement, but Dick Lugar and I like to tell Hoosiers that they are 
getting twice the service for half the price. All those who work in 
this Chamber can learn from Dick Lugar's passion for public service. 
His sincere desire to reach across the aisle and find common ground 
complements his unique talent for forging coalitions and bringing 
people together to accomplish big things.
  A tribute to Senator Lugar would be incomplete without recognizing 
the support of his wife Charlene, his four sons, and his extended 
family. Public service places unique demands on our families, and their 
sacrifice and support plays an important role in any Senator's success.
  It has been an honor for me to work with Senator Lugar. I am thankful 
for his service to Indiana and to our country.
  My wife Marsha and I wish Senator Lugar, Char, and his family nothing 
but the best as my dear friend begins this next chapter of his life. 
Senator Lugar has dedicated so much of his service to our country. He 
has outlined many other ways in which he will be continuing to do that 
and that is a great benefit to our Nation and to our State. I am 
certain we will continue to learn and benefit from the Senator's 
lifetime of public service.
  I know my colleagues join me in thanking Senator Lugar for his many 
years of dedicated and distinguished service. It has been a pleasure to 
serve as a junior Senator from Indiana under the Senator's leadership.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me add my words of commendation to 
those of Senator Coats for Senator Lugar. I have often joked with him 
that he has been my Secretary of State while I have served here in the 
Senate. We could count on Senator Lugar to give good, unbiased advice 
on complicated foreign relations issues, and we will very much miss 
Senator Lugar's voice here in the Senate, and also his better half, 
Char Lugar, who I think we all know is a bright light. It has been an 
honor and a privilege to serve with Senator Lugar, and I know his voice 
will continue to be heard on the important issues of the day.
  In both Indiana and North Dakota, agriculture is a pillar of the 
economy. Senator Lugar fully understands the importance of farming, and 
it has always been near his heart. He still manages a 600-acre corn, 
soybean, and tree operation back home. Here in the Senate, he has been 
a champion for his State's farmers, serving on the Agriculture 
Committee since his first term. I have worked with him as a member of 
that committee since I joined the Senate a decade later. He twice 
served as chairman, most notably during the passage of the 1996 farm 
bill.
  I had the privilege to work with Senator Lugar in crafting numerous 
farm bills. During the Agriculture Committee's debate of the last farm 
bill, Senator Lugar and I teamed up to fund rural energy programs. We 
both understand the importance of getting more energy from the Midwest 
instead of the Middle East. Rather than sending our dollars outside of 
the country to buy oil, we can invest in renewable energy that is 
produced at home. Without Dick's support, the Senate's version of the 
farm bill would have lacked these important provisions.
  When the history books are written about our era, Senator Lugar will 
be remembered as one of the Senate's leading voices on foreign policy. 
A proven leader, Dick has been recognized by his colleagues for his 
clear-eyed analysis and practical solutions to global problems. His 
expertise has been invaluable to the Senate, whether it was regarding 
the threats of the Soviet Union during the Cold War or Islamic 
terrorism today. One of Senator Lugar's brightest achievements was the 
creation of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, commonly known as 
Nunn-Lugar. Through this program, the United States helps partner 
countries destroy and secure weapons of mass destruction. It has 
deactivated over 7,600 nuclear warheads that once threatened our 
Nation. Our world is undoubtedly a safer place because of Senator 
Lugar's unwavering commitment to secure nuclear material.
  Dick has been one of the most pragmatic Members of the Senate. He 
understood that compromising with others does not mean betraying one's 
beliefs. He was willing to work with Members on both sides of the aisle 
to achieve sensible solutions to our Nation's problems. At a time when 
our country desperately needs to set aside inflexible partisan rigidity 
in order to advance the common good, Senator Lugar will be greatly 
missed.
  I thank Senator Lugar for his service in the Senate, to his State and 
the country. I thank him for being a friend to me, and I wish him and 
his family the very best in the future.


                         Farewell To The Senate

  Mr. President, we have this long tradition in the Senate of Senators 
giving farewell remarks. I want to alert colleagues that mine will be 
especially long, so they might want to go have lunch and then come 
back. I don't consider this my final speech because I am still hopeful 
we will reach an agreement on the farm bill. The distinguished Chair is 
here. I hope we can reach agreement on averting the fiscal cliff 
because that is important to the country. I hope we will have 
additional chances to communicate with colleagues and the public before 
we are done.
  These are my farewell remarks and observations of 26 years of service 
here, and it has been an incredible experience.
  The first thing I want to do is say thank you to the people of North 
Dakota for having confidence in me when I was only 38 years old in 
sending me to represent them in the Senate. I was 38, but I looked 
about 25, and the people of North Dakota elected me in a stunning upset 
of a long-established incumbent. I treasure the confidence they have 
had in me.

[[Page S7770]]

  I also want to thank my colleagues for the responsibilities they have 
given me. I also want to thank the leadership team of Senator Reid, 
Senator Durbin, Senator Schumer, and Senator Murray and the confidence 
they have had in me. I have been so blessed to have people who have 
been with me on my staff in many cases for more than 20 years. My 
chiefs of staff, include Jim Margolis, who is one of the top media 
gurus in the country. He has done much of the advertising for the 
President in this last campaign. Also, my thanks to David Herring and 
Mary Wakefield, as well as Kent Hall, who died an untimely death while 
working for me.
  Thank you to Sara Garland, Bob Van Heuvelen, and Wally Rustad. Thanks 
also to Tom Mahr, who was my legislative director for than 20 years.
  I also wish to thank my executive assistant, who has been with me 
more than 20 years; Geri Gaginis, who we all fondly call Mom in my 
office because she cracks the whip and makes sure the trains run on 
time; Mary Naylor, my long-time director on the Budget Committee and 
who has also been with me more than 20 years.
  My Budget Committee deputies John Righter and Joel Friedman have done 
extraordinary work on behalf of the people of this country. Stu Nagurka 
is here with me today and is going to help me with charts and has been 
my long-time communications director.
  There are so many more people I want to thank. Most of all, I want to 
thank my family. My wife Lucy, who has been my great partner through 
all of this. She was my campaign manager when I first ran for the 
Senate. My daughter Jessie, who has in many ways, perhaps, sacrificed 
the most, because when a person is in this job they miss birthdays and 
other important events. She has been a great daughter. She was here 
last night for our farewell party and we had a lovely time. Our son 
Ivan and his wife Kendra, who are in Oregon where they have a small 
farm called Tipping Tree Farm. We wish they could be here today. Our 
grandson Carter, who is a proud member of the University of Oregon 
marching band, The Ducks, and who served as an intern for me--not at 
government expense, by the way, it was at our expense; and our little 
dog Dakota who has become sort of a mascot of the U.S. Senate. Brian 
Williams, when he did a show on ``A Day in the Life of the Senate,'' 
concluded that program by calling Dakota the ``101st Senator.'' I think 
he will be missed perhaps more than I am as I leave the Senate.

  In 1964, I came here. I sat up in the gallery--in fact, it was the 
gallery right up there--I was 16 years old, and I watched a debate on 
civil rights. Hubert Humphrey was leading that debate. It so inspired 
me that I thought, you know, someday I would like to be down on that 
floor and I would like to debate the great issues of the day and I 
would like to represent the people of North Dakota. So I went home and 
wrote out on the back of an envelope that I would run for the U.S. 
Senate in 1986 or 1988, and I ran in 1986 and was successful. That is 
the power of a plan. To the young pages who are here, if any of you 
seeks to be in the U.S. Senate someday, have a plan, because there are 
so many people who sort of drift through life without one. If you have 
a plan, you will be light years ahead.
  In that race, as I indicated, my now-wife Lucy was my campaign 
manager. We won what was then believed to be the biggest political 
upset in the history of our State. I was proud of that victory and 
proud to have a chance to represent North Dakota here.
  I think we all know our country needs a plan now, and we know plans 
have worked before. I was here in 1993 when we had just come off the 
largest deficit in the history of the United States. The country was in 
the doldrums. The economy was just plugging along, not doing very well, 
we had a weak recovery from a deep recession, and we passed a plan to 
get the country back on track. We did it the old-fashioned way. We made 
tough decisions, some that were unpopular, but it was the right thing 
to do and it worked. We balanced the budget. We had the longest period 
of uninterrupted economic growth in the Nation's history. Twenty-three 
million jobs were created, and we were actually paying down the debt of 
the United States at the end of the Clinton administration.
  We did it again when disaster struck my State in 1997. We had one of 
the worst disasters ever in North Dakota, a 500-year flood that 
followed the worst winter storm in 50 years. Many of my colleagues may 
recall the images from that disaster when firemen were fighting an 
enormous conflagration in downtown Grand Forks in the middle of a 
blizzard and there was also a massive flood. Grand Forks was 
devastated.
  Again, we had a plan, a $500 million disaster recovery plan that 
became a $1 billion plan, and it worked, and we did it the old-
fashioned way. We made tough decisions, some that were unpopular, but 
it was the right thing to do and it worked. The community held a 
recognition event for me last weekend. The leadership of the community 
was there, and many people from of the community reported on the 
remarkable recovery in Grand Forks. It is, I think, an example of what 
can be done when government responds and does so intelligently and 
effectively.
  Now we face a new challenge. We have a fiscal cliff or a fiscal curb 
or whatever one terms it, but what we know is that if we fail to act, 
we could be pushed back into recession. Our country needs a plan--a 
plan to get us back on track, to revitalize economic growth, to secure 
our long-term economic future, and to get the country moving again, and 
we can do it. We have done much tougher work in the past.
  Sometimes I hear people being critical of this institution when they 
leave here. Let me say I am not in their ranks. I leave this 
institution with enormous respect. The U.S. Senate is the greatest 
deliberative body in the world, and I sincerely believe the vast 
majority of my colleagues are serious-minded and have the best 
interests of the country at heart. I believe the vast majority of my 
colleagues want to do what is right for the country. We have 
differences--enormous differences--about what is the right thing to do, 
but I have no doubt most of our colleagues are well intentioned.
  In many circles it is fashionable now to bash government and play 
down its importance. I personally think we would do well to remember 
what it has accomplished. I can remember so clearly being called to an 
emergency meeting in this building in the fall of 2008. I was handed a 
note saying I was urgently requested to come here. It was about 6 
o'clock in the evening. I was the last one to arrive. When I walked 
into the leader's office, there were the leaders of the House and the 
Senate, Republicans and Democrats, the Secretary of the Treasury from 
the Bush administration, and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. I 
instantly understood something very serious was afoot. They closed the 
door and told us they were going to take over AIG, the large insurance 
company, the next day. They weren't there to ask for our approval or 
seek our agreement; they were there to tell us they were taking this 
step and they told us they were taking this step because they believed 
if they did not, there would be a financial collapse in this country 
within days, and they gave great specificity as to what would happen if 
there was a failure to take the action they were about to take.
  The public reaction was harshly negative. The notion of the 
Government of the United States bailing out a large private insurance 
company created controversy and criticism from almost every corner. 
Ultimately, the rescue of that company cost $180 billion--a staggering 
sum. But do my colleagues know what. We have learned this week that the 
taxpayers will make money on the deal. Yes, it cost us $180 billion, 
but the taxpayers are going to make $22 billion on the transaction. If 
we hadn't done it, we would have risked going into a depression.
  So when people say there is no role for government or it should be a 
limited, shrunken roll, I say, Really? Would we have wanted to stand by 
and risk this country going into another Great Depression? Let's recall 
what that was like. More than 20 percent of the people in this country 
were out of work. I know my own grandfather, who refused to take 
bankruptcy, owned stock in the local bank. In those days people had 
unlimited liability if they owned stock in a bank. So when there was a 
run on the bank, as there was, he was called to bring money to the 
bank,

[[Page S7771]]

which he did. He did it over and over, and it took him 9 years to 
recover. People were hungry. People were desperate. That is what a 
depression is about.
  So when I reflect back to those decisions, I believe they were the 
right decisions to make. It is not just my view; that is the view of 
two of the most distinguished economists in this country, Mark Zandi, 
who was a key economic adviser to Senator John McCain in his 
Presidential race, and Alan Blinder, the former Deputy Chairman of the 
Federal Reserve. Here is what they say: Without that Federal response, 
we would have had 8 million fewer jobs and a 16-percent level of 
unemployment in this country, and we would have been in the second 
Great Depression. They call it ``Depression 2.0.''

  So let's remember where we were when President Obama came to office. 
The Nation was facing the worst economic catastrophe since the Great 
Depression. In the fourth quarter of 2008, the economy shrank at a rate 
of almost 9 percent. After the Federal actions, positive economic 
growth returned in the third quarter of 2009 and we have now had 13 
consecutive quarters of economic growth. We have come a long way. This 
is a remarkable turnaround in a very short time, measured against 
previous financial crises. In fact, there has been an academic study 
just completed that suggests typically it takes 8 to 10 years to 
recover from a financial crisis. So the recovery here, while not 
everything we would have hoped, is a dramatic turnaround.
  At the same time, our constituents know, and we know, the price has 
been high. We know we are currently borrowing 31 cents of every dollar 
we spend. That is somewhat of an improvement, because we were borrowing 
40 cents of every dollar we spend. So this is an improvement, but we 
have a long way to go. And the public understands we face both a 
spending and a revenue problem. Spending is near a 60-year high, as 
this chart shows. The red line is the spending line; the green line is 
the revenue line. But for those who say it is just a spending problem, 
I don't think the facts bear that out, because the revenue is near a 
60-year low. I think most logical people would say we have to work both 
sides of this equation.
  When we look at our debt, we see that our gross debt has now 
surpassed 100 percent of our gross domestic product. There was a 
landmark work done a couple of years ago by Rogoff and Reinhart. They 
looked at 200 years of economic history and they concluded that once 
our debt exceeds 90 percent of GDP, our future economic prospects are 
reduced, and reduced quite significantly: future economic growth 
reduced by 25 to 33 percent. So this is not just numbers on a page; 
this is a question of future economic opportunity.
  This growing debt is why many of us called for action a long time 
ago. In fact, it was 6 years ago this month that Senator Gregg and I 
came up with the idea of a commission to tackle the debt. That idea 
ultimately led to the President appointing the Bowles-Simpson 
Commission. Its bipartisan report recommended $4 trillion in deficit 
reduction in a balanced way, and I think in a fair way. It protected 
low-income programs, it actually improved the progressivity of the tax 
system quite significantly, and it was balanced between revenue and 
spending. Other bipartisan groups have concluded the same, that we need 
spending restraint and we need revenue. So there is a critical role for 
government here. We have seen it in the past and we will find it in the 
future.
  But I think we also have to acknowledge there are problems here. 
There are problems in this Chamber. As proud as I am of this 
institution, and I will forever be, I have detected over the 26 years I 
have been here, a change. It has happened kind of gradually, but it has 
clearly happened. We now spend too much of our time seeking partisan 
advantage, and it happens on both sides, and it is all understandable. 
I understand it. I am not being critical of individuals. We spend too 
little time trying to solve problems. We spend too little time in our 
caucuses, in our meetings, focused on how to solve the problems facing 
the country. I deeply believe this observation is true.
  I believe we can do better than this. The institutions of our 
government have a proud history. The genius of our Founding Fathers can 
be found in every part of our history. Whether it was conquering the 
last Great Depression or winning World War I and World War II or 
launching a man into space or conquering dread diseases, over and over 
our country has organized to better the plight of mankind. We need that 
same kind of focus and effort now to address our challenges. I am 
confident we can do this, but it is not enough to be confident. It is 
not enough to be hopeful. It requires a plan, and I would like to take 
the next few minutes to lay out my belief of what that plan should 
include.
  Much of what I will talk about reflects the work of the Bowles-
Simpson Commission, the Group of 6 that I have been a part of, and the 
Group of 8.
  It starts by looking at what both sides have laid down. Republicans 
have laid down the spending cut plan; the President has laid down a 
revenue plan. My own belief is we should take them both. We should take 
what the Republicans have proposed on spending, with some modest 
modifications which I will discuss, and we should take the President's 
plan on revenue.
  The President laid down a plan that said we ought to raise $1.6 
trillion over the next 10 years. Boy, that sounds like an awful lot of 
money, doesn't it--$1.6 trillion. Not billion, not million, trillion. 
And people will be quick to say: Oh, my God, that is the biggest tax 
increase in the history of mankind. Terrible. We cannot do that.
  Well, we need to put it in perspective. The first thing we should 
recognize is this will take us to a revenue level that is 19.9 percent 
of our GDP. The last five times we have balanced the budget in this 
country, going back to 1969, we have been at 19.7 percent, 19.9 
percent, 19.8 percent, 20.6 percent, and 19.5 percent. Does 19.9 
percent fit in? These are the only times we balanced the budget going 
back to 1969.
  To put it in even more perspective, how much revenue are we going to 
raise over the next 10 years without any change? Well, here is the 
number: $37.4 trillion. Nobody ever puts these things in perspective. 
These big numbers are in relationship to what; $1.6 trillion is what in 
relationship to $37.4 trillion? As a percentage that is an increase of 
4.3 percent. My goodness, we cannot increase the revenue by 4.3 percent 
in this country over the next 10 years? Of course we can. Of course we 
can, especially if it means we get our house in order and put the 
country on a more firm fiscal footing.
  It does not just matter how much money we raise; it also matters how 
we raise it. We have a Tax Code now which I cannot defend. I cannot 
defend it. I took a study that was done by a man named Martin Sullivan 
last year. He did a very interesting thing. He looked at one building 
on Park Avenue in New York, and he was able to do it because they 
happened to have the statistics that isolated that one building. Do you 
know what he found? The average income in that building was $1,167,000 
for the year--$1,167,000. The average tax rate of the people in that 
building was 14.7 percent.
  The janitor in that building had an income of $33,000. He paid a tax 
rate of 24.9 percent. Is this fair? Is it fair that people making $1.1 
million paid a tax rate of 14.7 percent, and the janitor who served 
them earning $33,000 a year paid a tax rate of 24.9 percent? Well, I 
personally do not think so.
  I know all of the arguments. I have served on the Finance Committee. 
I have heard it all. The biggest reason for this differential, by the 
way, is not the earned-income tax rate, which has had almost all of the 
attention in this national discussion. Almost all of the attention has 
been on the earned-income tax rate and raising it from 35 percent to 
39.6 percent.
  Almost no attention has been paid to the unearned-income tax rate on 
capital gains and dividends. The unearned rate is currently at 15 
percent. That is what allows very wealthy people to pay a tax rate that 
is a fraction of those who work full time and are paying rates of 25 
percent.
  So I hope as we move to conclusion we will pay a little more 
attention to the unearned rates. The truth is, we would not have to 
have as much of an increase as is being proposed on the earned-income 
side and have more of an increase on the unearned-income side, and we 
would make the Tax Code fairer and we could raise the same

[[Page S7772]]

amount of revenue. That is the revenue side.
  But the spending side Republicans have down. They have put out a 
proposal that asks for savings out of entitlements and other 
discretionary spending. And if we look at their proposal and break it 
down--again, let's look at health care. We are going to spend $11 
trillion over the next 10 years on health care. Republicans are 
proposing saving $600 million. If we had a compromise between 
Republicans and Democrats let's say at $500 million, that would be a 
savings of, again the magic, 4 percent.
  We are going to increase revenue 4 percent. If we had savings in 
health care of 4\1/2\ percent, we would save $500 billion. Now, I have 
had conversations with colleagues who tell me we cannot possibly save 
$500 billion out of health care, just like people say, well, we cannot 
possibly increase revenue $1.6 trillion.
  Really, we cannot save $500 billion out of a pot of money where we 
are going to spend $11 trillion? I do not think that is true. I think 
we can save $500 billion. And I will tell you, there is someone sitting 
on this floor who has a pretty good idea of how to do it. Senator 
Sheldon Whitehouse has said to us over and over and over: We are 
spending more than any other country in the world as a share of our 
national income on health care. We are spending 18 percent of our GDP 
on health care. No other country spends more than 11\1/2\ percent.
  The best minds in this country have told us we are wasting hundreds 
of billions of dollars in health care that do not improve health care 
outcomes at all. If we would save money in overall health care, 40 
percent of that savings would flow through to the Federal Government. 
Senator Whitehouse is right about this. We ought to focus like a laser 
on where the waste is.
  We do not need to increase the eligibility age for Medicare. We 
absolutely do not have to do it to save $500 billion. But what it would 
do, if we save $500 billion, is it would keep the growth in health care 
spending about equal to the growth in the overall economy. That would 
stabilize the growth of health care spending. That would be a huge 
contribution to the economic competitive position of the United States.
  Republicans have also said: Hey, let's save $300 billion on domestic 
discretionary savings. Now, I will be the first to say we have already 
had lots of savings on the discretionary accounts. We have saved over 
$1 trillion in the discretionary accounts. But they say, ok, let's save 
another $300 billion. I think we should say we will do it if they go 
with us on the revenue. We will do it because that represents a savings 
of 2.6 percent of the $11.6 trillion we are going to spend in the 
discretionary accounts over the next 10 years.

  Now, I think we have gotten into a situation where we use numbers 
that are absolutely big numbers, but we do not put them in perspective. 
We cannot save 2.6 percent out of discretionary accounts. Well, I 
believe we can. I absolutely believe we can. I believe we can save more 
out of defense.
  I have supported every penny--I did not vote for going to war in 
Iraq. I thought that was a huge mistake. But I have supported every 
dollar of spending for our troops in the field. I can tell you as the 
Budget Committee chairman, we can save more money in defense. There are 
lots of Republicans who know we can do it too.
  Other mandatory. That is another category the Republicans said to 
save $300 billion there. I think they are $100 billion too high because 
we are already saving over $100 billion out of other mandatory programs 
to offset the cost of extending certain policies just last year. So 
let's save $200 billion. That would represent, again, 4 percent of what 
we are projected to spend over the next 10 years in other mandatory 
spending; $5.1 trillion is what we are programmed to spend. Two hundred 
billion dollars of savings there would represent 4 percent.
  Again, I have had colleagues tell me we cannot possibly save $200 
billion. I have had staff people tell me we cannot save $200 billion. 
So I say, how much are we going to spend? How much are we going to 
spend? That $200 billion represents 4 percent of what we are going to 
spend. We cannot save 4 percent? Yes, we can. Yes, we can.
  I was elected on the slogan, in 1986, of ``Yes We Can.'' And somebody 
else used that slogan a few years later. President Obama used that 
slogan, ``Yes We Can.'' He called me up.
  He said: Do I owe you royalties?
  I said: No, I am glad you are using it.
  But, yes we can. We need more of a yes-we-can attitude around here.
  So when I rack it all up and I look at what we have already done, we 
have saved $1 trillion in the Budget Control Act of last year. Here is 
other mandatory savings I just talked about: more than $100 billion 
that we have already done to offset the cost of extending certain 
policies, $900 billion of other discretionary savings already done. So 
we put that in the bank. We use that as the base.
  We put it all together and here is what we have: We save another $200 
billion on defense; we have revenue of $1.6 trillion, which is the 
President's proposal; we have $100 billion of nondefense. That gets us 
the $300 billion the Republicans have asked for.
  On health care we do $500 billion. That is close to what they have 
asked for, $100 billion less. Other mandatory, $200 billion; that is 
close to what they asked for. The $100 billion difference reflects what 
we have already done.
  Interest savings. Because we are spending less and we have more 
revenue, we save interest, $400 billion. That gives us a total of 
spending cuts of $1.4 trillion. We add in what has already been done 
$1.050 trillion, and we have a total of $2.450 trillion. We add that to 
the $1.6 trillion of revenue, we have $4.050 trillion of savings.
  Then I personally would extend the payroll tax holiday because CBO 
tells us, on the tax side, that holiday is the biggest bang for the 
buck in giving a lift to the economy. It will cost us $200 billion, for 
a net deficit reduction of $3.850 trillion. For those wondering what 
happens to AMT and what happens to the doc fix, we have those in the 
baseline so they are covered in this proposal. We can correct the 
alternative minimum tax. We can eliminate the doc fix and be done with 
them.
  This magnitude of package is precisely what was called for in the 
fiscal commission. In The Moment of Truth report, this is what they 
called for. I think they were right to call for it. I was proud to be 
part of that effort. I believe this is precisely what we need to do 
now. So that is the plan. Now we need action. We should do it the old-
fashioned way. We should make tough decisions, even some that will be 
unpopular.
  It will be the right thing to do, and it will work. It will stabilize 
our debt and begin to bring it down. It will provide certainty to our 
economy. I believe it will unleash the $1.7 trillion that is in the 
balance sheets of our corporations, and it will unlock the investment 
potential that lies all across this country.
  Let me end as I began by simply saying thank you. Thank you to the 
people of North Dakota, thank you to my colleagues, thank you to my 
staff and, most of all, thanks to my family--to my wife Lucy, to my 
daughter Jessie, to our son Ivan and his wife Kendra, and to our 
grandson Carter. To all my family members, my cousins, who have been 
with me in every campaign, I will never forget your support and your 
help. I will always consider serving here the honor of my life.
  I also thank my colleague Senator Hoeven, who, in the 2 years he and 
I have overlapped, has been a good colleague. I have enjoyed working 
with him very much.
  I just close by noting, because as many of you know, I am sort of a 
numbers guy, that I started these remarks in the 12th hour of the 12th 
day of the 12th month of 2012. I am sure numerologists will make much 
of those relationships. I began this speech in the 12th hour of the 
12th day of the 12th month of 2012, and I leave here forever grateful 
for the opportunity to serve.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The Senator from 
Michigan is recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. I wish to take a moment to thank our distinguished 
colleague and my dear friend for his wonderful service. We serve on 
three committees together. It has been my honor to serve on the 
committee Senator Conrad chairs, the Budget Committee, and to have him 
serve as a senior member of the Agriculture Committee, which I chair. 
Both of us sit on the Finance Committee together.

[[Page S7773]]

  Today he has done what he has always done for us, which is to provide 
vision, common sense, intelligence, and a lot of numbers. They add up, 
and they make sense. In listening to Senator Conrad's farewell speech, 
I want to thank him again for giving us a path forward. He is someone 
who will forever be in Senate history as one of the great statesmen of 
our country, someone with intelligence, respect on both sides, 
compassion, and a fighter from North Dakota like I have never seen. He 
is someone who serves in the best tradition of what it means to be an 
honorable public servant.
  He has been a role model for me all the way through to this point and 
a dear friend. I wish him, Lucy, and Dakota--he is, in fact, the 101st 
Senator--wonderful opportunities going forward in the future. The 
Senator from North Dakota will be greatly missed, but his contributions 
will forever be a part of the positive tradition of this great body.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I yield to the distinguished chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator. I will be speaking later on to the 
senior Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. President, I have had the privilege to serve with several hundred 
Senators since coming here. I have put in a very small list those who 
are extraordinary both for their talents and for our personal 
friendship, and Kent Conrad is in that short list very easily. In fact, 
he defines it in many ways. Because of what we heard here, as I 
whispered to him a minute ago, it was nice to hear a grownup speak on 
the floor.
  I have seen him reach across the aisle. We have been privileged, both 
of us have been privileged to serve with fine Senators from both 
parties. But Kent Conrad is unique. Marcelle and I value more than I 
could possibly say here our friendship with Kent and his wife Lucy and 
the 101st Senator, Dakota.
  As I said, I will speak later about this Senator, but what we heard 
today was a real giant of the Senate speaking, and I hope all Americans 
will listen to the lesson he gave us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Before the junior Senator from North Dakota speaks--
and I appreciate his courtesy in allowing us to make a few brief, 
personal remarks before he speaks--I wanted to say to my friend and my 
chairman, the senior Senator from North Dakota, that, yes, in the most 
obvious respect, he is leaving the Senate, and we will be a smaller 
Senate for his departure. But in some very important ways, Kent Conrad 
is not leaving the Senate. I can assure him that for as long as I 
remain a U.S. Senator and have the privilege to serve in this body, 
Kent Conrad will remain in this Senate as an example that I will never 
forget as a young Senator tutored by him in the Budget Committee. I can 
speak for myself when I say that, and I will only speak for myself when 
I say that, but I am absolutely confident there are dozens of other 
Members of this body who can say exactly the same thing. In that sense, 
Kent Conrad will continue to be an important part of this Senate, and 
the effect he will have in those years through the example he has set, 
echoed down the hallways of time by people who had the opportunity to 
serve with him, is going to be an immensely valuable one.
  He displays the characteristics of diligence--an underrated attribute 
but an important one--of courtesy, of determination. It is an 
interesting combination, courtesy and determination, but Chairman 
Conrad knows very well when to yield and when to fight. There was a 
politician hundreds of years ago in another country who said, ``One 
ought not to be obstinate,'' and then he continued, ``unless one ought 
to be, and then one ought to be unshakable.'' On the things that count, 
Senator Conrad has always been unshakable. Where progress can be made, 
he has never been obstinate. It has been my honor to serve with him.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I rise to speak on behalf of the senior Senator from 
North Dakota and to thank him for his dedicated service on behalf of 
the people of North Dakota and on behalf of the people of this great 
Nation.
  I think this is 26 years that he has served in the Senate, and he has 
always served with great distinction and great commitment. He has been 
a leader in agriculture, in energy, and in fiscal efforts and many 
other areas.
  I have to say on a personal note that since I came to the Senate last 
year, he has reached out to me and to my family in a very warm and 
positive way, both personally and professionally, and I would say the 
same about his wife Lucy. I think this is in the finest tradition of 
the Senate, in the tradition of bipartisanship, in the tradition of 
working together, and in the tradition of truly caring and being 
committed to getting things done. It wasn't just that he reached out on 
a personal level and said: All right, how can I be helpful, how can we 
work together; when I had questions or needed assistance, he was there. 
He was more than helpful.
  In terms of working on legislation that matters, a farm bill, working 
together on the Agriculture Committee--Senator Conrad has an amazing 
knowledge of agriculture and obviously incredible experience over the 
past 26 years building good farm policy for this Nation. So to work 
with him on the Agriculture Committee was not only rewarding but really 
an opportunity to craft good long-term policy for this country that 
will make a difference.
  I start with that example because when you look at it, here we are at 
a time when we need good policy for our country, but at the same time 
we need to find savings, real savings that will help us address the 
deficit and the debt. So we went to work on a farm bill--a farm bill 
that is not only responsive to the farmers, the ranchers, and the 
producers of this country who produce the highest quality of food 
supply in the world at the lowest cost--every American benefits from 
that. They wanted more crop insurance, and we went to work. We improved 
the farm bill in terms of the kind of crop insurance it provides, but 
at the same time we saved $23 billion to help with the deficit and the 
debt. That is doing it the right way.
  If you think about it and you went across all aspects of what we are 
doing here, all of the different types of policies that we have, if we 
could do the same--craft good policy and find real, meaningful savings 
on a bipartisan basis that empowers the very people who are impacted by 
that policy, the farmers and the ranchers who do such a great job 
producing food, fuel, and fiber, but at the same time grow our economy, 
create a favorable balance of trade and an incredible number of jobs--
that is what we have to do, whether it is agriculture, whether it is 
energy, whether it is disaster assistance when we have floods and 
hurricanes, whether it is our military.
  I am very pleased and honored to have had the opportunity to work 
with Senator Conrad on those types of issues to try to make a real 
difference for the people of this country. As Senator Conrad departs 
the Senate after 26 years--think about it: 26 years here, conducting 
himself in a professional manner with respect to this institution. He 
built relationships with Senators on both sides of the aisle but always 
with a commitment to the people of North Dakota and this country.
  As I look at the legacy he leaves, I think one of the most important 
right now is his willingness to work in a bipartisan way to get things 
done. He brings a practical, pragmatic approach that recognizes 
solutions are imperfect but that we have an obligation in a bipartisan 
way to come together and find real solutions for the people of the 
greatest Nation on Earth. It is that legacy, that willingness to be 
bipartisan and work together that I saw up close and personal here 
every day. I believe it is that legacy, as well as many others, that 
will continue here in this body when we think about Senator Kent Conrad 
and his service to North Dakota and his service to this great country.
  I rise to say thank you on behalf of the people of North Dakota and 
this country to my distinguished colleague for 26 years of dedicated 
service. Thank you, good luck, and God bless in your future endeavors.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. I want to thank Senator Hoeven, my colleague, for his

[[Page S7774]]

kind words. I have really enjoyed the relationship. I think you can 
tell we worked together very well, and I hope that serves as an example 
to others of our colleagues. Even if you are on other side of the 
political aisle, you can work together, and you can get things done.
  I also thank Senator Leahy, my dear friend. He and his wife are very 
close friends of mine and my wife's.
  To Senator Stabenow, the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture 
Committee, and Senator Whitehouse, who served with me on the Budget 
Committee, I want to take special note of the friendships we have 
enjoyed. Senator Stabenow and Senator Whitehouse will be friends of 
ours for as long as we are on this Earth.
  I look forward to our continuing relationship with the Leahys, who, 
as I have indicated, have become very dear personal friends.
  In closing, to Senator Hoeven, the best part of service here is 
getting things done. And Senator Hoeven has come with that attitude to 
this Chamber--to get results for the people we represent--and I 
appreciate that attitude, and I appreciate the friendship.

  Finally, I say to the distinguished occupant of the chair, we have 
had a very good relationship as well. I thank him for his service and 
for this opportunity to have my farewell remarks before the Senate on 
this the 12th day of the 12th month of 2012. That is a remarkable set 
of coincidences.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________